28 Days Later

Though, strictly speaking, 28 Days Later should not be ranked among zombie movies, given that the origin of the apocalypse it depicts would rather place it among contagion films, it draws directly from the tradition of zombie-apocalypse movies on many levels. Furthermore, its international box-office success had a fundamental impact on the revitalisation of the zombie genre in the new millennium. The legacy of zombie movies in the Romero tradition is fully evident here, as the monsters and the apocalypse associated with them serve both as a catalyst for a drama involving a handful of survivors and as a mirror held up to contemporary society and its ills. Danny Boyle and Alex Garland focused specifically on the global phenomenon of rage, which they see – at least in England – as the result of frustration arising from unfulfilled ideals about the value and importance of the individual in a democratic society. The use of digital cameras highlights the immediate tension of the characters, while also serving as a reminder of the mass deployment of security cameras, which are intended to protect people, but only contribute to anxiety and the feeling of diminished privacy, as well as to rising fear in the population brought on by the released footage of criminal acts being committed. (2013-09-15)

Danny Boyle won over audiences with Shallow Grave and cemented his reputation as a talented filmmaker with the cult classic Trainspotting. Naturally, expectations were high for his next project, but unfortunately, it didn't quite live up to the hype, although I still give it 4 stars. It's a film that approaches its subject matter too timidly and indecisively. The pacing of the film fluctuates, the screenplay is awkward at times, and it ends with a disappointingly happy ending. Within its genre, it's still above average, but from the director of Trainspotting, I simply expected more. Overall impression: 70%. (2007-12-09)

Strong as a whole, but unconvincing in the development of the plot, or solid filmmaking that is hard to keep up with. Either way, Danny Boyle is a very good and smart director who, in the broader narrative context, elevates his film above the level of B-movie (whether in the naturalistic intro or in the end, where is bluntly suggested that the aggressive infection is actually part of the human DNA), but the explicit meanings at times feel so loose and dumbed-down and the character development so hasty that they hurt the film’s added value. The intentionally cheap look is fitting, what is more arguable is the adequacy of the music, and personally I was bothered by some editing montages and the dumb behaviour of the characters. An interesting take on the material that actually deserved a more thoughtful and psychological layering. 65% (2020-03-26)

I liked it very much, but I can't help feeling that a good chunk of the film ended up in the editing room because the transition between the two parts (the road movie part and the military part) felt a bit rushed. Otherwise, I have nothing to complain about. It was clear to me that this horror film directed by Danny Boyle was not going to be an ordinary horror film... And it's not. Luckily. Many times I was amazed at the carefree atmosphere it exudes, which was certainly due to the soundtrack. The jump scares worked, the infected flesh-eating sprinters were suitably scary... And the over-the-top, nerve-wracking, breathless finale was great too. (2012-08-25)

Raw British horror that replaces slow zombies with fast infected people, influencing this horror subgenre for many years to come. The casting of Cillian Murphy in the main role was an interesting move, his face has both boyish and girlish features and his transformation from “someone who’s being dragged on” into “the one that saves everybody” was also interesting. Great. (2007-11-17)