28 Years Later

I truly don't think this is the story the writers wanted to tell. Something interfered or tampered, perhaps the studio executives forcing it to be a trilogy. I think this was originally intended to be one story but the writer and director were forced to change it. While the first act was strong, the second and third act just felt odd, both rushed and stretched out at the same time. The characters just make weird, fruitless decisions. A plot device happens in the third act that is completely pointless and adds nothing to the depth of the story, and for what the previous installments were there isn't really a climax. At some points I felt like I was watching the Walking Dead where the infected are secondary to the plot. Idk, I just hope Cillian can redeem the series in the next entry.

Some cool moments, a lot of random choices. I would guess they were going for the experimental alternative factor buuut not quite successfully.

My biggest "why" is this movie being attached to the 28 series. Completely unnecessary and misleading. It was probably done to attract a wider audience; otherwise, it would have fallen into the unpopular indie horror film category with little financial success.

As a 28 fan, I was disappointed, however, in the first 15 minutes I realised I should forget I'm watching a 28 movie to have a chance of enjoying it.

The cinematography and art direction were out of the box in a good way. The cast and acting were good.

When the movie tries to be layered it will either work for you or it won't. I get why Danny Boyle and Alex Garland chose this route.

This is my personal speculation, but I think Danny Boyle and Alex Garland thought that perhaps after the release of 28 DAYS LATER, there have been many zombie films since (some of which are good and innovative), so they just didn't want to be straight forward or play it safe with 28 YEARS LATER. In doing so, I don't think the film completely delivers on what it looked to promise in both incredible trailers.

In truth I did kind of know that going in because after watching other movies from Boyle and Garland, a seasoned movie buff knows they love to subvert so it really shouldn't be surprising. This is also the first in a new trilogy of films. I had to keep that in mind as I walked out because I don't have the big picture just yet.

I feel as though Alex Garland had like three ideas, presented them to Danny Boyle and they both decided to mash them up together. A story about coming of age/rite of passage, a bond between a mother and son, and the philosophical idea of death and what it means, almost nihilistic. All in the back drop of survival horror.

So that basically made my experience all over the place because it can get jarring. It's ambitious for sure and Boyle and Garland swing big, but I can see it being not cohesive for some people.

I'm in the center, but I do lean a bit towards a more favorable outlook and that's mainly because of the actors. I thought Alfie Williams who plays Spike, shouldered this film very well. He is the emotional anchor in the film and he carried it with striking maturity and nuance. There's a slow erosion of childhood innocence and it was very subtle, but also very powerful. The erosion of childhood innocence is also something I think Boyle and Garland has in play for a particular character in the next sequel - a boy named Jimmy who watched Teletubbies as shown in the trailer.

Ralph Fiennes is just always good in everything and he's a stand out as Doctor Ian Kelson. I hope we see more of him down the line. Jodie Comer is Isla, Spike's mother who is suffering from an illness seeking out Kelson with Spike. She is also fantastic and anchors all the emotional elements of the film with Alfie Williams. Aaron Taylor-Johnson's Jamie, Spike's father I think will have more to do in the sequel, and his character is used in good effect in the beginning of the film. Edvin Ryding's Erik a Swedish NATO soldier is memorable too. Everyone brought their A-game.

There are new concepts explored with the infected and the rage virus. While I have a lot of questions about it, they were all fascinating ideas. I'm curious to see those layers get peeled. Good action and some decent scares from the infected too, not to mention also very naked.

Boyle loves to experiment with editing and the sped up scenes are here just like in the first film, but there are moments of some awkward cuts in-between. I think people will either like or hate that.

The ending is the epitome of weird and jarring, but again, keep in mind that there will be a sequel and hopefully a concluding threequel where Cillian Murphy can come dominate his role as Jim. Speaking of Jim, I don't know if it was deliberate, but the name Jim seems to be a common thing and I am curious if it will have any kind of connection or none at all.

So bottom line, yes I enjoyed it. I enjoyed what Boyle and Garland were trying to say and the great performances help alleviate the jarring tonal shifts. However, I understand some of the disappointment, as I am a massive fan of the first, who also really enjoyed the comics in what I think are not canon anymore and mildly enjoyed the sequel 28 WEEKS LATER.

This film basically skipped straight to being a thesis film with horror elements. This isn't a one-off indie film, but Boyle and Garland sort of treat it like that. It's part of a franchise with a 20+ year fanbase. Fans want to be re-invited into the world they remember. Give some sense of continuity, not just in lore but also in tone. Then gradually show the new direction.

Boyle and Garland made the exact opposite of a nostalgic legacy sequel. They could have played it safe, but if they had and if it failed they risked creating another STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS situation, where nostalgia drives the hype, but the film ultimately lacks a real identity of its own and sets up a trilogy with shaky creative footing failing to evolve.

Instead, they forced a fresh, cerebral narrative at the risk of alienating the fans. That's the paradox. It's that classic art vs. Expectation battle and Boyle and Garland chose art, knowing full well the trade-off.

28 YEARS LATER is bold and new. I do tip my hat off for Danny Boyle, who thrives in visual and tonal whiplash and Alex Garland who is allergic to clean resolutions or simple narratives. Together they create artful chaos which is this film, but for a film that took over a decade to arrive, a bit of familiar footing first might have allowed the fans and the audience to follow them more willingly into the deeper waters they clearly want to explore.

7/10.

This one will really divide the audience. Some will relish the stress inducing horror of the trip to the mainland, others will wonder if Alex Garland suffered a brain hemorrhage while he was writing the screenplay.

It looks pretty fantastic (strangely the colouring reminded me of Garland's Men) and, contrary to what a lot of reviews claim, the acting is solid, particularly from Jodie Comer and Alfie Williams. The mixing in of archive clips isn't a particularly groundbreaking move, but it's effective.

It's hard to define exactly what subgengre this film belongs to, but there are strong folk horror vibes throughout, and that plays well with the satirical edge to the film (what is it about zombie movies and satire?). As a political statement about 21st century British decline it isn't as over egged as I feared it might be- it's subtle to the point where I wonder whether it can be fully appreciated viewers who aren't familiar with our strange little island.

It's easily as tense and bloody as the other two films (although this one is rated 15 which shows you how times have changed). There are some genuinely tense moments throughout.

The ending. All I'll say is that however you imagine the last 5 minutes will go, you're wrong. If this is to be the first part of a trilogy, it's going to get batshit crazy (although again, anyone not familiar with British pop culture will not appreciate quite how bizarre the ending is).

I went into 28 Years Later genuinely looking forward to it, especially after hearing some of the glowing reviews. There were certainly flashes of what made the original films so memorable - a few tense, edge-of-your-seat moments and some solid action sequences. But as a whole, I found the story disappointingly uneven. The narrative felt clunky and at times weighed down by overly sentimental scenes that didn't quite land emotionally. It seemed unsure of what it wanted to be, and by the final act, it became clear that the film was less about telling a complete story and more about setting up whatever comes next. That left me feeling a bit short-changed. It's not without its strengths, but for a film I had high hopes for, it just didn't deliver.