Children of Men (2006) -vs- 28 Days Later (2003)

Review by Bryce Zabel 

The Smackdown. The apocalypse has gone post(al) in both of these films set in England. The action in both starts in London then moves to the country where the living is not easier. In both of these sci-fi thrillers, man's command of science and control over his environment seems to have brought with it some terrifying and unexpected consequences.

"I read that book What To Expect When You're Expecting...twice...and none of this was in it!"

The Challenger. Even though, as we all know by now, the printed word is doomed, "Children of Men" is based on a book I actually read when it was first published by P.D. James. I found its central premise thrilling then, that mankind suddenly and completely goes infertile. I found the idea that if there are no people left in a few years that the sheer sadness that no one will ever hear Mozart or read Shakespeare again to be almost overwhelming. In the hands of director Alfonso Cuaron, this intellectual idea becomes gritty, dangerous and even more provocative. Clive Owen has been cast in one of his best roles here as Theo -- his face seems to register all the injustice and pain with a resignation to keep on living anyway finally giving way to a resignation to give it all up in a way that his life will have mattered.

"When I said that being a bike messenger was a great way to meet people, this was not what I had in mind."

The Defending Champion. While it's not impossible to think that infertility could bedevil mankind, I'm not particularly worried that the premise of "28 Days Later" will come to pass. This film basically has animal activists setting some lab animals free from their cages only to set loose a "rage" virus that transmits to humans. It turns into a zombie movie then, but probably the best one I've ever seen. And I was blown away by how awesome the "empty city" shots of London were when Jim (Cillian Davis) first realizes that something has gone wildly and insanely wrong.

The Scorecard. Both of these films are structured similarly: the opening in London, important mission of survival takes them into the country, fighting off zombies or immigrants who stand in their way, giving us a black woman as a main character who seems to be the toughest of the bunch, and ending with a sense of small hope for society after scaring the crap out of us along the way. Both were directed so intensely that they deliver their particular apocalyse believably and credibly. This is a close one. "Children of Men," however, is a film that I could actually talk my wife into seeing while "28 Days Later" was dismissed by her as a genre movie she had no interest in seeing. And she had a point. Although the truth is "Children of Men" is actually scarier because it feels like a lot of it could come to pass if we're not careful.

Still, both of these films work, and they work well. So...

The Decision. Years from now, "Children of Men" is going to be included in the group of dystopian future films that include "Blade Runner." On the other hand, I fear, "28 Days Later" is going to be compared to films like "Dawn of the Dead," especially given that it is spawning sequels like "28 Weeks Later" and, probably some day, "28 Months Later." Despite their structural similarities, this is still apples and oranges. I just hope there will be humans alive to listen to Mozart, read Shakespeare and watch "Children of Men." It's a close decision on points...