FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://talkingfilms.net/28-years-later-review-ambitious-and-beautiful-but-struggles-with-narrative-overload/ "28 Years Later is an imperfect but undeniably bold movie - a worthy addition to the saga. It's more technically polished, features excellent performances, and even if some of its narrative risks don't pay off, the thematic ambition is admirable, despite struggling to bring all of its elements into a cohesive whole. Danny Boyle and Alex Garland are commenting on the state of the modern world - from national identity crises to the ethics of human survival - delivering moments of high intensity, morally relevant questions, and striking visual filmmaking. Though not entirely satisfying, the film leaves us with a firm curiosity about the direct sequel arriving in just a few months." Rating: B

It’s almost thirty years since Cillian Murphy wandered around in his hospital gown; the so-called “rage” virus still shows no sign of abating and with Britain effectively quarantined from Europe there are few outposts untouched by it’s madness. Protected by the tides, the small island of Lindisfarne is one such bastion and that’s where “Spike” (Alfie Williams) lives with his dad (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and his poorly mum (Jodie Comer). It’s a big day in the place when “Spike” is taken to the mainland by his father to make his first kill. That’s not least because he is barely twelve years old and because he has never seen anything of town nor land as far as the eye can see before. He’s also never seen any of the infected before, either. With this trip being fairly fraught and eventful and with one of his family friends at home telling him of a doctor “Kelson” (Ralph Fiennes) who might be able to help his increasingly disturbed mother, the newly emboldened “Spike” comes up with a daring plan to see if he can help make her better. It’s all pretty standard zombie fayre this film but though there is quite a decent effort from the confident young Williams and Comer does lethally equipped confused well too, the rest of it just lacks much for originality. There’s plenty of action, but there was that in “Shaun of the Dead” (2004) too - and at least that was funny. This is just all a bit intense, with the psycho-babble “up and down again” commentary and some inconsistently incorporated archive from old Robin Hood or Olivier films that seem to suggest something of the recurring nature of history, but also of this plot. Sure, it’s only part one of a trilogy and the iodine-bedecked Fiennes does introduce a little quirky intrigue for what might come next, but I was really quite disappointed with this over-hyped and all too often quite episodic horror, sorry.

I have waited for 18, painful, years since 28 weeks later was released for this sequel. So, as I am sure it is the case with many Zombie movie fans I had expectations very high. The movie is set 28 years after the infection in a, this time completely, quarantined UK and follow a family who lives in a secured village. The dad has a scouting job so the main plot of the movie follows what happens after the 12 years-old son is exposed to the outside of the village and the many new evolved types of zombies and people that now plague the country. The movie has good technical quality and the initial sequence with the dad and the child venturing in the open country has the same energy as the first movies, with frenzied zombie pursuits and the feeling you "can't catch a break". However, the director tried too hard to make an artsy movie, with "The Shining"-like visions, excessive soap-opera drama, and even a ridiculous sequence with people jumping around "fighting kung fu" which reminded me of Kung Fu Hustle. Still a good movie worth watching and with a better editing it could have been the great movie we all expected, but the final format is a bit of a disappointment for the fans that waited for so long.