Fox Searchlight Pictures | Release Date: June 27, 2003
7.8
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 383 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
322
Mixed:
41
Negative:
20
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
grandpajoe6191Oct 19, 2011
Sure, Danny Boyle's "28 Days Later" is a wonderful, gritty, realistic example of what the world would be if there was a zombie apocalypse (which I highly doubt). But except for the pure horror entertainment and several political satire, it'sSure, Danny Boyle's "28 Days Later" is a wonderful, gritty, realistic example of what the world would be if there was a zombie apocalypse (which I highly doubt). But except for the pure horror entertainment and several political satire, it's pretty much another linear zombie film that really isn't any different from Romero's. Expand
3 of 9 users found this helpful36
All this user's reviews
4
EdgarM.Mar 30, 2009
Just another way to do a zombie movie. In this version a virus escapes because of a raid by PETA type activists on a research facility in the UK. Apparently the virus causes those who are infected to fly into a rage and dismember the first Just another way to do a zombie movie. In this version a virus escapes because of a raid by PETA type activists on a research facility in the UK. Apparently the virus causes those who are infected to fly into a rage and dismember the first person they see. Sound familiar? Somehow, they attack only uninfected humans, not each other. But humankind may be safe after all since not one infected person strays beyond the UK so the world is safe from Perfidious Albion's latest blunder. Nothing really connects. It's just another freak show with a happy ending, i.e., the lovers survive and the bad guys are all gone. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
MichaelRMar 24, 2008
Its passable.You're not missing anything horrifying if you don't see this movie.Its nowhere near as great as dawn of the dead which this movie seems to resemble only it has less zombies and a different ending.
0 of 2 users found this helpful
5
cameronmorewoodNov 18, 2012
The camera work is nothing short of genius. Too bad the budget was too low to pay for good quality cameras.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
kublay0880Dec 10, 2012
It's definitively not the best zombies movie out there, they did produced great movie scenarios and fair picture display, the story it's very good but at the same time the movie it's attractive and cliched. Cillian Murphy's acting performanceIt's definitively not the best zombies movie out there, they did produced great movie scenarios and fair picture display, the story it's very good but at the same time the movie it's attractive and cliched. Cillian Murphy's acting performance does save some pieces of the movie but it wasn't enough. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
CliffS.Nov 2, 2006
Good storytelling, but some painfully stupid plot lapses. For example, there are electric lights when needed, the infected never attack each other, and the whole episode with the army is completely implausible. Smart money says, stop the DVD Good storytelling, but some painfully stupid plot lapses. For example, there are electric lights when needed, the infected never attack each other, and the whole episode with the army is completely implausible. Smart money says, stop the DVD after they dinner with the army chaps. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MeritCobaSep 21, 2015
In a previous review I thumbed down this movie for I find that it is not a particular good movie. I decided to redo my review as many people argued that the stupid decisions, which was my biggest annoyance with the movie, can be explained andIn a previous review I thumbed down this movie for I find that it is not a particular good movie. I decided to redo my review as many people argued that the stupid decisions, which was my biggest annoyance with the movie, can be explained and thus are no arguments at all.
I do not agree with this and will try to show why this movie isn't any good and why the stupid decisions are at the heart of the problem.

Because metacritic allows only for a limited amount of text I have to be brief and cut to the chase. But first let me say that it is no good arguing that a movie has be done before. Even if that is the case, this has nothing to do with the movie itself. Many things have been done before. As someone said, if redoing a movie makes it bad, then the universally acclaimed movie the Maltese Falcon by John Huston would fall in that category.

A movie is a story and a story requires at least these two things: good characters and a good plot. Good characters point to believable people and believable people we can connect with, even if we don't like them. A good plot points to believable events, even if the these events are illogical in themselves.
Note that with believable I do not mean: because it can really happen in life, but I mean: that it is accepted as being consistent with the internal logic of the story. For instance: if a story accepts that magic exists and can be used, then it stands to reason that someone can be a magic user, even though magic has not been proven to exist in real life.
This point makes short work of arguments as: why do the infected not attack each other? They do not because the world works that way and we do not require an explanation.

Good characters have traits that define them. Examples can especially be found in cartoon characters. Take as example Mickey Mouse(naive and brave), Donald Duck(temperamental, committed) and Goofy(lovable, clumsy, silly, easygoing). These cartoon characters do not only posses these traits, but to a large degree these traits are part of the way they look and even move(goofy being tall, thin and moving in a clumsy manner).

Let's turn to the central character of the movie. What traits does he display? The only trait he consistently shows throughout the movie is that he is dumb-witted to the point of being a danger to the others around him. He does not have something like the determined kick ass chick attitude of the girl he meets in the story(Selena) nor does he have the dedication and boisterous nature of the father. This then is the central character in the world with whom we have to connect and his only discerning quality is that he is too dumb be alive(for long).

The logic of a story is grounded in the real world for we have nothing else to go on. So in general we assume that everything of the real world applies unless it is explicitly changed for the story. So we can assume that people do things like eating, drinking and having a dump without seeing them do these mundane activities in the movie. No movie requires to show you this, but we assume it happens and when it is needed for the plot it will be shown.

Let's have a look at the plot. 28 days later abounds with stupidity. The father exposes everyone to unnecessary danger by driving his taxi through a tunnel with wrecks. They have lunch out in the open exposed. They make noise despite knowing that it attracts infected. The father exposes himself to blood, despite knowing better. Instead of holing up for the night in a room that is defensible, they use the ground floor one with windows that can be jumped through by infected. This is just a random set of the stupidity in the movie.

Now stupidity in the world of 28 days later should lead to death and hence most of the people involved by rights die or should die. But this can not be the group of people that survive in this dangerous world. It requires qualities that allow you to survive. The characters and the plot are therefore hugely inconsistent with the world of 28 days later..

The only survivors in the movie stay alive despite a tendency to make stupid decisions, while apparently the rest of the inhabitants of the UK, the more sensible ones presumable, were killed by the infection or something else(wise decisions?). Or perhaps they did not die at all but fled in time? This requires explanation, but we get none. Therefore this movie is bad because it doesn't explain how people survive so long while making a string of stupid mistakes.

This is a central weakness in the movie which makes it a bad movie, despite being thought provoking(where?), despite having nice visuals(?), despite having good music, despite anything else. A movie ought to be a believable story with believable characters. They both are badly drawn in this movie, hence the movie is bad.
No two ways about it
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
BWETMatangiAug 26, 2013
This movie was very, very boring. I was not impressed with the storyline or the acting. The movie contains a naked man laying on a hospital bed. Some language.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews