28 anni dopo

Danny Boyle's return to the world of the rage virus, proves to be a welcome one. Once more in collaboration with Alex Garland, like 28 days before it, 28 years later is yet another expansion in this unique vision for a "zombie" flick.

The filmmaking on display is Boyle at his best. Filming on digital is often frowned upon by film purists. Leave it to Danny Boyle to showcase the strengths of digital cinematography. The frantic editing, the unnerving camera movements and zooms, the contrast rich lighting... All make for an unsettling experience. The night vision scenes, drenched in red lighting are particularly eerie.

Thankfully, the infamous "boots" poem which helped turn the teaser for 28 years later, into one of the single greatest trailers of all-time (no hyperbole), is incorporated in the film. It's the best scene in the film.

28 years later fits right as rain, into the world of the "Rage Virus". It tells a surprisingly touching story about survival, anger, fear and love. Nothing turns out as you'd expect and nobody is as they seem. I truly love this film. All the more reason, the last scene of the film legitimately baffled me... It features an event and characters that are at such odds with the rest of the film. Surely, on purpose. But the contrast was annoyingly jarring. What a weird film... But it's fantastic!

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.

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 have to admit, after the opening scene of the film, my expectations went far below what it would for this series. After the explosive intro to 28 Weeks Later, which ended up being a middling film at the end, I expected much more of a bang at the beginning. I guess that is what they wanted though, to subvert your expectations and subvert them they did.

As a horror junkie, I thought I had seen almost everything this genre has to offer, particularly within the zombie genre. However, as the film progressed, Danny Boyle and Alex Garland did things that surprised even me. To my delight, this film ended up being a breath of fresh air.

Just when I thought the film was going in a certain macabre and disturbing, but familiar way, it finds a beating heart and shows that humanity is present even in the face of death. It touched me in a way that few films of this nature have and for that I applaud the creators.

I refuse to elaborate on the story or anything of that sort, because I feel it just needs to be experienced fresh and new in the mind. I will say the cast and crew do an amazing job, the acting is phenomenonal and the cinematography felt inventive and raw. It helps drive home the story the creator's intended to tell.

Overall, a fantastic sequel. Far above what it could've been had they just stuck to the formula. As I said previous, I applaud Danny Boyle and Alex Garland for doing something daring and for keeping it original and authentic. This one will probably go down as the best horror film of the year. I will definitely be in the theater for the next installments to see where they can take this disturbing, but hopeful story.

4.5 skulls out of 5.

Was going to be difficult to surpass the previous 2 movies and for me 28 years later didn't. Boyle could have really ramped up the adrenaline but it just wasn't there. Lots of pointless sub stories going on and the military scenes didn't add any value to the story. It's a one watch movie and yes it is worth just that one watch, but it's not a rollercoaster ride like the previous movies. The opening running scene of 28 weeks later was too difficult to match and for me Boyle just didn't pull it off.

After all these years it was disappointing or perhaps I just need to lower my expectations and realise the previous movies are just the best. Such a shame.