|
I personally thought "28 Days Later" was great ... even though the "infected" aren't really zombies. But aren't producers allowed to make a non-zombie film on occasion? I thought it was refreshing, in that respect. The baddies were creepy, particularly in the early church scene.
I often wonder how people rate a horror movie. It seems to me that many people think a horror film is great if it has lots of gore and witty dialogue, regardless of the acting or the story. 28 Days Later is a case in point. I went with a few friends who didn't like it because it didn't "live up to their expectations": a splatter-fest. Even though the acting was top-notch, the cinematography was disturbing (a deserted London? talk about ambience), and the story was timely and satisfying. The scares weren't so much with the zombies, the "infected", but with the soldiers who offer sanctuary. The real horror here is the way people treat other people, not the make-believe monsters. And horror that is real is almost always more disturbing.
|