28 Years Later

I was excited to see this long awaited anticipated sequel I was hyped. And the movie was I finished I thought that I would not ever say this but it was a disappointment how is this even apart of this world?. The movie felt really weird it didn't have the same feel as the other two films the editing was off I was not a fan of that. And a lot of the characters were through away characters you don't really care about them. If there is anybody I like Spike was that person and Dr. Kelson was cool. There are some cool things in here but really I think it's forgettable unfortunately. I will give this another rewatch to see if my thoughts have changed if I'am recommending any of the 3 watch the first two.

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.

I strongly feel like we were punked, and this was not the real film because I was expecting so much more than what I watched. However, I will say that the beginning started off great, but not with the intensity of the first two films. Then the follow up gave the film high hopes, but instantly came crashing down. Do not enter the theater thinking that you are about to watch a 28 days later trilogy because I don't know what the overarching message was behind what I just watched.

Nevertheless, fans of this genre will find some way to appreciate a different direction in which this film tries to take, but I sincerely think he should have stuck with the formula that made the prior two films cult classics.

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.

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.