TNMC
This site’s design is only visible in a graphical browser that supports web standards, but its content is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
28 Days Later (2003)
From the critically acclaimed director of Trainspotting and Shallow Grave, comes a terrifying experience in which many have called a revolution in the horror genre. While I do not agree with that assessment wholeheartedly, I must admit that I had one thrilling ride sitting through 28 Days Later. That's saying a lot, since truth be told, watching scary movies is not exactly my idea of a good time.
Set in modern day England, a group of animal rights activists breaks into a laboratory that uses chimps as test subjects. Believing they are doing the right thing in freeing these helpless creatures, their act results in the release of a deadly virus called "rage" into the world. Fast forward to four weeks after that pivotal event, a comatose patient name Jim suddenly wakes up in a deserted hospital. Not sure of what has transpired since his accident, he roams the eerily empty streets of London looking for any signs of life. As daylight turns into dusk, Jim stumbles upon two individuals, Selena and Mark. It is then he finally discovers that the whole country has been evacuated due to an outbreak of the virus. With no outside information coming in, they have no way of knowing if the same thing is happening around the globe.
Thus begins the journey of this ragtag band of normals trying to stay alive and uninfected, but to what end? That was one question I kept asking myself as the movie progressed, since there was no cure and for all they knew they could be the last people left with no chance of being rescued, wouldn't survival be meaningless without a goal? Fortunately, the film does eventually address this concern in the final act, better late than never I suppose, however, the damage is already done and the pointlessness of the whole first part is only alleviated partially.
Many are dubbing 28 Days Later as a zombie movie, but do not let that mislead you or your expectations. Granted I am no expert on the subject, but I failed to see any similarities. The infected people are neither mindless drones craving for human brains, nor are they the living dead. In actuality, their purpose of existence is very simple, and that is to pass on the virus to others. This is where one of my main concerns for 28 Days Later comes in. I realized that "rage" is most likely just a means to an end, to put this group in a seemingly hopeless situation. Yet for a movie to use a device so prominently in the telling of its story, the writer has a responsibility to explain the scenarios he introduced. For example, why in the world would someone have the need to research a virus like this, what possible good can come out of it? Furthermore, if the effects of the infection manifest themselves almost instantaneously with no antidote available, why would it be kept in such a low security place? These unresolved issues do not necessarily ruin one's experience while watching the movie, but they certainly do not help to make it better to just gloss over them.
Director Boyle's choice to shoot 28 Days Later with a digital video camera is probably more of an economic decision rather than an artistic one due to the low budget. Whether it was intentional or not, the resulting effects were quite significant. The washed-out and grainy look of the movie contributed to an already creepy atmosphere, the sense of dread and despair was almost oppressive at times. The beginning scenes showing an abandoned London were quite a sight to take in, even though it was kind of illogical to not encounter a single dead body when you think about it. Nevertheless, the sequence was effective in drawing the audience into the plot. Another noteworthy aspect is the score, especially the absence of it during a few key moments, sometimes the silence is more desirable than contrived loud noises aimed at scaring the viewers. There were a couple of cliched elements common to many horror films present as well, such as a person would enter a darkened building for no apparent reason at all.
Character development in 28 Days Later is a mixed bag. Cillian Murphy gave a good performance for most of the movie as Jim, but somewhere in the middle someone decided to turn him into a killing machine. This complete one hundred eighty degrees change in his personality may be necessary to resolve the situation he found himself in, but it felt completely inconceivable when you compare it to his earlier behavior. He was out of shape, still recovering from his injuries, and for all we knew had never taken another human life before, but now we were expected to accept that he can outsmart and outmaneuver a group of trained military soldiers. My suspension of disbelief can only go so far. Naomie Harris's portrayal of the strong-willed Selena was decent but forgettable, but her character also suffered from inconsistencies. We were led to believe that she was supposed to be this tough fighter who can make all the difficult decisions without a second thought, but towards the end she was reduced to a damsel in distress needing Jim to rescue her. It is a shame to see these personas ruined by careless writing.
Despite of all the problems I have with 28 Days Later, I still think it plays very well as a horror film on many levels. I am just a bit disappointed that it is not as polished as I hoped it would be. Danny Boyle did an excellent job filling the audiences with angst and anticipation. The experience is so intense that you cannot let your guard down even during moments of respite, because you can never be sure if the director will have something sinister planned behind those light hearted scenes. As I have mentioned before, I am not a big fan of scary movies, and if I managed to find something enjoyable about 28 Days Later, I can imagine you will as well.
- Zalasta
What do you think? Talk about it on the Forums
