Danny Boyle's 28 YEARS LATER has crossed a major milestone at the box office, which is great news for those who want to see the director finish his planned new trilogy.
I’m elaborating on critiques of the movie you asked for elaboration on, though the real issue seems to be that you’re just unwilling not to consistently give the movie the benefit of the doubt. Overall I thought it was fine, though the parts of it that weren’t good specifically compare poorly to the earlier entries in the series.
The gas station scene is heavily contrived to provide an older-brother or father figure, offering viewers comfort regarding the main character’s situation given Spike’s dad wasn’t around. The guy is killed shortly afterwards as Ralph Fiennes’ character takes over that role instead. This is not only a big tonal departure from the previous movies, but also within the movie itself. What is this, an action, adventure, horror, buddy, sci fi, drama, comedy movie? It is all of them at different parts and mostly only the action is done well (though even then, the bullet time shots - wtf?). Erik’s introduction to the audience and main characters are the clearest examples of this and that’s why those scenes specifically are relevant to my criticism.
Isla’s death does a big disservice to the concept of voluntary assisted dying and significantly cheapens her character arc IMO. For a large part of the movie, her illness just isn’t relevant to what she’s doing.
Are you saying it isn’t heavily implied those are the same kids? What other purpose does the group of kids at the start serve? Why do they all have long blonde hair? Why is their zombie massacre scored by a metal version of the Teletubbies?
When movie magic stops being magic and starts being transparently a plot device, or omission in service of serialisation, it’s bad. This has nothing to do with whether I’m willing to suspend disbelief - example: Ralph Fiennes surviving on the mainland for decades because he paints himself with iodine - fine. Isla wandering into the distance to be killed by a morphine blowdart which seconds earlier had only served to make Spike a little woozy - dumb.
though the real issue seems to be that you’re just unwilling not to consistently give the movie the benefit of the doubt
I’ve given pretty detailed explanations of why the things you’ve brought up don’t seem unrealistic to me.
The gas station scene is heavily contrived to provide an older-brother or father figure
We just seem to have radically different interpretations of what we saw on the screen. You seem to be very confident about what you think the filmmakers intended and how most audiences will interpret specific scenes, which I dispute. To my mind Erik’s main purpose was for world building, to contrast the way the UK had regressed to an older type of civilisation while the rest of the world moved on. Erik’s character is petulant and kind of obnoxious and Spike never really takes to him, I don’t see him as a familial figure to Spike at all. If anything he presents another type of authority figure that Spike rejects and stands up to, in the scene with the child.
This is not only a big tonal departure from the previous movies, but also within the movie itself. What is this, an action, adventure, horror, buddy, sci fi, drama, comedy movie?
This is probably in line with a lot of the people I’ve talked to who had issues with the film, it didn’t fit into their expectation or categorisation. I don’t know why this is a negative for some people but each to their own. Danny Boyle has basically built his career on subverting categorisation and challenging stylistic norms.
For a large part of the movie, her illness just isn’t relevant to what she’s doing.
I find this kind of a baffling statement. Her character is defined by her illness, and it defines the relationships of the whole family to each other. Right from her introductory scene she is her illness, she is no longer in control of herself. Spike travels onto the mainland because of her illness. During her travel she is continually regressing into a childlike mental state, because of her illness, inverting the parental role with Spike. This is central to Spike’s character arc, imo, rejecting the expectations and traditions of his society and choosing his own path, taking over the parental role from his mother and eventually taking complete ownership of his own life after she is gone.
And of course her death is central and necessary for the most overt theme in the whole film, the fleeting preciousness of life, whatever shape it takes.
Are you saying it isn’t heavily implied those are the same kids?
When the zombies burst into the room with the kids at the start, there is a very specific shot of blood splattering across the TV screen. To me that was a very intentional message that those kids are dead. There’s definitely something going on with the blonde hair, but it seems to somehow be tied into the fact that they’re all dressed very similarly to the celebrity and child molester Jimmy Saville, who had the exact hair that Jimmy’s group all have. I don’t know what’s going on there but I don’t think they’re the same kids. I guess I could be wrong about this, all the kids at the start being blonde is certainly a bit confusing in the context. But if I am I’ll wait and see what the explanation is before I decide whether its believable or not.
Isla wandering into the distance to be killed by a morphine blowdart which seconds earlier had only served to make Spike a little woozy - dumb.
He can’t have different strength darts? Is that unrealistic? This seems like the key difference between how we’ve viewed the film. For me this is a minor detail that serves the greater plot, and can easily be explained without jarringly breaking suspension of disbelief, even though it isn’t specifically explained. It didn’t stand out to me at all. But if that detail jumps out at you and interrupts what the scene is trying to do, I guess that undermines the film for you.
I think Erik’s purpose as world-building would be redundant. It was already achieved by Spike’s dad pointing out the quarantine patrol. He could have served a world-building purpose if he helped explain why Britain alone is the quarantine zone and not France where 28 Weeks Later clearly depicts the virus spreading, but he doesn’t.
I’m not opposed to tonal departures from previous films in a series, but when it plainly contrives justification to jump between genres mid-movie, to me this screams artistic compromise for the aim of broadening audience appeal. Especially combined with the technical choices like the 30-iPhone camera rigs, it feels less like they were trying to reframe the series and more like they were taking the piss, blinded by hubris, motivated by a payday, etc.
she is no longer in control of herself
I’m referring to the large parts of the movie where she clearly is. She alone has the presence of mind and body to endure danger to save baby Isla, to save Spike while he’s sleeping. The way the movie depicts her, when they wake up and she has apparently forgotten what she’d done it’s almost as though she’s hiding the truth to mentally shield Spike. Following her diagnosis she even explains her previously unspoken awareness of her own confusion. She isn’t continually regressing; she’s intermittently regressing. She is more helpless at the start of the movie than at the point of her death.
I hadn’t considered they were a depiction of Jimmy Saville, I think you’re right. It would add to the backstory of the kids, given they are depicted as related yet socially distant from eachother. I’d imagine they were in a cult, probably half-siblings with Jimmy with the same crazy Catholic-molester-cult leader father, his bloodline carrying the mutation that makes them subservient to Jimmy, and his character which Jimmy emulates. The shot of the TV you’re talking about is likely a red herring, not because of this theory of mine but because there’s simply no reason for the group of kids to exist as they are depicted. It’s almost certain that whole scene’s purpose was to set up the next movie.
He can’t have different strength darts?
Certainly he can. Again, I agree with you that suspension of disbelief is fine and normal in movies. The point at which it becomes bad is when a significant part of the narrative arc of a movie heavily depends on that suspension of disbelief. It is fine to assume that Ralph Fiennes’ character has devised some way of surviving on the mainland because he is already built up as an expert survivalist, so the specific methods he used don’t require extensive explanation. His medical expertise means it’s even fine that he’s somehow found a way to either synthesize morphine himself, or scavenge it. No critical part of the narrative arc of the movie relies on these facts. However Spike and his mother’s acceptance of her death and the method of her death all hinges on that Ralph’s morphine darts, the purpose of which is to temporarily sedate Alphas, are actually pre-prepared for mild sedation of a child, euthanisation of a human, and presumably a range of other purposes. Can you see how that would need some sort of surface-level explanation to be believable, or do you really think it’s ok that we are just to presume that he’s a master of adjusting bootleg morphine blowdart dosages on the fly? Perhaps if that were the only case where such a leap of faith is required by the audience to make sense of the plot, it wouldn’t bother me.
I actually just found a quote from Boyle specifically saying that Jimmy’s gang are like “a replacement for the family he loses at the beginning”, which is how I originally interpreted that scene.
I’m elaborating on critiques of the movie you asked for elaboration on, though the real issue seems to be that you’re just unwilling not to consistently give the movie the benefit of the doubt. Overall I thought it was fine, though the parts of it that weren’t good specifically compare poorly to the earlier entries in the series.
The gas station scene is heavily contrived to provide an older-brother or father figure, offering viewers comfort regarding the main character’s situation given Spike’s dad wasn’t around. The guy is killed shortly afterwards as Ralph Fiennes’ character takes over that role instead. This is not only a big tonal departure from the previous movies, but also within the movie itself. What is this, an action, adventure, horror, buddy, sci fi, drama, comedy movie? It is all of them at different parts and mostly only the action is done well (though even then, the bullet time shots - wtf?). Erik’s introduction to the audience and main characters are the clearest examples of this and that’s why those scenes specifically are relevant to my criticism.
Isla’s death does a big disservice to the concept of voluntary assisted dying and significantly cheapens her character arc IMO. For a large part of the movie, her illness just isn’t relevant to what she’s doing.
Are you saying it isn’t heavily implied those are the same kids? What other purpose does the group of kids at the start serve? Why do they all have long blonde hair? Why is their zombie massacre scored by a metal version of the Teletubbies?
When movie magic stops being magic and starts being transparently a plot device, or omission in service of serialisation, it’s bad. This has nothing to do with whether I’m willing to suspend disbelief - example: Ralph Fiennes surviving on the mainland for decades because he paints himself with iodine - fine. Isla wandering into the distance to be killed by a morphine blowdart which seconds earlier had only served to make Spike a little woozy - dumb.
I’ve given pretty detailed explanations of why the things you’ve brought up don’t seem unrealistic to me.
We just seem to have radically different interpretations of what we saw on the screen. You seem to be very confident about what you think the filmmakers intended and how most audiences will interpret specific scenes, which I dispute. To my mind Erik’s main purpose was for world building, to contrast the way the UK had regressed to an older type of civilisation while the rest of the world moved on. Erik’s character is petulant and kind of obnoxious and Spike never really takes to him, I don’t see him as a familial figure to Spike at all. If anything he presents another type of authority figure that Spike rejects and stands up to, in the scene with the child.
This is probably in line with a lot of the people I’ve talked to who had issues with the film, it didn’t fit into their expectation or categorisation. I don’t know why this is a negative for some people but each to their own. Danny Boyle has basically built his career on subverting categorisation and challenging stylistic norms.
I find this kind of a baffling statement. Her character is defined by her illness, and it defines the relationships of the whole family to each other. Right from her introductory scene she is her illness, she is no longer in control of herself. Spike travels onto the mainland because of her illness. During her travel she is continually regressing into a childlike mental state, because of her illness, inverting the parental role with Spike. This is central to Spike’s character arc, imo, rejecting the expectations and traditions of his society and choosing his own path, taking over the parental role from his mother and eventually taking complete ownership of his own life after she is gone.
And of course her death is central and necessary for the most overt theme in the whole film, the fleeting preciousness of life, whatever shape it takes.
When the zombies burst into the room with the kids at the start, there is a very specific shot of blood splattering across the TV screen. To me that was a very intentional message that those kids are dead. There’s definitely something going on with the blonde hair, but it seems to somehow be tied into the fact that they’re all dressed very similarly to the celebrity and child molester Jimmy Saville, who had the exact hair that Jimmy’s group all have. I don’t know what’s going on there but I don’t think they’re the same kids. I guess I could be wrong about this, all the kids at the start being blonde is certainly a bit confusing in the context. But if I am I’ll wait and see what the explanation is before I decide whether its believable or not.
He can’t have different strength darts? Is that unrealistic? This seems like the key difference between how we’ve viewed the film. For me this is a minor detail that serves the greater plot, and can easily be explained without jarringly breaking suspension of disbelief, even though it isn’t specifically explained. It didn’t stand out to me at all. But if that detail jumps out at you and interrupts what the scene is trying to do, I guess that undermines the film for you.
I think Erik’s purpose as world-building would be redundant. It was already achieved by Spike’s dad pointing out the quarantine patrol. He could have served a world-building purpose if he helped explain why Britain alone is the quarantine zone and not France where 28 Weeks Later clearly depicts the virus spreading, but he doesn’t.
I’m not opposed to tonal departures from previous films in a series, but when it plainly contrives justification to jump between genres mid-movie, to me this screams artistic compromise for the aim of broadening audience appeal. Especially combined with the technical choices like the 30-iPhone camera rigs, it feels less like they were trying to reframe the series and more like they were taking the piss, blinded by hubris, motivated by a payday, etc.
I’m referring to the large parts of the movie where she clearly is. She alone has the presence of mind and body to endure danger to save baby Isla, to save Spike while he’s sleeping. The way the movie depicts her, when they wake up and she has apparently forgotten what she’d done it’s almost as though she’s hiding the truth to mentally shield Spike. Following her diagnosis she even explains her previously unspoken awareness of her own confusion. She isn’t continually regressing; she’s intermittently regressing. She is more helpless at the start of the movie than at the point of her death.
I hadn’t considered they were a depiction of Jimmy Saville, I think you’re right. It would add to the backstory of the kids, given they are depicted as related yet socially distant from eachother. I’d imagine they were in a cult, probably half-siblings with Jimmy with the same crazy Catholic-molester-cult leader father, his bloodline carrying the mutation that makes them subservient to Jimmy, and his character which Jimmy emulates. The shot of the TV you’re talking about is likely a red herring, not because of this theory of mine but because there’s simply no reason for the group of kids to exist as they are depicted. It’s almost certain that whole scene’s purpose was to set up the next movie.
Certainly he can. Again, I agree with you that suspension of disbelief is fine and normal in movies. The point at which it becomes bad is when a significant part of the narrative arc of a movie heavily depends on that suspension of disbelief. It is fine to assume that Ralph Fiennes’ character has devised some way of surviving on the mainland because he is already built up as an expert survivalist, so the specific methods he used don’t require extensive explanation. His medical expertise means it’s even fine that he’s somehow found a way to either synthesize morphine himself, or scavenge it. No critical part of the narrative arc of the movie relies on these facts. However Spike and his mother’s acceptance of her death and the method of her death all hinges on that Ralph’s morphine darts, the purpose of which is to temporarily sedate Alphas, are actually pre-prepared for mild sedation of a child, euthanisation of a human, and presumably a range of other purposes. Can you see how that would need some sort of surface-level explanation to be believable, or do you really think it’s ok that we are just to presume that he’s a master of adjusting bootleg morphine blowdart dosages on the fly? Perhaps if that were the only case where such a leap of faith is required by the audience to make sense of the plot, it wouldn’t bother me.
I actually just found a quote from Boyle specifically saying that Jimmy’s gang are like “a replacement for the family he loses at the beginning”, which is how I originally interpreted that scene.