’28 Years Later’ review: Land of confusion

Danny Boyle and Alex Garland reunite for a more manic vision of the apocalypse with 28 Years Later.

So when the world ends…what’s next? It’s sort-of hopeful that some don’t see the apocalypse as the end of mankind itself. Perhaps we’ll survive the end of days and rebuild into a new form of civilization. After all, a new beginning always comes after something’s end. But like all forms of humanity, there’s something deeper under that. Who makes the new world when the old one ends? What can you do (or not do) with the new world? Is there more or less in the new world? The world ended…now what?

Whatever you do, don’t ask Alex Garland. 23 years ago, he and director Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, Slumdog Millionaire) delivered a terrifying vision of humanity destroyed by rage and withering away on the false promise of survival. 28 Days Later remains one of the darkest horror films in the genre’s history not just for its monsters, but the moral rot Garland and Boyle saw when humanity reached its most primal state. Sure the movie ended with a slight glimmer of hope, but the question still stands: The world ended…now what?

The world of 28 Years Later, Garland and Boyle’s long-awaited reunion, is small and simple. On a sparse English island, a small village of survivors farm and forage through the remnants of civilization 28 years after the rage virus took hold and the rest of the world locked the British Isles into quarantine. Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) is taking his 12-year-old son Spike (Alfie Williams) out on his first trip to the mainland, abandoned by humanity and still hiding packs of the infected. Jamie is seeing his boy become a man, but Spike just wants to help care for his inexplicably ill mom, Isla (Jodie Comer). Spike hears stories about a mysterious doctor (Ralph Fiennes), stuck deep in the mainland but with enough knowledge that could help save Isla. With that, he and his mother journey into the heart of darkness to find some form of hope among the rabid monsters left behind.

Mad world.

The best way to describe 28 Years Later is by simply saying…it’s a lot. Boyle and Garland throw everything they can at the wall to see what sticks for an experience that’s both fascinating and frustrating. Visually, Boyle is trying to have his cake and eat it too, shooting most of the movie on iPhones, GoPros, and lightweight cameras to recapture the lo-fi aura of 28 Days Later. Though technically proficient, the changing of the image quality between shots and scenes is more noticeable this time around because it happens so frequently. One minute you have Jamie and Spike running for their lives in a close-up with the frantic movement of a handheld digital camera, the next there’s wide shot with the scope and color grading of a typical movie camera. For all the intense shaky cam and 180-degree quick pans Boyle uses every time a zombie gets an arrow through the head, the visual variety comes off as distracting more than exciting.

And that’s not the only way Boyle tries shaking things up. The first act of 28 Years Later is frequently intercut with montages of medieval reenactments and other aspects of past civilizations, mirroring how Spike’s society has reverted to more medieval (or even barbaric) methods. Again, a fine idea in concept that in practice ruins the rhythm of the movie trying to set itself up. It’s like Boyle is trying to keep the audience from getting bored with his movie’s own exposition. He does focus-up on the current timeline once the plot gets going, still knowing how to build tension when the infected start charging in and letting the slower human scenes breathe. The second and third acts of 28 Years Later are much better paced and more consistent than its opening, closer to a slow-burning post-apocalyptic drama like The Road or the first Mad Max than any traditional zombie movie (let alone a summer blockbuster).

A man of constant sorrow.

If a recent interview clip is any indicator, it seems that Garland doesn’t have much hope for humanity these days. 28 Years Later is no exception, with Garland once again showing the human condition as desperate for harmony even if it means bits of cruelty. Garland’s vision of the end times sees English society reverted back to tribalism with Jamie drunkenly celebrating Spike’s first survival like it’s a war victory. The script doesn’t think highly of the rest of the world either, with the indefinite quarantine for England keeping them from learning of smartphones and other modern advancements. Even the infected have gone tribal, with Spike and Isla having to evade an Alpha zombie that seemingly controls (and even reproduces) other infected. It’s an odd addition to the movie’s universe, once grounded in a form of stripped-down realism now cribbing from a sci-fi B-movie taking place on a lost planet. Give credit to Williams who manages to emphasize the stakes and keep the human drama afloat despite everything Garland and Boyle throw at him.

Garland’s script doesn’t have much time to be longing for what humans lost after the outbreak. What little hope he affords to 28 Years Later is Spike braving a near-impossible task trying to save his mom, and even that takes a heartbreaking turn once Fiennes shows up surrounded by bones. Give Garland credit for sticking to such a bleak vision for almost the entire runtime, but then he nearly pulls the rug out with Jack O’Connell (Sinners) making a surprise appearance in the last scene to setup a next installment in the now-planned trilogy. On the one hand, it’s a neat payoff to teases from earlier in the movie and sets up some kind of Lord of the Flies-esque follow-up. On the other hand…ANOTHER franchise reboot trilogy? Is that really necessary in an industry already flushed with IP restarts? Whether this is Garland’s grand vision or a studio mandate, 28 Years Later has enough going for it to stick the landing all on its own. This may be one of the few times I’d be fine with a post-credits scene because at least the movie’s story would have its own contained ending.

The bottom line.

I’m not sure whether to respect or revolt 28 Years Later for trying to do too much. It’s nice that Boyle is continuing to experiment with digital video technology and that, combined with the occasionally hectic editing, does create a consistent sense of unease in this thriller. Meanwhile Garland, free of trying to explain his politics in Civil War, does a fine job crafting another journey through the apocalypse as a means to explore humanity. Yet, the former’s barrage of visual formats and the latter’s attempts to create an expanded universe overloads 28 Years Later to the point of near combustion. It keeps you engaged, sure, but more just to see where the filmmakers are going with it all. Maybe wondering what happens after the end of the world is a little too much to ask?

28 Years Later is now playing in theaters everywhere. Watch the trailer here.

Images courtesy of Sony Pictures. Read more reviews by Jon Winkler here.

Jon Winkler