If you want ANY advice from me, save a couple bucks and a coupla hours by skipping 28 Days Later. I bugged my dad for MONTHS to let me see it......what a let down, It was a piecve of shit. Boring as hell, almost the same plot as NotLD, changed just enough to be legal and not a remake, Zombies that arent even Zombies......God I hated it....

LOL...Nice...Thanks for the warning :)

hehe...sorry rayne:D ..hey I haven't heard about Dog Soldiers...can anyone tell me what it's about?

i will take this opportunity to completely disagree with the penguin. 28 Days Later is similar to NOTLD because it is post apocalyptic, and has mindless people trying to kill. Other than that, it is like night and day.

Boring isvery subjective. I absolutely loved it. There is more action than most "zombie" flicks (although it isnt REALLY a zombie flick). It is unique. I would definately say it is worth a look at the very least to form your own opinion.

I have seen too many people say it sucked and was boring, but i have yet to hear a single reason as to why.

A group of soldiers in the UK are out on a training mission, only to end up holed up in ahouse, surrounded by werewolves. I dont want to get into any more details, but i will say that it is easily one of the best werewolf flicks around. Whink werewolfs meet the movie Aliens as far as tension and action, not to mention paranoia. It is great.

Always best to decide for oneself...Got it...Thanks;) :)

Reasons Why:

Many people say the scene where Jim walks out of the hospital into an empty London is Creepy. And It might have been, if it wasnt so damn long. A guy walking through an unpopuated city gets tiresome after awhile.

The ending was pretty bad. Could have been worse I guess, but If you look at the alternates on thhe DVD, you'll se it could also be better.

And as for "more action than most zombie movies"......When? Was the disc I rented defective? Cause I dont remember much action.....

Dont get me wrong, it had its moments. But they were few and far between, but of course thats just my opinion. I agree with Vod, in the respect that you probably should see it, if only to form an opinion of your own. But dont say I didnt warn you.

Funny thing is, i think the alternat endings sucked. The way they left it was good. Jim was to good a character to allow the alternates to happen.

The beginning is kind of subject to your attention span. Mine is incredibly short, but it worked for me.

Thanks for atcually answering me, though. :)

No prob. And I agree, one of the alternates was pretty crappy......bad to worse, IMO, but the one that was only a story board.....IMO that might just have saved the movie.

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.