Ok, it's been a few days, but not 28. I'm back with a review for the movie I just used for that horrible pun! Later, along with American Wedding, Bend It Like Beckham and Seabiscuit, you can expect to see a review of Winged Migration. I also may just get out to see Pirates of the Caribbean at some point this week, too. No promises, though. I am a busy man, after all. Ok, enjoy my brief glimpse into the infected eye of...
28 Days Later…
Review by Jon Waterman
***
No, it’s not the sequel to that Sandra Bullock film. Instead, activists release a monkey infected with “Rage”. When the monkey bites a human, they get infected almost instantaneously. They become bloodthirsty killing machines. Even if blood from an infected creature gets into your system, you will turn into a monster, too. A lone man wakes up in a hospital 28 days after the monkey claims its first victim only to find all of London empty. He must join up with the few clean humans remaining and find someway to escape the evil beings and restart civilization.
The movie is shot almost entirely in digital video. Director Danny Boyle (“Trainspotting”) and cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle (veteran of three Dogme films) used lower end digital cameras to create a specific effect. Most films using DV do so to lower costs and not to make a statement. The look and feel of “28 Days Later…” is deliberate and specific and effective. People associate this picture quality to that of consumer camcorders. As such, we watch the film as if we are watching a home movie account of the end of the world: as if some random person picked up a camera and started shooting. However, with the professionalism of Mantle and Boyle in charge, any “Blair Witch”-y camera work is left behind. It’s not meant to be a documentary, but the cameras used give that same voyeuristic feel. By no means should anyone mistake the lesser picture quality as a sign of an amateurish production. The lighting, set design, make-up, acting, etc. will all prove otherwise. The story also provides a big push.
The movie doesn’t try to be a pure horror movie. It takes the situation and goes about it rationally. What would you do if you were abandoned in the city? Where would you go to escape? It doesn’t look for unmotivated chances to startle anyone. There are no fake scares. If you think something bad is going to happen, it will. The goal is not to terrify, but to make you afraid and these are two separate things. It works harder at creating a subconscious fear rather than an overtly obvious assault of the senses.
The film probably won’t scare you. It most likely won’t even gross you out. Along the same vein as “Dog Soldiers,” yet not as hidden to North American audiences, “28 Days Later…” provides an interesting narrative and a much welcome break from the sugary, über-dumb summer blockbusters.
28 Days Later…
Review by Jon Waterman
***
No, it’s not the sequel to that Sandra Bullock film. Instead, activists release a monkey infected with “Rage”. When the monkey bites a human, they get infected almost instantaneously. They become bloodthirsty killing machines. Even if blood from an infected creature gets into your system, you will turn into a monster, too. A lone man wakes up in a hospital 28 days after the monkey claims its first victim only to find all of London empty. He must join up with the few clean humans remaining and find someway to escape the evil beings and restart civilization.
The movie is shot almost entirely in digital video. Director Danny Boyle (“Trainspotting”) and cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle (veteran of three Dogme films) used lower end digital cameras to create a specific effect. Most films using DV do so to lower costs and not to make a statement. The look and feel of “28 Days Later…” is deliberate and specific and effective. People associate this picture quality to that of consumer camcorders. As such, we watch the film as if we are watching a home movie account of the end of the world: as if some random person picked up a camera and started shooting. However, with the professionalism of Mantle and Boyle in charge, any “Blair Witch”-y camera work is left behind. It’s not meant to be a documentary, but the cameras used give that same voyeuristic feel. By no means should anyone mistake the lesser picture quality as a sign of an amateurish production. The lighting, set design, make-up, acting, etc. will all prove otherwise. The story also provides a big push.
The movie doesn’t try to be a pure horror movie. It takes the situation and goes about it rationally. What would you do if you were abandoned in the city? Where would you go to escape? It doesn’t look for unmotivated chances to startle anyone. There are no fake scares. If you think something bad is going to happen, it will. The goal is not to terrify, but to make you afraid and these are two separate things. It works harder at creating a subconscious fear rather than an overtly obvious assault of the senses.
The film probably won’t scare you. It most likely won’t even gross you out. Along the same vein as “Dog Soldiers,” yet not as hidden to North American audiences, “28 Days Later…” provides an interesting narrative and a much welcome break from the sugary, über-dumb summer blockbusters.
<< Home