28 Years Later - A Worthy Sequel?

28 Days Later is widely regarded as one of the best zombie apocalypse movies of all time, making the creation of any sequels near impossible as they'd struggle to recapture what made the original so great. They tried with 2007's 28 Weeks Later but failed miserably to see the meaning and point of its predecessor. So, has the newest entry - 28 Years Later - managed to reignite that spark or has it ultimately blown out the flame, leaving no hope for the future trilogy?

First off, while this movie does deserve to be spoken about in its own right, it is a sequel to a beloved movie so there is some need for comparison, in part. However, as this seemingly tries to erase 28 Weeks Later's mark - making it no longer part of the official canon - there's no need for me to cite that movie in any comparisons I may make.

This is a movie of two parts, both amazing in their own ways. We start with themes that war is a never ending loop and that death is inevitable - which is also something that comes back nearer to the end of the movie. A lot of this first act reiterates themes from the first movie, especially that men are the real danger. We're also told what has changed from the original, which was honestly spoon fed a little too much. The subsequent two acts follow a journey with a child trying to find help for his mother. I wouldn't say either of these two parts are better than the other, however the second half is much easier to talk about.

To be honest, I thought the opening scene was somewhat pointless. We already knew what day one was like, it was only really used to set up the reappearance of Jimmy at the end, which also felt a bit pointless to me. I would've instead opted for an opening scene showing Aaron Taylor Johnson's character on the mainland by himself, getting into some sort of chase with the infected before returning home. This would've allowed us to see how the infected have evolved since 28 Days Later - negating the need for the exposition of Jamie explaining it all to Spike - as well as deciding for ourselves if we think Spike is ready to go to the mainland, rather than simply being told by the leaders of their island that he probably isn't.

I also would've completely scrapped the final scene and instead had the credits role when Spike draws his bow and shoots that infected running towards him. This is simply because, while it wasn't necessarily a bad scene, I felt that Jack O'Connell's appearance somewhat undercut the very somber emotion that audiences would've been left feeling. Instead, it seems like most audiences simply left confused more than anything. I think both scenes I mentioned should've been kept for the next movie - properly introducing Jimmy's character.

Now onto the good in this movie. I loved seeing how the infected have evolved throughout the last 28 years. There were some very interesting animal depictions, namely wolf packs and very obvious pig-like strain of infected. This helped the audience disassociate the infected from the living much better as they were turned into monsters rather than simply enraged humans. The wolf pack depictions specifically caught my eye as they seem the most realistic to what could happen, as long as we lived in the midst of a zombie apocalypse outbreak.

The third act is absolutely beautiful and heartbreaking at the same time. The 'Memento Mori Statue' was an incredible addition. What was once seen as cult-like and satanic in the trailers was revealed to be, not only a celebration of the sanctity of life, but also an acknowledgment of the inevitability of death - sentiments that are woven within this entire movie and its predecessor.

However, I'm very conflicted about my feelings on the final scene. As I've said, while I didn't think it was a bad scene in its entirety, it did undercut the somber tone with a much sillier one. This scene, from the start, brought Spike's arc to fruition, allowing him the courage to kill the infected, which then turned into a show of acrobatics and brightly coloured suits chopping up infected like its nothing. I'm sure you see the problem.

Given this is setting up a new trilogy, it's hard to properly critique the ending as it isn't actually the end. However, I just think this ending wasn't right for this movie specifically. That doesn't mean the scene should've been scrapped altogether, just that it would've been much better at the start of the next movie, surprising the audience with a lighter tone before delving into the heavier content.