It was a decent movie, but you can't really put it in the "living dead" or "zombie" categorie since as someone said they were 'infected'. For all we know the infected were not actually dead just literally infected. Being infected with something usually means what? That you are still alive. In this case the "virus" (or whatever you want to call it) gave the host a zombie like appearance and drove them mad, but that is why the virus was called "rage" as they called it in the movie at the beginning.

All in all it was a decent movie. The thing I really didnt like was once they came up on the military guys. That was just a really stupid idea.

But oh well, at least they didnt try to add humor to the movie by getting one of the infected to give us all the finger.

first post here, hi

thought 28 days was a despearately poor movie. i think it speaks volumes for modern horror that so many 'horror fans' liked it. it was a mish-mash of day/dawn of the dead (moreso the former with the over-done army angle) and the truly awful 'city of the walking dead' (http://www.badmovies.org/movies/citydead/citydead1.jpg) from which i believe 28 days culled the idea of the fast-moving, weapon-toting, uber-aggressive 'zombie.' i don't think it's necessary to quibble over whether 28 days is a zombie flick since it draws so heavily from the above movies

Well, as a "horror fan" I loved this movie...and will continue to defend it. There's nothing wrong with paying homage to the films by Romero. And the writer of 28 Days Later admits that he did that knowingly.

it wasn't even that horrific though, was it? it was eerie enough to begin with (but what apocalyptic zombie movie has a hard time pulling that off?) and then descended rather quickly into hollowood tripe: jumpy scares. 'realistic' camera jiggling. poorly-lit action. happy ending.. all the trademarks of sh*t movies these days. hear you about the romero nods but it's a pity the directors paid more homage to day of the dead rather than his two previous, superior zombie films

p.s. hi again avenger, speaking of romero, how do you feel about the dawn 'remake'? surely there's a thread on here somewhere about that..

One scene made the movie for me. When Selene kills Mark. She wasn't even positive that he was infected. She never even hesitated to give the guy a chance. She butchered him right then and there. And they never said if Mark was infected or not. That was horrific to me.

As for the Dawn remake. There are several threads about it around here. I was pretty hateful when I first heard the news. But after viewing the trailer and remembering that the Night remake was good (I know Romero was involved in that one but still...), I'll give it a chance. Who knows. I'm trying to be open-minded about it.

Um, and how old are you, since your calling us "modern horror fans"?

no no i said 'horror fans' in quotes, meaning, i wouldn't imagine horror fans really liking that movie since it wasn't (although likely avenger00 would disagree) that horrific..

been around since the 70s, thanks for asking? you? and have you got nice boobs? ;)

Horrific to me doesn't necessarily mean horrific to you. That's just my opinion of it. But I am somewhat of a horror fan (;) ) and I loved it.

i believe that you are avenger00, you and that dr. k seem to be a rather freakish pair!