Danny Boyle's 2002 post-apocalyptic thriller "28 Days Later" (which was unavailable for viewing for a spell) technically not a zombie movie. It follows the spread of a newly invented virus simply called the Rage Virus, which attacks the brains of its victims and transforms them into unthinking, angry monsters. Also, their eyes turn all gross and bloodshot. The "zombies" in "28 Days Later" are really just people who have been stripped of their human qualities and their rage has been pumped up to a thousand. However, unlike most movie zombies, infected humans run fast and growl loudly. It was "28 Days Later" that sparked the still raging "slow zombies vs. fast zombies" debate among horror buffs.

Boyle shot 28 Days Later on the cheap, using then-new digital cameras to give the film an unsettling documentary feel. It's especially raw in his early scenes of Cillian Murphy's Jim wandering the empty streets of London. With a budget of $8 million, "28 Days Later" grossed over $84.6 million at the global box office, sparking renewed interest in zombie cinema. It also came in the wake of 9/11, and audiences felt particularly apocalyptic at the time. Boyle's film tapped into some very real cultural fears.

Critics have responded positively to "28 Days Later" - it has an 87% approval rating Rotten tomatoes - but moviegoers canonized it almost immediately, holding it in high esteem as one of the best horror films of the new decade. A sequel, 28 Weeks Later, followed in 2007, with Boyle's 28 Years Later (Watch Trailer) is currently set to hit theaters on June 20, 2025.

One person 28 Days Later didn't care for, however, was Stephen King. Back in 2007, the famous horror author admitted that Entertainment Weekly that, of the many horror movies he's seen recently, 28 Days Later just didn't scare him. He liked the film's style and storytelling, but he just wasn't scared.

King, of course, wasn't just trying to be macho. There are many young people who make a sport out of watching horror movies specifically to challenge their ability to scare. King, a horror-loving author, wasn't trying to prove his constitutionality; he was offering legitimate criticism. He just wasn't scared. Impressed, yes. But not scared. When it came to horror films released in the late 90s or early 00s, King preferred a different, low-budget, naturally stylized, viral surprise horror hit. In your own words:

"(I liked '28 Days Later,' but I didn't love it. The bottom line about horror movies doesn't change from year to year; their job is to scare you silly, and either they do that or they do. "28 Days Later ” intrigued me—I’m a sucker for survivors of empty cities, as anyone who’s read “The Stand” knows—but there was nothing in “28 Days Later.” (as there was in “The Blair Witch Project”) that haunts me later that evening, after the bedroom light has been turned off."

Which is fair. The zombies in "28 Days Later" are menacing, but they are nothing new to fans of "Night of the Living Dead" and similar films. The Stand, by the way, was the apocalyptic novel King first wrote in 1978 and then greatly expanded in 1990. That book also involves a worldwide epidemic that wipes out most of the human population and features characters who spend a lot of time wandering abandoned cities.

Meanwhile, "The Blair Witch Project" (which scared King so much he shut it down) is a 1999 found-footage horror hit about a trio of amateur documentarians who get lost in the woods while investigating stories about a witch who supposedly lives in it. The witch is never seen, but the film is full of eerie sounds, genuine dread, and a dark, ambiguous ending. It's sure to be something that will make the viewer go to bed with the lights on. For King, actually feeling scared is the ultimate litmus test for a horror film, and The Blair Witch Project succeeds on that front. "28 Days Later" just doesn't.