Lit.Org - a community for readers and writers Advanced Search

Average Rating

(4 votes)

RatingRated by

You must login to vote

I know, I know. The commercials and previews and trailers they show make the movie look so awesome. I was fooled by it, and I payed twenty one dollars to get several friends and I in to see it. I regret it now.

Okay. So the plot line is that there are apes infected with a deadly virus capable of spreading globally and making everyone insane and turning them against other humans. They're kind of like zombies, except they can run after you. Animal activists let the monkeys escape, and they attack one of them which starts a chain reaction of uncontrollable infection. It spreads by blood, and 28 days after the virus has escaped, our main character awakens in London, which is barren of life and full of the infected. Sounds awesome, right? Wrong.

First of all, where have we heard of a virus that turns people into killer zombies? I think this movie was a Resident Evil rip off. I'm sure they have copies of the game in the U.K. But, even so, I liked the whole concept of the killer virus that ends humanity and a few survivors are left to wage war with the creatures that emerge. So I gave this movie a chance.

Now you've all seen this I'm sure: "Danny Boyle re-invents zombie horror and it's SCARY AS HELL" If this movie is scary, I'll wet myself watching Barney. The entire world is infected. Billions of the creatures overwhelm cities. Why is it we only see around ten of them in the whole, two and a half hour long movie? And when we do see them, they're either in shadow and look like a bunch of people running around or it's too blurry to make out their disfigurements. Plus, the zombies are only a threat in about the first half hour of the movie. The rest of it is all about them driving through abandoned cities, sleeping, taking sleeping pills, sleeping, talking, sleeping, and getting food from abandoned stores, which they never even eat. If the entire world is infected, where are all the monsters? I admit the isolation and aloneness is pretty cool. But it's no better than Stephen King's "the Stand". And the monsters are supposed to eat people. We never get to see anyone attacked, and, why don't they eat each other? They tell us the zombies WILL eat THEMSELVES if they are starving, but not other zombies. Of course they won't. They don't know where they've been.

Eventually, they find army officers who have set up a camp to fight off the monsters. Which we never get to see them fighting them off, of course, because from this point on there is one zombie...and yes, it is too blurry to see the horror. The majority of the movie is them fighting with the other SURVIVORS, not the ZOMBIES.

The music is like lazy jazz. No sting music, no horror music. Lazy jazz. Some guy presses a bunch of keys on a piano. Another guy lazily strums a guitar. It makes the movie seem more like a cross between Mr. Holland's Opus and Cheech and Chong.

I was dissapointed. If I had a dollar for every person who left saying "Stupid movie," and, "That sucked," and, "I lost track after this part..." This movie had so much potential. They could have made it "SCARY AS HELL". But the cold hard fact is, THEY DIDN'T. Trust me, please, I beg you, take my word for it. DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THE PREVIEWS. They show the good parts. You've already seen the best parts of the movie. Now I'm not going to give away the ending and ruin for everyone who still thinks it has some potential, but I'm telling's nothing special. Some of you may like it. Most of you won't.

28 Days Later is horrible, and, 28 Days after paying good money to see it, I'll still be mourning for the death of an awesome plot.

Every good writer knows that he has no idea where he gets the idea for a story. When he asked, he responds "I don't know. They just come to me." The truth is, a good story idea is like a jewel buried under years of dirt. It's always there, you just have to find it.


The following comments are for "28 Days Later"
by American Eagle Guy

boo hiss.
Someone once said "The only good review is a really really bad one". They meant something like this. This is a really really bad review, which is exactly what makes your writing so entertaining to read here.
I think maybe you went a little over the top, but don't let that stand in the way of a good bad writeup. :)

Score 8/10.

( Posted by: Spudley [Member] On: July 14, 2003 )

Add Your Comment

You Must be a member to post comments and ratings. If you are NOT already a member, signup now it only takes a few seconds!

All Fields are required

Commenting Guidelines:
  • All comments must be about the writing. Non-related comments will be deleted.
  • Flaming, derogatory or messages attacking other members well be deleted.
  • Adult/Sexual comments or messages will be deleted.
  • All subjects MUST be PG. No cursing in subjects.
  • All comments must follow the sites posting guidelines.
The purpose of commenting on Lit.Org is to help writers improve their writing. Please post constructive feedback to help the author improve their work.