That Boyle implements atmosphere as heavily as he does with the action/chase scenes gives an indication of his dedication to the detail. Indeed, this is what the infected have in Britain, when a monkey virus gets let loose on the Island, and from the beginning of the infectious spread the film cuts to a man, Jim, lying in a hospital bed, who wanders abandoned streets and views torn fragments of society in front of him. What does Boyle and his team set out to do to freshen up the zombie string? By making not in precise terms a "zombie" movie- you never hear "living-dead" uttered in this film, although you do hear "infected" and a new word for what these people have, "rage". So, they've done what is essential to the success of 28 Days Later- they take ideas that have been in practice for many years, turn them fresh, and as the audience we feel repelled, excited, terrified, nauseous (perhaps), and enthralled, but we won't leave feeling like we've seen complete hack work. Director Danny Boyle and author Alex Garland know that if they were to cook up a yarn all too similar to Romero it wouldn't be satisfying. While many consider Romero to be on any given list one of the greatest horror directors (I included), it is important to know that he too had his sources for his little independent film in 1968, and after that was when he really got inventive, resulting in a masterpiece and a lackluster. Romero did that back in prime 60s and 70s era of film-making, bringing forth one of the most memorable trilogies of all time for the genre. The key to keeping the sci-fi horror genre alive in the cinemas, as of late, is to make sure the material and techniques the filmmakers present is at least competent, at it's average creative, and at it's best something that we haven't seen before or haven't seen in such a style or form.
Oh, did I mention Cillian Murphy was awesome?
Every person, even the harshest critic of zombie horror movies should watch this.
That makes it a 'serious' film, not a flick. Because the virus we talk about is simply used as a metaphor.
#Can i watch 28 weeks later without watching 28 days later movie
The greatest achievement of this movie is to make one viewer stay neutral throughout the film, without taking any side in the first place. But that couldn't weaken the otherwise tight-gripping storyline. There are mistakes and loopholes in this movie. We found out there's much else to show than just electrifying action or gore to describe the picture of life in this condition that these movies talk about. Consider that empty London scene with that background music. But here there's always a tinge of sadness, emptyness, helplessness. The others focus too much on extensive, special-effects-controlled, gory action sequences between infected and normals, with heavy background music. Sounds familiar? Then what makes "28 Days Later." a classic among a horde of zombie/biohazard movies? Simply a touch of art that Danny Boyle is able to bring what others could not. Civilization came to a halt, society got destroyed while those limited survivors fight for existence among frequent attack by the vicious victims. Within 28 days one outbreak in London caused entire Britain dead or evacuated leaving behind a blood-thirsty infected population and a handful of solitary normal persons. This film is about a virus, 'Rage' virus that makes the infected person mad with extreme rage and hungry for blood.