A 2000s horror classic that didn't scare Stephen King

Danny Boyle's 2002 post-apocalyptic thriller “28 Days Later” (which wasn't available to watch the spell) technically not a zombie movie. It follows the spread of a newly invented virus, simply nicknamed the Rage Virus, that invades the brains of its victims and turns them into mindless, angry monsters. Their eyes also become gross and bloodshot. The “zombies” in “28 Days Later” are actually just people stripped of their human characteristics and their rage inflated to a thousand. However, unlike most movies, zombie-infected people run fast and roar loudly. It was “28 Days Later” that sparked the still raging “slow zombies vs. fast zombies” debate among horror fans.

Boyle shot “28 Days Later” on the cheap, using then-new digital cameras to give the film an unsettling documentary feel. It's particularly raw in its early scenes, where Cillian Murphy's Jim wanders the empty streets of London. With an $8 million budget, “28 Days Later” earned more than $84.6 million at the global box office, sparking renewed interest in zombie cinema. It also happened after 9/11, and it felt particularly apocalyptic to viewers at the time. Boyle's film tapped into some very real cultural fears.

“28 Days Later” received a positive response from critics, with an 87% approval rating Rotten tomatoes — but it was almost instantly canonized by the cinema, holding it in high regard as one of the best horror films of the new decade. It was followed in 2007 by the sequel “28 Weeks Later” with Boyle's '28 Years Later' (Watch Trailer) currently due in theaters on June 20, 2025.

However, one person who didn't care about 28 Days Later was Stephen King. Back in 2007, the famous horror author admitted Entertainment Weekly that of the many horror films he had seen recently, “28 Days Later” just didn't scare him. He liked the style and narrative of the film, but he just wasn't scared.

Of course, the king wasn't just trying to be macho. There are many young people who exercise by watching horror movies, especially to keep their ability to scare. King, a horror writer who likes to be scared, was not trying to prove his constitution; he offered valid criticism. He just wasn't scared. Surprised, yes. But don't be afraid. When it comes to horror movies released in the late 90s or early 2000s, King preferred another low-budget, natural-style, viral surprise horror hit. In his own words:

“(I) liked '28 Days Later,' but I didn't love it. The essence of horror movies doesn't change from year to year; their job is to scare the crap out of you, and they either do that or they don't. t '28 Days Later' intrigued me—I love survivors in empty cities, as anyone who's read 'The Stand' knows, but there was nothing in '28 Days.' haunted when the bedroom light was out.

Which is fair. The zombies in 28 Days Later are menacing, but they're nothing new to fans of Night of the Living Dead and similar movies. By the way, The Stand was an apocalyptic novel that King first wrote in 1978 and then expanded significantly in 1990. This book also involves a worldwide epidemic that wipes out most of the people, and features characters who spend a lot of time wandering around abandoned. cities.

Meanwhile “The Blair Witch Project” (which scared King so much he turned it off) is the 1999 found-footage horror hit about a trio of documentarians who get lost in the woods investigating stories of a witch who supposedly lives there. The witch is never seen, but the film is full of ghostly noises, genuine scares, and a bleak, ambiguous ending. It's definitely one that makes the viewer go to bed with the lights on. For King, a sense of dread is the ultimate litmus test for a horror film, and The Blair Witch Project excelled in this area. “28 Days Later” just wasn't there.