Originally Posted by heyhey
part of the film's charm is that it's not just a straight forward zombie film. It focuses much more on the development of relationship between the core characters. In that aspect it's a lot more nuanced than the Dawn of the Dead remake.
Your critique of the lack of zombie action is probably due to the movie's really small budget. But i thought the scenes in the countryside where the serene and lush landscape was juxtaposed with the zombie infested urban landscape elevates the feeling of dread and isolation.
The movie is more classical horror in that it focuses on atmosphere rather than gore.
Shaun of the dead is funnier tho
I tend to agree with this. Although Hotlanta's points are valid. I think the real value in 28 Days is that it's way more visually interesting than most Zombie flicks. The empty London at the start, particularly the bridge, was some of the eeriest stuff I can think of in recent memory. And the tunnell sequence was handled very interestingly. Boyle's harsh lighting, and really wide overarching shots are all over that movie, and make it different than most horror movies.
However it's fully understandable if you think it was thin in the action department. And I've also got all types of issues with the military compound stuff, even though I get it from the social critique perspective, it just doesn't fit the rest of the feel of the movie.
There is an alternate ending where he dies.
I'm not opposed to either of the other suggestions either. The Dawn of the Dead remake was good. And Shaun is a great movie, even though it's a completely different tone.
I watched The Crazies the other night and really liked some of it, and other times I just wished it would get on with it already.