Tag Archives: alex garland

Uncategorized

A review of “28 Years Later” (2025)

Leave a comment

Perhaps predictably, I truly enjoyed “28 Years Later” (2025).  It wasn’t a perfect film, but it was damned good; I’d rate it a 9 out of 10 on the Nolan scale.  Screenwriter Alex Garland and director Danny Boyle are still the dream team for stylish, breakneck-paced action-horror.  (It was their incendiary creative alchemy gave us the classic 2002 original film, “28 Days Later.”)

The movie has beautiful acting across the board, kinetic action sequences, decent makeup effects, convincing sets, a resonant theme and some gorgeous cinematography.  (I keep reading that the film was shot with … iPhones?  All of it?  Really?)

Jodie Comer and Ralph Fiennes absolutely shine; Aaron Taylor-Johnson is also quite good.  But I particularly enjoyed the performance of 14-year-old Alfie Williams, whose character’s coming-of-age comprises the human story of the film.

On the downside, “28 Years Later” has some problems with pacing and structure — although things like those are especially subjective, and other viewers will hardly notice.

Several characters make decisions that are … baffling.  (Yes, I do realize that Williams’ character is supposed to be 12 years old, and that this is a horror movie.  But … seriously, wtf, kiddo?)  And there are some larger plot questions that I can’t really expand upon for fear of spoilers.

Finally, an abrupt change of tone at the end of the film left me feeling a little nonplussed.  It might make sense in a larger context — the next “28” installment is due out in only six months, and the hard left turn we see in the final moments might be validated where the next movie picks up.  For now, though, I have mixed feelings about this ending.  (I want to know why a lengthy, somber meditation on mortality should end like a Saturday morning cartoon.)

I cheerfully recommend this!  It is obviously not for the faint of heart, but it is highly effective action-horror that still manages to catch the viewer off guard.  And Boyle delivers it with oddball, feverish finesse.

Uncategorized

What is that strange poem in the trailer for “28 Years Later” (2025)?

Leave a comment

If you’re a horror fan like I am, then you were delighted with the news that Danny Boyle, Alex Garland and even Cillian Murphy have reunited to present the world with “28 Years Later” (2025).  And the trailer to which I’ve linked below is the real one.  (I positively loathe the abundance of fake movie trailers to be found online — especially when their incorporation of AI makes them seem authentic.)

The creepy military cadence that you hear in the background, I have come to learn, is Rudyard Kipling’s 1903 poem, “Boots.”  I pasted it below for your perusal.

Postscript — am I an OCD psycho if it annoys me that we didn’t get a “28 Months Later” before a “28 Years Later,” just for consistency?  There were one or two fan films that appropriated the title.  Maybe we could collectively vote to simply decide that at least one is canon?

“Boots,” by Rudyard Kipling

We’re foot—slog—slog—slog—sloggin’ over Africa —
Foot—foot—foot—foot—sloggin’ over Africa —
(Boots—boots—boots—boots—movin’ up an’ down again!)
There’s no discharge in the war!

Seven—six—eleven—five—nine-an’-twenty mile to-day —
Four—eleven—seventeen—thirty-two the day before —
(Boots—boots—boots—boots—movin’ up an’ down again!)
There’s no discharge in the war!

Don’t—don’t—don’t—don’t—look at what’s in front of you.
(Boots—boots—boots—boots—movin’ up an’ down again);
Men—men—men—men—men go mad with watchin’ em,
An’ there’s no discharge in the war!

Try—try—try—try—to think o’ something different —
Oh—my—God—keep—me from goin’ lunatic!
(Boots—boots—boots—boots—movin’ up an’ down again!)
There’s no discharge in the war!

Count—count—count—count—the bullets in the bandoliers.
If—your—eyes—drop—they will get atop o’ you!
(Boots—boots—boots—boots—movin’ up an’ down again) —
There’s no discharge in the war!

We—can—stick—out—’unger, thirst, an’ weariness,
But—not—not—not—not the chronic sight of ’em —
Boot—boots—boots—boots—movin’ up an’ down again,
An’ there’s no discharge in the war!

‘Taint—so—bad—by—day because o’ company,
But night—brings—long—strings—o’ forty thousand million
Boots—boots—boots—boots—movin’ up an’ down again.
There’s no discharge in the war!

I—’ave—marched—six—weeks in ‘Ell an’ certify
It—is—not—fire—devils, dark, or anything,
But boots—boots—boots—boots—movin’ up an’ down again,
An’ there’s no discharge in the war!

Uncategorized

The Piker Press features my review of Alex Garland’s “Civil War” (2024)

Leave a comment

Hey, gang — I got my first movie review published!  Thanks so much to Managing Editor Sand Pilarski at The Piker Press for letting me share my take on Alex Garland’s “Civil War” (2024).

You can read it right here.

Uncategorized

The message of “Civil War” (2024) in six words: “Kids, don’t try this at home.”

1 Comment

Watching Alex Garland’s “Civil War” (2024) is a lot like watching an hour-and-forty-nine-minute train wreck — except it’s even more horrifying because the accident happens right outside your hometown, and its casualties might easily be people you know.

It isn’t an “entertaining” movie; it’s hard to imagine anyone “having a good time” seeing it.  It’s disturbing enough that I wouldn’t even recommend it to many people I know.  I’m probably showing my age when the movie I keep wanting to compare it to is Oliver Stone’s “Platoon” (1986).

But it is definitely a well made film.  In a nutshell, it combines the best elements of two of Garland’s previous movies.  It has the breakneck, street-level, frightening, kinetic action of 2002’s “28 Days Later” and the thoughtful dialogue of 2015’s “Ex Machina.”  (But viewers who are wary of Garland’s sometimes ponderous and lengthy dialogue scenes should rest assured that this is definitely an action movie.)

It’s surprisingly apolitical.  (Garland himself stated it was intentionally “opaque.”)  When we see random factions and individuals committing revolting acts of violence, we’re often given little information about which side they are actually on.  Viewers hoping to see America’s contemporary left/right divide depicted will be disappointed.  (Hence the part of the plot setup that readers laughed at before the movie’s release —  California and Texas join forces against the federal government.)  While Nick Offerman’s cruel and feckless American president is obviously “a bad guy,” his political party is never named.

The cast is roundly excellent, even if everyone is outshined by Kirsten Dunst’s hollow-eyed photojournalist who is in the midst of a traumatized existential crisis.  And if you’re a fan of creepy “that guy” actor Jesse Plemmons, as I am, you’ll see that he is at his finest here.

I know that there have been a spate of negative reviews since the film opened yesterday, accusing it of being “pointless” or without a meaningful story.  I disagree.

This is a milieu-type story in which the catastrophic war itself is the primary antagonist.   It kills both the culpable and the innocent indiscriminately.

And Garland’s message is clear: “Kids, don’t try this at home.”

CW