Review of 28 Days Later (2002) by Jasoncdaniels — 16 Nov 2015

This was a fun, novel, entry into the oft maligned horror subgenre of "zombie films." This movie grips the viewer from the start with a scene showing how the Rage virus (virus responsible for the zombies) gets loose, and then proceeds to show us Jim, the protagonist, as he wakes in a hospital after the apparent fall of civilization and his struggles to survive in this harsh setting. It attempts to answer the questions of how might a variety of people survive? Just how ugly could survivor camps get in just 28 days after the fall? And what hope, if any, might there be in this situation?

The story lets the viewer develop attachments to characters and delivers some heart-ache along the way, which adds to the story and tension. (more if you watch the directors cut) It does suffer from logical inconsistencies at times, even given the rules previously set out by the story, sometimes breaking suspension of disbelief. These missteps are largely forgivable due to good acting, good special effects, a fun and largely plausible story -- given the implausible (zombie) premise -- topped off with great directing and good camera work.

This movie is definitely worth watching if you like horror films that are more than just splatter-punk/torture films. If you don't, give this movie a pass you likely won't enjoy it. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie despite some of the rough patches. It's a solid 7 of 10.

----------------------------.

Notes on the subgenre.

----------------------------.

Why is it a zombie film?

1. It's a "zombie film" for this reason alone: It's a movie in which people become mindless, relatively immune to damage, pain...etc. and arguably cannibalistic and violent toward regular humans after getting exposed intimately to the already afflicted (bite, blood, other bodily fluids). The mechanism of becoming a zombie (fungi, virus, voodoo, radiation, god/magic/chemicals/unknown forces raising bodies from the dead) is secondary.

2. As a result: this movie checks the main boxes for the present day popular concept of the term "zombie." That's all it needs for inclusion into the subgenre of "zombie fiction.".

3. And while one could make the argument that these aren't zombies in the so-called proper "raised from the dead" sense, one would miss the fact that the origin of the term is from voodoo, and those zombies don't die before becoming mindless, and are largely passive and obedient slaves to the Bocor who made them.

4. For a historical frame of reference Voodoo legends, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Herbert West: Reanimator by H.P. Lovecraft (short story), The Book of Revelations from The Bible ...etc. all give very different accounts of what these creatures we now, largely, classify as zombies are like. Some of it is very unlike and more far more nuanced than current popular zombie fiction. This means people can usually find and cherry pick historical items that support their own belief that some certain work isn't in fact about zombies.

5. Such is the way of definitional pedantry. Anyone with sufficient knowledge on the history of a subject, and a very strong opinion can do it, instead of actually paying attention to all of the facts on how a term has changed through time, and what it means today.