Movie Reviews: “28 Days Later”
All of the reviews I looked at gave decent summaries of the movie, in that they weren’t too specific but they gave you a good idea of what was the main sequence of events. A consensus I noticed was praise of the cinematography in the movie’s beginning, while the main character wanders through a deserted London. The digital recording of the movie was also praised, as was director Danny Boyle in most cases. However, harsher critics compared “28 Days Later” to other movies directed by Boyle, such as “Trainspotting”, with “28″ being cast in the less favorable light. People praised cast selections for not being main stream, which “added to the eeriness of the picture”. However, Cillian Murphy was criticized for having his final personality change during the climax seem unbelievable and poorly led up to. Also, the movie’s ending has been panned for being too sentimental.
As a fan of the movie, I say that “28 Days Later”‘s shortcomings are surpassed by far with it’s pros: a refreshing twist on an old concept, with well played characters and an overall impressive package (music, script, cinematography).
May 14, 2009 @ 12:39 am
Though I will agree with the nitpickers that the script has holes large enough to engulf Delaware (starting with how skeletal Jim managed to survive for something like a month on empty IV bags), I support the “sentimental” ending: C’mon, folks, some THIRTY-EIGHT MILLION PEOPLE ARE DEAD BECAUSE OF THAT PLAGUE, and you’re gonna begrudge a few survivors?!? Sure, shooting Jim in the stomach is simply ridiculous (at that range, the slug would have gone right through wafer-thin Cillian Murphy and hit Naomie Harris), but the body count is high enough, thanks.