User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 414 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 40 out of 414
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Aug 26, 2013
    4
    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.
  2. Dec 10, 2012
    6
    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 performance does save some pieces of the movie but it wasn't enough.
  3. Nov 18, 2012
    5
    The camera work is nothing short of genius. Too bad the budget was too low to pay for good quality cameras.
  4. Oct 19, 2011
    6
    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's pretty much another linear zombie film that really isn't any different from Romero's.
  5. EdgarM.
    Mar 30, 2009
    4
    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 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
  6. MichaelR
    Mar 24, 2008
    5
    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.
  7. CliffS.
    Nov 2, 2006
    5
    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.
  8. ChrisP
    Aug 1, 2004
    4
    Mediocre. The primary theme, rage as a virus which is present even in the "uninfected," is presented with a sledgehammer blow: no subtlety, no art, presented for the lowest common denominator to understand. Many inconsistencies: lights on in supermarket despite total lack of electricity, etc. Horrible use of music--very typical Hollywood sound. And...tragically...a love story of sorts and Mediocre. The primary theme, rage as a virus which is present even in the "uninfected," is presented with a sledgehammer blow: no subtlety, no art, presented for the lowest common denominator to understand. Many inconsistencies: lights on in supermarket despite total lack of electricity, etc. Horrible use of music--very typical Hollywood sound. And...tragically...a love story of sorts and an uplifting ending. Blech. Just a very average film, striving to say something but w/o much new to add. Doesn't even touch Night of the Living Dead for art, wit, despair. Expand
  9. SaerA.
    Mar 21, 2004
    4
    It has some good scares but the movie was just awful and it was quite boring.
  10. JerryMaguire
    Nov 21, 2003
    6
    The movie itself is not entertaining but also not that boring. The much acclaimed alternate end of the movie is not worth waiting for the credits to end in order to see it.
  11. MichaelR.
    Nov 20, 2003
    4
    Like Boyle's other work, a decent setup that's good to watch for about an hour and then falls apart completely. Looks nice, but character development is either nonexistent or entirely unbelievable, the second half of the movie is ridiculous and pathetic, and the ending is dismal and looks as if it was tacked on to fill this out to a grand 1:45. Tries to be even-handed in its Like Boyle's other work, a decent setup that's good to watch for about an hour and then falls apart completely. Looks nice, but character development is either nonexistent or entirely unbelievable, the second half of the movie is ridiculous and pathetic, and the ending is dismal and looks as if it was tacked on to fill this out to a grand 1:45. Tries to be even-handed in its message, but ends up so muddled there is none. The critics were hoodwinked on this one. Expand
  12. Thorne
    Nov 1, 2003
    6
    Being a big fan of films like "Outbreak", and survival horror films in general, I was very excited about going to see this film. By the looks of the trailers, it appeared that it would provide everything that I could ask for from a survival horror type film, but I'm sorry to report that it falls a bit short. If you go in knowing exactly what to epect, you probably could enjoy this Being a big fan of films like "Outbreak", and survival horror films in general, I was very excited about going to see this film. By the looks of the trailers, it appeared that it would provide everything that I could ask for from a survival horror type film, but I'm sorry to report that it falls a bit short. If you go in knowing exactly what to epect, you probably could enjoy this movie. I'd like to say that this isn't a horror movie, I'd actually describe it as a tragic drama. If you go in with that mind-set, you might get more pleasure from the film. Expand
  13. John
    Oct 31, 2003
    6
    Gripping but then mediocre in the end.
  14. GregT.
    Oct 27, 2003
    4
    Brits can't do horror. This genre is beyond their capability. Everything with Brits is contrived. This movie was not scary. The age old concept that men (the soldiers involved in this plot) will do anything for a piece of tail (with a 12 year old??) is nonsense.
  15. Melissa
    Oct 23, 2003
    4
    28 minutes is about all it takes to enjoy this movie, after that, it falls of like rock. The movie was so-so, but it seems like it lost its will to entertain in the last 10 minutes of the movie. It started out O.K., developed better, then fell of like a rock. Overall, I'd pass this one over.
  16. CourtK.
    Oct 22, 2003
    5
    For those who have ever played "Slint Hill" for the Sony Playstation, they will find this movie highly predictable and unoriginal. I found it very boring, and the only thing that I did like about this movie was some of the symbolism used. I you must go see it, but I don't recommend it.
  17. JeffL.
    Oct 21, 2003
    5
    The only thing I can say is that the first half of the movie gets a 10; scary, breathtaking, and amazingly well done, the film pulls you into a rollercoaster ride before you put on the harness. Then the second half. Some corporate figure decides it needs "more action," throws in a hero type preformance that is completely out of character, and wraps up the movie in a nice neat little The only thing I can say is that the first half of the movie gets a 10; scary, breathtaking, and amazingly well done, the film pulls you into a rollercoaster ride before you put on the harness. Then the second half. Some corporate figure decides it needs "more action," throws in a hero type preformance that is completely out of character, and wraps up the movie in a nice neat little package, which isn't coherent with the rest of the movie. That gets a zero. As for the zombie movie debate, it may be the best zombie movie ever, but it had a chance to be the best horror movie ever and blew it about 80 minutes in. Expand
  18. JackL.
    Aug 20, 2003
    6
    It's ok for teens, the pros tuck into chocolate bars and pepsi without the faintest hint of guilt and when the first adult comes by he happens to be father Christmas! An always rewarding Brendan Gleeson. Lines are perfunctory. Digital stylization here and there doesn't make for much auteurship. Boyle and the lazy Garland know where the money is and go right for it. It's It's ok for teens, the pros tuck into chocolate bars and pepsi without the faintest hint of guilt and when the first adult comes by he happens to be father Christmas! An always rewarding Brendan Gleeson. Lines are perfunctory. Digital stylization here and there doesn't make for much auteurship. Boyle and the lazy Garland know where the money is and go right for it. It's middling inconsequential fun, so why are so many critics gushing over it? Expand
  19. MarcK.
    Aug 10, 2003
    5
    I am completely baffled as to all the extremely positive reviews this film has received. As some here have noted, it starts out interesting, but the plot twists in the last half hour were ridiculous. I applaud the chances this film took...I just didn't think it was very good.
  20. KayWhy
    Jul 31, 2003
    5
    The beginning of the movie was great, but it goes down hill from there. the music and gritty beauty aside, the movie was brainless. unlike good horrors, it didn't transport the viewer from reality, so the viewer is only left wondering why is this happening or why is that happening. the movie completely falls apart near the ending. plus, it wasn't that scary. there were a fewThe beginning of the movie was great, but it goes down hill from there. the music and gritty beauty aside, the movie was brainless. unlike good horrors, it didn't transport the viewer from reality, so the viewer is only left wondering why is this happening or why is that happening. the movie completely falls apart near the ending. plus, it wasn't that scary. there were a few scenes that were suspenseful but that was it. Expand
  21. SteveH.
    Jun 30, 2003
    6
    This movie has very good acting and creative imagery to tell the story. The only problem is that the storyline and editing are a bit too bizare for the average viewer. I must say that is does surpass American made films in this genre.
  22. DinuF.
    Jun 29, 2003
    4
    If moviemaking would have started yesterday it would get a 10. story is too constructed, everything is foreseeabhle which cuts down the fun by a lot if you don't just shift your braing following scene for scene but automatically predict things.
Metascore
73

Generally favorable reviews - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 33 out of 39
  2. Negative: 1 out of 39
  1. Around about the third act, the picture does what no self-respecting virus ever would -- relents, turns confused, and lets our immune system fight back with thoughts of its own, with distracting cavils about the logic of the plot and the slightness of the themes.
  2. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    75
    The look of the film, shot on digital video, is haunting and gritty. The cleaner, prettier look of 35mm would have detracted from the immediacy and sense of foreboding created in this artful blend of sci-fi and pseudo-realism.
  3. 83
    Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle, a veteran of low-tech Dogme films, work wonders with a digital camera, pausing to take in the beauty of the countryside or an eerily empty London…It's virtuosic without ever quite being showy.