after seeing 28 days later, i fail to understand the hype and positive review given to it. the premise of a zombie movie has always been bad compared to the many other monsters and undead available. they're decaying stiffs who reach a top speed of 1 metre per hour and have no intellect or special abilities to make up for it. the only way they seemingly get anything killed is waiting in a closet for days on end for someone to be stupid enough to hide in there with them. even then the person has a pretty good chance of just walking out again since the damn things are so slow.

so in answer to that, the directors made the zombies faster. does it make it scarier? nah, not really. why? well, because they're still crap. one thing thats always bugged me, especially with this film, is why the military and police are so overwhelmed by decaying flesh. if a bunch of british commandos were able to fend off those thigns for 28 days, and subsequently be wiped out by one guy who has had no military training whatsoever, why is it so hard for even better armed soldiers with even bigger guns to keep the damn things at bay?

the start of the movie was excellent. the emptied london sets an eerie backdrop, though the fact that there are no bodies or anything at all around makes little sense. the message of the end of the world is nigh put my expectations pretty high, and it was definitely creepy. and thats about all the good thins i can think of. the countryside scene made the isolation thing a bit more into perspective.

now to the bad parts. besides the zombie, (whos uselssness is reinforced by the fact that some buy in a riot suit managed to beat them to death) there was the confusion of what actually happened. did other countries become infected as well? they said america and other places were infected but then we see a jet fly over them at the end and some speech about london being quartenined? if this is true, why say that other countries were under attack?

the whole thing about the real monsters being the soldiers who were meant to save them irritated me a lot, but i cant figure out why. maybe because it seemed hackney and tacky. as mentioned before, the protagonist manages to wipe them all out, in an incredibly unbelievable fashion. he had a gun, why not shoot them with it at least? why go about doing all this fancy stuff like stalking them when it would ahve being easier to simply pull the trigger? the sort of thing he was doing felt unbelieveable by an alleged ordinary guy trying to survive.

i think why most people rant on about it is that they dont want to say its bad, because its more effort then it seems to be worth. theres nothing severely wrong with it, and it certainly will appeal to the right audience, but thats like any film. i dont consider this a classic in any sense, or would recommend it outright. it just seems poor. this may be due to me personally, but i fail to pick up any horror or such. there was no bone chilling moment or suspense. there seemed no inspiration or ingenuity. i will happily debate this with anyone if any are willing but personally, most people simply dont seem to raise justifiable points on why the movie is good or even decent. that i walked out wanting my time back definitely does not rate well for the film.