28 Days Later... 2002

Terry Lawson, Detroit Free Press: If 28 Days Later falls short of classic horror movie status, Boyle pokes the genre with a sharp enough stick to prove it has some nasty life in it yet. Read more

Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald: This smart, genuinely creepy movie also feels real, which is why its horrors hit so hard. Read more

Richard Roeper, Ebert & Roeper: ... really creepy and really scary ... Read more

Michael Wilmington, Chicago Tribune: Despite this unusual setting (contemporary Britain in anarchy) and some good scenes, Boyle's new movie is mostly a zombie fiasco, closer to the vacuities of The Beach than the scintillating social satire of Trainspotting. Read more

Manohla Dargis, Los Angeles Times: 28 Days Later induces the sort of physical reactions that these days are more often incited by the nightly news than the latest monster flick. Read more

Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel: Derivative but horrifically effective. Read more

Steven Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer: Deftly directed by Danny Boyle and scripted by novelist Alex Garland, 28 Days Later is seat-squirming, hands-over-the-eyes stuff. Read more

Christy Lemire, Associated Press: What also makes 28 Days Later effective, and sets it apart from other thrillers, is that it makes you care about the characters. Read more

Moira MacDonald, Seattle Times: It's unpleasant stuff, told without winks or humor, and it's so perfectly pitched that you can't take your eyes off it, even if this sort of hard-edged horror isn't exactly your cup of Diet Coke. Read more

Richard Corliss, TIME Magazine: The movie's craft makes the dread of a killer virus contagious: viewers may feel they have come down with a case of secondhand SARS or sympathetic monkeypox. Read more

A.O. Scott, New York Times: As a parable of human nature under extreme duress, 28 Days Later is never less than interesting. Read more

Megan Lehmann, New York Post: An unsettling and thought-provoking vision of a post-apocalyptic future. Read more

Rex Reed, New York Observer: In the old days, a feverish programmer like 28 Days Later would end up on the bottom half of a double bill. Read more

Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal: Heedlessly derivative though it may be, 28 Days Later does what it sets out to do and then some -- scare us out of our wits, then get us to apply those wits to an uncommonly intelligent and provocative zombie flick. Read more

Eleanor Ringel Gillespie, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: These B-movie thrills in post-apocalyptic England would make George Romero proud. Read more

Nathan Rabin, AV Club: Later does a lot of things right, which makes its third-act missteps even more frustrating. Read more

Ty Burr, Boston Globe: Terrifying on the basic heebie-jeebie level, respectful toward its B-movie forebears, and all the more unnerving for coming out in this fretful era of SARS and germ warfare. Read more

Jonathan Rosenbaum, Chicago Reader: Danny Boyle's purposeful direction and Mark Tildesley's imaginative and resourceful production design keep this fresh and edgy; the images of a wasted London and the details of a paramilitary organization in the countryside are both creepy and persuasive. Read more

Eric Harrison, Houston Chronicle: It's a zombie movie to make you forget how boring and simple-minded monster movies have become or, better yet, to make you remember how good monster movies can be. Read more

Lisa Kennedy, Denver Post: This starkly beautiful, harrowing journey into the worst that can happen opens with video feed images of our unnatural disasters. Read more

Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly: A swankily austere piece of jeepers-creepers sci-fi. Read more

Chris Vognar, Dallas Morning News: For the most part, 28 Days Later is a smart, vivid nightmare with refreshingly unconventional heroes. Read more

John Powers, L.A. Weekly: While 28 Days Later is itself a stylistic tour de force, Boyle recaptures his earlier storytelling briskness and deft touch with actors. Read more

Gene Seymour, Newsday: It's no Night of the Living Dead, but it's almost as scary and just as smart. Read more

Anthony Lane, New Yorker: The picture is twitchy and annoying, flecked with blood and half-digested ideas, and too much is left unexplained. Read more

Peter Rainer, New York Magazine/Vulture: It makes for a more intimate brand of horror, one we can't explain away by pretending we're watching the same old well-oiled Hollywood malarkey. Read more

Stephen Whitty, Newark Star-Ledger: 108 bloody, B-movie minutes you're not likely to soon forget. Read more

Jack Mathews, New York Daily News: The movie's great fun, but don't get any on you. Read more

James Berardinelli, ReelViews: A movie that kept me involved from start to finish. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: A tough, smart, ingenious movie that leads its characters into situations where everything depends on their (and our) understanding of human nature. Read more

Andrew O'Hehir, Salon.com: I enjoyed watching this film, mostly because Murphy and Harris make such an appealing central couple to build a new world around. But nobody should mistake this for a killer-zombie movie with real soul. Read more

Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle: It has eerie images, a compelling situation and an unusual capacity to surprise. Read more

David Edelstein, Slate: The movie is derivative as hell, but it's also blazingly well-made, and it moves at a ferocious clip. Read more

Colin Covert, Minneapolis Star Tribune: A taut, terrifying thriller that will turn you asthmatic with dread. Read more

Rick Groen, Globe and Mail: [Boyle's] back on British turf here and in fine dark form. Read more

Peter Howell, Toronto Star: Director Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland have rebounded smartly from the bloated Leonardo DiCaprio debacle that was The Beach, their previous collaboration. Read more

Tom Charity, Time Out: Danny Boyle has got his edge back. Read more

Claudia Puig, USA Today: An edge-of-your-seat scary movie that startles and chills. Read more

Derek Elley, Variety: A faux-low-budget zombie pic by director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland that shows a rather arrogant disdain for its audience in between occasional flashes of flair. Read more

Michael Atkinson, Village Voice: Because it's cut-rate, star-free ... outlandishly edge-conscious, and 100 percent British, the movie has a frontier charge built in. Read more

Ann Hornaday, Washington Post: Detestable, not just because its action is so vile or its technique so crude, but because its moral imagination is so impoverished. Read more

Desson Thomson, Washington Post: A movie that's creepy and truly suspenseful in some places, unintentionally comic or plain awful in others. Read more