|
"Remind Me Again.
What Happens After 28
Days?" |
 |
Directed by Danny Boyle
- Written by Alex
Garland
Starring Cillian Murphy,
Brendan Gleeson, Naomie
Harris, Megan Burns
Distributed by 20th
Century Fox -
2002 - 113mins - Rated R |
| |
|
The days are numbered. |
| |
Horror
movies these days...tsk, tsk. All blood and carnage, no suspense and
no real fear. Look at "Psycho," on of the greatest horror films of all
time. Most of the movie is chilling suspense with very little direct
violence. Even the classic "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" has very little
blood. It is all off screen, with only sound implying to what is going
on. What no one understands, is that it is not blood and guts that
make a movie scary, it's the evil creating the violence, and when the
evil is hokey, stupid, and even makes wisecracks, all the fear is
lost. British director Danny Boyle shows us that he knows this with
"28 Days Later."
The story opens on animal rights activists releasing monkeys that are
infected with a virus called Rage. Soon, all of Great Britain is in
chaos. Those who have not been turned into psychotic monsters by the
disease are fighting to stay alive. Our hero is Jim, a man who wakes
up in the hospital to find all of London deserted. He searches the
city, and finds a church, where he makes first contact with "the
infected" in a scene that had people screaming in the theater. Soon,
he meets other survivors, who he teams up with to stay alive.
The zombies in "28 Days Later" are not the slow moving, George Romero
zombies. They are very fast and cunning. They don't go down easily,
and one drop of their saliva or blood can infect you. They roam the
deserted streets of London, killing or infecting any of the normal
people. Unlike the recent zombie movies we have seen (Like the poorly
done "Resident Evil" adaptation), the onscreen body count of "28 Days
Later" is low. And most of the blood is vomited from the infected
person's mouth, not from actual wounds. There are very few instances
of direct combat with these monsters. Our heroes spend most of the
time running and evading, which is much scarier because they are like
normal people: they have no way to defend themselves. Few movies
actually scare me, but this one did. The scariest parts come from
trying to change a car tire with the undead bearing down on you; no
scares come from decapitations or disemboweling.
The film also has a great advantage in its casting. Most of the
characters are portrayed by unknowns, so we aren't distracted by
knowing that a big name star won't die until the final reel or at all.
Everyone is expendable, and we do not know who will get it next. This
is one of the main reasons why "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was so
effective. As a matter of fact, these two films have a lot in common
with one another. They are both much more "Psycho" than "Friday the
13th."
As I write this, it is the day after Halloween. I watched "28 Days
Later" on DVD last night, and I realized the same problem I noticed
when I first saw it in theaters: the ending is very happy and corny.
Now, I'm all for a nice ending, but when a film touches on the
post-apocalyptic brilliance of George Romero and Alfred Hitchcock, the
ending must keep the same style. The ending here is just stupid. The
DVD promises three new endings, but none of them are that good. I can
see why: there is no way any ending can live up to the brilliance of
the rest of the film. This is an A- instead of and A only because of
the ending.
The best horror film in years, though. |
| |
|
© Written by Jacob Hall -
Email
Me! |
TC Candler's Comment
The first
three-quarters of the film are simply brilliant,
but it does tend to drift into familiar
territory in the final act. Still, this
was a highly original and entertaining zombie
thriller... Well worth a look!
Richard Propes' Comment
Danny
Boyle is rapidly becoming one of my favorite
directors. It's not so much that I find all his
films brilliant, but I admire his willingness to
take chances, cross genres and try the unknown.
It works brilliantly here.
|
