Saturday, October 1, 2011

31: 28 days later


Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes up in an abandoned hospital after being hit by a truck. He walks through the deserted streets of London. An apocalypse came and went while he was asleep. The world is fundamentally different, and he wasn't there to learn all of the new rules. This is itself a nightmarish concept, but it is only one of the many reasons 28 days later is so memorable.

It's hard to make a zombie movie realistic. There are a lot of things that need to be explained for these films to make sense: How did the zombie infection start? Why couldn't anyone stop it when there were only a few infected? Why should people even be afraid of zombies? After all, they are just slower, stupider versions of regular people.

The answer, it turns out, is to make zombies fast. If you are infected, you have ten seconds to live before you become one of them. Once you've turned, you sprint towards the nearest source of food and they have ten seconds to live. The Zombies in 28 Days Later are so fast that they seem more than capable of causing an apocalypse in under a month.

While this film wasn't the first to have fast moving zombies (that honor goes to Return of the Living Dead in 1985), it was the first movie to have the speed of the zombies be their defining feature. In Return of the Living Dead, the zombies were just normal people who happened to be dead and have an appetite for brains. They moved at a normal human speed because it only made sense for them to. In 28 days later, the sheer speed that a zombie could be upon you was the main reason the film worked.

The film switches rapidly from subdued to action-packed, from brooding to brutal. The zombie attacks are sudden and jarring. The camera will focus on a wide shot with a few survivors moving slowly through the empty streets of a dead city. Then, the film speeds up and zooms in. Zombies seem to come from everywhere (or nowhere), and the camera angles are suddenly claustrophobic. There is no way to run from them, and no good way to fight.

But just like in George Romero's “Dead” films, the true villains aren't the zombies. A military safe house alleges to have the answer to infection, and has an open invitation to survivors. Once survivors arrive, they “answer” is just to hole up and let the infected starve, and meanwhile gather as many females as they can to try to “save humanity”, by force if necessary. The scenes in the mansion are easily the film's most affecting.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this film is how good it turned out even with its small budget. Horror movies are well known for doing a lot with a little, but post apocalyptic films tend to look ridiculous without some real money. This film was shot with a digital video camera, using mostly unknown actors and actresses. But the director, Danny Boyle, uses these things to his advantage. The actors look more gritty, while glossy well-known actors might not have worked as well. The digital video gave the film a rougher look, fitting for the subject matter. This, combined with the great script and solidcharacters, gives the film a great sense of realism. Every dollar of the films budget went on screen, and the result is one of the best horror films of the decade.





Tuesday, September 27, 2011

31 scariest films of the decade:

To celebrate the month of October, I am counting down the best horror films of the decade. Each day in the month of October, I will do a post on a different horror movie. I will see you all Friday, October 1st.