Jim wakes up in a hospital and everything makes him think that he is the sole survivor of a lethal virus that spread throughout the country. It is while wandering in the streets of London that he first confronts the first infected human still on two legs. This create attacks him viciously. Jim quickly understands that he must hide or flee if he wants to stay alive.

Eventually, he discovers other humans that have countered the virus and they understand their need to find other survivors. He learns from one of them that once a human is bitten or once splashed by infected blood, he victim has only a few seconds left before becoming an enemy.

28 Days Later is both a zombie flick and the story of a terrible calamity. While this has already been done, this formula has proven its success. For some odd reason, neither cadavers nor zombies flood the town like they could. What is most annoying is that we see allies fighting and killing each other, as if the main enemy wasn’t trouble enough. The story quickly becomes redundant because, for one, we don’t get the answers to our questions and, for two, there is very little development. A good horror film cannot disregard intrigue and this is one of the major flaws in 28 Days Later. It is useless to be pretentious in terms of special effects or camera angles if we fail in catching the public’s interest.

What is most pertinent is the relationship between the four main characters: a confused hospital patient, a heavy rebel, a father and his adolescent daughter. The actors succeed in presenting both solidarity and hypocrisy, throughout the film.

Basically, the film deserves a certain audience for its effort at avoiding clichés. However, its diversion from the guiding lines of classics in the genre is far from flawless.