|
 
Director: Danny Boyle
Cast: Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Megan Burns, Christopher Eccleston, Brendan Gleeson
Release Date: June 27th, 2003
Rating: R (for strong violence and gore, language and nudity)
See it on Amazon
 Horror is a genre of film that doesn't get much respect. This is mostly deserved. I love a good scary movie, but am often disappointed by stupidity, lack of story, poor acting, unoriginality, and gore for gore's sake. I saw 28 Days Later, which will be released June 27th, on June 13th in a sneak preview. There had been some positive buzz about it because this year so many horror films have been coming out, but as usual, while some have made decent money for cheaply made horror films, they were for the hard core fan only who relishes gore or bizarreness even without much substance or story. Others would come and go without leaving much of an impression. The word on this film was that it would be worth seeing.
While 28 Days Later will not win any academy awards, if you, like me, delight in a well-made horror film with a slightly different approach to a familiar formula, the buzz about this movie will prove correct. It is a stylish horror movie that creates the right atmosphere for tension and suspense.
The set up is the typical "catastrophe leading to the end of the world", or at least a nation, scenario. In this case England's disaster has resulted in a handful of survivors surrounded by many dead and many "infected". You could say they are zombie like creatures, though that word is never used in the movie, just in the advertisements. They are zombies with speed as these babies can really motor, not the usual dragging one foot at a slow pace walk. Even the rats flee from them. Nothing original in the setup, but the way it is carried out is different, and a welcome relief.
This movie actually has a good story line that builds over the short time it covers, giving us plot and characters that are developed and given some depth rather than the shallow, one dimensional characters we usually see populating horror movies. You see growth and change in some of the central characters. One whose mentality is "survive at any cost because that's all there is" shifts to understand there is more to life, even now, and this is necessary to make this situation worth surviving and life worth living. Another starts out a befuddled, weak follower, but has to face facts and becomes a person who makes choices that demand courage, strength, and commitment. The cast, though previously unknown to me, did excellent jobs.
There is a part of the movie in which the "infected" play little part, and this horror movie could easily be a thriller. There is drama, conflict, tension, action, and fear to deal with, but the source is different. It brings up the question: What is human? We certainly know the "infected" are not what we would call human any more, but what about the uninfected in abnormal circumstance? This is not some deep thinking, psychological movie, but the questions are there. This is a horror movie that keeps the brain engaged, and is still enjoyable.
I am wondering if hard-core horror fans will enjoy this as much because of the time taken to develop things and alternate a bit from the usual course of a horror movie. There aren't new victims every couple of minutes, or camera meditations on gruesome scenes so that the audience can memorize someone's intestinal tract. There is still much that is grisly and disturbing, but only when necessary and to emphasize what is going on with the situation, the emotions of the characters, and the horror of their plight. 28 Days Later is still horror-movie gruesome at times. While possibly not being enough for the devout slasher fan, the film may still be too much for moviegoers who are sensitive to horror. There is just about the right amount of shock scenes for the movie and plot, and will especially please the audience who enjoys a good horror movie, but is tired of the typical tripe handed out too often these days. I have seen other less well done horror movies that may make you jump or your wife scream more often by using the usual techniques, like the out of the corner sudden appearances combined with loud noises, for example. While there is a bit of that in this movie, there aren't as many of the big scares that some might expect. Instead, the tension it built through the uneasiness of the situation, the horror of the predicament, and the slow buildup to things. I enjoyed the payoffs: It was horror for the emotions and the mind, not just the senses.
One of the most irritating things about some horror movies is the contrived circumstances or stupid behavior by those in jeopardy that brings on the situations the characters get into. It's not that 28 Days Later is totally free of that. At one point I felt urge to yell at the screen what many watching horror movies feel like yelling: "Don't go in there!" Another scene I felt was a bit too coincidental, but over this movie avoids these traps and allows the characters to act fairly intelligently. What a difference a good script can make. The director also set up scenes that seemed to open the door for what one would usually expect, but didn't deliver at that point. This misdirection by the director leads to greater tension, and leaves the audience wondering when and what will happen.
The director, Danny Boyle, who is also responsible for Trainspotting, The Beach, and Shallow Grave, uses some unusual techniques to give us images and scenes that present the material in an interesting way. It makes it very stylish in part - almost artsy.
Where there is a lot of action, chaos, uncertainty and fear in some scenes, the camera work and visual images jump at us frenetically, making a mark and together creating an unmistakable atmosphere. These camera angles emulate the terror of the situation, rather than having the viewer stand back and just watch objectively, and are able to bring the audience into the scene more. In one scene, there is a car in the background driving along a road; in the foreground is a field of flowers. This has been done many times before, but in this case the field of flowers is from a painting. In another scene, you see at the upper left side of the screen what looks like part of a face. It doesn't seem to fit. Then the camera scrolls upward from one scene to the next, slowly changing the scenes and blending them together rather than quickly cutting from one to the other. There are some other techniques the director used that were a bit different. These things might not mean anything to some, but I enjoyed his directing style.
The film, especially at the beginning, has a sub-Hollywood slickness to it. A little grainy or unpolished, whether because of low budget or on purpose to create an atmosphere, it doesn't take away from the film, but works for it.
Understanding that some are still sensitive to grisly or intense scenes, I recommend this film with caution. It may not be for you. I did like that this horror film had an ending rather than one of those last-second hints that something wasn't finished in order to make way for a sequel.
28 Days Later was a guilty pleasure for me as a better-than-average horror film, with a twist of uniqueness.
Related links:
28 Days Later Official Site
More movie reviews
New "darker" alternate ending (Added July 22, 2003)
Starting Friday, July 25th, all screenings of 28 Days Later at theatres will feature an alternate "darker" ending at the end of the credits. This is the first time a film will have an alternate ending in theatres rather than just on the DVD. They found it easiest to have them just tack it on at the end rather than splice it in somewhere or add it under the credits.
This originated when they were making the film and filmed two endings. The producers and the director preferred the "darker" ending in some regards but considered that the audience will have been through much in the film already, and the more positive ending did better in screenings.
They toyed with the idea of releasing two versions of the film, each with a different ending, but were prohibited by the board that governs motion pictures. They do not allow two different versions of the same film to be playing at the same time. So adding it to the end of the film as an alternate ending was the solution. I just wish they had decided to do this from the beginning. Now I will have to see it again unless I wait until the DVD is released. |
