28 DAYS LATER
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A modestly budgeted science fiction film
has society being destroyed by a virus that turns
people into violent killers. While some of the
ideas and some of the story seem borrowed from THE
DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS, the film itself seems freshly
nightmarish. Rating: 7 (0 to 10), low +2 (-4 to +4)
When a young George Lucas made AMERICAN GRAFFITI he felt he had a
good sci-fi film in him. A lot of successful artists feel
similarly they want to get back to the roots of their creativity
and do horror or science fiction or perhaps even a comic book
film. Fiction writer Alex Garland has been considered one of the
most promising talents in novel-writing since he published THE
BEACH back in 1997. Danny Boyle directed the jarring
TRAINSPOTTING in 1996. Now the two have gotten together to make a
modest horror film at the edges of the zombie sub-genre. 28 DAYS
LATER has strong echoes of John Wyndham's novel THE DAY OF THE
TRIFFIDS (adapted poorly as a feature film and well as a BBC
television production) and Richard Matheson's short novel I AM
LEGEND (adapted into the films THE LAST MAN ON EARTH and OMEGA
MAN). The film also owes a debt to "The Survivors," a good
British science fiction television series rarely seen in the
United States.
The story of 28 DAYS LATER involves a highly contagious virus that
improbably reduces its victims to ravening killers in just twenty
seconds. Society has fallen apart as the infected victims have
warred on those not yet infected. Consider that the person who
loves you right now can in thirty seconds be mortally determined
to kill you by any means necessary. How do social relationships
change? Do people become afraid to love? Is just staying alive,
as one character suggests, as good as it gets? Can one still
afford to be charitable to strangers? The one and only positive
is that if you are not sure if a person has been infected, in
twenty seconds you will know for sure.
The film opens with animal rights terrorists freeing chimpanzees
that have been infected with the virus. A lab attendant discovers
only a bit too late that much better security was needed to keep
the virus in the lab. Flash forward 28 days later. In a scene
borrowed from the beginning of THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS, a man
comes out of a coma in a London hospital only to find the city
apparently has been deserted. The hospital is in a shambles; the
street is no better. As our confused patient wanders the familiar
streets in his hospital pajamas he can find nobody . . . until the
sun goes down. Then he finds more people than he really wanted.
Eventually he hooks up with some uninfected people, but their
troubles are far from over. Never explained is how a virus could
possibly work to take over a victim's mind in as little as twenty
seconds. It seems to be a contrivance of the premise. Equally
contrived is the fact that those who have been infected seem to
have a homicidal hatred of all those who are not yet infected but
seem to be immune from turning on each other. They even seem to
cooperate with other victims in plotting campaigns against those
not yet infected.
Anthony Dod Mantle's photography stylishly reduces the view of the
world to washes of ghoulish yellows and greens. The rather
artificial technique of reducing the picture to lower rates of
frames per second can be effective, but seems to be overused by
cinematography stylists. Here it is occasionally bothersome.
Still there are some scenes that, while perhaps not really being
frightening, are undeniably effective. One sequence in a tunnel
is certainly disquieting. The final third of the film breaks down
emphasizing more action than horror.
The casting budget has also been kept low with the most familiar
face being that of Irish actor Brendan Gleeson as a family man
caught up in the nightmare madness. Between 28 DAYS LATER and
CABIN FEVER, the latter due to be released in September, this will
be a much better than average year for inventive and disturbing
horror films. I rate 28 DAYS LATER a 7 on the 0 to 10 scale and a
low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Copyright 2003 Mark R. Leeper
==========
X-RAMR-ID: 35200
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 1171037
X-RT-TitleID: 1123236
X-RT-AuthorID: 1309
X-RT-RatingText: 7/10
NOTE: This review was posted on the usenet
to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup.
Mooviees.com accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review.
Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.