28 Days Later vs Ticks
28 Days Later has the higher audience score (7.2/10 against 5.7/10 for Ticks). Ticks is the shorter watch at 1h 25m compared with 1h 53m. Ticks is the older of the two (1993 against 2002). Both are horror, science fiction movies, so they suit a similar mood.
28 Days Later
Ticks| 28 Days Later | Ticks | |
|---|---|---|
| Audience score | ★ 7.2/10 | ★ 5.7/10 |
| Year | 2002 | 1993 |
| Length | 1h 53m | 1h 25m |
| Genres | Horror, Science Fiction, Thriller | Horror, Science Fiction |
| Country | – | – |
| Director | Danny Boyle | Tony Randel |
| Main cast | Leo Bill, Cillian Murphy, Ray Panthaki, Brendan Gleeson, Christopher Eccleston | Seth Green, Clint Howard, Rance Howard, Ray Oriel, Rosalind Allen |
Synopsis
28 Days Later
Twenty-eight days after a killer virus was accidentally unleashed from a British research facility, a small group of London survivors are caught in a desperate struggle to protect themselves from the infected. Carried by animals and humans, the virus turns those it infects into homicidal maniacs -- and it's absolutely impossible to contain.
Ticks
Teens camping in a northern California retreat are terrorized by mutant insects created by evil, polluting pot farmers.
Where to watch
Where to watch 28 Days LaterWhere to watch Ticks
More like 28 Days Later · More like Ticks · Compare other titles