28 Days Later (2002)
Grim and gritty UK apocalypse shocker – which isn’t a zombie film
28 days after a highly contagious artificial virus is released Jim wakes up to an apparently deserted London. Deserted, that is, apart from the multitude of “infected”.
One of the most striking things about this film is just how proficient and confident it is – a real grown-up film. Danny Boyle has had a few duds but this is so boldly directed; it’s most definitely a hit. The first 20 minutes are just utterly compelling – and it is not just the curiosity value of a deserted London that does it. It is also the attention to detail; swaying, dangling dead phones in the hospital, stepping over scattered Big Ben tourist ornaments, Piccadilly Circus notice board, piled up bodies in the church – all these help ratchet up the tension to an almost unbearable level.
This film also stands out because of its digital format which lends it a kind of sharp, panicked real life feel. When Jim’s running around in the rain towards the end you can actually see raindrops. DV isn’t suitable for all types of film, but here it is spot on. The sense of tension and paranoia saturate all the London scenes that make up the first half of the film and it is only when the group escape the city that you can breathe easy again and sit back from the edge of your seat.
The film does shift direction in the second half; it becomes more man vs. man than man vs. zombie when it transpires that their military saviours are actually their enemy. The army always gets a raw deal in these films; they’re either enforcing their own look after number one regime, or they’re precipitating the whole event by releasing zombie-making chemicals. Shaun of the Dead is the only zombie film I can think of where the army actually saves the day. Anyway, the army base stage of the film doesn’t maintain the high drama of the first half; it’s a bit slow and a bit predictable (though maybe it just suffers in contrast to such a great start). It is still a lot better than the alternative ending storyboarded in the DVD extras though. That has some daft plot involving Jim and co. doing a full blood transfusion to cure Frank from infection. I’m not sure how I would have had the second half instead; it could certainly have been trimmed down more. A larger scale base would have been interesting – perhaps with one or two politician types in there too. And something about trying to contact other survivors – and how about a reconnaissance mission into a burning, infected Manchester.
All in all it is a quality film, acting’s good, directing is excellent, has a good, effective soundtrack. A sequel - 28 Weeks Later - looks likely; though like many sequels I think it’s not necessary.
Things about 28 Days Later that me go “Hmmm”:
- Where is everyone? That many Londoners surely couldn’t have escaped the capital. One would really expect there to be a lot more infected roaming around – especially with him yelling and setting off car alarms.
- Why didn’t Jim read all of the newspaper he found explaining the situation? Or at least take it with him?
- What are the infected’s motives? They’re eager enough to chase live humans but what to they do once they’ve caught them? They don’t eat them. Maybe their rage just makes them want to kill, or maybe the virus wants to propagate as much as possible.
- Could Jim – who is half naked with no weapons, and has recently come out of a coma – really take on and beat half a unit of battle hardened, highly-trained soldiers?
- “infected with rage” does sound a bit naff.
Was London Really Deserted?
Top marks for the eerie people free city shots but look closely and you can actually see signs of life here and there.
Or maybe this particular individual is actually an infected (not sure you could say that about the guy in another scene emptying bins next to Centrepoint though)
Why 28 Days Later is not a Zombie Film:
- they’re not dead, they’re infected by blood-borne “rage” virus
- they’re don’t eat people – just attack and kill them
- the infected can die of starvation (then stay dead)
Striking parallels with Romero’s zombie trilogy impossible to ignore:
| Day of the Dead | 28 Days Later | |
 |
||
| Deserted Florida Streets | Deserted London Streets | |
 |
||
| Newspaper blows past with the headline “The Dead Walk!” | Jim, wandering around looking for signs of life comes across a newspaper bearing the headline “Evacuation” | |
 |
||
| Banknotes blow around on the steps in front of a bank | Jim collects banknotes strewn over some steps | |
 |
||
| Two survivors looking for signs of life bellow “Hello!” over a megaphone | Jim, looking for signs of life, wanders around the deserted city yelling “Hello!” | |
 |
||
| An increasingly restless and isolated squad of soldiers man a safe stronghold | An increasingly restless and isolated squad of soldiers man a safe stronghold | |
 |
||
| A zombie is chained up in an underground lab for experimentation (which eventually escapes) | An infected is chained up in the yard for observation purposes (which eventually escapes) | |
| Dawn of the Dead | 28 Days Later | |
 |
||
| Peter wanders off on his own while on a fuel stop and encounters two zombie kids. He offs them but never mentions the incident when he rejoins the others. | Almost identical scene in 28DL – though only one “zombie” kid attacks Jim. When he rejoins the others he claims he didn’t find anything | |
 |
||
| Set in a shopping mall; many scenes of the leads helping themselves to supermarket goods. | Ok, on a post apocalyptic food hunt you probably would end up at a supermarket – but it’s still hard to ignore the similarities | |
Favourite Scene:
Undoubtedly the walk through an eerie, deserted, ghostly London (wish it was like that when I drive through it)
Favourite Quote:
Jim; Hello!
Film Rating:
3.5/5
Adherence to THE LORE:
1.5/5
Very poor; they’re infected (by blood) not dead – and so don’t decompose, they run, they need food to live (and can starve), one of them speaks (child in motorway service station “I hate you!”). They don’t want to eat you.
great review. although this is an overall good film and is definately one to check out if you are a fan of the genre, it doesnt follow the rules and is obviosly not a zombie film.
The side by side comparison of 28 Days Later with Day/Dawn OTD is great. I love all 3 movies and I never even noticed before. :/ Guess I’m not very observant.
All i want to know is is 28 days later zombies or not.
its obvious that this film isnt a zombie film, then how can it be judged by the same pinciples?
im trying to write a paper about the “zombies” in the film 28 days later and i have encountered a significant dilemma: what do i call the things? i agree they do not adhere to the original definition of “zombie” but then the zombie has evolved away from its original haitian roots. so are the monsters seen here just a further evolution of the original zombie? or should they be referred to as “infected” (thereby creating a completely new category of monster)? opinions?
im writing a paper on the zombie genre and basing my main concept towards this movie. everythings going well so far but i need to acquire facts of ideology with my paper. i need to look at symbols in this movie and see what they represent in todays society. also im confused as to all them zombies or the infected, due to the fact that they were normally human and alive and then became “infected once they were bit/like a zombie. but the zombies only become that way once their dead, the infected are different. perfect example when hannahs father in this movie is at the gas station and then all of a sudden he gets a drop of blood in his eye. he wasnt even bit. though he then instantlyturns. this is why i dont think this can be considered a zombie movie.
“Scientifically” this is not strictly speaking a zombie film since the infected are not dead. However the influence of the zombie genre is impossible to ignore, so “artistically” it must be considered a zombie film. Without Dawn / Day of the Dead this film wouldn’t have been made
IN my opinion they aren’t really zombies they are just “infected” they are however very very close to zombies and in newer movies Zombies are changing a lot so instead of explaining the whole “infected” thing you could just say zombies.
Look I have read the comments above and I gotta say the scientific reality vs artistic comment was by far the absolute best. I wanna add to that but keep it baseline. As far as Unicorns for example, Unicorns are horses with horns. They could or could not have magic, could or could not have poachers after them for said horn, could or could not have wings and fly. We understand the base definition of a unicorn, the rest is just interpretation. Zombies have a base definition as well. If it moves and hunts but is dead it’s a zombie. It could be by supernatural means, viral, or organic. It could be fast or slow movers. It could have mutations or just rotten people stubbing about its still zombies. If a man runs fast, jumps super high, and hunts people by moonlight but looks normal he is not a werewolf because he lacks the whole wolf part. Sure you could artistically draw parallels and your argument maybe convincing BUT to say it is a werewolf film when the main character never changes into a wolfish humanoid is like making a unicorn film but it’s a bunny with a horn. The same as having enraged humans attacking other humans and call it a zombie film. If the commenters above supporting 28 as a zombie film had this as a base definition of zombies then the infected in “The Crazies” would be zombies by contrast.
sorry folks, your WAY far away to get the ZOMBIE MOVIE. From the genre´s starting “night of the dead” it was a vehicle to transport social critizism. And if yout get that and whatch one or another movie again, mayby youre enyoing them more than before.
“Things about 28 Days Later that me go “Hmmm”", ts ts ts, I pity you