April 28, 2008

28 Days Later (2002)

3/5

Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later effectively merges the zombie horror movie with the post-apocalyptic survival movie. There are scenes that make you jump and feel sick. But there are also scenes that make you think and allow for thoughtful discussion afterwards. While I think there are movies that tackle both issues better and with more sophistication, this is still a successful endeavor. And it is refreshing to see director Danny Boyle consistently changing the types of projects he takes on with ease, from Trainspotting and Millions to Sunshine and 28 Days Later.

Technically, the movie is a bit mixed. While the cinematography is striking (nearly every shot is set up to be visually appealing), there are little to no establishing shots. For me, it hurt the movie--it couldn't sustain tension as I never knew how close the zombies were. This is also tied in with the editing, which was too rapid-fire for me to tell what was going on. It worked much better in this movie, though, than more traditional action movies like Batman Begins. Despite these problems, the movie used a novel, extremely effective visual style, mixing digital video with Super 8 and 35mm film. Several parts were shot at really high shutter speed, which turned normally blurry movement into crisp but choppy movement. It gives the zombies a disturbing and disorienting quality. And it makes rain look amazing. In my opinion, this style was the most successful and memorable part of the movie.

My biggest complaint is that that movie introduces a cagey scientific explanation for the zombie epidemic: a virus. The problem is that it hints at reality and plausibility, but doesn't come close to satisfying the intellectual curiosity it invited. I don't buy a virus taking over a human in 20 seconds, or jumping species without any mutation time, or degrading mental capacities to inhuman instincts. I am fine with a zombie movie that leaves the mystery of the "zombie" alone, but if it provides an explanation, it better be able to stand up to reasonable scrutiny. Otherwise it just seems incomplete, like a good idea that they didn't bother thinking all the way through. Still, the movie is pretty awesome for a variety of reasons, so I wouldn't dismiss it or tell you not to watch it. It's not hard to recommend, as long as you know what you're getting into.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/