If original "Night of the Living Dead" is the standard in which zombie movies are compared to, 28 Days Later is rated at about 75%. Agree? A little high, perhaps? Should be lower?
Perhaps.
Night of the Living Dead focused on one house with survivors boarding it up against the slow moving flesh eaters. But George Romero had done a great job showing that they are still a threat and seemed unstoppable, depite their obvious weaknesses. Also, though all the survivors were superior in mind and speed over the zombies, their character flaws became their downfall. And that, people, is why this movie is great.
28 Days Later lacked a lot that Night of the Living Dead had. Despite the fact that the "zombies" were faster and more dangerous than the 1968 version. However, what it lacked in substance, it made up in brilliant visual style. An absolutely deserted London had me wondering....HOW DID THEY DO THAT?
28 Days Later\'s theme was also about another human character flaw - lust. It tries to follow the same fate as Night, but failed miserably. The army wanted women. And the man with them, just wouldn\'t let that happen. So they fight. And that, my friends, is their down fall. Booo!
Though Night of the Living Dead had a trajic ending, 28 Days Later, however, ended on a more hopeful note. The remaining three characters survive and the Rage infected people are starving to death. The ending seems so contrived and a little shallow. Also something I noticed missing from the movie was a good musical score to help with the lack of suspense.
