--- title: "28 Days Later" year: 2002 kind: "film" canonical: "https://film.one/film/28-days-later" fi1m_id: "28-days-later" imdb_id: "tt0289043" tmdb_id: 170 wikidata_id: "Q221075" fi1m_score: 77 critics_score: 68 critics_reviews: 16 published: "2026-09-14" updated: "2026-09-18T08:37:45.909142+00:00" region: "US" licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # 28 Days Later (2002) Directed by Danny Boyle · 1h 53m · MPA R · Horror, Thriller, Science Fiction ## Identity 28 Days Later - **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/28-days-later - **Type:** Film - **Fi1m ID:** 28-days-later - **IMDb ID:** tt0289043 - **TMDB ID:** 170 - **Wikidata ID:** Q221075 - **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/170, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q221075 **Fi1m score: 77** · Critics 68 from 16 reviews *In a sentence:* London is empty, and for once we would rather it were crowded > Danny Boyle’s infection horror is frightening, brisk and attentive to the people trying to survive it. The later bloodshed is overdone, but the deserted London streets justify the trip on their own. ## Synopsis A rage virus spreads through Britain, turning people into violent attackers and leaving London deserted. For those still alive, the danger comes from the infected and from decisions made by other survivors. Cillian Murphy plays Jim, with Naomie Harris as Selena, Brendan Gleeson as Frank and Megan Burns as Hannah. Christopher Eccleston plays Major Henry West. Danny Boyle directs Alex Garland’s story of people trying to stay alive after ordinary life has collapsed. With the streets emptied and violence never far away, questions of trust become as pressing as the search for safety. ## Review *28 Days Later* is a frightening, well-acted horror film whose later excesses cannot quite spoil its opening. Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland start with a fear that needs little explaining: Britain has been devastated by a rage virus, and London is deserted. The infected move fast, but the film earns our attention before they get going. We have time to consider what living in this place would mean. Anthony Dod Mantle’s digital-video photography makes those empty streets look unpleasantly plausible. The roughness suits a city that has lost its inhabitants; a cleaner, more polished image might have made the sight easier to dismiss. Mark Tildesley’s production design helps keep London recognisable, so the emptiness remains disturbing even before we know what might interrupt it. We were frightened by those vacant streets, and by the silence that makes us wait for someone to appear. Chris Gill’s editing makes the shift from stillness to attack properly jarring, and Boyle uses the speed of the infected well. They leave little time for the comfortable business of watching a threat approach and planning an escape. Some of the digital-video action blurs beyond usefulness, however, making violence harder to follow without making it more frightening. John Murphy’s score adds urgency, though the early silence does more to unsettle us. Cillian Murphy gives Jim enough uncertainty to let us share his alarm without tiring of his company. Naomie Harris is persuasive as Selena, and Brendan Gleeson gives Frank a warmth the film needs. Megan Burns’s Hannah helps make this group feel like people with something to lose, and the scenes between attacks benefit from her presence. Christopher Eccleston is particularly assured as Major Henry West, although some of the dialogue around him is less convincing. The cast keep us interested when Garland’s conversations become laboured. Garland’s writing becomes less persuasive when it tries to spell out what the crisis says about human nature. The question of how much decency survives fear belongs in this kind of horror, and the film is right to ask it. But some conversations labour over ideas that the actors have already made clear, slowing a film otherwise good at getting to the point. As the violence grows more extravagant, Boyle also starts to lose the unnerving sense that this could be happening somewhere familiar. Within zombie horror, the speed of these attackers gives a familiar problem a useful new pressure. Across its 113 minutes, the film also makes enough time for the survivors to keep the quieter stretches involving. We recommend it to horror viewers who can tolerate blunt writing and some untidy action in exchange for scares that hold up afterwards. This is one to watch with someone who will sit through the quiet bits without talking. *Fi1m score 77, published 14 September 2026.* ## What the critics say Most critics come down in favour, and the praise gathers around the same things: the digital-video photography of an emptied London, which several reviews call eerie or poetic, the early stretch of near silence, and the fast, vicious infected. Many read it as a parable about human nature under strain rather than a plain zombie picture, and treat that as a strength. Christopher Eccleston’s soldier draws a mention. The retrospective reviews are the warmest, crediting the film with reviving the genre. The reservations cluster on the last act. Even admirers find the final third’s turn into gore and action a letdown after the first hour, and the spread is wide. Three contemporary reviews, Variety, Screen Daily and Eye for Film, dismiss the script as sloppy and the characters thin. The New Yorker finds it short on actual fright. The dissent is concentrated at the time of release; the later reappraisals do not share it. ## Straight answers **Is 28 Days Later worth watching?** *28 Days Later* is worth watching for horror viewers who can put up with some blunt dialogue and untidy action in exchange for scares that last, and we scored it 77. The deserted London streets, shot on rough digital video, are the best thing in it. The later bloodshed is overdone. **How long is 28 Days Later, and what is it rated?** *28 Days Later* runs 1h 53m and is rated R by the MPA in the US. It is a horror and thriller film. **Where can I watch 28 Days Later in the US?** *28 Days Later* is available to rent from Amazon Prime Video from $3.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service. **How violent or frightening is 28 Days Later, and is it suitable for children?** *28 Days Later* is an 18 certificate in the UK and R in the US, and it is not for children. The infected attack fast and the violence grows extravagant in the second half, though some of it blurs beyond usefulness. The quiet stretches of empty London may unsettle adults more than the blood does. **How does 28 Days Later compare to 28 Weeks Later?** *28 Days Later* is the more consistent of the two films, frightening from its first empty street and attentive to the people trying to survive. [*28 Weeks Later*](https://film.one/film/28-weeks-later) opens with the best ten minutes in either film and then struggles to match them, with a plot that asks you to look away twice. Start with the first; the sequel is for those who want more of the same at higher speed. **Do you need to have seen the other 28 Days Later films before 28 Days Later?** *28 Days Later* is the first film in its series and the natural place to begin. It stands entirely alone, following Jim, Selena, Frank and Hannah through a Britain devastated by a rage virus, and nothing in it depends on the later titles. Newcomers need no preparation beyond a tolerance for fast, violent horror. **What should I watch after 28 Days Later?** After *28 Days Later*, try [*Night of the Living Dead*](https://film.one/film/night-of-the-living-dead) (1968, Fi1m 88): For another group discovering that shelter does not settle questions of trust. Then [*Threads*](https://film.one/film/threads) (1984, Fi1m 92): Britain loses its routines, and the ordinary details make the horror harder; and [*Train to Busan*](https://film.one/film/train-to-busan) (2016, Fi1m 84): Fast infected, cramped escape routes and people worth worrying about between attacks. **What order should I watch the 28 Days Later films in?** Release order is the safe choice for 28 Days Later, and it is the order [our collection page](https://film.one/collections/28-days-later) lists them in. *28 Days Later* is the first of the 4 28 Days Later titles on Fi1m; after it [*28 Weeks Later*](https://film.one/film/28-weeks-later). [The full order.](https://film.one/collections/28-days-later.md) ### Reviews we read (16) - **Sight and Sound**, Mark Kermode (90/100, inferred): The critic hails Boyle's return to form with a back-to-basics genre hybrid that delivers pacey entertainment on a modest budget. It singles out the striking use of digital video for its hauntingly poetic vision of a devastated London and strong performances, especially Christopher Eccleston's menacing soldier. [Read](https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/reviews/piece-punk-rock-movie-making-28-days-later-reviewed-2002) - **RogerEbert.com**, Roger Ebert (3.5/4): It begins as a great science fiction film and continues as an intriguing study of human nature with well-developed characters whose personalities drive the story. The ending is a disappointing action shoot-out, but for most of the way it is a tough, smart, ingenious ride powered by understanding of human nature. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/28-days-later-2003) - **Los Angeles Times**, Manohla Dargis (85/100, inferred): The wonderfully, horribly scary movie induces physical reactions more often associated with the news than monster flicks, turning London into a disquietingly credible wasteland with shrewd nerve-shredding entertainment and an environmental cautionary tale. For its first hour it is about as good as it gets in the horror genre, though it loses steam later. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jun-27-et-dargis27-story.html) - **Slant Magazine**, Jeremiah Kipp (80/100, inferred): The critic calls it a genuinely scary post-apocalyptic zombie movie that works well on its own merits with economic storytelling and empathy for characters. They single out the hard-driving intensity and topical rage-virus metaphor while noting minor faults like blurry digital-video action and familiar army-base conflict. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/28-days-later/) - **The Guardian** (80/100, inferred): The critic praises Danny Boyle’s exhilarating new film as a muscular, virile piece of film-making, highlighting its use of locations and digital video shooting, while noting it flags during some scenes with redundant gore. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2002/nov/01/artsfeatures7) - **Film Comment**, Cecilia Sayad (75/100, inferred): The critic views the film as a timely post-apocalyptic tale of a rage virus turning people into cannibal killers in Britain, linking its themes to real-world anxieties around 9/11, biological threats, and SARS. Boyle is praised for blending fluid digital video camerawork with surreal, nightmarish imagery of the infected. [Read](https://www.filmcomment.com/article/review-28-days-later-danny-boyle/) - **The New York Times**, A. O. Scott (70/100, inferred): The critic finds the film an interesting and chilling parable on the fragility of civilization and human nature under duress after a rage virus outbreak. It is praised for its eerie emptiness in early scenes and its debt to George Romero's zombie films. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/27/movies/film-review-spared-by-a-virus-but-not-by-mankind.html) - **Total Film** (70/100, inferred): The critic finds it a crude but sometimes startling serving of schlock horror, with velocity and ferocity compensating for leaden conversation and ugly DV photography. Worth a go, especially for the precise scares and grand guignol excess in the final chase sequences. [Read](https://www.gamesradar.com/28-days-later-review/) - **The AV Club**, Nathan Rabin (55/100, inferred): The critic praises the terrifying start, inspired digital-video cinematography, and fresh fast zombies used sparingly for shock value. They single out the frustrating third-act shift into gory, over-the-top bloodshed and ham-fisted allegory that diminishes the earlier scary poignancy. [Read](https://www.avclub.com/28-days-later-1798198649) - **The New Yorker**, Anthony Lane (45/100, inferred): The setup is gruesome and the film comes as good news for its focus on fleeting gestures and blankness in a post-plague world, but it loses its way with a shortage of superior zombies and a serious shortage of fright due to larky black comedy habits and choppy editing instead of lingering on monstrosity. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/06/30/days-of-plague) - **Screen Daily** (30/100, inferred): The film is a serious-minded but sloppily plotted homage to 1970s genre giants that fails to add significant new elements and degenerates into familiar, overwrought staples. It lacks coherent purpose, sufficient gore or humour for genre fans, and provocative social comment for others, though shock tactics deliver some frights and there are attempts at emotional depth. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/28-days-later/4010937.article) - **Variety**, Derek Elley (30/100, inferred): The review criticizes the film as a garbled faux-low-budget zombie picture with a poorly worked script that shows disdain for the audience, despite some flashes of flair and effective early scenes. It faults the lack of character development and background while noting shocks and gore in the attacks. [Read](https://variety.com/2002/film/reviews/28-days-later-1200545225/) - **Paste**, Jim Vorel (90/100, inferred): Praises the film as the best horror movie of 2002 for revitalizing the zombie genre with fast, vicious infected and its stark vision of societal collapse in an eerily empty London. Singles out its powerfully nihilistic take on human nature as the core strength, noting glimmers of hope amid the bleakness. [Read](https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/horror-movies/best-horror-movie-of-2002-28-days-later) - **/Film**, Joshua Meyer (85/100, inferred): Views the film as a timely humanist parable and genre-changer that introduced fast-running infected while critiquing toxic rage and social intolerance. Highlights its influence on later zombie stories and enduring relevance as a short, effective tale of humanity's darker impulses. [Read](https://www.slashfilm.com/559158/28-days-later-revisited/) - **The Skinny**, Zoe Crombie (85/100, inferred): The critic praises 28 Days Later as a horror masterpiece ahead of its time that revitalized the zombie genre with its British specificity and social realism roots. They single out the national specificity and John Murphy's score for particular praise. [Read](https://www.theskinny.co.uk/film/opinion/28-days-later-20-years-later-zomie-films) - **Eye for Film**, Angus Wolfe Murray (30/100, inferred): The critic finds the post-apocalyptic setting and use of silence effective but faults the script's lack of logic, thin character development, and implausible plot turns involving the virus and military survivors. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/28-days-later-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) ## Details - **Director:** Danny Boyle - **Director:** Danny Boyle - **Writer:** Alex Garland - **Cinematography:** Anthony Dod Mantle - **Editor:** Chris Gill - **Music:** John Murphy - **Production design:** Mark Tildesley - **Costume design:** Rachael Fleming - **Producer:** Andrew Macdonald - **Cast:** Cillian Murphy as Jim; Naomie Harris as Selena; Brendan Gleeson as Frank; Megan Burns as Hannah; Christopher Eccleston as Major Henry West; Noah Huntley as Mark; Luke Mably as Private Clifton; Stuart McQuarrie as Seargent Farrell - **Runtime:** 1h 53m - **Certificate (MPA):** R - **Release (the US):** 27 June 2003 - **Genres:** Horror, Thriller, Science Fiction - **Part of:** [28 Days Later](https://film.one/collections/28-days-later.md) · 1 of 4 - **Budget:** $8 million - **Box office:** $83 million - **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWEhfF27O0c ## Where to watch in the US - Amazon Prime Video: rent $3.99, hd - Amazon Prime Video: buy $7.99, hd *Checked 2026-09-14.* Also available in: AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EC, ES, FI, FR, GB, HR, HU, IE, IN, IT, JP, LT, MX, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PE, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SI, TR, US. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country. ## Awards - European Film Award for Best Cinematographer 2003: European Film Award for Best Cinematographer (won) - European Film Award - People's Choice Award for Best Director 2003: European Film Award - People's Choice Award for Best Director (nominated) ## If you liked this - *Night of the Living Dead* (1968), Fi1m 88: For another group discovering that shelter does not settle questions of trust — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/night-of-the-living-dead.md) - *Threads* (1984), Fi1m 92: Britain loses its routines, and the ordinary details make the horror harder — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/threads.md) - *[REC]* (2007): Infection horror with even less room to move or think clearly - *Train to Busan* (2016), Fi1m 84: Fast infected, cramped escape routes and people worth worrying about between attacks — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/train-to-busan.md) - *The Last Man on Earth* (1964): Empty streets and daily survival, with loneliness given time to become frightening --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/28-days-later