I don't at all wish I'd enjoy a horror movie just for the heck of it and a science fiction horror at that. I sincerely hope that day never comes.
Anyway, I've picked up some more reviews by other people though I must say that I rate this movie very low so it's not worth actually talking about it in length and if some people really did enjoy it then so be it.
Here's the first review:
"Take Day of the Triffids, Omega Man and bits and pieces of other horror flicks, stir them all together and you've got 28 Days Later, a painfully predictable and only occasionally exciting movie. I wouldn't object to the fact that the movie doesn't have a thought in its head if it was scarier, and I would mind the rather mild thrills if the movie were original and clever, but this movie is so utterly insubstantial in all ways (except for the rather stylish look) that it felt like a complete waste of my time. I thought the cast was good and some of the early scenes were actually quite effective, but by the half way point the movie had completely wore out its welcome as it became increasingly unlikely and unpleasant. The whole thing was just plain dumb."
Another:
"The Boyle and Garland team reload The Beach as a modern day horror movie. A group of post holocaust survivors discover refuge from marauding zombies with army remenants but their brief respite turns into a nightmare. In this movie Garland seems to explore similar themes to the beach but the lack of budget really shows.
The opening scenes of a deserted London are brilliant but much of the film looks like it was recorded on a domestic camcorder. The bits with the army look like one of those recruiting adverts. The lead actor is really annoying, spending a great deal of the movie shouting "hello?" like one of the Crankies!
Forgetting the fact that primate experiments are banned in the UK. The plot is so full of holes you could drive an army truck through them. (lol) For example, we are told that electricity has failed but when they raid a supermarket (miraculously intact and open) they lighting is obviously working. We also learn that the world managed to isolate Britain but their radio doesn't pick up any broadcasts from even France.
Unfortunately for Boyle it was all done much better by the BBC's Survivors in the 70s."
Here's another one:
"This movie _could_ have been much better than it actually turned out to be. A story by acclaimed novelist Alex Garland, set in a postapocalyptic (disease) Britain, good cast and a successful director.
However, though the result is by no means a poor movie, 28 Days Later has a script that is way too flawed to not be irritated by. Watching this with a friend, we were continuously remarking "Why on earth are they doing that" and "why don't they just do something obvious. It also made me wonder why the writer nor director nor even actors had noticed the same things. Or if they had, why they chose not to make any changes. Also, the whole soldier-would-be-rapists crew thing is just not believable. This movie had the potential to say something about human reaction and conduct in such a situation, but wasted it with that whole plot twist.
In the end, if you like post-apocalyptic stories, and can look the other way on all the annoyingly stupid moves by many of the characters and generally implausible turn of events, you should find this movie entertaining."
=====================================
So I guess it depends, if you are just looking for enjoyable zombie flick then this film is more than fine. But if you are going to rate it very high, then the flaws must be looked at. Actually if it's a personal choice of top ten, which is the case here, then I have no problem with it.
uzzled
