The Jungle Book (2016) & Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle

Spoilers.

Or: The Jungle Book v Mowgli: Which is Worse? 

They were announced at around the same time, and trying to one-up each other with their casting at the same time, but Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book beat Andy Serkis' Mowgli to release by two years. Still, I've always thought of them as competing movies, and never saw The Jungle Book, so once Mowgli released, I figured it was time to give them both a shot and see which is the winner.

They're both losers. Thanks for reading.

Nah -- I sat through both of them, so I'm gonna review and compare them, and I have a few things to get off my chest so hang tight.

Like questions. For example: Why does this elephant have moss growing on it??? (From Mowgli.)

The Jungle Book = the Disney live action remake. Mowgli = Warner Bros. sold to Netflix.

Cast:

Mowgli: Neel Sethi -- Rohan Chand

Bagheera: Ben Kingsley -- Christian Bale

Baloo: Bill Murray -- Andy Serkis

Shere Khan: Idris Elba -- Benedict Cumberbatch

Kaa: Scarlett Johansson -- Cate Blanchett

King Louie: Christopher Walken -- N/A

Wolf Mother: Lupita Nyong'o -- Naomie Harris

Also in The Jungle Book: Giancarlo Esposito.

Also in Mowgli: Peter Mullan, Tom Hollander, Eddie Marsan, Jack Reynor, Matthew Rhys.

Some casts, am I right? It's an impressive list of names, and beside the two kids, there's not a one I'd hesitate to say is talented. They're all terrible. No okay, fine: the actors in themselves do as well as they could be expected to do. Some, like Murray, Serkis and Walken are woefully miscast, and others just do what they do. The real problem here is that the characters are bad because they have confused characters. And the characters are confused because the writing is confused, BUT -- award one point to Mowgli, because the writing there is much cleaner and more straightforward.

Even though we were already familiar with this one's plot. Sorta. (From The Jungle Book.)

The Jungle Book had the disadvantage of being a remake, saddled with a nostalgia checklist and new things to bring to the table. As a result, things like this happen: King Louie, a character invented by Disney for the animation, who was named after "The King of Swing" Louis Prima, now doesn't sing a jazzy song or dance, but is monstrous and meant to be scary -- but is counterintuitively played by Christopher Walken. Or, they needed Mowgli and Bagheera to be separated so Mowgli can meet Baloo, but it doesn't make sense that Bagheera would leave, so he gets knocked out in a fight with Shere Khan. Or, since Shere Khan's the bad guy he needs to be present from the beginning, so flesh out his threat to kill Mowgli. And he needs a backstory reason to kill Mowgli. And the wolves shouldn't give up Mowgli so easily. And there has to be mini adventures to pad the run time since there's no musical numbers, but no horsing around with military elephants. Elephants have to be taken seriously. Also, forget Mowgli going to the man village in the end. Who'd want that anyway?

(From The Jungle Book.) I mean... WHYY??

Mowgli, without the Disney template, does what it wants so the plot is just about Mowgli trying to be a wolf, but then having to leave because of Shere Khan's threat, living in the man village, and then saving the day from both Shere Khan, and the evil white hunter who's visiting the village to pretend to be nice while he breaks off elephant's tusks, and beheads wolf puppies. Wow, that degraded a little. But overall, it's considerably more streamlined and has a mildly clearer message, I guess. Neither hit the neat and simple plot and arc of the 67' animation though, of Mowgli searching for a home, wanting it to be the jungle, and finding out it's the village after all. Of course not.

(From Mowgli.) He has to complete a race to be an official member of the pack.

Let's talk about Baloo. Easily the best thing about the animation film, and no one really knows what to do with him now. The Jungle Book makes him a lazy bum who has to learn to care for Mowgli and at first only uses him to get honey for him. Most of the film he's careless and dismissive. And I've never seen Bill Murray be so droll and unfunny. I doubt it's his fault, but it was depressing to see. Serkis' version has Baloo work as a trainer for the wolves, so he's around for longer, but even more useless, and UGLY. Why they thought making Baloo ugly was a good idea I will never fathom. But Serkis does at least makes him expressive. I wonder if they used any motion capture for it. (Yes, I've discovered they did.)

(From Mowgli.) Just look at how weirdly ugly he is. This movie gave all its animals humanoid eyes, too.

The animation is an interesting subject, actually. The Jungle Book is two years old and the animation has already dated a bit, but it's still objectively better than Mowgli, I'd say. But what Mowgli lacks in budget and quality it makes up for in style. The creature characters have an extra kick of personality, like an amalgamation of caricatured cartoon and photo-realism. So animals are naturally more expressive, readable and recognizable, BUT, at the cost of them seeming out-of-place whenever humans other than Mowgli are in the same scenes. Mowgli spends a chunk of time alone in the man village, and it's like a completely separate movie -- and jarring when animals show up again. Still I prefer that to the characterless designs that happened in The Jungle Book.

They totally failed Baloo by making him walk on all fours. (From The Jungle Book.)

What else? Well, all my favorite things about the old animation were missing from the live action. Too silly for them probably, but that little movie lived of its snappy jazz tunes and 60's pop culture. I figured if they were gonna remake it they'd have some particular reason, but it really was just the original -- stripped of everything that made it original, fun, and meaningful. Bagheera was always my favorite and I missed him being that lovable grump. Neither film commits anything atrocious against him though, so that's good, I guess. In the remake I liked how Mowgli would drone on and on about nothing like kids do, and the final action sequence was a creative change. And I liked in Serkis' version how he put a little bit of unique style in there. Favreau's capable of style, but I doubt he was allowed.

If the original 67' animation wasn't a factor, the choice of which is better would be much harder -- but it is, and I can't not consider it. I watched it again after these two to cleanse my palate, and was instantly swept up in its nostalgia, enjoying its quirks, and noticing a few new things that went over my head last time (it's been a while). So I wonder, why do a remake at all? The nostalgia was much stronger rewatching the original, the hand-drawn cartoons will hold up much longer than computer animation, which becomes obsolete as improvements in the art are made, and all the memorable details are in the original, because the remake is afraid to push any boundary, yet is required to adhere to a more serious and realistic tone.

(From The Jungle Book.) "Keep two of the songs, but... sing them badly? I guess??" "Okay sure." -- Pitch meeting.

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle wins automatically from that perspective. Quality-wise it's an arguable fight, but Mowgli has a different plot and new characters; and the familiar characters are utilized differently. It may not be good, but it earns its existence by being something unique. The Jungle Book (2016) is neither unique nor the best version of its story. It definitely had a bigger budget to work with, but for me, that's worthless without a soul, and that it lost along the way. Mowgli bored me after a while, but did seem to possess a soul, however weak a one.

So, The Jungle Book is worse. But the best isn't Mowgli -- the original, 1967 The Jungle Book is the best. I don't care that it wasn't supposed to be in the competition. As the only version of this story I've seen that I'd even consider recommending, it's the clear winner. And though I struggled to get through these two other films, I'm glad I did, since it inspired me to revisit this charming little classic that can still hold its own.

This is where it's at.

The Jungle Book (2016) -- 2 stars.

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle -- 2 stars.

The Jungle Book (1967) -- 4 stars.

Rampage

Dwayne Johnson has over the years, become known for a certain type of movie. The cheesiness he has always embraced with a wink and a smile (remember the 3D gimmick of pec-popping berries at the camera in Journey 2: The Mysterious Island?) but it's only recently that audiences have figured it out; The Rock makes stupid but enjoyable movies -- and he puts effort into them.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle was the height of this realization, a movie that had no right to be that funny, that silly, and that meaningful at the same time. Because of that movie, Rampage disappointed me.

I guess Welcome to the Jungle really was something special.

It tries to be essentially the same thing: an outlandish premise? Secret animal experiments in space go awry, and the dangerous concoction crashes back to earth, infecting an albino ape with super-growth and aggression. So, yes, check. Comedy? Not as much, but the film is sure to give the ape a "sense of humor." There's banter and one-liners. And meaningful? Well, it is genuinely attempted, but only works against the precedent of movies like Transformers sequels which are the same type of giant and destructive but completely devoid of any meaning.

That is to say, it's extremely light on meaning, but it puts it on full display so we'll notice that there's like, theme and stuff in a movie where an albino King Kong fights a flying giant wolf with quills in its tail. And it does make the movie feel less mindless, but at a cost. Because most of the movie is spent with Davies (Johnson) and co. (mostly just Naomie Harris) trying to keep George (mo-capped by Jason Liles) safe as he grows, and has fits of rage while government idiots (led by the remarkably fun Jeffery Dean Morgan) try to take him away so they can put him down.

I'm guessing they made him albino so comparisons to King Kong wouldn't be as obvious?

The cost in that because George is a good guy character, the movie refuses to let him do anything too terrible. No killing; minor destruction only. And besides a brief red-shirt encounter with the big bad wolf near the beginning, that's all that happens until the last act. Granted, it's better than letting George kill without discretion and then still value his life over the faceless innocents he's rampaging on, but, the movie is called Rampage. And there's not much of it until the final showdown.

Cutting back on CGI monster fights is fine by me, but it's only really worth it if the content that replaces it is better. In this case it's basically a toss-up, and only then because the monster fighting wasn't all that spectacular to begin with. The crocodile with shark teeth we already saw in Annihilation, the flying wolf wasn't nearly as cool as it sounds, and George didn't even do the classic King Kong break-the-jaw-open move. Is it trademarked or something? It a typical CGI rumble.

I would've been happier with more effort put into the rampaging, and I would've been happier with more effort in the character department. I get that both is too much to ask for, (it shouldn't be) but they held each other back, so neither was satisfactory. The most memorable aspect turns out to be the comedy though it rarely got a chuckle from me. The banter between George and Davies was relatively good, and credit for going for the bad jokes on purpose is due -- that was a bold move.

Let them fight.

It's the charisma and effort of The Rock that keeps it all afloat, is what this boils down to. He has a special talent for making the worthless content as interesting as anything else. I love Naomie Harris, but her character is so much a nothing-burger that all I could think was what is the world is she doing in this movie. Jeffery Dean Morgan is having fun, but his character is too cliched, and then the second he isn't, the movie drops him. And the bad guys are exactly the bad guys from Incredibles 2, I kid you not.

It has its moments as a dumb CGI romp, but don't kid yourself; Rampage is a mess. And if it's really a mess you're looking for, there are bigger, badder, funner, and more memorable ones out there to be found.

5 Favorite Couples Tag

Rules:

Pick one couple from each category

Tagging is optional

Link back to Revealed in Time.

Thanks to Ivy Miranda for creating and tagging me to do this! Time to let my romantic side run loose! I'll steer clear of spoilers for the plots of the movies/TV shows these characters inhabit, but there may or may not be some spoilers concerning the characters, individually and as a couple. Also click the links on the titles to read my reviews of said movies/TV shows! Let me know what you think of my picks in the comments, and participate in the tag if you want to! I'm not going to tag anyone, but would be delighted to see anyone's answers! On to it...

Categories:

1.) Period Drama Couple

2.) Sci-Fi/Fantasy Couple

3.) Superhero Couple

4.) Preferred Couple (from a love triangle) 
5.) Couple Ended Too Soon

Period Drama Couple:

Lizzy Bennet and Mr. Darcy

Pride and Prejudice

 "By you, I was properly humbled. I came to you without a doubt of my reception. You showed me how insufficient were all my pretensions to please a woman worthy of being pleased.” -- Mr. Darcy

 

Film-wise I do prefer the 1995 version (as you may be able to tell...) but this couple is more a credit to Austen's book than anything else. Lizzy and Darcy might even be my most beloved fictional couple of all time. First of all, the fact that I actually love both characters individually is pretty unusual. I love Lizzy's spirit and teasing nature, and how she delights in the ridiculous. And Darcy has that appealing sense of mystery to him, but then once the mystery begins to unravel he only gets more interesting and lovable with his heart of gold. Then together, especially in the novel, they fit together better than any other couple I can think of right now. Darcy is naturally serious and intimidating, but once they are engaged Lizzy gets right to him with her playful teasing and sharp wit in a lovely scene in the book that didn't make it into any film adaptation. They bring each other down from their lofty proud perches while raising up and enhancing their better qualities. A hate-turned-to-love relationship for the ages.

Sci-Fi/Fantasy Couple:

Jim and Selena

28 Days Later...

"That was longer than a heartbeat." -- Jim

This one could have gone to almost any number of couples. Sci-fi and fantasy genres have no shortage of cute couples after all. I decided to go with these two for one main reason: Often with science fiction, the point isn't really the romance. There can be great romances, but most of the time it's the sci-fi itself that really takes front and center. And that's certainly what you'd expect out of a zombie horror film. However, Jim and Selena's relationship ties directly into the theme of the film and becomes one of the film's most prominent features in the end. Jim is new to the zombie world and hasn't become a hardened survivor, but Selena has. She knows what it is to kill loved ones about to turn and we see her do it without hesitation. She tells Jim that she'd do the same to him in a heartbeat. She's become jaded, and survival has become the only thing left in her eyes. However the two develop a cute friendship, and Selena begins to see more than survival in like. And just as Jim completes his journey to becoming a hardened killer to survive, Selena regains her heart. When she thinks Jim is infected (but he isn't) she hesitates. And that says it all.

Superhero Couple:

Peggy Carter and Daniel Sousa

Agent Carter (Season1) (Season 2)

Sousa: "Nothing to say? No quick comeback?"

Peggy: *giant KISS*

Sousa: "...Good point."

This one's maybe a bit of a stretch since neither of these two have actual superpowers, but they are Marvel characters, so I'm gonna go with it! And it's not that I don't like Peggy's brief romance with Captain America in The First Avenger, but we all knew that could never last. From the very first episode of the first season of Agent Carter, I thought that Daniel would be perfect for her and hoped that they'd get together and that he would be confirmed as the husband she refers to in The Winter Soldier. I got one wish granted when they finally happen at the very end of season two. And as much as I would have been all for a third season, everyone knows that a happily ever after doesn't make for good drama, so at least they got that with their future being unexplored. Though I would have loved to see them together and happy a little longer than that brief make-out session -- they were all kinds of adorable even before they were a couple!

 

Preferred Couple (from a love triangle):

Jonathan Byers and Nancy Wheeler

Stranger Things

Jonathan: I guess I'd rather observe people than... you know...
Nancy: Talk to them.
Jonathan: I know. It's weird.
Nancy: No!
Jonathan: No, it is! It's just, sometimes... people don't really say what they're really thinking. But when you capture the right moment, it says more.

This category is the reason I took so long to make this list. All the love triangles I knew of I was tired of (like The Hunger Games) or weren't really fair, having a clear correct winner. But then I saw Stranger Things. Jonathan (left), Nancy, and Steve make up a very well-balanced and amazingly realistic triangle and are the most interesting side plot of an incredibly interesting show. Jonathan is the weird, unpopular loner who's too busy trying to be the man of his house to engage in high school social drama, and Nancy is a nice girl well on her way to becoming a grade-A jerk, dating the charming but wild and worldly Steve. But when she and Jonathan are thrown together by certain plot events, the friction between the two quickly turns to sparks of romance. Nancy leaves the path to becoming a popular snob, and Jonathan opens up to her. They bring out the best in each other, and there are so many sweet moments to appreciate. But, in a wacky twist, their friendship opens Steve's eyes to his less-than-commendable ways, and he improves his character as well, with a surprisingly awesome redemptive turn. And suddenly there's no clear frontrunner. Jonathan is my favorite character on the show (or in the top two, at least) so he's my pick, but really the two sides are so evenly balanced that I may be swayed in the future as plot and characters develop. We'll see where season 2 takes them!

Couple Ended Too Soon:

Morse and Joan Thursday

Endeavour

Morse: "Well, there are coppers and there are coppers."

Joan: "And what kind are you, then?"

Morse: "I'm the kind that sees young ladies safely to their door."

Poor Morse and his relationship woes! I've been shipping Joan (the daughter of Inspector Thursday, Morse's boss) with Morse ever since their first meeting -- as I'm sure we were meant to -- and in the most resent season we got as close as I fear we ever will concerning them. That is of course, because Morse has eternally bad luck with love -- to his increasing endearment, and in spite of his being one of the biggest hopeless romantics of all time. And Joan seems like a perfect match for him; a young girl in need of a direction and an influence, and whenever she is influenced by Morse she doesn't seem so lost. And Morse always needs someone to care for, and Joan almost constantly provides that for him. The both of them obviously have crushes cultivating, but Morse doesn't do anything about it for so long. Who knows why; maybe he's scared of Inspector Thursday. But when a life-changing event occurs that prompts Morse to finally declare his love, that same event drives Joan further away than she's ever been. Over as soon as it began. Just another step in the steep staircase of Morse's tragic love life. 

Spectre

So the organization called "SPECTRE" is back -- or up and coming for the first time -- and James Bond is-- wait no, that's not important. Here's what's important: There's an organization, called "SPECTRE," their logo looks like this:

And it's an octopus? It's not -- you know -- a spectre? I'm confused.

Anyway, Bond (Daniel Craig) is out to stop Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) and SPECTRE, without the help or permission of M (the new M, Ralph Fiennes!) because there's this guy called C (but who was an "M" in another lifetime, Andrew Scott) who came out of nowhere and is trying to do evil things from inside the agency and the only way to stop it is for Bond to go solo (with a little help from adorkable Q (Ben Whishaw) and Moneypenny (a terribly underused Naomie Harris)), team up with a beautiful young woman (Léa Seydoux) who's important to the plot somehow (have I got this right so far?), wear a tux, drink a martini, introduce himself to someone, fight intimidating henchmen (man -- Dave Bautista), fly, boat, fly, ski, fly, and boat -- in that order, with various gun and hand fights thrown in the mix, all the while looking as expressionless as possible. Did I leave anything out? Oh yes...

He's got a license to kill. But, he's also got a license... not to kill.

I've never been very approving of Daniel Craig's 007, though I did enjoy Skyfall, and Casino Royal had its moments as well. Craig has epic action-star abilities, which get put to good use in these films, but character-wise, Bond has never been duller than in this movie right here. A bored expression does not a cool character make. He gets one or two fleeting slick moments, but otherwise the occasional subtle eye-roll is the biggest expression his face ever makes. He's so cool, that he's not actually cool anymore.

Everyone else can be boiled down to one thing: wasted potential. Andrew Scott was where this was most obvious, because who would cast him to play a placid character? No one, that's who. Yet placid his is for placid they all are. I literally the day before seeing this watched Rory Kinnear play an extreme creepy stalker for laughs in Man Up; and then he shows up here, and just stands there... with words coming out his mouth. I know for a fact that these actors are capable of infusing a film with energy and making you care for the characters they are playing. I have witnessed every single one of them do it. But this film is so tonally dull that anything resembling liveliness gets sucked away.

I was really looking forward to her Moneypenny after 28 Days Later, but 'twas a fruitless hope.

And what is left is a pompous sense of carelessness, and one dimensional characters that only exist to move the plot along through the paint-by-numbers Bond coloring book. And all the colors are grey. One thing Spectre does that is useful is a kind of experiment, it seems. They appear to have wondered if action films are exciting and entertaining just because they have action in them, and then tested the theory, creating an action film filled with action pieces that are treated as if they were a nice stroll through a park. The result is a high-speed car chase where James is pursued by villainous henchman Bautista, and has a casual chat with Moneypenny on the phone about unrelated plot-development-exposition-what-have-you. I think it was supposed to be for laughs, but it was ironically just like the rest of the film, where casual delivery of action results in boring action.

Technically the stunts and action sequences were difficult and well-executed, and visually the film is pretty fairly striking. Silhouettes is the name of the game here, and I enjoyed the high-contrast (if not colorful) look. But impressive feats and a pretty face mean nothing if there's not anything in a movie to engage you and invite you to care. And no matter how pretty the shot is, there comes a point where it's too long -- here, you can almost see Sam Mendes wave at that point as he flies past it, muttering about how the movie has to be two and a half hours long, and calculating how many extra seconds of how many unnecessary shots he'll need to make that goal.

"A spy without a gadget is like a shopping cart without a broken wheel." -- Spy Fox

I don't care what kind of statement you're trying to make; having James Bond toss away his gun like that is just plain out of character. Maybe it could be pulled off jokingly, but I never could tell if this film attempted any jokes. This character and the elements that must surround him are the opposite of conducive to the lesson the film was trying to teach. This serious and bored Bond, trying to be what he used to be simultaneously with a new, hip, moral him is forced and trite. It just plain doesn't work.

Dark but not deep; dull, slow, and plodding but not smart, and filled with trivial action that is too easily forgettable, 007's latest adventure is only able to offer slight, relaxed moments of entertainment in a franchise meant to gleefully thrill. Spectre is not a cool and original octopus, nor a dark and haunting spirit, it's just a dry, grey wisp of expensive and useless smoke -- interesting enough in the moment; gone and forgotten at the next breeze.

28 Days Later...

Some Spoilers. Major spoilers are marked.

I always say that I'm not a horror movie person, but I'm finding more and more that zombie movies are almost always an exception. I'd been wanting to watch 28 Days Later for quite a while, and thanks to VidAngel, I was recently enabled to do just that. And it didn't disappoint.

When you wake up from a coma and no one's there... either you have no friends or it's the zombie apocalypse! Either way you have no friends.

Bicycle courier Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes up from a coma after being hit by a car, to find himself completely alone in a trashed hospital -- in fact, seemingly alone in the entire city of London. Eventually he discovers some very aggressive people with red eyes who act like animals and chase him. He is rescued by Selena (Naomie Harris) and Mark (Noah Huntley) who explain the situation to him. People are infected (not technically zombies) with a virus called R.A.G.E. It's in their blood and in their saliva, and if you are bitten, or if even a drop of blood gets in your mouth, you turn within twenty seconds.

The screenplay was Alex Garland's first, and Danny Boyle directed, and those two make a great team and some good, memorable movies. The first thing I like about this movie is its zombies and its zombie rules. The infected are fast, malicious, and much smarter than your average zombie. And the ultra-quick turnover time immediately throws out that "Surprise! I was bitten two days ago!" cliche. It's not a bad cliche, but what it's traded in for here is way better: The idea that you might not have time to think before plowing down a loved one who is about to turn.

Great thought, no? Selena's all for it.

This feeds in to one of the movie's themes that, as Selena points out to Jim, living has suddenly become pointless, and the only thing worth anything in the world anymore is survival. How can you truly live if you might have to kill your companions with no warning? But later they throw in with a dad (Brendan Gleeson) and his teenage daughter (Megan Burns), and Selena and Jim see that if you have someone to care about, the chaos around you doesn't matter so much.
 
And these are the reasons why I love the zombie genre. Or rather, they are evidence of the one main reason I love the zombie genre: that the zombies and the chaos and the destruction of civilization automatically and effortlessly creates situation for characters to be put in that you could never find anywhere else. And through that you can develop characters, and explore ideas and truths from a different and heightened viewpoint.

It always comes down to character, doesn't it? This movie is effectively terrifying for plenty of technical reasons, but I'm going to spend most of the time talking about what Jim and his companions go through because ultimately there's no point in a movie being scary if there isn't at least one character involved who's worth rooting for. It doesn't hurt at all the he's played by one of my favorite actors, but Jim is a character that evokes thought and has a realistic kind of reluctant-hero journey that I love.

Why are zombie movies such a good medium for exploring human nature?

He starts out a little bit behind the curve. He's just a bike courier and everyone else he meets has already had 28 days of witnessing and getting used to their lives being turned upside down. Selena was probably a pretty average person before, but she's learned to be cold and detached. Jim is reluctant to become that kind of person. It doesn't even appear to be in his nature; he spends most of the movie tagging along and surviving off the coattails of the others. But he's the hero of this story so it has to happen, and circumstances keep pushing him towards a breaking point until finally he hits an ultimatum; become a full-on hero, or be a bad guy.

So of course he fulfills the heroic role -- and is scary good at it too, and is even cooler and more hardcore at it than Selena -- though that was mostly luck because that last sequence wouldn't have been nearly so cool if it weren't raining and he hadn't lost his shirt. (Zombie movies, right?) He was also pretty lucky to have an opportunity to escape being executed by the villainous rogue soldiers (who were led by Christopher Eccleston). But seriously, Cillian Murphy is fantastic, and I loved that he got to be not only the hero and main character, but also the good, average nice guy and the scary and volatile type person he's known for playing.

There's no backdrop like a zombie apocalypse for creating complex grey-area heroes.

Ending Spoilers -- next 4 paragraphs. So by the end Mark is long gone and Hannah's father dies at the end of the second act. That brings back the question of living vs. surviving as Jim thinks Hannah will be able to cope without her father, but Selena says she doesn't want her to have to cope, she wants her to be okay. Then the end happens; Jim rescues the girls from the soldiers, (so violently that Selena thinks he's infected but hesitates to kill him, effectively admitting that she cares for him which leads to kissing and an "aw"/"ew" moment). Then he is shot by Eccleston but survives and the three live happily in the country waiting for the infected to starve so they can be rescued. And they seem okay in their makeshift family. They not only survive, but they live. A surprisingly happy end in comparison with the abrasive darkness of the previous two hours maybe, but it wraps up that theme so well that I can't help but love it.

Alternate endings: There are three, and I'm mentioning them because they are included in my enjoyment of this story. Normally I'd ignore alternates but somehow the genre and the story's themes make me open to them in this case. In one, Jim dies from the gunshot wound. The girls try to save him but eventually walk away to an uncertain fate. Jim still becomes a hero (an important point in the film) but it does away with the living theme. In the second we don't see Jim die but he is just not present as the girls wait in the country. That one seems like the worst as it leaves everything a bit too unresolved.

If leading characters are gonna die, it works best if we care about them first.

The third alternate changes the entire third act: Hannah's father Frank turns, but instead of killing him, the three manage to subdue him. They explore a research facility for "the answer to infection" promised in the radio transmission (which in the other story line was a ruse from the soldiers, who are nonexistent here). They find a man behind a locked door and he tells them how to cure an infected. Blood transfusion. Jim's blood is the only match for Frank, giving Jim his hero-ultimatum moment which he passes, sacrificing himself for Hannah and her dad.

The end shows Selena, Hannah, and Frank being admitted into the locked room to await rescue; and Jim infected, strapped to the same table as the ape at the movie's beginning. Story telling wise, this is the most effective alternate. There's a neat full-circle thing going on, a good heroic journey for Jim (not as cool as the one used, but does end tragically), and the family is intact. However there was a huge plot hole that according to the movie's zombie rules, a blood transfusion would only succeed in infecting both people. So they used the right and best ending, but I did enjoy these on the side. I found them (minus the second) on YouTube. The first is filmed, but the third is just a storyboard. End of major Spoilers.

The rainy attack sequence was just too good.

So all that drama, character development, and surprisingly deep themes going on had a lot to do why I like this movie so much, but it's still all going on underneath a whole lot of zombie horror. The two sides find a balance and a harmony and work together to create the whole of what this movie is, and both sides would have been pointless without each other. The crazy zombie plot gave a platform for the drama and characters that then feed back into the action and gave it meaning.

The film's look and style (besides being distinctive to Danny Boyle) is gritty and almost even cheap looking -- while still having precise and artistic camera angles and shots -- giving it all a realistic rough and edgy feel that draws you in. The pacing felt non-stop but never crowded; the script is smart and not constantly filled up with profanity; and the heroes are involving and worth cheering for. Simultaneously defying and establishing modern zombie lore, 28 Days Later is a hard-hitting zombie movie that knows, understands, and boldly executes exactly what makes zombie movies great.