ericrnolan

Perhaps predictably, I truly enjoyed "28 Years Later" (2025). It wasn't a perfect film, but it was damned good; I'd rate it a 9 out of 10 on the Nolan scale. Screenwriter Alex Garland and director Danny Boyle are still the dream team for stylish, breakneck-paced action-horror. (It was their incendiary creative alchemy gave us the classic 2002 original film, "28 Days Later.")

The movie has beautiful acting across the board, kinetic action sequences, decent makeup effects, convincing sets, a resonant theme and some gorgeous cinematography. (I keep reading that the film was shot with ... iPhones? All of it? Really?)

Jodie Comer and Ralph Fiennes absolutely shine; Aaron Taylor Johnson is also quite good. But I particularly enjoyed the performance of 14-year-old Alfie Williams, whose character's coming-of-age comprises the human story of the film.

On the downside, "28 Years Later" has some problems with pacing and structure -- although things like those are especially subjective, and other viewers will hardly notice.

Several characters make decisions that are ... baffling. (Yes, I do realize that Williams' character is supposed to be 12 years old, and that this is a horror movie. But ... seriously, wtf, kiddo?) And there are some larger plot questions that I can't really expand upon for fear of spoilers.

Finally, an abrupt change of tone at the end of the film left me feeling a little nonplussed. It might make sense in a larger context -- the next "28" installment is due out in only six months, and the hard left turn we see in the final moments might be validated where the next movie picks up. For now, though, I have mixed feelings about this ending. (I want to know why a lengthy, somber meditation on mortality should end like a Saturday morning cartoon.)

I cheerfully recommend this! It is obviously not for the faint of heart, but it is highly effective action-horror that still manages to catch the viewer off guard. And Boyle delivers it with oddball, feverish finesse.

"Dark Matter" (2024) is easily one of the best science fiction tv series I've ever seen. It's like "Sliders" (1995-2000) got together with "North By Northwest" (1959) to create an homage to Homer's "Odyssey." I'd cheerfully rate Season 1 a 10 out of 10.

I had two concerns about whether I would enjoy "Dark Matter," after it was recommended to me by a college alumnus.

First, I was afraid that it would be too campy. C'mon ... a nice guy being kidnapped by his evil twin from a parallel universe? That's a potentially cheesy plot device, and one I feel certain I've seen more than once before ... maybe "The X Files" (1993- 2018), or some iteration of "The Outer Limits." But this is a surprisingly grounded story that assiduously sticks to realism in its tone and plotting (even if it's occasionally injected with an effective jolt of horror).

Second, I thought it might be too hard for me to follow. Its premise relies not only on physics, but on the enigma of the "Schrodinger's cat" thought experiment. (I will never truly understand it, no matter how many times I pretend to on Facebook. Reality is objective!) But the storytelling here is direct and easy to follow, even if the (logical) surprises take the viewer happily off guard. If my ADHD-afflicted brain could follow the story, then so can you.

And Season 1 ended so perfectly that I'm not even sure I wan a second season. (It has been renewed by Apple+ TV.)

I definitely get the sense that "Dark Matter" benefitted from having Blake Crouch as the showrunner and head writer. (Crouch is the author of the 2016 novel that is its source material). And it's got great performances by Joel Edgerton, Jennifer Connelly, Alice Braga and Jimmi Simpson.

It's really good stuff. Check it out.

Watching Alex Garland's "Civil War" (2024) is a lot like watching an hour-and-forty-nine minute train wreck -- except it's even more horrifying because the accident happens right outside your hometown, and its casualties might easily be people you know.

It isn't an "entertaining" movie; it's hard to imagine anyone "having a good time" seeing it. It's disturbing enough that I wouldn't even recommend it to many people I know. I'm probably showing my age when the movie I keep wanting to compare it to is Oliver Stone's "Platoon" (1986).

But it is definitely a well made film. In a nutshell, it combines the best elements of two of Alex Garland's previous movies. It has the breakneck, street-level, frightening, kinetic action of 2002's "28 Days Later" and the thoughtful dialogue of 2015's "Ex Machina." (But viewers who are wary of Garland's sometimes ponderous and lengthy dialogue scenes should rest assured that this is definitely an action movie.)

It's surprisingly apolitical. (Garland himself stated it was intentionally "opaque.") When we see random factions and individuals committing revolting acts of violence, we're often given little information about which side they are actually on. Viewers hoping to see America's contemporary left/right divide depicted will be disappointed. (Hence the part of the plot setup that readers laughed at before the movie's release -- California and Texas join forces against the federal government.) While Nick Offerman's cruel and feckless American president is obviously "a bad guy," his political party is never named.

The cast is roundly excellent, even if everyone is outshined by Kirsten Dunst's hollow-eyed photojournalist who is in the midst of a traumatized existential crisis. And if you're a fan of creepy "that guy" actor Jesse Plemmons, as I am, you'll see that he is at his finest here.

I know that there are spate of negative reviews since the film opened yesterday, accusing the film of being "pointless" or without a meaningful story. I disagree.

This is a milieu-type story in which the catastrophic war itself is the primary antagonist. It kills both the culpable and the innocent indiscriminately.

And Garland' message is clear: "Kids, don't try this at home."