Next comes a generous collection of "Deleted Scenes and Alternate Endings" that also include optional director commentary. Although the six deleted scenes (9 minutes) don't add much to the proceedings, the real value here lies in the bleak alternate endings (13 minutes). The three endings that were available on the standard DVD (the fourth is exclusive to this Blu-ray edition -- see below) provide an interesting glimpse into the minds of the filmmakers but don't have an affect on my opinion of the overall film. The only slight disappointment in the bunch is "Unfilmed." The concept for this logical ending is fascinating, but you’ll need to bring your imagination, as it’s presented here using storyboards and voiceovers only. Alternative Theatrical Ending (with optional audio commentary by Danny Boyle and Alex Garland) (4:29) On Saturday night I made a post about how I couldn't find anywhere to stream 28 Days Later. It's not on a single streaming platform. The first post didn't get a lot of replies but I wanted to give an update in case anyone had any knowledge of what happened to this movie. Having said all that, there are still some fundamental technical issues with the mix. First off, directionality is slightly off in several scenes, and the design occasionally places rear sounds into all the channels for an artificially increased effect. There are also some treble issues that lead to random frequency whistles beneath the audible components of the soundfield. To top it off, the soundscape generally doesn't feel very organic, with key elements (including voices) often sounding disjointed from other sound effects. Utterly disappointing" is the only phrase that comes to mind at the moment. This Blu-ray edition of '28 Days Later' arrives with a hazy 1080p/AVC MPEG-4 transfer that's only a meager step up from the already-problematic DVD. In fact, I found the finalized image incredibly similar to the upscaled DVD presentation.

I do know for sure the lesson learned from the original 28 days later, that humans can be a lot scarier/worse than the infected. Let me get this out of the way right up front -- zombies shouldn't run. The undead should be lumbering creatures of instinct that overwhelm their victims, instead of running them down. Slow zombies not only ratchet up the tension, but they allow for more carefully plotted character development. its hard to explain it. its about a virus that infect people and make them have the hunger to consume others who haven't been infected yet/angry and can't control anger. they act like zombies, yet they aren't. i wonder what category would they fall under. Infected or Zombies, or.....God knows. Isn't shaun of the dead is based on the same idea of 28 days later. sure a disease infects the population, and the ones aren't infected call them zombies. believe me i am not trying to be sarcastic, but just wondering if 28 days later falls under zombie/gore/horror. clear, rivaling that of most of the better Blu-ray discs in production. View this movie based on the People did complain about the movie looking awful in theaters. Some movie critics gave the feature's standard-def origins a pass, saying the crude look lended itself to the drama of the show.Actually, I remember very clearly a woman behind me in the theater complaining to her companion about it. I could hear her questioning whether it was the "film" or the theater and projector. There are also two great collections of photos delivered via animated slideshows -- a traditional "Production Gallery" (18 minutes) and a casual "Polaroid Gallery" (4 minutes). What elevates this feature beyond the norm is that both galleries include commentary from director Danny Boyle. It really adds a personal touch to the photos, and I had a good time listening. My 2021 discovery watchlist included 28 Days Later, the well known zombie movie from Danny Boyle, a director I'm usually really fond of (Sunshine is one of my favorite space movies). I rented it last week on AppleTV+ to watch on my LG OLED but it looked blurry as hell, and I stopped watching, thinking there was something wrong with my Internet connection or the stream. asking, "are we really any better (or different, for that matter) than the infected?" It is not only All of the supplements from the original standard definition DVD are carried over here. First is the

The performances are grounded in reality as well. In the capable hands of Cillian Murphy, Jim doesn't miraculously transform into Joe Hero. His character is quiet and confused, resorting to violence as a means of survival rather than for our entertainment. The supporting actors are excellent, as well (particularly Brendan Gleeson, who many will recognize as Hamish from 'Braveheart'). Each member of the cast seems to understand their role in Jim's tale, while still infusing a level of complexity into their own character. I challenge anyone to find a single actor in this film who doesn't bring their A-Game. First up is a fairly standard feature commentary with director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland. The two have a causal banter that rarely devolves into drawn out technical chit-chat. They discuss the film's tone, locations, special effects, story, characters, and its original inception. Most interestingly (to me, anyway), they discuss their decision to use silent, deserted streets to invoke terror rather than blood-stained locales. This is certainly not a new concept and is one that has been seen in film before, but is effectively is simply a result of the shortcomings of the original video and not of the disc. The film is presentedNow I know it was shot in standard def, BUT it was projected in theatres on giant screens... so how come no one said it looked awful in the theatres? And surely it benefited SOMEWHAT from the higher bandwidth of Blu ray ? Surely Blu ray gives us closer to the cinema look than the DVD release did? Alternative Theatrical Ending (with optional audio commentary by Danny Boyle and Alex Garland) (4:27) (1080p) Worst thing is, the end scene is actually shot on film and looks great, so Danny Boyle had access to correct cameras and chose to shot 99% of the movie with a 480p camera for what seems like an artistic decision. A very poor decision, that makes the movie unwatchable on a modern 4K TV. And impossible to remaster. It could be a budget constraint, but I can't see why the director of Trainspotting couldn't get himself a fine film camera. picture is what it is and this disc represents it as well as you will ever see it. This 1080p Blu-ray is