Product Details

• Actors: Alex Palmer, Bindu De Stoppani, Jukka Hiltunen, David Schneider (IV), Cillian Murphy
• Format: Closed-captioned, Color, NTSC
• Language: English
• Rated: R (Restricted)
• Number of tapes: 1
• Studio: 20th Century Fox
• VHS Release Date: October 21, 2003
• Run Time: 113 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 3.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (838 customer reviews)
• ASIN: B0000C2IU2
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #318,373 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com

The director/producer team that created Trainspotting turn their dynamic cinematic imaginations to the classic science fiction scenario of the last people on Earth. Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes up from a coma to find London deserted--until he runs into a mob of crazed plague victims. He gradually finds other still-human survivors (including Naomie Harris), with whom he heads off across the abandoned countryside to find the source of a radio broadcast that promises salvation. 28 Days Later is basically an updated version of The Omega Man and other post-apocalyptic visions; but while the movie may lack originality, it makes up for it in vivid details and creepy paranoid atmosphere. 28 Days Later's portrait of how people behave in extreme circumstances--written by novelist Alex Garland (The Beach)--will haunt you afterward. Also featuring Brendan Gleeson (The General, Gangs of New York) and Christopher Eccleston (Shallow Grave, The Others). --Bret Fetzer

From The New Yorker

Another helpful development for the British Tourist Board. Danny Boyle's horror film, alternately savage and glum, shows London-and, by implication, most of England-destroyed by a fast-acting plague. Borne in the blood, it passes from one Brit to another with a single bite; soon, the capital is empty save for marauding zombies, leaving the unchewed-such as Jim (Cillian Murphy) and Selena (Naomie Harris)-to drift around, shop without paying, and never quite have sex. Any resemblance to normal teen-age behavior is entirely coincidental. Brendan Gleeson, much the best and cheeriest thing in the movie, plays a taxi-driver who helps them to leave town; from here on, Boyle and his screenwriter, Alex Garland, run out of gas. The picture is twitchy and annoying, flecked with blood and half-digested ideas, and too much is left unexplained. As a scheme for solving central London's traffic problem, though, it is unlikely to be surpassed. -Anthony Lane
Copyright © 2006 The New Yorker

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

96 of 97 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

By 

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.

216 of 256 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Horror film? Nah... Great film? Yes, definitely!, June 29, 2003

By 

J. C. Vera "intellectualised" (Miami, Fl United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

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."

63 of 77 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Stylish Homage to '70s Flicks, June 27, 2003

By 

Bruce Crocker "agnostictrickster" (Whittier, California United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

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.