28 Days Later (2002) - 7/10

I guess this will end up being the first 'double feature' type of entry since I was trying to get caught up on the '28 series' before its latest installment hits theaters. It feels like a bit of a wasted effort since these are largely stand alone films with really just the central concept being what ties them together. Nevertheless, it was a good exercise to go back in time a bit and revisit the surprise horror/zombie hits from the early 2000s. It's also interesting to see just how stacked the film was in terms of talent. The cast included current/future stars like Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Christopher Eccleston, and Brendan Gleeson. Then, behind the scenes we also get a team up of Danny Boyle and Alex Garland as a potent writer/director due. In that way this film is like a fun little time capsule because getting that level of talent together inside an $8 million budget would be a tall order today. But anyway, let's jump in and see how this film holds up.  

1. Acting 

I already mentioned the very talented cast involved in making this film and this was a good preview for some of them in terms of capability. With that said, the acting isn't really that focus of this movie. There are some more interesting moments in the film where they get a chance to explore the characters, but the plot isn't really there to serve the acting. 

For some more specific notes, I think casting Cillian Murphy was a very smart choice. Cillian seems to just have a special quality in his acting that allows for characters to be both charming/likable while also having a darker side. Jim's arc requires starting from a place of naivete since the world has a gone to shit since he has been in a coma. However, as the film progresses we get hints that Jim may actually be fairly well suited for surviving this situation. In particular I think about the scene were he unnecessarily goes into a restaurant and discovers a teenage zombie. His lack of hesitancy in that moment sets up some even darker moves that he has to make as the film draws towards its third act. He also does all of this while keeping Jim likable and even allowing for some romanticism with Selena seem believable. 

Similar to Murphy, Naomie Harris was a young and relatively unknown actor at the time. In this film, she can't quite go toe-to-toe with Murphy, but provides a mostly serviceable performance. I think my perceived negatives in her performance are either script related or it's just a case of actor not perfectly matching character. 

As for the veteran's of the cast, Eccleston and Gleeson give strong performances. In particular, I always get excited seeing Brendan Gleeson show up in a film. He is just so effortlessly compelling and he has a great range for both comedic and dramatic moments. Here, he mostly provides an emotional weight that the film is otherwise lacking and his somewhat 'aw shucks' paternal presence is endearing. 

Lastly, rounding out the central unit of characters is Megan Burns who plays Gleeson's onscreen daughter. As Hannah, she is a young actress thrust into one of her first big roles. And if that sounds like a tee up for some negative criticism... it is. Burns feels quite out of place in terms of her performance and it was even unintentionally comedic at times. I'm writing a blog that no one reads, so I'm quite certain I would fare no better. However, some of her moments stick out like a sore thumb which hurts the movie. This is especially noticeable in the third act when she has to act stoned and it's just... not good. 

 2. Cinematography 

28 Days Later is an interesting film visually. The images are incredibly grainy and low resolution leading some to assume (somewhat flippantly) that they shot on a flip phone camera. However, the reasons are much simpler. Due to the production/budget limitations, the crew needed cameras that were the right combination of cheap, small and maneuverable. They settled on primarily using a Canon XL1 digital video (DV) camera which had a maxed out resolution of about 750x492. If you're not overly familiar with camera resolutions, it really just means that the images had a fairly low ceiling in terms of quality and the loss of definition in visuals was a calculated choice in favor of flexibility while shooting. Nevertheless, the lack of visual fidelity seems to actually fit the film tonally and the raw nature of images matches the grittier elements of the script. So, could the film have looked better? Certainly. Does it still work to a degree? Yes. 

In addition to the visuals, the film also has a chaotic and somewhat experimental hand held style to it. Again, this approach seems to fit well to the narrative, but is maybe not the most refined version. Overall, I think it adds more than it detracts; but I wouldn't consider it my preferred style as a viewer.  

3. Production/Costume Design 

On a relatively small budget, the production and costume design are fairly good. The film makes the apocalyptic nature of the plot feel real and that's really all you can ask for in this case. I also thought the makeup teams did a good job bringing the 'zombies' to life and the wealth of blood did keep the film in this nice little pocket of elevated B-movie aesthetics. 

By far the biggest strength of the movie though, is how the production teams managed to make one of the busiest cities in the world feel completely empty. The workaround was fairly simple - the crews just go up incredibly early and shot on location. They politely asked pedestrians to wait while they were actively shooting, and the set dressers worked incredibly fast to stage the scenes. It's a low budget solution that another film might fork over millions of dollars to do, and the end results still look great.   

4. Writing 

The premise is a fairly familiar one and obviously takes a lot of inspiration from Romero and other zombie-esque features. This film centers on an infection instead, but the relations are still clear. What is somewhat new here is the fast-moving nature of the infected which really amplifies the suspense and violence, as well as a clear willingness to engage in some really dark turns. I had forgotten most of the details since I first watched this film and even as someone who doesn't consider themselves easy to shock, I was surprised in some of the places they went. 

With this in mind, I think one of the strengths of the film is not using those violent and dark moments as a means of delivering pure shock value. The film clearly establishes a level of thoughtfulness and nuance that elevates it above itself. Basically what I mean is that I can easily see a version of this that is much more preoccupied with the violence and being 'dark'. Instead, this film chooses to focus more on character and uses the violence as a means of setting the stakes and altering behaviors. The former is gratuitous, the latter is more cerebral. 

As for the plot, the film manages to create a good balance of rising and falling tension. The scenes may be absent of the living, but there is always a sense of the looming threat of the infected. And although the central premise really just boils down to a small group trying to escape the city and make it to a safe refuge (pretty familiar stuff), what makes it work is taking small breaks to have character moments. Scenes like Selena and Jim taking shelter in Franks apartment, or the scene of the group raiding a barren grocery store, give the characters and the audience a few moments of peace before unleashing violence and terror. Its a good rhythm that some films fail to fully capture. 

Where the plot may suffer a bit is in an important question that horror writers need to ask themselves - are my character behaving in a way that the audience will believe? A very easy way to break immersion for horror audiences is by having your characters do dumb shit like run into the creepy basement instead of going out the front door. And while 28 Days Later doesn't have anything egregious like that, there were some points where I was really questioning things. The most glaring was the choice to not just drive through a very dark and creepy tunnel, but to do so by monster-trucking their way over a bunch of the broken down vehicles. Like, were they really shocked when they inevitably blew a tire during that moment? Or how about Jim just strolling alone into a creepy shop at one point when the only reason they were at that location was to get gasoline which was safely located outside. He even doubles down in that scene after discovering a bunch of dead bodies. Instead of immediately fleeing the shop, he continues pressing further in only to "shockingly" come across an infected. And less a dumb mistake and more a weird amplification of a character - the finale sees Jim suddenly become capable to dismantling a host of armed soldiers without any weapons of his own. The scene is cool and has some interesting visual parallels between man and zombie, but it feels like Jim has morphed into a different character for the sake of wrapping things up.  

5. Sound Design 

The soundtrack is a very eclectic mix of genres that features more than a few styles of rock as well as classical music and electronic tracks. The net result feels a bit disjointed, but still somehow works within the context. In particular the more in your face nature of the tracks pairs well with the up close and violent images of the various action scenes that involve the infected. 

6. Editing 

Yet again, not my favorite style - but it works in context. The kinetic and chaotic cuts pair well with the imagery and hand held shooting style. 

7. Visual Effects 

Any effects work on this film seems to have been accomplished practically. This was likely just a budget choice, but also helps keep the film feeling visceral. Everything that they did seems to sell well on camera, even if it may lean towards its B-movie inspirations. 

8. Originality or Strength of Adaptation 

I think I've discussed most of my feeling on this already so I will just say that this is an elevated version of familiar concepts that manages to do enough right to feel unique.  

9. Stunt Coordination 

I like the ways they chose to bring the infected to life. It may not have been the first film to swap out the slow shambling walk of older zombie movies for an updated and terrifyingly fast moving monster, but it does so very effectively.  

10. Direction 

At this point in his career, Danny Boyle was still making a name for himself and had mostly done small budget independent films. 28 Days Later basically serves as an interesting transition point where he was still honing his craft right before launching on a string of award worthy films like Slumdog Millionaire and 127 Hours. In this film, I think we can see certain hallmarks of his style and an attentiveness to character that continues to serve him well. 

Legacy/Final Thoughts

Zombie and zombie-like movies were historically a more niche part of horror movie history. Romero's run of Living Dead movies in the 60s and 70s were about as mainstream as the sub-genre had managed to get, and even then it was considered more B-movie in nature. Raimi managed to keep the idea alive with The Evil Dead in the 80s, but then zombie movies just sort of died off (with the exception of video games like 1996's Resident Evil). 

When 28 Days Later came out, it may have swapped 'zombies' for 'infected', but it still helped re-animate the dead sub-genre. The 2000's in particular saw a huge rise in zombie related movies including Shaun of the Dead, I Am Legend, Zombieland, and many more. And now, in a post-COVID era, the idea of widespread infection and pandemics has help re-contextualize films like this and reinvigorated audience interest. 

28 Days Later may not hold up in terms of technical execution due to some its limitations, but is has an undeniable legacy that follows it to this day.