Stop me if you've heard this one. A man (named Jim) awakens from a coma to find that he's alone in an empty hospital. In fact, when he leaves, there don't seem to be any people on the streets at all. He soon learns that a deadly virus known simply as "Rage" has infected the country and wiped out most of the citizens. This virus blocks out all rational thought and every emotion except for an all consuming rage that causes those infected to violently attack and kill everyone in sight. The virus is so powerful that it can be spread by contact with one drop of infected blood. Jim meets up with a few other surviving humans and together they go in search of "The answer to infection." What they find when they get there and how they adapt will determine
whether they live or die...Ok, except for a few minor changes, you most certainly HAVE heard this one. It's the plot of every zombie movie, and that might make you think about skipping this movie, but don't you dare! You'll miss something great if you do.

A lot of things hurt this movie. Initially, I blame the press. As soon as this movie was released there was that annoying movie poster screaming that obligatory line dubbing the movie "Scary as hell." I swear it's the same guy every time, and it's not always Roger Ebert anymore, so you people are copying each other and it's annoying. First of all, quit saying that about every horror movie! Find some new material, bitches! Jesus. Second, quit screwing with people's expectations. Largely because of press and quotes like this, people went into this movie expecting to be scared, and if it didn't deliver, they left disappointed. Then there's the fact that this movie borrows heavily from a lot of films to make its point. The filmmakers acknowledge in the commentary that two scenes are direct homages to Romero's "Dead" trilogy, but I recognize a LOT more than that. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, as most apocalyptic movies borrow similar images and themes of destruction and desolation, I'm just saying that as soon as some people saw these homages, they
started bitching that the movie wasn't "original." Further hurting the movie, word got out that this was Danny Boyle's version of a "zombie film," so people went expecting a zombie flick, and they weren't satisfied. So all these factors combine and quicker than you can say "armchair warrior" you have people decrying that this is an unscary movie that doesn't get the zombie mythos right, and it rips off other movies, and BOOM! Suddenly it's cool to hate this movie. I think that's a shame, because this movie really has a lot to offer.

As I alluded to earlier, much fuss has been made about the labeling of this film as a "Zombie Film." It's not. I understand why people would call it such, because the infected are, essentially, the "living dead." They're no longer truly living human beings, they're kept alive only by their rage and their desire to kill every human they encounter. Their jerky movements are reminiscent of zombies (though these mofos can RUN), they aren't thinking beings, and they have red eyes like some film zombies. But they're not the re-animated corpses that zombies are meant to be, so zombie fans who come to the film expecting zombies that DON'T run and ARE re-animated corpses will be upset that they were misled. Lucky for me, I ignore all the hype and judge films on their own terms (I've been disappointed so many times that I've learned my lesson) but I want to dispel these myths for anyone coming after me, anyone who might have been afraid to check this movie out because of everything the haters said when they came out in full force after the movie was released. Not expecting a zombie film, I appreciated the relentlessness of these creatures, their desire to kill, the driving rage that keeps them running even after they've been set on fire...rage is a scary thing. This is what it does to people in its purest form.

Having seen firsthand what rage can do to people even when it is tempered by other emotions, that idea frightens me, so the movie worked for me and scared me on a whole other level not touched by movies that aren't interested in going deeper and exploring the complexity of human emotions and experiences. The movie isn't overly sentimental, and thus the moments which introduce the emotional impact of losing loved ones don't feel forced. The haunting sound of hymns playing in the background as a character discovers his parents dead adds great depth to the scene, and it isn't forced as it is in a lot of movies, with huge overacting and sweeping waves of music, it's simply watching a character cry quietly while hymns play ever so lightly in the background that is affecting in a way that huge waves of melodrama can't replicate.

The gore in this film isn't "excessive," but I believe that it's used effectively. When Naomie Harris chops off a man's arm and then hacks him to death, it shows how cold and unfeeling she can be, which underscores how emotionless she needs to be in order to survive. When "The Infected" vomit out copious amounts of blood, it's repulsive. And when Jim uses his thumbs to crush a man's eyes in his sockets, it made me wince. The violence in this film proves its point well, and the final third of the film shows the contrast between the mindless rage of The Infected, and the calculating rage of a character bent on protecting those he loves. The movie doesn't have any nudity to speak of, but for those who enjoy watching half-naked characters running around in the
rain, this movie is for you...but this time, it's a male character! Yay! No wonder people call this movie "visionary" and "progressive"

There's a point in the film where the story shifts from being centered on a few key characters and moves to include a broader (though still limited) cast. This change hurts the movie in some ways, but the way it allows us to see Jim's character development--first latching onto another character to serve as a father figure before he realizes that he has to grow up and take matters into his own hands, is very effective. At the same time, the ensuing events allow Selena's character the opportunity to step outside herself and openly care for others, which is a powerful change for her. Perhaps the film would have been better without this third act reversal, but since it's there, I can accept it and appreciate how it helps the characters change and discover the true "answer to  infection."

So the movie has a lot going for it...The creepy opening sequence in which the rage is unleashed...The images of a deserted London...The effective gore... The cool looking "Infected" creatures...The eerie, haunting music...Cillian Murphy running around half-naked in the rain (in fact, he spends a great majority of the movie in various states of undress). What's not to like?

I only found two minor caveats in this movie. First, there was the ineffectiveness of the third act twist. Like I said, I see what it was getting at, but it did irritate me. Another problem I had was the clunky dialogue that occurs during the rooftop scene early on in the film. But these are such small missteps that I don't think they should keep anyone from seeing the movie.

At the very least, I hope I've dispelled some of the vitriol that's come from the haters since this movie was released. Not liking a movie is one thing and it's fine, but the way this movie was attacked annoys me, and I hope that people will give it a chance in spite of the negative things they may have heard others say. I appreciate what this film has to offer. I consider it to be a horror film, mostly because it disturbed and haunted me on a very personal level, and with the crashing economy and the looming doom and gloom of what might happen to our country after that...the idea of hoarding food and trying to survive while fighting off semi-human enemies is a timely fright even today. The plot of this film moves at its own pace, allowing the characters to
develop along the way, and I appreciate watching them change.

I also have to say something about the DVD extras: The commentary, with Director Danny Boyle and Screenwriter Alex Garland, is one of the best I've ever heard. Their explanations and anecdotes added a lot to my appreciation of the film. The alternate endings, while not something that will "Haunt you for days" as the DVD cover suggests (oh how I hate hype...) are very interesting, and the one that was never shot and is shown only in storyboards was particularly interesting, as it helped me to better appreciate the ending they chose. Yes, this movie was derivative, but not so much that it ruined my experience, and the homages helped me to appreciate the differences in this film from the zombie films to which it is dubiously compared.

[   Link to Us   |   FAQ   |   Top^   ]
All written reviews material and content are a copyright of Felix Vasquez Jr. and Cinema Crazed.
Content borrowed without written permission will not be permitted.

¤ ¤ ¤