28 ans plus tard

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.

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.

As a huge fan of the first 2 films, it's pains me to say it but I found this really disappointing.

Should have guessed from the 15 certificate that it would lack the horror and the edge of the earlier films. I don't want to spoil the plot but there are 2 or 3 plot lines that really don't make sense. The ending I felt was particularly bad.

I get that the story is a very blunt metaphor for Brexit and the theme of rebirth (literally in one case) is very clear but just didn't gel or work as a story for me.

If you are looking for a continuance of the earlier, darker, scarier films I fear you may also leave the cinema disappointed.

Great first half, full of tension, beautiful cinematography, although those zombie kill shots where scene pauses and camera angle rotates was annoying and looked like a video game scene.

Super boring second half where movie switches tone to comedy drama and predictable scenes were dragged too much.

Completely stupid ending, nothing like what you would expect from this movie series.

28 days later was such an amazing movie with constant tension throughout, great ending and awesome camera work showing aggressiveness of zombies that you felt through screen. This movie however is disappointing. Alphas just look like Jason Mamoa with makeup. Would have been nice if they kept rest of the movie similar to the first half with focus on horror and intense tension to keep viewers edge of their seat instead of making viewers fall asleep.

Very different to anything in the previous two movies.

Some really good nods to the present Little England mentality, which would be lost outside of the UK. The crazy ending that is hilarious would also be lost if not familiar with the context.

So many subtle things that Boyle has included in here. The now felled sycamore gap tree being one. Any sense of distance with the cameos is artistic license.

The story is split into two halves and fans will prefer the first. There are some excellent scenes in there.

The Doctor is mad. A great character played by a superb actor.

I liked it and would watch parts again.

Totally bonkers!