There are a few plot details given here, so if you don't like to be spoiled stay away until you've actually seen the flick.
The zombies are fast.
It’s true that in Danny Boyle’s 2002 film 28 Day’s Later the crazed, flesh eating villains aren’t technically zombies. In fact, Boyle has gone to great lengths to qualify them as humans infected with a virus known as RAGE. Yet, to this reviewer at least, the differences seem moot. In traditional zombie pictures, and in this film the creatures are mindless, they carry a real zeal for human flesh, they have a predilection for turning everyone else into their like, and they are fairly easy to kill. Whether the creatures are the living dead so to speak, or infected by an incurable virus doesn’t make much of a difference. Though the zombies here, seem updated from their filmatic ancestors.
These zombies are fast.
Traditional zombies are a slow moving lot. Having been rotting in their own graves for untold years, their reanimated flesh is a little atrophied, causing them to move at a slow, sluggish pace. This has always been a helpful plot point for the heroes in zombie films, for they are easy to run away from. In fact, the means by which zombies generally kill their victims is through sheer numbers. Boyle has circumvented this convenience by allowing his monsters to run at normal human speeds. It is an excellent update to the genre, giving the ability for more scares.
Man, I dug the first half of this movie. Well, except for the very, very beginning. The opening scene gives us the origin of RAGE, with a bunch of Clockwork Orange inspired monkeys. I’ve never really dug origin scenes in zombie flicks. I think it’s much scarier to just have the zombies running around eating brains, without any reason for their existence. Origins, generally, just seem dumb. And here, with the infected monkeys being freed by some Green Peace types doesn’t really inspire any other feelings. Though, I suspect it was another move to plant this film outside the zombie track.
But after the dumb origins scene things get really good. We’ve got a naked guy named Jim (Cillian Murphy) hooked up to various tubes in a hospital bed. I always like it when there is a bit of male nudity in a flick, since there is always so much of the female variety. Anyways, Jim gets out of bed and wanders the streets of London. There are plenty of shots of Jim (fully clothed now) walking by big famous London monuments without another soul around. It seems London has been vacated. It is creepy and effective.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Dawn
I totally disagree with your otherwise good review. This is NOT a zombie flick therefore you can't use the zombie flick criteria. It is much scarier than a zombie flick. The crux of this film is the biohazardous nightmare that awaits us with the next incurable virulent viral outbreak.
This is a sci-fi horror.
These flesh-tearing monsters are all too alive. Mutaneous violence-craving killing machines. What I found striking was the correlation between the hemorrhagic nature of RAGE and today's killer bugs. Like Marburg and Ebola, this virus has some very serious affects on the human body.
The sheer isolation of the lone surviors and their edge of a knife precariousness is the real horror.
At any minute they too could become infected.
As for the para-military group they encounter, I think that was more symbolism into the true nature of man if left with nothing to lose.
They wanted the women (one of which was only 12 or so) and they would become murderous villians to get them.
In the end, the non-infected military group were no better than the virus-infected drones.
2 - Kurt Nordstrom
I always thought that the big ironic theme of the movie was that the humans, who were first seen as saviors, end up to be far more monstrous than the zombies themselves.
Also, for more fast movin' zombies, check out the remake of Dawn of the Dead.
3 - gridbug
Too true, 28DL wasn't a zombie flick. What it was was pretty goddamn scary! It'd been a while since I was that affected by a film, but 28DL worked a number on my nerves and it was fantastic. Brilliant stuff. :)
4 - Eric Olsen
nice job Mat and very scary movie that bothered me more than most for its relative plausibility and balanced view of human nature. I agree with Danw's very fine comment as well - call the movie "zombie-esque"
5 - Mat
Of course they are technically not zombies. Danny Boyle has said many time they are virus infected and not zombies. I said all this at the begining of the post. I just don't buy it.
If you are going to make a movie about a virus, actually include some stuff about the virus in it. Why make it bloodborne? Why not airborne? Or have it exist on the skin so it passes through a touch. Or even have it bloodborne, but make it more like AIDS. It just doesn't make sense to me to say its a virus movie and then have those who are infected act exactly like zombies. So I'll continue to call it a zombie movie.
It is ironic to have the military guys turn out to be nearly as bad as the zombies. I liked the concept and even most of the execution. But tacked on to the end of a zombie movie it seemed a little strained. Like there wasn't enough time to develop that end of the story. Or maybe I was just mad because the zombies left.
All of that isn't to say I didn't like the film. It is quite scary and a very good thriller. But just because I liked it, in fact own it, doesnt mean I don't have some problems with it.
6 - -E
I thought the movie was boring.