- Studio: Fox Searchlight Pictures
- Release Date: Jun 27, 2003
User Score
7.4
out of 10
Generally favorable reviews- based on 304 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 250 out of 304
-
Mixed: 19 out of 304
-
Negative: 35 out of 304
Review this movie
-
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
- User score
- Most active
- By date
- Most helpful
- Most Clicked
-
ChaseG.Mar 17, 200810
-
-
Oct 19, 20116Sure, 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.
-
Aug 14, 20109I really enjoyed this movie and the zombie origin story in provided. The actors in it do a great job. I was impressed with this one, and liked it equally as well as the second one.
-
Jan 16, 20138
-
SteveS.Jul 5, 20038This is a modern version of DAWN OF THE DEAD by George Romero. The Zombies are Faster and the film was shot with a style of quick cuts and horrific sound effects.
-
-
JoeJan 3, 20041028 Days Later is a movie that has much more of a realistic outcome than any other zombie movie out there. We all know that the government has worked on things of this sort. It is not just a movie where so re-animated corpses eat people, but rather, bodies become infested with a virus making them mindless killers.
-
-
RobinC.Jun 30, 200410Not meant to scare you unless you can think about what the movie represents. The disturbing truth of how men react to destruction and death with violence and anger. Anger, an infectious disease that has been spreading throughout mankind for centuries.
-
-
SusanS.Nov 1, 20039
-
-
MarcwantstobeascarywoodlandanimalOct 22, 20039
-
-
AlbumentalJun 17, 20038
-
-
SteveH.Jun 30, 20036This 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.
-
-
BrianH.Jun 30, 20038
-
-
ZakG.Jun 30, 200310Brilliant, terrifying, great film. Incredibly well-directed, powerfully acted. The best film I have seen so far this year.
-
-
JoshuaW.Jun 30, 200310
-
-
P.P.Jul 1, 20039
-
-
DrSteveJul 5, 20037A story well-told. It differed from the typical horror flick in showing less gore. I found no great parable or message in it that some of the national reviewers seem to want to find. Drags at times.
-
-
ChrisN.Aug 4, 20038This Movie is not bad. Very original story. Good movie with wonderful pictures, but dont think it is a great horror movie. I thought i will see a splatter movie when i went to cinema, but i saw an interesting and original horror. The actors are good.
-
-
JayG.Aug 6, 20039
-
-
MarcoSep 9, 20030This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen. The story is the classical "something-terrible-has-happened-to-the-world-everybody's-dead-but-me", utterly uninteresting, non-horror, no depth no style. NOTHING. But go see it, you'll be rolling on the floor laughing!
-
-
RobertA.Jul 7, 20049Wow! this movie is best watched by yourself in a dark room. i just did and now i am a little paranoid. i enjoyed this film from beginning to end. but one part made me a little bit icky feeling...when the main guy jabs his thumbs into anothers guy's eyes. OUCH!!!. besides that part. this movie rocked my socks off. rob.
-
-
[Anonymous]Jan 8, 20059I really enjoyed this movie but let me ask what the hell is wrong with the critics and people stating that this is a zombie movie. These people are infected by a rage virus not zombies.
-
-
JesusG.Apr 18, 20058This is a very energetic and the most terrifying film of the year. But when it's not showing us disturbing images it shows you the side of nature and human life. This is the most weirdest and scariest movie to come along the side of "May".
-
-
RichS.Jun 1, 20070One of the worst movies I've ever seen. I'll always remember how bad it was because I was laughing the whole way through.
-
-
DarlaH.Nov 4, 20032
-
-
MathiasNov 8, 20030
-
-
JPDuprasOct 21, 20030There are two kinds of people: those that "get" this movie, and those that get it within the first few minutes, and then realize how freakishly boring it is. Truly one of the worst film I ever saw, not even good enough for a laugh.
-
-
MirandaM.Oct 20, 20039
-
-
CourtK.Oct 22, 20035For 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.
-
-
AlisonM.Oct 20, 200310Best movie ever.
-
-
NancyP.Jun 30, 20039An awesome horror flick with the added bonus of no screaming teen-agers!
-
-
75Around 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.
-
75The 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.
-
83Cinematographer 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.