I should preface this by saying that 28 Days Later is not, strictly, a zombie movie. It does, however, follow most of the film making conventions inherent to zombie movies and does so well enough to warrant a review.
The movie begins in London, England, where an incredibly infectious plague has already destroyed life as we know it. Our hero, who has been in a coma for (get this) 28 days, finds himself in a largely deserted world, inhabited mostly by hordes of people infected with a disease known as "Rage." The disease is spread through bite or blood, and causes those who have it to become incredibly aggressive, attacking anything that moves. Our hero, Jim, and the other survivors he meets up with end up fleeing the city in search of a radio broadcast that claims to have the "answer to infection."
When they find this "answer to infection," however, it comes with it's own set of problems. Yet this new and greater threat does not come from the infected, but from a group of soldiers trying to reestablish civilization.
Unlike many movies of the genre, 28 Days Later asks questions. It makes you wonder if, in such a hellish world, survival is really a goal worth achieving. What's worth living for? And is there a higher meaning to the plague? Or is it just "people killing people."
Yet, despite the rather depressing take on mankind that the movie presents, it leaves you with a sense of hope seldom found in movies of the genre.
Overall, a very satisfying movie. It's one that you will watch many times. 5 Stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment