28 Days Later (2002) **

I don't understand the love for this film. It has its moments for sure, but few and far between. I've mentioned before, as in my review for Steve Jobs (2015) (which I loved), that Danny Boyle is very hit or miss for me. But 28 Days Later (2002), which I seem to recall liking more when I saw it in the theater and on DVD, is mostly just annoying to me now.

I detest the cheap-looking DV/camcorder look (as much as I couldn't stand it when David Lynch did the same for his 2006 film Inland Empire). The cinematography is poor, the editing is annoyingly fast and confusing, and the action is sloppy. Not to mention, the rate of infection is absurdly rapid in a film that otherwise shoots for realism.

The performances are mostly good and the film works best during its "human" moments. But it's such a rollercoaster of quality—starts off really bad, works okay for a while as an eerie post-apocalyptic movie, gets good when it becomes a road movie, gets mediocre when it becomes a Day Of The Dead (1985) style military vs civilians rip-off, and gets bad again when it devolves into overblown protagonist-becomes-testosterone-fueled-hero trope territory (complete with dramatic lightning storm!).

28 Days Later may have reinvigorated the “zombie” genre, but in this viewer’s opinion it didn’t revolutionize anything and hasn’t aged well. I’ll stick with the classics.

Comments