28 Years Later takes the story into places you least expect and once again, it's the human stories that are centre-stage

4 out of 5

Twenty-eight years have indeed passed since the outbreak of the Rage Virus across the UK. A handy crawl informs us that with the Virus pushed back from mainland Europe (so NOT ignoring entirely 28 Weeks Later as some have said, even going so far as to include some shots from Juan Carlos Fresnadillo’s 2007 sequel), the entirety of the British Isles is now under quarantine, with our story beginning when the title suggests…Aaron Taylor-Johnson is Jamie, father to 12-year old Spike (played brilliantly by newcomer Alfie Williams) who has come of age on their small island community of Lindisfarne. To mark this rite of passage, the pair leave their island via a causeway that’s only accessible at low tide and visit the mainland so Spike can get his first ‘kill’ (“the more you kill, the easier it becomes…” the youngster is told by his stoic father). But whilst there, they stumble across an ‘Alpha’ (played with brutal menace and somewhat bare-faced nakedness by Chi Lewis-Parry), an evolution of the infected who is not just bigger and stronger, but also able to command those infected around him. However, upon their return, Spike realises that a strange fire he spotted on the mainland may belong to someone who could help his very ill mother (Jodie Comer)…and so begins a journey into the very heart of darkness…

Despite beginning with a flashback reminiscent of the violent, kinetic start of the previous film, to remind us all of the world we’re thrust back into, Boyle’s film is very much NOT 28 Days Later. Both writer and director take some staggeringly brave steps with both the visual stylings of the film and its narrative to distance themselves once again from what came before, steps that may frustrate as many as they excite. The at times erratic iPhone captured visuals, complete with jittery bullet-time esque sequences and distorted focus, feels like Boyle is trying to update the SD camerawork of his original, and together with the ultra-wide 2.76:1 aspect ratio, it certainly has a look and feel all of its own. It doesn’t feel quite as visceral and all encompassing as the previous thanks to the wider expanse of the locations, but kudos to Boyle and his DP Anthony Dod-Mantle for bringing something new to the cinematic table.

As did Garland. And it's likely his script that will be the cause of much of the divisive response the film will receive. Making young Williams the lead is a brave move – following him as he first enters the mainland world with his father and then switching to follow him and his mother in the film’s second half fractures the narrative somewhat, losing the focussed intensity of the simple, propulsive plot of the first film. But it’s Garlands bringing in of more folk horror vibes to supplant the simple action/horror of the last film that is the ballsiest move of all. Infected action may now take a back seat to a more thoughtful depiction of the world left behind, of how it has grown and evolved itself. And Garland being Garland, it's littered with current world parallels – whilst many may see Brexit as the pointed commentary, it feels bigger than that: Boyle intercuts stock footage of old films and newsreels to show ‘the good old days’ and it’s this harking back to nostalgic and ‘simpler times’, much like the driver behind the rise of populism across today’s world, powered by charismatic leaders who aren’t about to let the truth get in the way of their story, that seems to be the film’s clear theme. Especially when you factor in the stunningly gonzo ending that certainly leaves Nia DaCosta with a fascinating start point for her follow up…

And around this Garland adds plenty of flavour. Some of it works beautifully (there’s some very funny humour at times – a picture of a young woman on an iPhone elicited a brilliant response from Williams), and some of it doesn’t. Indeed, some of Garland’s narrative beats feel clunky and oddly derivative because of course there’s now a pregnant infected…there always is nowadays, isn’t there? And whilst there is little exploration of the evolution of the infected, there's whiffs of other stories starting to waft around it all - notably Richard Matheson's I Am Legend or The Walking Dead - that feel a little too easy for someone of Garland's abilities).

But all of it is delivered with aplomb by its cast. Williams is staggeringly good here, carrying a huge amount on his shoulders, from looking convincingly wide-eyed with all out terror to shouldering some meaty emotional weight. Comer and Fiennes do well with smaller roles, bringing gravitas and grit to elicit all the required empathy needed. Even Taylor-Johnson holds his own – sure, he’s somewhat of the thankless task role of the brooding, overbearing, emotionless father figure, but it’s delivered with a meaty, sweatily masculine conviction.

It’s an absolutely fascinating film – the first of a planned trilogy (with part two already wrapped and in post-production and due in cinemas in January), it doesn’t quite successfully deliver an entirely satisfying narrative on its own; but those wild swings away from the previous two films are thrillingly bold. Possibly too bold for some who came for a simple, unadulterated infected thrill ride. Me? I thought this was a fantastic new step forward for the franchise, with a slowly unravelling philosophy and mood that somehow manages to sidestep almost every other variant on the genre seen in the last two decades and establish something new and fresh heading into the later films of the trilogy.