Sometimes, seeing a director after they’ve taken a break feels like seeing an old friend. It’s been six years roughly since we’ve seen Danny Boyle in the director’s chair, and about eight since his last truly compelling film (apologies to the Beatles centric rom-com Yesterday, but Battle of the Sexes was just more gripping). So, when the trailer for 28 Years Later came out, it really did feel like seeing an old friend. It didn’t hurt that it was backed by a very crackly and very effective recording of the ominous Rudyard Kipling poem “Boots”, a piece about a British soldier slowly going insane. The preview we got cemented the vibe of the film we were going to get: it’s decades later and the war hasn’t ended, its only changed.
28 Years Later does succeed in reuniting audiences with the filmmaker that they love, and in telling a story of war—though it’s a battle within we get for the most part, and there are some directorial caveats limiting how truly great the film can be.
A Moving Coming Of Age Through The Apocalypse
It was an easy out for 28 Years Later to become one of those embarrassing nostalgia trips riddling the theatrical landscape nowadays (threatening to play John Murphy’s classic “28 Theme” as fanfare while Cillian Murphy steps out of a bunker to remind you what film series you’re watching).
It thankfully avoids that pitfall. At least, it has so far—we still have two movies to go, which this film makes very clear in its final, and truly most insane scene.
28 Years also quietly sidesteps the failures of its very weak predecessor, 28 Weeks Later, a film that felt cartoonishly eager to capitalize on the original film’s success. Instead, this returns to its roots in actually making you feel something for its characters. The movie follows young son Spike (Alfie Williams) and grizzled father Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) going on a mission beyond the walls of their isolated village on Lindisfarne, also known as Holy Mission Island.
Lindisfarne: A Unique Setting in 28 Years Later
With Lindisfarne separated from a quarantined England by a narrow causeway that sinks at high tide, the duo crosses the landbridge to go hunting on the mainland of the United Kingdom. Though it should bring them closer together, their relationship is only strained by the return as Spike insists on going back into the wild to find someone who can help his sick mother Isla (Jodie Comer).
Writer turned director turned back to writer Alex Garland has also returned with Boyle. The writer for the original 28 Days Later, here he paints an empathetic picture of a real, human conflict between Jamie and Spike. 28 Years Laterbecomes just as much a fight between tradition and the desire to break away from it as it is a fight between family members. It’s a struggle against life and death itself, with the tools not only being limited to bows and arrows.
Though the physical conflict comes from mutated virus hosts, some turned into muscular and monstrous “Alpha” infected in the years following the initial outbreak, Garland’s story of a young boy coping with the dissolution of his family, growing up, and trying to find hope in a hopeless situation is simple while still being biting in how real it can get, with a sincere and bloody coming of age story through the apocalypse being the result.
Alfie Williams and Aaron-Taylor Johnson Steal the Show
The young Alfie Williams who plays Spike is incredibly compelling in his role, depicting a real sense of anger and confusion that makes you forget he isn’t a veteran actor at points. He plays his role, a child whose inexperience is wrestling with his own determination and anger, like an expert. Likewise, Taylor-Johnson’s time onscreen as Jamie makes you really appreciate how uncomfortably real his character can get, being frustrating and sympathetic in his deeply flawed nature.
Jodie Comer has some phenomenal moments as Spike’s mother Isla, with one standout scene where her sickness has fully taken a toll on her mind. Unfortunately, the film doesn’t explore her character nearly as much as it could have, and the same can be said for Ralph Fiennes’ character, who despite being so forward in the promotional materials is not on screen nearly long enough. Ultimately, the story is brought home in spite of these weaknesses, depicted beautifully in cinematography that is nothing like what we’ve gotten from Boyle previously.
A Glut of Odd Editing Choices Blur Boyle’s Vision
The astounding directing Boyle brings to the table to depict this conflict, however, is pockmarked with truly bizarre editing choices. The use of shuddering 360 camera shots to display the infected being pierced by arrows is a small symptom of this, and can be reasoned away as a narrative decision instead of a clumsy technical exhibition. But then, these choices become more and more frequent.
A more prevalent example of these problems is the poor choice to splice in archival footage of England during wartime and medieval archers, haphazardly grafted onto pivotal moments early on in the film while our leads are out in the bloody and wide open unknown. This is also where the film decides to use that iconic audio of Rudyard Kipling’s “Boots” that made the trailer so effective, to eye-rolling results; it moves like a car breaking sharply and jerking to stop. It’s just not a narratively strong enough thread with the films weakly dispersed anti-war sentiments to justify bringing the movie to a halt so we can see these images.
An abrupt and awkwardly cut zombie attack in the final third of the film, scattered red tinted night vision shots from the infected point of view that are far and few between, and Fiennes absence makes me feel like quite a bit of material was cut from the film and reordered. And whether that material removed for time will see the light of day in a director’s cut or in a sequel means very little for the film we have at hand.
Why 28 Years Later Falls Just Short of Greatness
The fact is that 28 Years Later is a very compelling film at its core, but it is noticeably dragged down under the weight of its stylistic choices. Its potential is burdened by its editing, leaving you with a film that is thrilling and emotionally developed in the best of ways, sincere and even powerful at times, but just shy of being truly great.
