Customer Reviews

1,022 Reviews
5 star:
4 star:
3 star:
2 star:
1 star:
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review

159 of 168 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Blu-ray review on the video resolution (know this before you buy)
First off, my four stars are for the movie itself - an excellent re-imaging of the "Zombie" genre.

Now, onto the video resolution issue that many reviewers are complaining about. I was also shocked when I rented this Blu-ray and saw the awful video resolution. Basically, it's no better than a standard DVD except for the closing scene.

The reason:...
Published on December 31, 2009 by roebeet

7 of 8 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Wrong turn
This movie started slow, but then truly grabbed a hold of me. As a huge fan of apocalyptic movies ("Dawn of the Dead" & "The Thing" being my favorites), it was a fresh turn to really get to know the characters. The Director actually succeeded in getting me to care about them. Caring males and beautiful yet very strong females, all becoming friends - more like family. Then...
Published on March 20, 2005 by Sanford

‹ Previous | 1 2103 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

159 of 168 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Blu-ray review on the video resolution (know this before you buy), December 31, 2009
roebeet (Pennsylvania) - See all my reviews
This review is from: 28 Days Later [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray)
First off, my four stars are for the movie itself - an excellent re-imaging of the "Zombie" genre.

Now, onto the video resolution issue that many reviewers are complaining about. I was also shocked when I rented this Blu-ray and saw the awful video resolution. Basically, it's no better than a standard DVD except for the closing scene.

The reason: The film was filmed mostly in standard DV resolution, using a Canon XL1s camcorder (the closing scene being the exception - it was filmed in 35mm). DV is very low resolution in comparison to HD or 35mm film, so the problem (if you consider this a problem) is with the source material, NOT the transfer to Blu-ray. It was the director's decision to film in standard DV, so this is the best resolution that you will ever see of this film.

So, if you don't have this movie and the Blu-ray and the DVD version are the same price, I'd probably stick with the Blu-ray version just for future compatibility. But, if you already have the DVD version, I would recommend just sticking with that copy for now because the Blu-ray version isn't going to offer any enhancements, other than the closing scene.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

249 of 297 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Horror film? Nah... Great film? Yes, definitely!, June 29, 2003
There is very little about this movie that can be considered "horror" per se. At best, in this sense, the film is a suspense flick, with a somewhat spooky score/soundtrack (that added plenty to the tension in its atmosphere), and a great cast who portrayed the best and worst traits in human nature.
I can understand those who give the movie a bad review since they were expecting something extremely scary (that's the way in which it is being marketed) and ended up watching an intelligent, well presented study in good and evil, right vs. wrong, loyalty vs. survival, and many other concepts that one wouldn't expect from a "horror" flick. This movie, in that sense, simply was not what the average goer was promised.
Now, as far as good films are concerned, this is definitely a worthy effort. It has more depth than one could ever expect; the cinematography is done extremely well; and the acting is superb (even on the part of the nearly silent and secondary infected characters). The symbolism is one that the average movie watcher might not get, especially if they're looking for two hours of gore or scary moments (there are very few of those, as the director clearly preferred to refrain from using extremely graphic imagery).
Indeed, what makes this film a valuable one is the social criticism and the analysis of human nature that it presents. What is more important, survival or friendship/family? Are the ethics of scientific research being checked to prevent the creation of harmful agents (even if not as tragic and extreme as what we see in this film)? Is it worth fighting for one's life when hope is dim or even non-existant? Many more questions arise and give extreme value to this film. This is definitely an excellent example of existentialist movie making. Whether it is a horror film or not becomes irrelevant once you observe its true meaning.
So, if you are the kind of person who enjoys trashy and bloody films like the Jason or Freddy "epics," or if you cannot handle too much thinking while at the theatre, then this is not a movie for you. If you've enjoyed "smart" flicks like "Lost Highway," "Frailty," or "The Ring," then this is definitely for you. You will feel good about seeing this one, even though it portrays so many bad and ugly things about us as "humans."
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

80 of 97 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Stylish Homage to '70s Flicks, June 27, 2003
Bruce Crocker "agnostictrickster" (Whittier, California United States) - See all my reviews
28 Days Later is stylish, lonely, bloody, desperate, wet, violent, frantic, thoughtful, scary and, ultimately, hopeful. Danny Boyle artfully directs Alex Garland's script while paying homage to movies like the Omega Man and George Romero's Dead trilogy. As hard as it is for me to say, 28 Days is a much better film than any of the films mentioned above.
The movie focuses on the people who have not been infected with a virus that turns humans into rage filled zombies. In fact, the zombies only make a few screen appearances, the fear factor of the movie coming mainly from the reactions of the uninfected people to their situation. The main characters are well acted and I cared about what happened to them. Visually the movie is a masterpiece and the scenes in an empty London are incredible.
I recommend 28 Days Later to fans of the other movies mentioned above or anybody looking for a thoughtful, scary zombie film. People looking to pull their brain out for a few hours or for non-stop gore and zombies will most likely be disappointed.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

18 of 20 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Anger Management, November 11, 2005
Our world has gone completely Mad.

Have you ever thought that very thing---thought it as you watch the news, as you surf the Net, as you read your morning paper? As you watch flickering news reports of the latest mass riot in Liverpool or Paris, ethnic cleaning in the Balkans, slave-trading in the Sudan, tribal genocide all across Africa, our own politicians slobbering at the mouth as they call their opponents liars, morons, traitors?

As you see the latest news flash: shaven-skulled "militia" in dusty fatigues in some dirty border town, shoving weary refugees this way and that with the muzzles of their AK-47s. Or a breathless anchor bringing you up to speed on the fact two levees have given way, erasing---totally obliterating---a city you thought was there for the Ages?

Great. Now imagine that that kind of Insanity amped up a billion times, only it's catching through the blood. Imagine that and you have the travelogue to Hell that is Danny Boyle's "28 Days Later." And in Danny Boyle's film, Hell is very much other people.

Centuries ago the brilliant English physicist and celebrated polymath Sir Isaac Newton contended that "I see so far because I stand on the shoulders of giants." The same thing might be said of director Danny Boyle, who draws heavily on his own giants---zombie Grandmasters like George Romero, Dan O'Bannon, and Stephen King---for his own hyperkinetic descent into a post-Apocalyptic English Hell, "28 Days Later".

But with that in mind, Boyle has distilled all of the shock and terror of Romero's zombie trilogy into two hours of pure adrenaline, two hours of raw, sheer, shrieking terror. He has, with "28 Days Later", out-Romero'd Romero, and his stark, horrific, harrowing portrait of a London gone literally mad manages to capture the end of the world in a manner that utterly eluded the the TV-adaptation of King's "The Stand".

Forget the fact that the red-eyed, shrieking legions of the Infected in this movie aren't classic zombies: sure, they don't feed on the flesh of their victims, and yes, they don't lumber and shamble along.

The Infected don't just get Mad. They get Even.

Nothing in this movie lumbers or shambles along---but make no mistake about it, Boyle's latest is a zombie film, and it is so good, and so scary, that it rightfully claims its Crown as King of the Zombie Movies.

Here are some tasty little nuggets about the movie to tempt you with, without spoilers to ruin your appetite:

The PLOT: Animal rights activists break into a Cambridge biowarfare research facility, intent on setting their primate buddies free. A goggle-eyed scientist, returning a bit late with his moca frappucino, witnessing the break-in, begs them not to free the chimpanzees: the beasts are infected with a highly contagious virus known as Rage, which is spread through the blood and within 20 seconds turns its victim into a froth-mouthed, shrieking homicidal maniac.

The activists ignore the warning, a young woman opens a chimp's cage, and within seconds the chimp launches itself into its erstwhile rescuer's face.

Our protagonist, a bike messenger played sympathetically by Cillian Murphy, awakens from a coma in an eerily empty hospital ward; he stumbles out of the hospital into an equally empty London, and the fun begins.

The CINEMATOGRAPHY: Director of Photography Anthony Dod Mantle is an adherent of Dogme, the cinematic movement committed to using natural lighting; the result sets up the movie's haunting, sere, and unsettling visuals. London broils under a jaundiced, sterile sky, and broods at twilight in an otherwordly greyish blue; the empty city resembles an alien moonscape, and a gas station explosion is shot as though on another planet.

The Infected here don't walk, lumber, or lurch: they run---fast.

London's zombies are glimpsed only as a shrieking blur, or caught as loping shadows against a tunnel-wall; the combination of hyperkinetic editing and the blood-spattering gore (captured using much the same technique employed in the battle sequences of "Saving Private Ryan" and "Gladiator") makes the lulls between encounters with the Infected unbearably suspenseful.

The ACTING: Everyone here is an unknown (with the exception of "Gangs of New York"'s stolid Brendan Gleeson, who plays a London taxicab driver and---for a few minutes, anyway---gives the movie a reassuring moral center), and the acting is all superb and believable.

Cillian Murphy manages a remarkable transformation during the film, remarkable both for its outlandishness and (given the horror of his character's plight) believability. Noamie Harris and Noah Huntley shine as London survivors, and Christopher Eccleston is superbly Kurtzian as an embattled British Army Major at the center of his own raging heart of darkness.

MORAL of the STORY? Two, really: 1) if you're an animal activist, pick targets other than biowarfare facilities; and 2) if you're a soldier holed up in an English manor home, don't keep an infected zombie chained by the leg in the house garden.

Many of "28 Days"'s critics have attacked the movie for being 'derivative'---and yes, Boyle borrows heavily from a treasure-house of zombie and horror movies. The movie practically condenses all of the major action from Romero's 'Dead' trilogy, and the climactic, operatic final sequences in a storm-tossed English manor house could have been lifted directly from the horror video game "Resident Evil. But Boyle takes his inspiration, consolidates it, and then sets out in new, unexpected, and terrifying directions.

Boyle has crafted a masterpiece of movie terror, and one of the most bleakly disturbing films about the end of the world ever made.

And keep your lights out---they're drawn to lights.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

8 of 9 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars completely worthwhile entertainment, November 6, 2004
28 Days Later is about a virus (RAGE) that spreads throughout Great Britain and affects people by turning them into desperate, ravenous, zombie-like monsters. Their eyes turn red, and they scream and growl as they try to rip apart any non-infected humans they can find. The main character of the film, Jim (played by Cillian Murphy), awakens in a quiet hospital 28 days after the virus is accidentally released by animal rights activists who were trying to free chimpanzee test subjects infected with the RAGE virus. The hospital, along with the rest of London, is seemingly deserted as Jim wanders aimlessly through the empty streets. Extremely similar to the opening of Vanilla Sky, this scene is perfect in creating the empty lonesome tone of the first act. The movie follows Jim as he journeys to not only find safety, but to understand what has happened to everyone he once knew and loved. I was left with one big question. If everyone infected turns into one of the `zombies,' where was everyone??

Right away, I realized that no one was safe in this story. You can't assume that the characters you love will live and the ones you hate will die. One thing I really liked was that once infected, the virus would take hold of a person within seconds. This took out the traditional moments of "Oh no, so and so is infected and no one knows - I guess we'll watch the virus slowly develop over the length of the film while building a very cheap, overused, yet somewhat effective bit of suspense." I liked the fact that if someone was infected, you had better kill them sooner than later - or risk them turning on you. Another thing I really liked about the "zombies" is that they do not stalk their victims by sluggishly pursuing them with a long drawn out groan. These guys are fast! They dash towards their prey while screaming and vomiting blood. It really is gruesome.

Speaking of gruesome, this film very much feels at times like the `B Movies' it has borrowed from. The gore is over the top and the picture quality of the movie is really poor since it was filmed on digital video. I don't know if it was done solely for purposes of budget, or just to create a low budget gritty feel, but I can't help but wonder if it would have come across more clearly had they shot on traditional film and spared us the halo ridden blur of pixels void of any sort of detail. Then again, the movie may not have worked at all had it been shot differently. It is interesting to note that the final shots of the movie were shot on film. This is clearly significant, but to keep the review clean of spoilers I will say no more.

The all British cast did a fine job. The only actor I was familiar with was Brendan Gleeson who was very good as expected. The other actors may be well known in the UK, but they are all unknown in my mind, and they all did very nice work.

I have a new respect for director Danny Boyle. Some of the shots in this movie are downright terrifying, while others are absolutely breathtaking. The entire post-virus Britain is brilliantly realized, and some of the images will stay with you long after the credits have rolled. I don't think the filmmakers were trying to make any statements about SARS, nor were they trying to draw any other real world parallels, but it is hard not to become just a little more paranoid after having seen the film. Sure it's preposterous that a virus would turn a normal human being into some terribly violent and hopeless monster full of despair and a lust for human blood, but it does make for a suspenseful and at times shocking movie that horror fans deserve after putting up with the dreck that they usually have to settle with. (Now that was a long sentence.) It isn't the scariest movie ever, but it was a Kevin Costner cameo away from being close.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

10 of 12 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Five star horror film doesn't look as great as it could on Blu-ray due to low quality source, January 1, 2008
This review is from: 28 Days Later [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray)
Movie 4 stars, video quality 2 stars (it's the source)here's why:

"28 Days Later" is a terrific film but be aware that it was shot with a Canon HD camera and director Boyle degraded the image quality even more AFTER shooting to get a cinema verite look to the film. As a result, the Blu-ray doesn't look all that great (I imagine that "Blair Witch" should it ever arrive in a high definition format probably won't look all that great either). The last five minutes of the film was shot on higher quality video (or film I don't recall which)and, as a result, looks extremely good. Just be prepared for a shock when you see the film as it won't live up to films like "3:10 to Yuma" or even Boyle's own "Sunshine" because the format used to shoot the film.

The story is very familiar I'm sure but we'll revisit it anyway. Jim (Cillian Murphy)a bike messenger awakens in a completely desserted hospital after surgery. He ends up walking the empty streets of London where a disaster clearly has occurred. Jim finds that the city and most of England have been infected with a man made virus Rage that turns people into zombie-like killers interested only in infecting, eating or killing others. Jim and trio of survivors make their way through the countryside trying to discover if anyone else has survived this epidemic.

The Blu-ray has the exact same features as the original DVD. Surprisingly, my DVD looks better upconverted than the Blu-ray. Great movie just be prepared that this won't look as good as "Blade Runner" or "Troy" (or even the sequel "28 Weeks Later"). This isn't the Blu-ray I would break out to sell the merits of ANY high definition format. The fact is that Boyle meant for this to look like this.

Regardless, the film is terrific and Danny Boyle's taunt direction of Alex Garland's script creates an often terrrifying, suspenseful tale. Look for Christopher Eccleston ("Dr. Who: The First Series", "Heroes")as a military commander who has created a bizarre, sterile Eden for his soldiers and Brendan Gleeson ("Troy", "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", "Kingdom of Heaven", "Bravehart")as a father who's only interest is in keeping as normal a life as possible for his daughter and getting her to safety.

This is a well made, tauntly directed film. As long as your expectations on the quality of the video are adjusted, you'll enjoy "28 Days Later". Keep in mind the source (Canon HD handheld video camera-except for the conclusion which looks extremely good and is the only part of the film that was shot on 35mm film).

I'd give the film itself 5 stars but the "look" 2 stars it is, however, supposed to look this way.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

7 of 8 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars "Okay Jim...I've got some bad news.", March 20, 2006
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
So, did writer Alex Garland (The Beach, Halo) and director Danny Boyle (Shallow Grave, Trainspotting) re-invent the wheel with the release of the film 28 Days Later...(2002)? I wouldn't say so, but they did serve to give the medium in general a good, swift, revitalizing kick in the gonsaticles, something every genre needs now and again as to not grow overly complacent or stale. Appearing in the film is Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins, Red Eye), Naomie Harris (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest), and Christopher Eccleston (Gone in Sixty Seconds, The Others, "Doctor Who"). Also appearing is Brendan Gleeson (Cold Mountain, The Village, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire), Megan Burns (Liam), and Noah Huntley (Event Horizon, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe).

As the story begins we find ourselves in a research laboratory specifically one that seems to deal with chimpanzee monkeys. The lab looks relatively deserted (except, of course, for the test simian test subjects), that is until a small group of masked individuals enters...ah, the activists...anyway, a hapless technician walks in on the group and warns them some of the monkeys are infected with some particularly nasty and infectious virus known as `Rage', and that they should avoid letting the animals loose. Of course they don't listen, brimming with their own sense of self-righteousness, and one of the idiots gets the way, I don't think they're idiots for their beliefs towards not using animals for such testing, but they are idiots for thinking it a good idea to let loose monkeys infected with who knows much so I'd be lying if I said I didn't find some enjoyment in seeing the troupe reap the bloody benefits given their obviously overwhelming sense of self satisfaction. Anyway, it's 28 days later, as indicated by some text on the screen, and we're in a hospital. A man named Jim (Murphy) in a bed wakes and notices there's no one else around...the hospital is literally vacant. Not only that, but the city streets of London are the same. Newspapers indicate some sort of mass evacuation, but it seems not everyone has gone...a visit to a church yields a meeting of sorts with a few crazed, bloodthirsty, infected individuals, who Jim manages to escape from aided by a couple of norms, one of them named Selena (Harris). They fill Jim in on current events (seems Jim's been in a coma for the last month due to an accident), and Selena imparts a few rules to live by...after a visit to Jim's parents house, they hook up with a tower block dweller named Frank (Gleeson), and his daughter Hannah (Burns), and all decide to hit the road based on a pre-recorded, repeating radio broadcast promising salvation from the madness. The wanderers eventually find the source of the message, in a small, grabasstic military group holed up in a large, country estate, led by someone named Major Henry West (Eccleston), but not necessarily salvation as the unit has their own designs for the travelers, especially the ladies...

This seems to be an important point to many, so it's probably worth mentioning...the term `zombie' is never once used within the film (as far as I can tell), and, in a traditional sense, those suffering from the disease do not appear dead, just overly prone to unspeakable acts of extreme violence, and thereby aren't really zombies (at least not of the George Romero/walking dead variety). As far as consuming the flesh of the living, I really couldn't say...there did seem to be a tendency to bite, and I suppose those `infected' would have to turn on the `norms' if only because their madness would prevent them recognizing any other viable source of food (tinned meats, canned fruits and vegetables, etc.), but I never really saw a close up sequence of the infected feasting on flesh featured in the film. The `Rage' virus seemed odd if only because it drove its victims not to randomly attack anything in general, but rather only those not yet infected (the infection passes easily enough, especially given the infected's penchant for projectile vomiting). Why should the homicidal loonies not attack each other, focusing rather on those not yet affected? I'm unsure, and it's never related in the story...oh well, a lot of things are left open ended, so it was no big deal. The one aspect I really liked about this film was when Cillian Murphy's character first woke, and then began wandering around the city, unaware of that which had transpired during his Rip Van Winkle impersonation. There was an entirely spooky feeling seeing him walking these streets that should have been normally teeming with life, hustling and bustling crowds all intent on fulfilling whatever purpose they have at the moment. Does the plot here offer up anything we really haven't seen before? Not really, but what it does do is give it a good once over, sort of a fresh spin, and juice things up in general. I had a lot of fun with this film for the first half (the flaming `Ragers' were amazing, and the gas station explosion sequence incredible), but then things got a little draggy during the latter half of the movie, after the initial group hooks up with the military types running their own program. I spoke earlier how director Boyle `juiced things up' way he did this was by shooting the film (a majority of it) using digital cameras. The effect is to sort of break down the barrier between the screen and the audience, almost like your watching live TV rather than scenes choreographed for a film. All in all a strong film with a solid sense of direction, despite the story getting a little predictable near the end.

The anamorphic widescreen (1.85:1) picture on this DVD is clear, sharp, and exceptionally clear, and the Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround audio comes through clean. As far as extras, there's quite a bit including a commentary track with director Boyle and writer Garland, six deleted scenes with optional commentary, still photo galleries, a music video, animated storyboards, a `making of' featurette titled `Pure Rage: The Making of 28 Days Later', and three, alternate endings...the first is slightly more depressing than the one actually used in the film, the second a little less so, introducing a relatively new character to replace one that got lost, and then the third, titled the `Radical Alternative Ending' excludes virtually the last third of the film, offering a completely different tale all together.


If I learned anything from this film it's that Cillian Murphy can't grow a decent beard to save his life...
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

39 of 52 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Not your average zombie-movie, June 9, 2003
By A Customer
As a European I watched this trip last week on code2 dvd (its out in England already) and I was not dissapointed, though, the preview and some of the critics are leading into the wrong direction. This is NO average zombie movie or Resident Evil Clone. Its about a deadly virus, transmitted by blood, that transforms people instantly into rage driven, mindless monsters and wipes out whole Brittain, or the whole world (who knows). A few survivors are out on the way to a military camp, after listening a mysterious radio transmission only to find out that the infected are not their only enemies.
Sounds average so far, but it will make you jump out of your seats in certain moments. The atmosphere is great and spooky and takes you from the beginning. The hysterical action moments are taking your breath away. This monsters are not slow. What makes them so scary is that rage they are in. This totally abscenze of any other feeling. They move like on a speed trip and get you instantly. You have nothing against that pure hate and violence that shuts down any other instinct. And they are not dead, just sick!
"28 Days later" is above the average horror-movie and it scares the hell out of you. Its a peace of art, stylish music and great camera work. The talented cast gets your sympathie and takes you on an emotional trip. But still the whole thing feels a little bit unreal, just like you are dreaming. Forget the Zombies. Watch the Rage!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

44 of 59 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Chilling Suspense!, July 12, 2003
A virus that locks those infected into a permanent state of killing rage, is accidentally released from a British research facility. Carried by animals and humans, the virus is impossible to contain, and spreads across the entire planet. Twenty-eight days later, a small group of survivors are trapped in London, caught in a desperate struggle to protect themselves from the infected. As they attempt to salvage a future from the apocalypse, they find that their most deadly enemy is not the virus, but other survivors.
The film starts brilliantly with a brief prologue in which animal rights activists break into a top secret laboratory to set free the animals held there. Unfortunately, they decide to release a chimpanzee that carries a deadly new virus called Rage. 28 days later, Jim (Cillian Murphy) awakes from a coma in hospital to find the city of London apparently deserted - little does he know that the homicidal victims of Rage are at large across the country. This British variation on the post-apocalyptic zombie movie was scripted by Alex Garland, whose book The Beach had previously been filmed by director Danny Boyle. But where zombies in other movies are slow and crave the taste of human flesh, the red-eyed zombies here sprint around at high speed and are satisfied with merely killing or spreading the virus through bloody vomit. We are told that Britain has been evacuated, so only a few survivors remain to share the country with what's left of the infected population. The streets we see are deserted (there's a nice sequence at the start with Jim wandering alone through the city) and only occasionally will bands of marauding zombies emerge to pick off the uninfected, which makes you wonder where they go to for the rest of the time - the attacks aren't quite relentless enough in their frequency.

The vision of a devastated society is convincingly portrayed, with plenty of pop culture references and brand names to show what has been left behind. There is also nostalgia for lost families; in fact, the people Jim joins up with become surrogate families for him, whether it's with Brendan Gleeson's decent taxi driver and his daughter, or the rather more dysfunctional troop of soldiers headed by Christopher Ecclestone. The soldiers make it clear that now the culture is in ruins the violence inherent in everyone has broken through to the surface, infected or not.
The film carries a few twists to the plot which will keep you interested through-out. The film is well-acted, particularly by Murphy (Disco Pigs), who has a spaced-out quality as an actor that really adds to his role. It`s also filmed on digital video, giving the film a gritty, more realistic feel and distinguishing it from glossy Hollywood horrors such as Scream etc.
This is an excellent film that presents a unique view of London and breathes new life into the zombie genre. In addition, the shocks work brilliantly and there are some truly terrifying moments. Which, let`s face it, is all you really need from a zombie flick. Impressive, atmospheric and very scary, this is an extremely effective British horror movie. Worth going to see. This blows any horror film released this year away. It is te film "Stephen King's The Stand" should have been. Highly Recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

12 of 15 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Not just another horror flick, October 20, 2004
I have begun to think that zombie movies are fundamentally about social alienation: the paranoid fantasy that anyone, even the people you love, can suddenly become an inhuman monster and turn against you. This is definitely true of this movie, for me: I feel most scared by it when I am feeling most alienated and downtrodden by society.

In any case, this was the scariest movie I have ever seen. Not just make you jump scary but get under your skin and give you nightmares scary. After seeing it, I had to sleep with my lights on and doors open for two months. But also it really made me think about things like: what is civilization? At one point they have a captive infected and the army guy is studying him. The hero asks him what he has learned and he answers, "I have learned that he will never bake bread." Okay, laugh at me if you want, but I like to bake bread, the old-fashioned way, starting with yeast and doing it all by hand. But I never really thought about all the factors that baking bread depends on: the domestication of wheat, a process that took thousands of years; sufficient social organization to harvest, process and distribute it; my knowledge of the exact formula necessary to get the bread to work right; the gas company delivering gas to my apartment so I can bake it... and so on. What a long and fragile chain of things that could be broken at any link. That's civilization, something we all take for granted.

Another thing I really liked about this movie (although I will never see it again because it scared the heck out of me and anyway I can practically replay the whole thing in my memory) is the way certain otherwise ordinary moments are made transcendant--a bridge or an airplane brings almost you to a state of grace.

Finally, the army guys show that the potential for infection is not just from blood; it's in our blood. It doesn't take a lab experiment gone out of control. It could happen any time and does. That's what war is.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

‹ Previous | 1 2103 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First


28 Days Later [Blu-ray]
28 Days Later [Blu-ray] by Danny Boyle (Blu-ray - 2007)
$16.99 $7.99
In Stock
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Search these reviews only
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.