paulclaassen

'28 Years Later' follows on the events of '28 Days Later' and '28 Weeks Later', but this is an entirely different movie. It is not as fast-paced or bloody, and the flesh-eating zombies actually take a backseat in this installment - although there's still plenty of zombie action; don't get me wrong.

Survivors of the Rage Virus live on the British Isles, which is under quarantine. The film follows 12-year old protagonist Spike (brilliantly portrayed by Alfie Williams), who is accompanied by his Dad, Jamie, on his first trip to the mainland. A Causeway connects the island to the mainland, and is completely submerged during high tide.

Jamie teaches Spike how to kill the infected - or zombies - while they also scour abandoned homes for anything useful. The film introduces us to new zombies referred to as Slow Low (hideous, slow moving infected beings), a pregnant zombie giving birth, and the powerful Alpha, who is the leader of a group of infected. (Alpha is portrayed by the muscular Chi Lewis-Parry, who is a huge man...erm, as you will clearly see. Oh, did I forget to mention the zombies are nude in this installment? Yup, full frontal swinging dicks and tits all the way!).

Back to the story: Spike's mom is sick and we're not sure what is wrong with her (neither does Jamie or Spike). When Spike learns of a doctor, Dr. Kelson (Ralph Fiennes), living on the mainland - and after seeing his dad with another woman - Spike embarks on a journey with his mom to find the doctor, who will hopefully be able to help her. The bond between mother and son is beautiful, touching and emotional.

'28 Years Later' is not only completely different to its predecessors, it is also completely different to any zombie movie I've seen. Danny Boyle took a big risk with this movie, but thankfully it paid off. Some of the visuals are breathtakingly beautiful, and some scenes are edge-of-your-seat suspenseful. But at the core of everything this is a love story between a mother and son, and the more I think about the movie and its message, the more I like it. The door is also wide open for the sequel: '28 Years Later: The Bone Temple', coming in 2026.

'The Road to El Dorado' is an animated adventure film that will appeal mostly to a young audience, while a mature audience will enjoy the original Elton John songs, and Hans Zimmer score.

Animation movies certainly have come a long way, and today's animated movies are simply stunning. Due to the cartoonish animation I couldn't really get into the movie as much as I wanted to. Apart from the animation, though, even the characters and dialogue were very plain - again, possibly to appeal more to a young demographic.

The premise revolves around two con artists, Tulio and Miguel, who unexpectedly find themselves on the adventure of a lifetime when they obtain a map to El Dorado - the legendary City of Gold. They find their way to the city surprisingly easy, but once there, they are mistaken for gods as foretold by a prophecy. With the prospect of receiving gold as gifts by the tribe, they run along with the idea and pretend to be gods. But someone else is in search of El Dorado and Tulio and Miguel realize they have to help the tribe save their city.

Yeah, there's lots of action and adventure to keep the kids entertained. As for me, this was a once off watch. Turns out I'm not the only one, as the film unfortunately flopped at the box office and only earned $76 million on a $95 million budget. Ouch!

Yeah, this definitely needed a remake. While the visual effects are impressive to this day, the story lacked reason and vision. I therefore can't help but compare this film to the 2002 remake starring Guy Pearce, and this review will be a comparison review.

In this 1960 film, the only reason inventor George Wells (Rod Taylor) invents the time machine, is because he has the means to do so, and because he wants to see what the future holds for humanity. In the 2002 version, our inventor and mathematician is Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce) who wants to go back in time to prevent his girlfriend's death. In the process the film has a deeper meaning and more emotional edge to it, and we root for Alexander all the way hoping he will succeed. What happens to him afterwards, is as a result of his obsession to save his girlfriend.

In the 1960 film, our hero is far too passive, and for big parts of the movie he merely sits in his time machine watching time goes by. There is a lot more action and urgency in the 2002 remake. The underground creatures, the Morlocks, are creepy and dangerous beasts in the new version, while they are anything but scary in the 1960 version. Sure, back in the day they might have frightened audiences, but today they're more funny than scary.

One thing I can't understand about either of the two versions, is the fact they mention in both films that there are no older people among them anymore. In the 2002 film, it is said "they have gone from this place", while the 1960 version simply says "there are no older people". If the Morlocks were taking the older people, it would have made sense, but in both movies they randomly pick their victims/prey. So it still doesn't make sense to me why there are no older people. Why mention this if it plays no part in the story?

Back in 1960 this must have been an awesome movie, and yes, it does have a good climax. The 2002 film is one of my favourite movies, and one I'd watch again and again, while I doubt I will give this 1960 film a repeat viewing. (If you enjoy watching vintage movies, this is still worth a watch.)