28 Days Later (2003)
| Release Date: | November 1, 2002 June 27, 2003 |
| On DVD: | October 21, 2003 |
| Genre: | Horror |
| Director: | Danny Boyle |
| Writer: | Alex Garland |
| Cast: | Christopher Eccleston, Brendan Gleeson, Megan Burns, Naomi Harris, Cillian Murphy |
| Studio: | Fox Searchlight Pictures |
| Official site: | 28dayslaterthemovie.com |
| Running Time: | 112 minutes |
| MPAA Rating: | Rated R for strong violence and gore, language and nudity. |
A virus that locks those infected into a permanent state of killing rage, is accidentally released from a British research facility. Carried by animals and humans, the virus is impossible to contain, and spreads across the entire planet. Twenty-eight days later, a small group of survivors are trapped in London, caught in a desperate struggle to protect themselves from the infected. As they attempt to salvage a future from the apocalypse, they find that their...
Full synopsis »
Movie Review
A year ago, Resident Evil apparently rejuvenated the zombie genre with a slick and exciting presentation that starred Milla Jovovich in a very sexy red dress. This time around, there's no heroine running around in revealing clothing, but 28 Days Later offers a different kind of zombie film that proves that much smaller budgets can still deliver. Full movie review »
Movie Photos
Comments
No HTML. Be kind - your mom might read what you say.
|
Home |
Movies |
Movie Reviews |
Blog |
Media |
DVD |
Contests |
Links |
About Us |
Contact Us Movie reviews © 2003-2009 Erik Samdahl. All other content © of its respected owner. Read our Privacy Policy |




Anonymous says:
July 17, 2005when i saw the movie it wasnt really different. i mean whats with all the zombie movies coming out its getting old sum1 has 2 make a creepy scarey one soon.
eve633020@yahoo.com
eve633020@hotmail.com
eve633020-aim
Anonymous says:
June 14, 2004I truly thought that this movie was supposed to be one of the scariest movies of the year, when what I thought that it was most likely the worst horror movie of the entire year. I wasn't even once at the edge of my seat. Most likely the only reason that I did give this movie a C is because of the well thought out story and interesting characters. So if you're up for a scare, then don't see this movie unless you just want to see a movie that might be the least bit interesting, then go and see this one.
Anonymous says:
March 19, 2004Having lived in London for 2 years, it was really strange to see all those familiar and normally crowded areas deserted for as far as the eye can see. Very unreal, very impressive!
Anonymous says:
January 31, 2004Of all the zombie films i've seen this is the best! It's got a great story,great scenes, and lots of gory zombies! But there is one thing I don't get about the film when Jim is walking around the city alone...where are all the infected? I don't get it theres millions of people in Britin and everyone (except a few people) is infected. But overall this has got to be one of my favourite flims ever!!!
Anonymous says:
January 29, 2004Isn't there any movie producer in Hollywood or wherever, that can make an excellent zombie movie like the movies George Romero use to make? The Zombie trilogy that Romero made was excellent! I can't believe he is the only person on the whole planet that can make an excellent Zombie movie!