Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
I can’t wait to see this. Zombie movie. Danny Boyle. That amazing trailer. I’m there with bells on, man.
Of course, it’s opening in the UK first, so it’s already screening over there, and two readers took the time to write in and share their impressions. Here’s our first look for the day...
Hello,
I saw a preview screening of this movie last week and I'd like to offer you my review. It's out in the U.K on the 1st November (I haven't a clue about U.S release date, sorry!)
The plot is as follows; a virus is accidentally unleashed in the U.K wiping out most of the population save a few survivors. The film focuses on their attempts to come to terms with what has happened and their struggles to stay alive, for the virus is a 'psychological' one that turns those infected into murderous zombies. That can run really fast. How cool?
Firstly this film looked like nothing else I'd seen. I don't know anything about cameras/types of film but if I had to guess I'd say that a large part of this film was shot using hand held cameras with a very low resolution film. This may sound bad to some readers but I swear to God it looks awesome and adds to the atmosphere. The fact that it looks like a documentary makes it even more harrowing, which is really saying something.
The story is very simple, the survivors left in London want to stay together and stay alive. I guess when you've got running zombies you don't really need much more, but I'm being cruel. There is a lot more; a beautifully done impromptu shopping trip, a road trip to Manchester, a 'really fucking bad idea' involving a trip through an underground tunnel, and a rendevous with a platoon of soldiers (believe me when your saviours look like these fuckers you know you've got problems). Oh yes indeed, soldiers with heavy artillery in an enclosed space with something very nasty outside trying to get in. Can you say Aliens?
The acting across the board is awesome with a special mention going to Cillian Murphy who plays Jim, the survivor we 'meet' first. He's an unknown at the moment but expect that to change when people get to see his tour de force performance here. He starts off as a gentle optimist, the audiences guide in this unfamiliar world (Jim, like the audience, misses the devastation of the outbreak, having been in a coma at the start of the film), but undergoes radical changes through the course of the film. There is a marvellous scene near the beginning of the film where Jim goes to his home and finds a note from his parents. The work Murphy does here is awesome and adds a bit of heart to what is otherwise a heartless and brutal film.
Finally there's the disappointing ending which completely gutted me. Note to Danny Boyle; grip your bollocks tighter. Don't get me wrong, you had a super vulcan death grip on those bad boys for most of the film, just not for the last five minutes. It's disappointing because this was nearly a classic, as it is it's still very, very impressive.
I hope this review was alright, it's my first one. To be honest though, no matter what I'd written, if AICN readers aren't excited about seeing a running zombie road movie with soldiers with machine guns, they're reading the wrong web site!
All the best,
Lloydy : )
Good point, Lloydy. And your review was great, mate. Don’t sweat it. Next up is “Filthy Rich,” who’s got some spoilers to tiptoe through, so be warned...
Hi Moriarty,
I've just seen 28 Days Later, the new film by Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, The Beach, but you knew that), in the throbbing metropolitan heartland of Bournemouth, and thought I'd let you know what it's like.
For those that don't know, it's about a zombie film about post-apocalyptic Britain set guess-how-many-days after a rancid, murderous plague called Rage has swept the land, causing the population to evacuate or turn into ravenous undead cannibals. The writer and director in interviews have made much of the point that what they wanted to do was make a zombie film where the zombies are fast, as fast as you or I can hope to be. There's no doubting they've succeeded. The movie opens bloody well, after a sensibly brief prologue about how the plague escaped, on a naked man in a hospital ward, waking up with no-one around him (someone has noted I think how similar this is to Day of the Triffids' opening), then walking out into the street and finding it empty. Boyle and Alex Garland (screenwriter, also wrote The Beach) do the first act extremely well, blending the mysteriously empty London locations, the horror of realisation as he realises what has happened and the subsequent fleeing in panic.
Of course our man, Jim, is rescued by a few other survivors, but I'll try and keep spoilers to a minimum. There are heart-racingly frightening chase sequences at the start with a mix of locations - petrol station, high rise stairwell, and a tunnel under the Thames, all well handled.
What's good and bad? We know Boyle is very capable of making things look good, and pace action. He doesn't appear strained in action sequences, and the periods in between are handled very well too, adding a dreamlike quality to the survivors' periods of rest or travel.
They have to go somewhere, get out of London, that's conventional for this sort of story too - see Triffids (Tryffids?) - and they do so. The film has me at this point, definitely. I want to see where they're going. The editing, cinematography and direction are superb up to this point, ultra-stylish, which fits the material to a tee, even with an amusing line here or there - for instance, as they descend into tunnel, arguing about whether to go down there,
"This is a shit idea. Do you wanna know why? Because it's OBVIOUSLY a shit idea."
A nice post-modern gag, because that's exactly what the audience is thinking as the gloomy tunnel looms ahead.
It was at this point, or slightly before, I realised a problem. Not a problem with the movie, yet, but one which I anticipated. This sort of a film builds promise, sets up an terrifying enemy (fuck me are those things frightening), then gives our characters a chance to regroup, think, plan. But what the audience is thinking, expecting, looking forward to is the Showdown. The point at which our good guys are totally besieged, completely against the odds, the blood-spilling maelstrom to make the opening of the film look tame (Braindead, for instance). It has to escalate, we all know that, and I waited myself in apprehension, knowing that if Boyle and co. can pull this off, it really will be quite something, and if they don't, well, I will be disappointed.
The film shoots through Act two, therefore, and perfectly well, highly watchable, with an actor who reminded me of Brendan Gleeson but who had far too deep, gravelly a South London accent for it to be him (of course it was him, hats off), all the while building tension.
And then comes the mistake. It's a zombie film, and the analysis of a modern or post-modern zombie film is always going to look at how they play the "conventions" of the genre, as tired a phrase as any. One mistake, but here it is: Act One, escape from terrifying zombies. Act Two - get away, find other humans. Act Three: Final gigantic escape from more zombies (and, if you're in the mood, possibly a giant king zombie as well), or horrible final victory for the undead? No.
Act Three: Humans versus humans. They start to fight each other. Christopher Eccleston, always a fine actor, plays a toff soldier. Our heroes must escape his men. No more confrontation with zombies. And of course, his men aren't half as fucking scary as the zombies. There's no escalation, just an escape from his men, then the end. There isn't a satisfying "Hey Dead Head, take a pint of peach" KERBLAAM, zombiebraineverywhere ending.
Now I'll spoil it --- the zombies are got rid of by:
SPOILERSPOILER
starving to death! All of them! How anticlimatic is that?
ENDSPOILEREND
This is a superior piece of entertainment, no doubt. Compared to movies this year that've tried to shock us, Red Dragon and Signs, it beats them by a clear mile. It's influenced without being derivative, it's neither a pointless remake or whatever the hell Signs was, god I hated that film.
It's scary, lightning-fast, very well made (either shot on DV or some very deliberately grainy film stock), not a minute too long. I just felt in the end it didn't live up to its promise (or premise).
Cheers, congratulations on your recent bit of business Mory, The site, as you well know, is bloody good.
PS: Talking about Brit zombie films, look out for Shawn Of The Dead, a movie from the genii what brung us TV series Spaced, next year.
If you call me anything,
call me Filthy Rich
I had a long talk recently with Edgar Wright, the guy who directed SPACED, and who is going to direct SHAWN OF THE DEAD, which reunites most of the cast of SPACED and also utilizes some other great talent from recent British comedies. He explained that his upcoming film is going to be a very aggressive mix of humor and horror. He talked about how much he loves AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON. He said that “If DAWN OF THE DEAD is HAMLET, then our film is ROSENCRANTZ & GILDENSTERN ARE DEAD.” I love SPACED. I think it’s a great show, well-written and dense with the funny, and I can’t wait to see what they do with a full-blown genre movie.
And 28 DAYS LATER sounds cool, by the way. Very, very cool.
UPDATED!!!
A few more reviews just rolled in, moments after I posted this, and they're both worth adding because of the included Q&A material. Check this out:
28 DAYS LATER REVIEW + Q & A with Danny Boyle (Director), Andrew MacDonald (Producer), Alex Garland (Writer), Chris Gill (Editor), Cillian Murphy, Naomi Harris & Megan Burns (Cast)
Hey Harry
I too have seen bits & pieces about this new ‘zombie’ film, 28 DAYS LATER, on your website & was overjoyed to see that not only would it be shown at my local British Film Institute cinema in Manchester but there would be a question and answer session afterwards with Alex Garland (writer of both the novel & screenplay of THE BEACH but also scriptwriter for 28 DAYS LATER) & director Danny Boyle. It was a real bonus to see that just about everyone ever involved in the film… EVER! Had turned up (okay, a massive exaggeration, but it seemed like it). I’m writing to add my thoughts because I haven’t agree with everything that has been written so far regarding last night, so have seen little mention of the Q & A.
Just to let you know where my mind was at the time of going to see the film (because so many people do on this site & I enjoy reading it). I was REALLY tired after a busy week. The night before I had seen an awesome 25 piece band called THE POLYPHONIC SPREE from Texas(!), which was my 2nd gig this week, & I had been prepping & filming a project for my final year. So as much as I was looking forward to this event, I wasn’t sure I was ready for a British zombie movie. However, I am a big fan of Danny Boyle’s work – I could wax lyrical about how wonderfully fantastic TRAINSPOTTING is for years - & posters have been popping up all around Manchester for 28 DAYS LATER with the tag-line ‘THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH’ so I knew it was a film with balls… BIG balls.
Okay, so on with the review. I’ll try not to give away any spoilers because it’s being done by Fox Searchlight so I’m sure it’ll be hitting American Shores soon & hopefully not treat the same way as DOG SOLDIERS. The first thing we know is a group of animal activists break into a laboratory to release a load of monkeys that have been experimented on. The scientist tries to stop them & tells them the monkies are infected with a virus called ‘Rage’. Of course he’s ignored & they release a chimp anyway only for it to attack the very first person it sees and violently savages her. She is then infected with Rage.
Now my fear from seeing the first trailer was that they had given too much away – they had shown just about EVERYTHING that had happened over that 28 day period, & the film IS called 28 DAYS LATER after all. Do not worry! The only things we find out about the intervening 28 days is through newspaper clippings & people recanting stories. You see, our hero is a young man called Jim. He wakes up from a coma naked in an empty hospital to find everywhere deserted, and I mean EVERYWHERE. There are some utterly fantastic shots of a completely deserted London as he staggers around in hospital scrubs trying to find people. Here he comes across a hard-ass survivor called Selena & discovers that the virus had spread rapidly throughout Britain in 28 days. The Rage virus is spread through blood & infects people within 20 seconds, turning them from lovely caring darlings to blood hungry zombies (though they are never refered to as zombies, only as the Infected). In London they meet up with middle-aged taxi driver Frank, & his young daughter Hannah.
Using a clock work radio, they pick up a recorded message from 27 miles north of Manchester (which got a giggle) from the military saying that they have set up a blockade & asking people to join them. This kicks of the second act as the group travel from London to Manchester to see if the blockade exists. Now I don’t want to give too much away & so won’t tell you what happens in the 3rd act because that is the film’s strongest & most enjoyable part. What I will say is that the scene of Manchester on fire looked brilliant, & everyone makes it.
So the good points: well the acting is absolutely first rate from EVERYONE without exception. Special mention must go to Cillian Murphy as Jim, Naomi Harris as Selena & Christopher Eccleston as Henry (a fantastic 3rd act character). The shots of Jim staggering deluded around a deserted London are utterly awesome. The zombies are FANTASTIC – this film totally blows away the zombies of old, I mean, these bastards RUN!!! There is a great use of modern songs & hymns on the sound track, and finally the 3rd act will blow you away.
The bad? Well, it takes a while for the film to get going. The first twenty minutes or so were slow & the exposition felt a bit forced. There are elements of humour involved, but is occasionally hit-and-miss. And the last 2 minutes felt too tacked on & Hollywood-ised. Oh, & for my money I would have liked a few more zombies. The thing is thought, I felt this film wasn’t really about zombies. This film is more about the human condition – what lengths will we go to to survive, what would we resort to when there are no rules left, & how far removed are we from those infected with rage.
As to whether I enjoyed it? Well, after a slowish first act this film soon kicks major ass, MAJOR ASS! This is by far & away the best zombie film since Night of the Living Dead. The good points far outweighs the bad, & I am definitely going to see it again… I just wished there were more zombies. Oh, & I’m looking forward to the alternative endings on the DVD.
Oh, one more thing before I move onto the Q & A. I read 1 persons ‘spoiler’ about the zombies starving to death. Let me just say that this is NOT the crux of the film. This has little to do with how the film ends & is only briefly mentioned.
So for the question & answer session many different aspects of film making were mentioned & I'll try to attribute them all to the right people.
Firstly, is was Megan Burn’s (Hannah) first time of seeing the film & when asked what she thought she initially hesitated & then said that she liked it but thought people might have been expecting & wanting more zombies.
The team (Boyle, Garland & MacDonald) told us they had that they had a book of rules for the film about zombies collected from other zombie sources.
Garland said that this film extended from a love & respect of the Romero films as well as work by J.G.Ballard, Dario Argento & David Cronenburg. He said that he’s had an idea about zombies being able to run for years & always felt that he could escape zombies in the past by ‘walking at a brisk pace’.
3 different ending were filmed & argued about & it was hinted at that these will end up on the DVD.
Danny Boyle said that his inspiration drew from primarily 3 sources: How rage overtakes society more & more, & how it can control people in a split second (air rage, road rage etc; a book called The Hot Spot (which he said was VERY scary & is about the ebola virus); & the rabies.
The film was filmed on Canon MiniDV (which I myself had been filming yesterday). This was because it kept the budget down, and was more personal especially for the scenes around a deserted London. Boyle said that he liked it because If Jim had found one in the hospital he could easily pick it up and use it. He all thinks this is the first ‘mainstream’ film to use MiniDV & thinks that in 20 years time most films would be using it.
It was edited with music by God Speed You Black Emporer in mind.
It is not the end of the Trainspotting team! John Hodge’s had some input in the development into 28 DAYS LATER & is currently looking at Porno (book by Irvin Welsh) To see if it can be adapted into ‘Trainspotting 2’.
So there we are. Hope this is of some interest to you. Carry on the good work!
Oh, and you can call me Test Specimen A.
Cheers!
And here's another event where Boyle and Garland showed up with the movie!!
On monday night I had the luck of attending a press screening of 28 days later at Glasgows Renfrew Street UGC which was attended not only by Danny Boyle, but also Alex Garland and Cillian Murphy. As these reviews go into detail about the plot and acting I won't review the film, just clear up a few points that were mentioned at the post-screening q&a.
They are not zombies, but victims infected with rage. Garland embellished on where the film was coming from in that it is not meant to fall into the zombie genre, but establish a new, similar genre in touch with todays issues - zombies are a "70's thing", related to the effects of nuclear fallout etc. the spreading of a genetically created virus is very relevant in todays society.
The film was shot on dv, not just for the look though that was the main incentive, but also for budget reasons - if 35mm had been used then Boyle claimed it would have meant he would have been sitting there not with Cilian Murphy but someone like Ben Affleck - the production team didn't want The Beach to happen all over again!
The ending was referred to by one of the audience members as a "Hollywood" ending, to which Boyle replied, in my opinion fairly that it would have been too much for the audience if they were taken through a journey as intense as 28 days later is only for it to end with characters who you actually care for being fucked - literally as the case may be!
Alex Garland confrimed the premise was not meant to be intellectually challenging but all they were trying to do was tell a story - something they succeeded on in every way. The soldiers are included thematically, not just because they were the easiest option, who cares if it is slightly cliched?
More was spoken about, mainly Porno - the sequel to Trainspotting, about which talks are in progress but they would need six certain actors to take a considerable paycut.
Ultimately, this film was exhilirating from beginning to end, one of the most genuinly terrifying films you will see...ever. My friends and I who study film at Glasgow University came out contemplating 28 days later position in British film history - perhaps its greatest ever achievement was our conclusion. You guys have to check this out, think the dawnn of the dead trilogy but infinately more in your face and terrifying - my adrenalin was pumping hours later...scary
call me The Brain
Thanks, guys. Great stuff. I genuinely can't wait to get a peek.
"Moriarty" out.
