I just figure that once infected, death is inevitable since it's doubtful that any of the zombies/infected stop to eat or sleep. I suppose they take a bit longer to starve due to the fact that they're in an altered state of being, but will ultimately suffer the same fate any human would if deprived of basic necessaties.

The way I look at it, the infected are only interested in one thing- infecting others. Their intentions fit more in line with simply spreading the virus than feeding on living creatures. This also answers why they don't just attack each other; much in the way that say, AIDS attacks one's immune system. Wouldn't be much of a threatning virus if it consumed itself.

You got me on the animal part though... There didn't seem to be too many animals around, so my guess is that they were wiped out like the humans. That crow seemed a bit pissed off, but at that point the story took on a new direction and couldn't be bothered to bring killer crows into play. And as far as the rats go; how easy is it to catch a rat with your bare hands?

Yeah...we know. Hence, "I know they arent zombies in the traditional sense". Also, everyone is using quotes when they say "zombie".

haha, this is why I love DVDtalk

Probaby not. Diseases do not travel between species very effectively and usually end up severely altered if they do. You, me, and monkeys are all primates, so it's possible for a monkey to give us something with little change to it. Birds and other animals would probably not be effected by it, just as your dog or cat do not get the flu when you have it. There have been human flus that originated with birds, but humans didn't get them directly from birds, the virus travelled through the food chain to pigs, and we received it from eating them. Even then, it was seriously altered and not the same.

If diseases could travel easily between humans and other animals, we probably would have been wiped out long ago by a pandemic disease. Imagine birds carrying Ebola throughout Africa, the Middle East and Europe. There are of course exceptions to this, like Rabies for instance that tend to destroy all living creatures equally, but they are not the norm.

I went into the theatre expecting a puke-your-guts-out gorefest instead I got a very entertaining rollercoaster ride of a movie. I just want to mention that the frontal nudity scene at the hospital got nervous laughter from the movie audience. I thought that was disturbing since the was not the intention of the scene. Are some people really that uncomfortable seeing a guys private parts in cinema??

Seems to me like a total rip-off of Resident Evil.

Now there's irony.

Loved the flick. Four, flirting with five stars. I tend to agree with the previous votes for a feeze-frame ending.

28 Days Later is the sequel to 28 Days. Contrary to popular belief, Sandra Bullock reprises her role. She plays Zombie #2. She looks quite scary now that she's off the wagon, but it's nothing compared to my grandmother.

Come on guy's, 28 Days LATER if anything was a remake of 'The Crazies', another George Romero film.

Let's see here..

• ...Biological weapon...Check!
  
• Virus infects people..Makin' them "crazy"...Check!
  
• Surviors left to defend against an army...Check!
  

Not that I'm complaining, while the movie was not an A-typical "zombie" movie, it was damn good, in my opinion. I went ahead and ordered the UK DVD because of it.

Obviously there was a misprint in the title - please, no more references to 28 Days - keep this on topic - 28 DAYS LATER.

Blake, for some reason, they think they're being funny.

I for one appreciate the reminder.

Yeah, I can see how it's similar to The Crazies, but I still maintain its strongest similarity is to The Day of the Triffids...

The movie is damn good. Very eerie.
Agree completely. The freeze-frame ending woulda been perfect. Totally leaving the audience wanting. The ending used makes the movie seem too much like the stereotypical "love story" - boy meets girl, they fall in love, and then live happily ever after.

The movie reminded me somewhat of that Dustin Hoffman movie "Outbreak". These types of movies scare the crap outta me because of the realistic chance that it could actually happen.

In america, yes. It's still pretty much a "taboo" here. BTW, the same thing happened when I saw it, and I had the same thoughts.

Having seen THE DEAD movies many times, I picked up all the scenes the filmmaker used to make his movie.
I give him credit for making a good movie.
He didn't go the FRIDAY THE 13TH or SCREAM route for ripping off HALLOWEEN.
It was good not to see horny teenagers, hear rock music or wisecracks. And I'm talking about in the movie not the movie theater.

This movie has been out so long I'm not going to use spoiler tags. So if you haven't seen it yet don't read this!

It's all been done before. But how well was this one done? Overall I'd give this a "nice job" rating. They weren't afraid to not use any type of soundtrack when Jim was wandering through the city. I was waiting for the dreaded must-fill-in-the-silence background elevator music to start. The violence happened brutally and without much lead-in which was appropriate.

This was not a horror movie though. There was nothing scary about it. The rats being chased by the "Infected" leading up to a frantic put-the-spare-tire on scene? I thought I had accidentally put Nascar on and was watching the pit crew competition. Too many stupid-main-character-does-stupid-things clips gratuitously thrown in. At least make them take the tunnel instead of the well-lit less direct route by blocking off the well-lit route.

Jim's random walk into the burger stand? Completely gratuitous. The only good thing I can say is that at least they didn't put some stupid stinger in. Airhorns are not scary, they're just annoying and make you jump.

The soldiers role as saviors and then as villains was apparent but still decently executed. Too much MTV style editing however. Strobe-effects are not scary and when blinking allows you to skip 3 scenes it doesn't make anything suspenseful. It just becomes annoying as people scream, random body fluids splash on screen and extras die.

Was the "happy ending" annoying? Yes. But at least you knew what happened the day after. Could the movie have ended with them crashing through the gate? Yes. Would we then be debating whether the contrails on the jet Jim saw were real or just imaginary? Probably. Would we then be debating what happened to the rest of the world? Likely. Instead we're all talking about how much the ending sucked because people don't like things wrapped up nicely but also don't like to be kept hanging.

Still, I stand by my "nice job" rating. I was entertained and that's all I really ask for 2 hours of my time and $6 of my money.

Yeah, a whopping 9 days in the USA. Does it physically hurt to use spoiler tags?

And I admit it's been such a long time since I've seen it (16 days) that my memory could be faulty, but I do remember music in those scenes, and I think it was something by Godspeed You Black Emperor (starts quiet, ends loud).

But for what it's worth I do agree that music is used too liberally these days when a little silence would do so nicely.

I've gotta say, this movie was a major letdown. It wasn't as big a suck-fest as "The Ring" was, but that was probably because I didn't have as many people bombarding me with questionable praise before I saw it.

1. The film can't decide what it wants to be. Is it an artsy independant film or is it a horror film? It seems to be that the original intent was an artsy film designed to make a statement about the human condition, but the writer decided to throw in a horror twist to draw a bigger crowd. Sorry, but I liked the whole "end of the world / what would man do" thing when Stephen King wrote it and called it "The Stand."

2. Horror? That's not the right word. It wasn't scary. There was no part of the film that shocked you, everything was telegraphed from miles away. Maybe it's scary to this younger generation that found The Ring scary, but as someone that spent his pre-teen years watching classic black & white horror film marathons every Friday night, and his teen years watching Romero's zombie flicks, along with the birth of Freddy & Jason, and the golden age of the b-grade slasher flicks, this was not scary at all.

3. The camera. What's the deal with this constantly out of focus crap? I had a headache about 15 minutes into the movie.


I have one positive thing to say about it though... the movie shows how stupid some of these animal rights people are. Yeah, it sucks how some of these animals are treated in labs, and that needs to change. However, the answer is not to break into a lab and take animals that are scared or even hateful of humans, pumped with who knows what type of drugs, and release them into the countryside.

I personally thought this was a very disturbing movie. I agree that it isn't in the typical "horror" genre, but it did scare me.

I would like to refer to this movie as a "lord of the flies" meets "night of the living dead". I really like the fact that . Hence the reference to lord of the flies.

I would suggest this movie to all my friends, just to see what their opinion on this movie is.

Go and see it!

LolaRennt

For about the first 15 minutes I thought something was wrong with the film....it almost looks like a b*****g video. It's digital video but I've seen much better quality of digital video transferred to film(Wasn't Panic Room also from DV? It looked way better than this on film). I guess it was intentionally made to look a bit funky using a high compression rate or something and that's fine...as the movie progresses it actually enhances the "live" edgy feeling.

What's interesting is that I think this is an example where the eventual DVD version could look better on a video screen than it did as a film. Especially if they use the original DV source and move that directly to DVD, it should actually look amazing and very "live." I hope they don't go the route of the Blair Witch DVD and use the film as a source.

28 Days later is a brilliant movie, and has been released in the UK for a while now. The R2 DVD has also been out for a month or so and I would definetely recommend picking it up if you have a R2 compatible player.

If anyone is interested I reviewed the R2 disc a few weeks back and it can be found here

http://www.dvdanswers.com/index.php?...ys+later&c=703

The R2 DVD uses film as the source.

Panic Room was not shot on DV.

28 Days Later was shot to look exactly how it is.

Yeah, definitely meant to look how it is. Watch for a dramatic change in picture quality near the end. I wonder what it could mean. . .

28 DAYS LATER was shot on a DV format, and then the image was blown up to 35mm for film projection. It's the blowing up that makes the image even rawer -- and these bleak visual choices are deliberate, of course.

I believe the last sequence in the film was actually shot on film, and of course looks very different, but I'm not sure.

I didn't want to get into spoilers, and I guess I really won't, but I really can't believe people missed what I thought was a pretty blatant visual metaphor.

Well I guess i was wrong about Panic Room being shot on video.
I did read somewhere that 28 Days Later had a very low budget I suppose it's possible that they couldn't afford better video gear but somehow I doubt that's the explanation.
I think someone made a decision, for whatever reason, to have it look the way it does. There are many changes to that look especailly in the second half of the film and at some points they use a very grainy film stock (or create that effect). When you see it you will realize that all these stylized effects and changes were intentional too.