Tag: Sequel

28 Years Later (2025)

Posted on by fenrisfil

These days it is never considered too late for a sequel. So it’s not a shock to see Danny Boyle and Alex Garland dig up their “28” franchise. Its been 23 years since the pair launched the series with “28 Days Later” in 2002. The first sequel “28 Weeks Later” came out in 2007. Boyle and Garland were largely uninvolved as they were busy filming “Sunshine” (2007). With an 18 year gap between sequels, they have opted to go straight for 28 years later and skip past the obvious “28 months” option. The thinking seems to be that after such a long period they can effectively give the series a solid reboot. Unsurprisingly everything you need to know about this world is explained in the movie. You don’t have to watch either of the previous movies.

Also returning alongside Boyle and Garland is cinematographer Anthony Dodd. Not returning however is composer John Murphy, who has been replaced by progressive Hip-Hop group “Young Fathers”. I’ve actually seen them live, supporting Massive Attack (Another group known to dabble in soundtracks). Unsurprisingly there are no returning characters (Though since this is a planned trilogy, rumour is there will be returns down the line). Instead this movie stars a young Alfie Williams as “Spike”, Jodie Corner as “Isla”, Spike’s mother and Aaron Taylor-Johnson as “Jamie”, Spike’s father. Support comes mostly from Raph Fiennes as the eccentric “Dr Ian Kelson” and Edvin Ryding as “Erik” a Swedish soldier.

Survival

28 years after the outbreak of the “Rage” virus a group of survives have built a community on a small island isolated from the mainland (Except at low tide). The rage virus turns humans into feral killers, but after such a long time the infected have begun to evolve somewhat. The most notable of these changes is the appearance of “Alpha’s”, far stronger monsters that are especially hard to kill. The Paris outbreak reported on in 28 Weeks Later appears to have been retconned. Instead the UK is the only place effected and as such has been placed in permanent quarantine. A naval blockade surrounds the country shooting down anyone attempting to flee. The survivors are truly alone.

Living on this island is Spike and his parents. His father Jamie is a scavenger, tasked with braving the mainland to find supplies. A dangerous job and Spike is set to follow in his father’s footsteps. Despite his young age, he is ready for his first foray out into the dangers of the mainland. Spike’s mother, Isla is suffering from a mysterious illness and appears to be on her deathbed. The island has no Doctor, so there is not much that can be done. After narrowly surviving his first trip outside, Spike discovers that there may be a doctor on the mainland that could potentially save his mother and so he sets out with her to find him, whatever the risk.

Three Unequal Parts

This is a movie of three distinct sections. The section is effectively an epilogue and lead in to the next movie. Fortunately that section is short because it doesn’t fit with the rest of the movie and is frankly… stupid. The entire tone shifts gratingly and we go from a dark, thoughtful apocalyptic movie to outright B-Movie action cheese and ridiculous parody in the blink of an eye. It’s a bit like if you watched “The Road” (2009) and then in the last five minutes it turned into “Turbo Kid” (2015). Two great movies, but their tone doesn’t mix well. I have no idea what Boyle and Garland were thinking, but I don’t have high hopes for the sequel.

Now, that out of the way it’s important to let you know the rest of the film is actually good. The other two main parts are Spike’s journey with his father and then his more personal one with his mother. The two journeys contrast nicely and in it’s own way the movie examines the very different roles of fatherhood and motherhood. The latter provides a far more emotional journey and is the highlight from an acting perspective. Both Alfie and Jodie are remarkably good in their very demanding roles. By contrast, the first half where Jamie is trying to train Spike is both a very solid father/son story and much more of what you would expect from a zombie movie.

Bones To Pick

Despite the emotional pay off of the second half of the movie, it does start to have issues with consistency. The tone starts to get a bit more silly with the introduction of a Swedish soldier, whose boat has sunk and is now stranded. It wasn’t a big issue, but given what was to come it probably was a warning sign. Another issue here is just how well and how quickly Spike went from panic and struggling to shoot straight when out with his dad to a confident mainland survivor. There is also one plot event that just felt… unlikely (But no spoilers). It’s not a deal breaker though and I still enjoyed this section. For most though I think the film will peak early.

One thing I definitely approve of here is that the zombies (I mean “Infected”) are not just a colourful background to post-apocalyptic humans being generally awful to each other. That is something that is so overdone in zombie stories (Largely thank to the endless stream of Walking Dead shows). The original 28 Days later had a fair bit of this itself, but was relatively well balanced. That’s not to say the film focuses on the infected, they are still somewhat of a backdrop but the story is a much more personal one. For me, a zombie film needs to have an element of tragedy to it and making the story smaller and more personal allows for that.

Conclusion

Despite the horrendous misstep at the end, this is still a good story with enjoyable action. The visuals are good (Zombie wangs aside, I could have done without those), the acting is superb and the pacing is decent. The zombie evolution reminds me of a cross between Romero’s “Land of the Dead” (2005) and a video game like “Left 4 Dead”. I’m not sure how much it really added to the story. The first half of the movie is a good 7/10, the second a 6.5/10 and the final 5 minutes a 4/10. Fortunately the story is effectively over before the epilogue so it doesn’t ruin it. I’m giving this a strong 6.5/10

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024) – A Film Maker On Trial

Posted on by fenrisfil

I didn’t intend to review or write about this movie (Largely because it came out in October, my horror month). However, I’ve heard so much nonsense about this film that I felt an article is needed. To do that means spoilers. So only read beyond this opening is you’ve watched the movie or don’t intend to. If you are just after a review, I’ll provide a quick one for you in the next paragraph before i move on to the various debates this film seems to have inspired on the internet.

This is a gritty neo-noir drama wearing the mask of a comic book franchise. This shouldn’t be shocking to anyone that has seen the first movie. But if you go into it thinking that the end of the previous movie was Arthur Fleck fully becoming the character from the comics, you will be disappointed! Also, this is a musical. There is a purpose to it, but it frankly wasn’t necessary and adds very little. The movie is however well made. Technically this is a good movie. That said, a mix of gritty depressing drama, show tunes and comic books is a meal most people won’t be able to keep down. I’d give it a 6/10, but only recommend it to fans of depressing neo-noir.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Joker Derangement Syndrome

Now, on to the debates those. It’s worth noting 99% of those debates are being spread by people that haven’t seen the film. Much of it is reacting to memes, some of which are horrendously inaccurate or outright lies. It is a bizarre torrent of overreactions and the only comparable reaction in movies is the one for the first movie. This is coming from a different group than the first, but it’s just as wild. Instead of claiming the director made a movie to inspire “Incels”, these people are claiming the director deliberately made a movie to punish fans for liking his last one. Both views are delusional. If only there was a term that applies to two people or groups sharing a common delusion… Hmm…..

I doubt the movie was intended to be politically divisive. Somehow it ended up like that, but perhaps that is more about how society is these days than anything to do with the movie. I try as best as I can not to get into politics on this blog, but it isn’t easy. It gets harder with every year and that just shows how much we really need stories that can bring us together instead of divide us. This wasn’t going to be the movie to do it though. It’s far too easy to project your own fear, anxiety and anger on to this movie. The Joker ultimately represents chaos and that is something we all relate to these days.

Question One – Was Arthur consistent to the first film?

Arthur is a mentally ill, run down, abused man with a low IQ. That was all in the first film. At the conclusion. he has his moment of bloody triumph, but he didn’t magically turn into another person. That doesn’t happen in real life. Arthur has put on a persona and has been encouraged to do this by the public that reacted to his subway killings. They then react to his public execution of the talk show host that mocked him in the same way. But, Arthur got caught. He didn’t plan for an escape.Indeed he originally planned to kill himself, not the host. This is a man pushed too far, not the clown prince of crime.

People reacted to this on air killing. It turned Arthur as “Joker” into an icon. The figurehead of a violent revolution. He revelled in that. But… that fades. After months out of the limelight he’s back to being Arthur. It’s not an unexplained character regression like Han Solo in The Force Awakens. It’s a regression that clearly would have happened. Its also important to note that Arthur is not really a bad person. He’s not cruel, he’s not sadistic, he is not a psychopath. Arthur doesn’t actually crave the chaos, he is a victim of it, A man that snapped in the face of it. When he he is confronted by the damage his Joker persona has done to innocent people, he willingly gives it up. This makes total sense.

Question Two – Was it an FU to the audience?

Perhaps the most unhinged claim about this film is that it was somehow an attack on the fans. The theory goes that Todd Phillips was upset about his risky neo-noir Joker movie making over a billion dollars. Apparently he was so upset by this that he deliberately set out to make the sequel as big a financial disaster as possible. This is quite clearly ridiculous. One could perhaps argue it was an FU to the studio for forcing him to make a sequel (figuratively speaking). But even then, it was an FU because he made a sequel consistent to his own vision, without compromise. He did not deliberately make a bad film or one designed to attack anybody. But he did take a big pay off to make this sequel and we should remember, he didn’t originally intend to do one.

Whether the studios wanted him to make the sequel more of a comic book superhero movie or perhaps even a Bonnie and Clyde type of film is a mystery. Whatever the may have wanted, they signed off on what they got. They gave Phillips carte blanche to do what he saw fit. Indeed he refused help from the studio. Whatever else this movie is, it is one mans vision. The crazy idea that this movie was somehow made to “Own the Chuds” is just as deranged as the idea the first one was meant to inspire “Incels” to do mass shootings. This isn’t some kind of psi-ops. It’s a creative director taking risks. It paid off once, it failed the second time. The odd thing is both sides politically seem to want to read into it that Phillips supports the other side.

Life Imitating Art?

This brings me to the films most interesting phenomenon. In the film, people react to Arthurs actions by putting him on a pedestal. They believe him to be an icon of chaos that will tear down the system. To the establishment he is an existential threat, to the downtrodden, he is a saviour. Yet ultimately he was just a man pushed too far, a victim, broken by the system. Though his antics meant he was now seen, but Arthur the man was more invisible than ever. When his fans discover the truth, they turn on him. At that point , he is truly alone. The enemies he made when he embraced the character of Joker still hate him. His only friends in the world are either traumatized or dead. Where this gets interesting is that the reaction to both Joker films has exactly mirrored the reaction to Arthur in those movies.

The first film generated outrage from the establishment. Specifically, mainstream journalists that thought the film was some kind of anthem for “Incels” that would rise up and engage in mass shootings. There were even metal detectors installed at some cinemas because people took this fear seriously. The reaction from people that felt beaten down by the system though was to see Arthur as some kind of icon. A symbol of standing up against the system. When the sequel came out both sides were no doubt expecting more of the same. But when it turned out this movie wasn’t “sticking it to the man”, those that had so invested in that side of the first were outraged so much they seem determined to see the film fail and Todd Phillips career to be over. Those that hated the first film stayed firm in their stance. The result, a box office bomb.

Good Intentions?

There’s two ways of looking at this. One is that Phillips set out to draw the audience so far in to the movie they could have been in the very universe the film is set. That the audience are reacting to the character of Arthur as if they are in his world and not just watching a movie. If so, there is no two ways about it, this is ingenious. But if not, then Phillips can’t be blamed for how the fans feel about the movie. It is just a somewhat experimental, somewhat arty movie from a director that likes to take risks. Phillips just wanted to make an interesting movie and take people on a journey. He didn’t set out to make a movie for one side of the cultural divide or the other. He just made a movie.

There’s a growing phenomenon with modern movies. All the while they are being criticized by some for being “Too safe”, there are risk taking creative directors that are finding the only way they can get a mainstream platform is to take on a mainstream franchise. The majority of the time this leads to an audience backlash. Franchises are not meant to be artist playpens after all. Instead they have a huge weight of audience expectations. That’s not to say a few risks don’t pay off. Guillermo Del Toro and Christopher Nolan have both proven that you can take risks and bring art to a superhero movie. But for every one of those there is a Josh Trank or Rian Johnson. Sometimes like with Taka Waititi and now Todd Phillips they start out with initial success, but eventually the desire to realize their vision gets in the way of audience expectations.

Keep Repeating: “It’s Just a Movie”

The mistake is to assume these directors set out to ruin things for the fans. That makes little sense. Even though people like Johnson and Waititi are antagonistic to the fans, no one actually sets out to fail. Sometimes there is some form of agenda, but not one of deliberate failure. Often these directors are just wildly inappropriate choices to take on franchise movies. Joker is a little different, since this was not set in an established universe. When Joker was greenlit there was a drive across Hollywood to make “Villain” movies. But Warner never asked for one in the main DC universe (Whose Joker at the time was Jared Leto).

No doubt the studio were not expecting a neo-noir, but it’s not like taking on the 8th part of a 9 part, 50 year franchise story. I say that because a lot of people have chosen to compare this to “The Last Jedi” while ignoring the very different situations. It’s worth noting most people didn’t even want a Joker origin story in the first place. The fact is Phillips had nothing to lose and so he didn’t something no one expected. But it worked and it made over a billion dollars as a result.

The Verdict

This time around, Phillips had everything to lose. Good job he was well paid for the risk, because he crashed and burned. In my view he took a too many risks this time. Making a gritty depressing tragedy and not a comic book superhero movie was already a risk. Making it a musical too… That was too much. Those scenes did serve a purpose. They are an insight into Arthur’s frame of mind. Not just in how he escapes his reality, but in how little imagination he has. A point that really didn’t need hammering into the audience so many times, and in a way that gave them very little to enjoy about it. It wasn’t designed to be an FU to the audience, but it wasn’t made for comic book fans either. It was made for Hollywood cinephiles. People at film school, other directors and possibly, The Oscars.

American directors tend to have a love of musicals. For me a musical is a way to compromise music for the sake of drama and drama for the sake of music. Often it just results in generic mediocrity. But that’s not how most directors feel. For them it is part of their DNA. The Oscars meanwhile love a depressing drama about someone with poor mental health that is mistreated by government organisations. Of course the backlash against the success of the first movie probably negates an Oscar nomination. But still, that is the kind of crowd it was made for. So it’s okay not to like it, but don’t take it personally. It is just a movie and Todd Philips is just a director that takes risk. Sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don’t.

Curse Of The Cat People (1944)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Cynical cash in sequels were not an invention of more recent years. They were part of Hollywood since the golden age. Curse Of The Cat People is the sequel to “Cat People” from 1942. Both films were written by DeWitt Bodeen. To Bodeen and producer Val Lewton, this was a lot more than just a cash in. They took a radical direction with the story, much to the chagrin of the studio. This was Robert Wise’s directorial debut, however the original director on the film was Gunther von Fritsch. Gunther was fired for falling too far behind in shooting but approximately half of the movie is his work. Simone Simon, Kent Smith and Jane Randolph return to their roles from the previous film and they are joined by the movies young star Ann Carter.

After the events of “Cat People” Oliver Reed (Smith) has married his former co-worker Alice (Randolph) and moved to Tarrytown, New York. They have a 6 year old daughter called Amy, who is awkward and struggles to make friends. Oliver is concerned that she lets her imagination run away with her instead of socializing. Part of his concern is because he saw what happened to his former wife Irena when she lost her grip on reality. In a strange twist Amy befriends an invisible figure that appears to be the ghost of Irena. She also makes friend with a senile old lady, a former movie star that now thinks her own daughter is an impostor. Oliver tries to bring her daughter to reality but may end up only driving her away from him.

Are Cat People Without Cats, Still People?

Curse of the Cat People is a unique movie (Not bad for something 80 years old). The expectations for this sequel would be for it to be a monster like it’s predecessor. But while the original involved curses and cat people, this has neither. Instead it’s sort of a ghost story. Maybe not even that, since the ambiguity of the story leaves it just as likely the ghost was only ever a figment of a young lonely girls imagination. It is a story that has a bit of sentimental sweetness to it, but is actually quite sad. Not just in the lead girl but also the senile old woman that befriends her while rejecting her own daughter. It is a story about the border between fantasy and reality and how that impacts people. It’s really not a horror film. Yet, it is a direct sequel with three returning characters.

These days people talk like audience expectation as if this is not something that has ever been subverted before and yet here we are. A sequel to a monster movie turned into an emotional character drama with a hint at ghostly activity. It’s no surprise reactions to the film were decidedly mixed with fans of the first film often very disappointed while those that had no particular affection for the first simply enjoyed the film for what it was. Indeed that it wasn’t a horror was probably a bonus for those people. The movie even seems to retcon the events of the previous film, placing it all firmly inside Irena’s head, despite that movie showing the audience her in panther form. The only cat in this sequel at all is the street cat in the opening scene that was awkwardly edited in to the movie at the last minute.

Child Psychology

It seems the only way to really judge this movie is as a stand alone. That said, it was marketed and is still listed as a horror, so I’m not going to give it a complete pass for not having anyone mauled by a big cat. As a character drama Amy is a very compelling character. Eight year old Ann Carter did a great job with her performance. Her career was derailed by polio before she broke through as an adult, but she definitely had talent. You certainly feel her innocence and loneliness. Even as she is accidentally driving a wedge between another daughter and her mother, she is never anything but well meaning. Speaking of which, that story between Barbara and Julia Farren is quite heart breaking in it’s own right. It’s a strange secondary story to Amy’s that shares more with it thematically than anything else.

The themes are the interesting thing here. Because we are talking about psychology, senility, madness and the imagination of children. Ollie Reed has his own journey, perhaps one of forgiveness for his former wife Irena’s madness or to see that kindness and love is a better antidote to a delusion than anger. We reference the madness of Irena as an adult, the senile madness of Julia Farren believe her own daughter is an imposter and the childhood madness of Amy’s imaginary friend. These are all depicted with a supernatural overtone to it, yet none of it really does seem to be. It’s actually quite a clever bit of story telling.

But Is It Even A Horror?

Here we get to the problem. As a horror, this is not good. The only person that dies is an old woman of a heart attack. The only threat to anyone is from their own madness. The ghost is most likely just an imaginary friend and the vast majority of the movie isn’t even trying to present the viewer with any other conclusion. Ambiguity is always a benefit in movies that walk the line like this, but they barely attempted any. Madness can be a strong horror theme, but not in the way it is used here. The only character even portrayed as at all menacing is Barbara. Yet the story doesn’t do anything to make us think she is anything other than a poor abused daughter burden by her mothers senility. She is more sad than scary.

So with that all in mind, I have the dilemma of how to rate the movie. It was certainly a misleading film on the surface, but there is a solid, intelligently made movie underneath. As a horror though, which is ultimately what it was marketed as, it doesn’t work. This is more of a family movie than a horror. My instinct here is to give this a 6/10 and a mild recommendation with the caveat that you need to go in expecting a psychological character drama and not anything even mildly horror related.

Rating: 6 out of 10.