cyguration

This is competently made but a huge drop in quality compared to the first two films.

The sociopolitical overtones are also quite apparent, even though they were also apparent in the first two films. The difference was that the first film was iconic for its grounded sense of dread and tension using real-world locations, practical effects, and a taut cinematic approach to storytelling and character development.

The sequel was far less compelling but still equally engaging with its larger set pieces and brilliant use of camera work, action, and an overwhelming sense of dread given the scope of how the zombies were portrayed in that film.

Here, none of that applies.

There are a couple of really well done action sequences, the most notable containing Aaron Taylor Johnson, who carries the film for what limited time he's given, but everything beyond that is droll and feels like ersatz compared to the previous films, even though Danny Boyle directed this entry.

In fact, this feels like Boyle was either asleep at the wheel or simply wanted to subvert expectations, not unlike Rian Johnson with his films.

Instead of redoing the "humans are worse than zombies" bit, he more-so tries to follow the deconstruction of social perception: Your heroes aren't who they say they are, and the villains aren't quite as bad as you think.

In short, it's more "masculinity bad, religion bad, alphas bad".

Literally, the big bad boss characters in the film are known as "alphas". Pretty on the nose.

There is also more anti-nuclear family messaging, and more promotion of "people not willing to engage in violence during a dystopian apocalypse are the real heroes".

It's a tiring message that requires writing around those obvious flaws if you really think about it for two seconds. In fact, the film runs into some pretty big cognitive dissonance in trying to construct action sequences around characters they try to keep disengaged from enacting violence to survive. This creates a completely disjointed narrative experience that makes no logical sense at times, and has to involve various deus ex machina to keep things moving along.

The more grounded and logical pacing of the first two films are completely gone. Here you're met with an uneven experience that tries to tell a story that was difficult for me to care about.

It was also a missed opportunity to be a film about bringing a family together through a perilous journey. I can't remember the last time I a saw a film like that other than Greenland?

There's a common thread in a lot of modern films to usually remove the father from the picture, or if he is there, have him act as a tertiary villain or a sacrificial plot device. This obviously isn't to say you can't or shouldn't depict fathers in this way, but it's way more common than not. Again, outside of Greenland I'm struggling to think of a film where a father is portrayed as competent and with good intentions when it comes to protecting his family.

This also isn't to say that every movie needs to have a happy family ending, it's just to say that hope for the nuclear family seems to be a rarity in many big-budget films these days. And 28 Years Later is no exception.

It already has another follow-up film planned, so maybe things will turn around, but given what has already been portrayed that seems highly unlikely. It's a shame because I really liked Aaron Taylor Johnson despite the writers doing everything they could to undermine his character. But that's a typical trend in many mainstream movies and properties these days, from The Last of Us to Adolescence.

In any case, there are far superior zombie flicks out there if you want to see them. Open Grave is worth a watch if you haven't seen it already, and the first 28 Days Later is still iconic, with 28 Weeks Later being a good enough follow-up. 28 Years Later however seems too late to the party, too long for the story it had to tell, and filled with too many social-media inspired tropes about straight-white males to make it anything more than fodder for the sociopolitical pyre.

While a lot of people will decry the film for some of its goofier elements, it's also a smartly written film in the sense that it at least tries to make you believe that what you're seeing happening, could happen.

This seems like a film written by a physics nerd who came up with a "What if...?" scenario during the height of the cold war propaganda, and placed it in the contextual storytelling box of most teen-oriented films during the 1980s, which seemed to center around a small-town kid who gets caught up in some kind of scientific or government conspiracy.

The science behind some of the storytelling is actually kind of intriguing, especially with the components, construction and dismantling of certain devices. This doesn't quite simplify the procedures down to "red wire or blue wire", and at least creates convincing tension when needed.

At the same time, this is a film in the 80s starring a kid who manages to trick top-level security so he can build an atomic bomb in his basement. So yeah, typical 80s goofiness fused with some creative ingenuous storytelling.

I had been thinking a lot about this film but upon having watched it, none of it seemed familiar. So I must have been suffering from the Mandala Effect because the name is obviously super familiar and the setting and plot definitely was rummaging around in my mind, but upon recently watching the film, nothing about it felt familiar at all.

Nevertheless, the plot structure and stakes reminded me a lot of Prime Risk, which also follows a couple of small town teens who stumble upon a pretty big national security risk involving the economic safety of the nation.

In this case, it's about the nuclear safety of the town.

That being said, one thing that stands out about this film compared to today's films is that Paul is written as smart, amoral, and dense. In other words, there's a lot of real world traits there. He's competent and driven enough to do something that could have harmed a lot of people, but also still wanted to do the right thing in the end.

While some people might say it seems too far fetched he could build such a thing, I didn't really see that as being too outlandish given if you look at a lot of the bright minds that blossomed the booming tech sector of the 1990s, it came from a lot of teens who were brilliant in the 1980s, like John Carmack.

Sadly, in today's films, most young males are never portrayed as anywhere near as driven, nor as smart, nor as inventive, nor as competent as Paul. That's because the 80s reflected the "can do" mentality that was still prevalent in media, with a lot of alpha male rolemodels encouraging men to be go-getters, like Arnold, Dolph, Stallone, Carl Weathers or Jean-Claude. There was also a strong push for American ingenuity and industrialization, as evident in films like Gung Ho, Major League, Real Men or Taking Care of Business.

A movie like this was just one of the herd back then, but seeing it more recently is a huge breath of fresh air compared to the droll, nihilistic subversion that seems to be rife in many of today's films coming out of Hollywood.

It's just a sign of the times.

My sister used to love this film, but I never understood why. We would typically watch anything with Linda Hamilton in it, but I never could get into this movie.

I remember the reviews all panned it; and now, nearly 40 years later, I can see why.

This had everything to be a cult classic: great cast, awesome premise, cool sci-fi themes.

So what went wrong? Well, this -- like many movies from the 80s and early 90s -- felt like the concoction of some Hollywood executive's fever dream after going on a coke binge.

There are like four different movies rolled into one here, and yet none of them seem to be cohesively fleshed out.

This is really what hurts this film more than anything: tons of half-baked ideas tucked into a movie that has a quick runtime that somehow manages to be boring due to poor pacing.

There are only two noteworthy action sequences involving the eponymous Black Moon. And despite it being the namesake of the film, this cool looking, retro-futuristic, hydrogen powered hyper-car is rarely featured in the film.

Tommy Lee Jones is interesting to watch as a stoic thief, and Linda Hamilton attempts to smoulder as a devious thief, and despite both being thieves neither have much chemistry together. It's part of the whole concept of this film smashing multiple concepts together without actually doing much with them.

Worst yet, I think Tommy Lee Jones and Linda Hamilton were both miscast in this.

I think Dirk Benedict may have been a better pick as a Han Solo-esque thief, down on his luck but quick with his wits. But then again, Tommy Lee Jones and the Black Moon were the only two things that kept this film remotely interesting, so replacing him with anyone else might have had the opposite effect.

And Rebecca De Mornay, Sally Field or Ellen Barkin might have done a better job as a carjacking femme fatale. While I usually like Hamilton, here she just didn't seem to have much to work with and didn't seem terribly interested in the uninspired character she was playing.

This also isn't to say that mish-mashing different genres together can't work -- they absolutely can. Real Steel as a sci-fi boxing family drama works well, and Big Trouble In Little China worked excellent as a comedic sci-fi B-movie action-horror martial arts film.

The thing is, you have to pace your movie correctly and make sure the threads keep the audience interested. Here, too much of the film meandered around and there were too many scenes that just didn't have to be or didn't move the plot along in any interesting ways.

They should have focused more on outlining the heist and the complexity of getting past the security systems in the tower(s); or focusing more on the importance of the Black Moon and why people wanted it; or why the accountant tapes were so vital.

These subplot threads were all there but never fully explored. They all kind of come to an abrupt end at the ending.

It's more disappointing than anything, because this film had so much potential, but just kind of goes nowhere. One thing that really stood out was the poor editing -- there's a chase scene that ensues in the desert near the beginning of the film that just cuts off and switches to a random scene in a bar. It's like... what?!?!

They either should have focused more on the action or more on developing the plot. But they kind of half-heartedly approached every plot point, leaving the film feeling unsatisfying as a sci-fi thriller, unsatisfying as an action film, and unsatisfying as a romance movie (the romance was especially bad and made no sense whatsoever).

I feel like maybe there's a director's cut somewhere that is re-edited to make the film make more sense or at least feel more cohesive, but is such a film really worth it? I can't really vouch for such a thing.