|
Twenty-Eight Days Later (2003)
|
|
Movie Review by The Undertaker
|
07.06.03
|
Well now, this thing has been getting a lot of press from the 'mainstream', so let's see just how far off base they are for a few moments. I'll get to the movie and its good points later, but for now, I feel it's my duty to buck some of the false shit critics that get paid to review movies for a living are saying. First and above all, this is NOT a zombie movie. These people are infected with a virus called Rage that turns them into murderous maniacs, implied cannibalism is in here also, though we never see it, but there are no true zombies here folks. The infected are simply people with a virus, once dead, they stay dead. They're fairly easy to kill, no special technique is needed, no brains have to be blasted out, just kill 'em by any possible means, and they stay dead. No one rises from the grave here. When out of food, they starve, just like any living person would, so this isn't a movie about zombies. As for the statement on the movie posters of Danny Boyle redefining the Zombie film, who wrote that dumbass shit? How can you redefine something that the movie doesn't deal with? He's possibly redefined the apocalyptic medical horror film if anything, not the zombie film. Have any mainstream critic even seen a zombie film lately? Wanna talk about redefining? See what Peter Jackson did with Brain Dead years before. There's your redefining of the zombie film to tag line. Some critics are saying it's the scariest film since The Exorcist. Hmmm, wasn't the same thing said about the Blair Witch Project? Have these fools even seen a movie since The Exorcist? Doubt it. Here's the deal with 28 Days Later, it's more disturbing due to the moral issues than scary. Aside from the few jumpy moments, there's nothing scary. It's more unsettling than anything. This isn't the scariest movie released this year, much less since you know when. The attack scenes are cool, but there's not much gore, cause that ain't what this film's all about. Okay, now that I've got all that off my chest, I can talk about the good stuff. My critic bashing aside, I have no problem at all with 28 as it's a damn good movie. England goes from a thriving society to a quarantined, desolate island in 28 days. Thanks to a bunch of do-gooders out to save some monkeys, a virus called rage is set loose raging out of control until the whole nation is devastated. It's passed through blood and saliva and since the infected like to bite and kill, you get the picture. There are elements from Dawn of the Dead and The Crazies here along with stuff from disease type thrillers. What makes the movie stand out to me is the way the scenes are lit, edited, and the bleak atmosphere presented here. It really feels like the end of the world at times. Sure the nasty looking infected assholes out to kill are menacing, but the unsettling moral issues the movie brings up make it hard to forget. Do we survive at the price of not helping others? Leave the weak to die without aid to save yourself? When it looks like our race is on the brink of extinction, is rape in the name of procreation the answer? Do you think the soldiers hold up really cared about the future of man or just getting some ass? Was it right to trick people into believing they had found a cure, only to learn that they just wanted women? These goofs were even about to rape a 15/16 year old girl to 'save' mankind. Like I said, 28 will give you a lot to ponder. When there's nothing left to care about or live for, what do you do? This film has some sad moments and some happy ones. Was salvation found at the end? Guess we'll see. 28 Days Later is a worthwhile film and definitely should be seen right away. Just don't believe everything stamped on a movie poster or TV ad. This movie has a lot more to offer than your average movie, even though no zombies.
|
Rating: 6.5 out of 10.0 - 6 votes cast total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|