28 Days Later

The zombie movie is an old genre. In order to make a mark on the genre, you either have to make the film self-degrading and campy (the Evil Dead trilogy), or fill it with strong directing, writing, and acting - the exact opposite of an Evil Dead-type flick. And, while 28 Days Later certainly doesn't tread any new ground, it satisfies these requirements admirably. The non-campy ones, I mean.

28 Days Later is set at an undefined point in the future, in which much of mankind (well, England, at least; how much of the world that has been eliminated is left unexplained) has been wiped out by a strange virus known as Rage. The movie opens with a short prologue showing how Rage was spread to the human population (a group of animal rights activists releases some contaminated chimps). It then cuts to 28 days after the incident, and we find ourselves in an empty hospital. Well, empty except for one man. This man, Jim, wakes up from what is apparently a coma and finds himself alone. Jim (Cillian Murphy) stumbles out of the hospital and finds that London is just as empty as the hospital. Soon, he is attacked by an infected, a red-eyed monster with no desire other than to kill. He is rescued by two survivors, Selena (Naomie Harris) and Mark (Noah Huntley), who quickly explain the situation and take Jim into their group. Sonn, they join up with Frank (Brendan Gleeson) and his daughter Hannah (Megan Burns). The new group sets off to find a surviving military group, led by Major Henry West (Christopher Eccleston), whose radio broadcast claims they have a cure for Rage.

Director Danny Boyle (Trainspotting), rebounding from the debacle that was The Beach, has crafted an intricate, tightly paced horror movie. And what starts out as a straight-forward zombie flick (with a little bit of road trip thrown in), later turns into an insightful look into human nature, and how we would react to this kind of situation. The characters are realistically developed, and all have a reason to act the way they do. And while the script occasionally makes a few stumbles with intelligence, it doesn't hurt the movie in the least. We're not here for a brilliant screenplay, we're here for thrills.

Which 28 Days Later certainly brings. It's never terrifying, but it is often creepy. One scene in particular, in which the heroes rush to change a ruined tire while the infected rush towards the car, provides more tension than any other movie yet this year. The atmosphere, inhanced by the digital film used by Boyle (used for it's cheapness as much as for artistic reasons), is bleak and depressing for all but the final fifteen minutes of the film.

The acting, by mainly unknown (at least in North America) British actors, is uncharacteristically strong for this type of movie. Each individual performance is effective, but the performances' real strength is the way the actors work as an ensemble. And because each actor is relatively unknown (or a character actor), we never are afraid because a famous movie star is going to die, we're worried because a fully developed individual is in danger.

While leaving the theater, I overheard two groups of people talking about the movie. One person in the first group said, "Josh said this movie sucked," which recieved this response: "Well, Josh is a moron." The other group was less enthuiastic: "They said this movie was good." While I'm not sure what public response to 28 Days Later will be, I know who I agree with: Josh is a moron.

© 2003 Matt Noller