drawlife

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.

I quite liked the first ACCOUNTANT and always thought there were more opportunities for more stories down the line. For a while I didn't think we were ever going to get more, but here we are after nine years.

It's serviceable sequel that in some ways is better than the first, but ultimately it's not as tightly written. The problem is that the villains are super bland, forgettable and one dimensional. There's not much weight on that department, but front and center is Affleck and Bernthal bouncing off each other extremely well.

Affleck effortlessly portrays Christian Wolff again and hasn't lost a step. Much like the first film, he and the filmmakers did a respectable job with depicting someone with autism and social struggles on a more personal level. Bernthal gets more to do than the first and we get to explore their brotherly dynamic/relationship. The comedy that comes with them is quite funny.

But despite some moments of comedy, I did notice that they leaned into that more than the first film. It wasn't a deal breaker, but there were maybe one or two moments that were meant for comedic moments that did take me out of the film like when they go to a country bar or the opening where he's looking to match with a woman, or when Bernthal's Braxton freaks out about owning a corgi. Again not a huge deal breaker, but it did throw me off a tad. The humor worked better when Braxton would tease Affleck's Wolff.

Affleck and Bernthal also shine in the action sequences. They definitely bring it at near the end of the film where they raid a prison camp in Juarez.

I have mixed feelings on the overall objective and intrigue surrounding Daniella Pineda's Anais. The twist surrounding her I did not see coming so that was a shock, but it kinda felt empty, and I say that because the film subverts your expectation of her playing a bigger adversary to Christian and Braxton. Her overall arc though is oddly satisfying in some way cause it's bittersweet.

Cynthia Addai-Robinson's Medina I thought could have had a tiny bit more to do, she's kinda out of the picture a little too quickly, shame cause I kinda like the idea of a fed working people like Christian and Braxton. Also a shame that J. K. Simmons died so quickly, but it was to set the plot in motion I suppose.

Overall a good sequel that's not as sharp as the first, but worth your time. I do hope it's successful enough we get another chapter for some more Affleck and Bernthal fun.

7/10.