Zombie flick lacks zombies, but still decent

Post-apocalyptic, zombie, survival, horror movies -- you gotta love em. "28 Days Later" has acquired a fair share of hype, and thus opened Friday to a pack of hungry, immature film-goers who unanimously declared their audible disagreement with seeing the protagonist's dong (really people, grow up). The question becomes: does this long-awaited flick live up to said praise? Yes, and sadly, no. \nThe story focuses on Jim (Cillian Murphy) awakening from a coma in a London hospital after a "set the monkeys free" operation goes to hell. It turns out the animals were harboring a virus that turns its carriers into psychotic, blood-lusting zombies moments after contact. Jim sets about a deserted London to find survivors, trying not to get himself killed in the process. \nDanny Boyle opted to shoot his zombies on DV (digital video, for those who don't speak "movie dork"), which produces a unique aesthetic. Steven Soderbergh ("Full Frontal") and Mike Figgis ("Time Code") successfully used this cost-saving method theatrically, mainly because they made character pieces. Boyle's movie relies heavily on atmosphere, and is very dark -- two things that don't come across as vividly on video; film looks much more crisp. The result is watered-down suspense that doesn't reach its potential. His direction is good, though never reaches the darkness of "Shallow Grave," the innovativeness of "Trainspotting" or the scope of the underrated "The Beach."\nThe scenes of violence are shot at a jerky frame rate with very hyperactive camerawork. These shots are cut together itchy-trigger-finger-MTV style. The good thing is the audience is more or less assaulted by the intensity of the image. The bad thing is it makes it difficult to discern what's happening, and really self-censors the violence.\nSpeaking of which, where the hell is the gore? There weren't nearly enough zombies and there was a serious lack of graphic violence. The most gruesome image (a guy's thumbs are jabbed wrist- deep into another guy's eye sockets) didn't even involve the little flesh eaters. I don't mean to sound corrupted, but whenever the living dead are involved, there NEEDS to be graphic dismemberment. \nThere is good in this cinematic experience. The pacing is fine, the attacks acutely timed. The tone is appropriately desolate and grim, and the characters are interesting. The opening scene and climax are great (even though the third act feels out of place -- we're talking a total plot shift). I suppose what I'm trying to say is that "28 Days Later" is a pretty good human drama/survival story… just not a great zombie one.