28 Days Later
1.5/4
Starring: Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Megan Burns, Brendan Gleeson, Christopher Eccleston
Rated R for Strong Violence and Gore, Language and Nudity
"28 Days Later" changed the face of zombie movies forever (well, mostly). Before 2002, zombies were slow and lumbering and moaned as they sought their victims. In Danny Boyle's flick, they're fast, strong and emit bloodcurdling screams as they hunt their prey. That little tidbit of film history is the only thing that this film has going for it. But then again, I could be wrong, since I haven't seen every zombie movie ever made.
Jim (Murphy) wakes up in a surreal nightmare. He's naked, wired up in a hospital bed, and everyone is gone. And I do mean everyone. It's as if everyone vanished out of thin air. If that were the case, life would just suck. But it's about to get a whole lot worse. People are scarce, and of those that are still alive, most are infected with a virus that turns them into monsters with an insatiable desire for human flesh. Jim is luckier than most, as he hooks up with some other survivors, including the tough-as-nails Selena (Harris) and father/daughter duo of Frank (Gleeson) and Hannah (Burns). Together, they set off for a safe haven.
The problem with "28 Days Later" is that it doesn't bring anything new to the table. Let me rephrase. The film hasn't aged well, or more likely, wasn't very good to begin with. It raises some intriguing ideas: the hopelessness at the end of the world, the fact that man is more dangerous than anything when societal barriers are gone, the trauma of killing your infected friends. And let's not forget the radical new vision of zombies (technically, they are diseased not undead, but since they're mindless, aggressive and snack on unlucky humans, why quibble?). Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland may have been the first to broach these questions, but others have followed suit. And to be perfectly frank, more recent films have done it much better. "Carriers," the "Dawn of the Dead" remake, "Zombieland" and "Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse" did the same things that Boyle has attempted, only with more finesse and heart.
"28 Days Later" was the breakthrough film for two of Britain's most versatile character actors: Cillian Murphy and Naomie Harris. Both are playing against the types they would be known for. Murphy usually plays a wide variety of lunatics and psychos, but here he plays the hero. And does a fine job. Harris has no problem showing her talents as a woman who will abandon anyone in a heartbeat if they slow her down. Brendan Gleeson is perfectly affable although Megan Burns is bland. And the role that appears to have been tailor made for Cillian Murphy is played by Christopher Eccleston, which is just as well, since he's one of those actors who simply has to walk on screen to give you the creeps.
Danny Boyle has always possessed a penchant for self-indulgence, and that's true here. Whether it's over-directed action scenes or moments straight out of the mind of an auteur, Boyle takes things too seriously. This is a bleak story, to be sure, but there's not much substance to back it up. The first hour of the film feels redundant, but the second act is vile and unpleasant. The level of violence and cruelty is only matched by a drop in intelligence and a dramatic (and unbelievable) character change. It's as if Garland wrote himself into a corner and chose the dumbest way possible to get out of it. Or the script had a brilliant conclusion that was jettisoned by someone with ADD and a serious case of bloodlust. Take your pick.
Zombie movies are a dime a dozen. They're usually stupid fun, but "28 Days Later" makes the mistake of taking itself too seriously. The social commentary is obvious and not very interesting. The action scenes are, with one exception, devoid of tension. The film even looks terrible (I sincerely hope that, for his sake, Boyle shot this on digital video solely for financial reasons). The list goes on and on.
The point is that this movie is lame. If you're hungry for the undead (no pun intended), I can recommend you some excellent alternatives. Just leave this one for trivia night and "Jeopardy."
Starring: Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Megan Burns, Brendan Gleeson, Christopher Eccleston
Rated R for Strong Violence and Gore, Language and Nudity
"28 Days Later" changed the face of zombie movies forever (well, mostly). Before 2002, zombies were slow and lumbering and moaned as they sought their victims. In Danny Boyle's flick, they're fast, strong and emit bloodcurdling screams as they hunt their prey. That little tidbit of film history is the only thing that this film has going for it. But then again, I could be wrong, since I haven't seen every zombie movie ever made.
Jim (Murphy) wakes up in a surreal nightmare. He's naked, wired up in a hospital bed, and everyone is gone. And I do mean everyone. It's as if everyone vanished out of thin air. If that were the case, life would just suck. But it's about to get a whole lot worse. People are scarce, and of those that are still alive, most are infected with a virus that turns them into monsters with an insatiable desire for human flesh. Jim is luckier than most, as he hooks up with some other survivors, including the tough-as-nails Selena (Harris) and father/daughter duo of Frank (Gleeson) and Hannah (Burns). Together, they set off for a safe haven.
The problem with "28 Days Later" is that it doesn't bring anything new to the table. Let me rephrase. The film hasn't aged well, or more likely, wasn't very good to begin with. It raises some intriguing ideas: the hopelessness at the end of the world, the fact that man is more dangerous than anything when societal barriers are gone, the trauma of killing your infected friends. And let's not forget the radical new vision of zombies (technically, they are diseased not undead, but since they're mindless, aggressive and snack on unlucky humans, why quibble?). Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland may have been the first to broach these questions, but others have followed suit. And to be perfectly frank, more recent films have done it much better. "Carriers," the "Dawn of the Dead" remake, "Zombieland" and "Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse" did the same things that Boyle has attempted, only with more finesse and heart.
"28 Days Later" was the breakthrough film for two of Britain's most versatile character actors: Cillian Murphy and Naomie Harris. Both are playing against the types they would be known for. Murphy usually plays a wide variety of lunatics and psychos, but here he plays the hero. And does a fine job. Harris has no problem showing her talents as a woman who will abandon anyone in a heartbeat if they slow her down. Brendan Gleeson is perfectly affable although Megan Burns is bland. And the role that appears to have been tailor made for Cillian Murphy is played by Christopher Eccleston, which is just as well, since he's one of those actors who simply has to walk on screen to give you the creeps.
Danny Boyle has always possessed a penchant for self-indulgence, and that's true here. Whether it's over-directed action scenes or moments straight out of the mind of an auteur, Boyle takes things too seriously. This is a bleak story, to be sure, but there's not much substance to back it up. The first hour of the film feels redundant, but the second act is vile and unpleasant. The level of violence and cruelty is only matched by a drop in intelligence and a dramatic (and unbelievable) character change. It's as if Garland wrote himself into a corner and chose the dumbest way possible to get out of it. Or the script had a brilliant conclusion that was jettisoned by someone with ADD and a serious case of bloodlust. Take your pick.
Zombie movies are a dime a dozen. They're usually stupid fun, but "28 Days Later" makes the mistake of taking itself too seriously. The social commentary is obvious and not very interesting. The action scenes are, with one exception, devoid of tension. The film even looks terrible (I sincerely hope that, for his sake, Boyle shot this on digital video solely for financial reasons). The list goes on and on.
The point is that this movie is lame. If you're hungry for the undead (no pun intended), I can recommend you some excellent alternatives. Just leave this one for trivia night and "Jeopardy."
Comments
Post a Comment