Alex Garland

28 Years Later

22/06/25

Cineworld, Edinburgh

The release of 28 Days Later in 2002 was something of a game-changer. A ‘sort of’ zombie movie, it made the idea of a powerful, rage-inducing virus – accidentally released from a secret laboratory – seem queasily credible, and was a monstrous hit at the box office. Director Danny Boyle and star Cillian Murphy were too embroiled in their sci-fi epic, Sunshine, to take on the 2007 sequel, 28 Weeks Later – so they handed the directorial reins to Juan Carlos Fresnadillo. I missed that film on first release, but caught up with it earlier this week and thought it was actually pretty decent. It introduced the idea of a quarantined UK, taken over by American military forces, who act with brutal force when everything goes tits-up – which, given recent world events at the time of viewing, has a chilling new sense of prescience.

So, what’s left for part three? Plenty, as it turns out, with Boyle and original screenwriter Alex Garland stepping back into the proceedings with fearless assurance. The time-honoured tradition with long-running franchises is to retread familiar territory, thus ensuring that original fans will stay on board. But Boyle and Garland have clearly had plenty of time to develop a new story arc, and – provided this opening instalment puts the requisite number of bums on seats – have two sequels waiting in the wings.

Time has moved on – by 28 years to be exact – and a community of survivors has been established on a remote island in the North East, connected to the mainland by a narrow causeway. This can only be crossed for a few hours each day at low tide, and the entrance gates are guarded around the clock. Spike (a strong performance from newcomer Alfie Williams) is thirteen years old and his father, Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), is preparing to take him to the mainland, where, in a long-established custom, he will kill his first ‘Infected’ with a bow and arrow. Spike goes along with the plan, even though he’s desperately worried about his mum, Isla (Jodie Comer), who is afflicted by a strange illness that makes her prone to forgetting who (and where) she is.

When Alfie hears talk of a mysterious doctor living somewhere out on the mainland, he decides to take his mum off the island in search of a cure…

This is a fabulous piece of cinema, shot almost entirely on iPhones, and crammed with so many references and allegories that it’s hard to take them all in with just one viewing. The community of uncompromising Geordies, proudly waving their St George flags and getting on with the basics of everyday life have completely shut themselves off from everything that’s happening over the water – and the filmmakers have taken considerable pains to establish the world building, making it all seem entirely credible. It’s very hard not to read this as a searing condemnation of Brexit and, in my opinion, that’s the filmmakers’ intention.

There are elements of folk horror woven into the script and the eerie atmosphere is beautifully accentuated by the music of the Young Fathers and the use of an old recording of Rudyard Kipling’s militaristic poem, Boots.

The first part of the story feels the most familiar. That hunting trip on the mainland gets out of hand and plunges Spike and Jamie headlong into the terrifying world of the Infected, where a new, faster, more powerful breed – The Alphas- are ruling the roost. These scenes are brilliantly handled with the suspense ramped up to almost unbearable levels. However, the second section heads off in an entirely different direction, introducing a detachment of Swedish Navy troops, who have been patrolling the UK coastline, and whose boat has run aground nearby. When Spike and Isla bump into young soldier, Erik (Edvin Ryding), the only survivor of his group, he provides some much-needed weaponry to help them to their destination.

The film’s third section adds a plaintive and poignant note to proceedings as Isla’s plight becomes ever-more heartbreaking. When she and Spike finally encounter Dr Kelson (Ralph Fiennes), he’s living a monastic existence in the midst of a self-constructed homage to death, which he calls his memento mori. The character’s powerful resemblance to Captain Kurtz (from Apocalypse Now) is too marked to be accidental and Fiennes gives the character a calm, solemn dignity amidst all the madness.

And then we’re handed a conclusion so off the charts that it is sure to be divisive. It immediately solves a puzzle, established in the film’s opening scenes, while also offering disturbing questions about a character who has (quite literally) somersaulted into the storyline.

28 Years Later is a dazzling, uncompromising slice of horror cinema, that does the seemingly impossible: both continuing an established franchise and simultaneously reinventing it. I can only say that I can’t wait to see where this goes next.

5 stars

Philip Caveney

Warfare

19/04/25

Cineworld, Edinburgh

After the ferocity of Civil War, perhaps it was inevitable that Alex Garland’s next project would see him heading further into the world of military action – though it must be said that Warfare, co-written and co-directed with former marine Ray Mendoza (depicted in the film by D’Pharoah Woon-A-Tai), may qualify as the most realistic slice of it ever recreated on camera. Based on a real event, which took place in November 2006 in Ramadi, Iraq, it follows a platoon of Navy SEALS into action, as they occupy a house and await incoming Iraqi forces.

We first meet the platoon in their downtime as they watch an Eric Prydz workout video featuring some statuesque women and one man, bobbing about to the strains of Call On Me. The men laugh along and react to each other’s antics, letting off steam before heading into action. But the fun is short-lived. All too soon, they’re sneaking down darkened streets, singling out the house where they are going to hole up overnight while they wait for things to kick off. Two Iraqi families live there and are taken captive and secured in one room ,while the troops take up their positions, keeping watch for the insurgents they are told are gathering in this area.

As a new day dawns, I begin to recognise some of the actors. That’s Will Poulter as Erik and Joseph Quinn as new recruit, Sam. And there’s Cosmo Jarvis as the sniper, Elliott. But I can’t recall seeing a film where recognising the actors matters less, because this is a true ensemble piece, the characters’ identical uniforms making it difficult to tell them apart, just as it must be in reality. 

Warfare does exactly what it says in the title. It takes you from your safe seat in the cinema and plonks you down in the midst of the action – and it’s not somewhere you really want to be. There are none of the tropes that we so often associate with movies about war. There are no heroes here, no villains, no miraculous dodging of incoming bullets, no conveniently-timed lulls in the action.

At first what there is in abundance is waiting. The troops sit around, bored, longing for the action to start but only so it will eventually be over. And I share that awful anticipation with them. I flinch at every unexpected sound; I hold my breath whenever a radio crackles into life. And, when the action does come, it occurs with such unexpected shock that I find myself wincing at every explosion, every unexpected rattle of gunfire. 

The real-life event I spoke of is actually a tragedy. This is not the story of a platoon of soldiers who act with extraordinary valour and emerge with everything intact. It’s the story of a bunch of guys who have their asses handed to them in a string bag. It’s hard to watch and occasionally even harder to stomach, because there’s very realistic injury detail here and the troops who went through the experience have contributed all their memories to ensure that nothing is left out.

Warfare is truly game-changing. Does it qualify as entertainment? The truth is, I’m really not sure that it does, but it feels to me like an important film and a unique achievement, a construct that doesn’t try to tailor its narrative in an attempt to make it more palatable, preferring to depict warfare as it really is: bloody horrible. 

Those of a nervous disposition may want to give this one a wide berth – and anybody out there who harbours illusions about the nobility of war is about to have them well and truly shattered.

4.6 stars

Philip Caveney 

Civil War

14/04/24

Cineworld, Edinburgh

With the situation in the Middle East rapidly approaching flashpoint, it seems a particularly propitious time for Alex Garland’s Civil War to open at UK cinemas. If it was devised as a kind of warning for the near future, then it now seems doubly unnerving. Set in an unspecified year, the film opens with the president of the United States (a suitably Trumpian Nick Offerman) rehearsing a speech telling his followers that all is well and that the seditionary forces opposing him will soon be vanquished. But in reality, the civil war which that has been raging for some time is now approaching its inevitable conclusion as the aforementioned insurrectionists converge on Washington DC. And they haven’t come to shake the president’s hand.

Renowned photojournalist Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst) and her colleague Joel (Wagner Moura) are both determined to be at the capital in time to witness what happens, and – more importantly – to capture it on film. But getting there will involve a long and hazardous trip across the war-torn country. The night before they leave they pick up a couple of fellow travellers: veteran newshound Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), more cautious than the other two, but still determined to be in at the kill – and young novice Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), who actually idolises Lee and wants to – quite literally – follow in her footsteps…

Civil War has been criticised by some for failing to pin down exactly who is attacking whom in the various conflicts the foursome encounter – but I think that’s entirely the point. Garland (who also wrote the screenplay) wants to show the confusion of warfare, the fact that all kinds of people are pitching into this carnage with manifestos of their own. Against this chaotic background, Garland is much more interested in the photojournalists themselves, the callousness they must possess in order to observe atrocities without ever pitching in to help, the utter determination that propels them to risk their own lives in order to get that one all-important image and document history as it unfolds.

The background in which these scenarios play out is convincingly portrayed. This is production company A24’s most expensive project yet and it shows, the final conflict in the capital rendered with absolute veracity. There’s a powerful sense of unease that builds steadily throughout the film and I’ve rarely seen urban warfare depicted with such unflinching realism and attention to detail. Watch out for a powerful cameo from Jesse Plemons as a merciless soldier in a particularly dread-charged sequence and marvel too at the clever device that repeatedly halts cinematographer Rob Hardy’s adrenaline-charged action sequences to pick out one black and white image.

I’ve occasionally had issues with some of Garland’s endings (Men in particular, where he seemed to be pounding home his final message with a sledgehammer) but this keeps me gripped right to the final frame. Civil War’s conclusion may be too cynical for some, but I feel it’s absolutely spot on. Furthermore, I’d go so far as to suggest that this might be Alex Garland’s most fully-realised film so far.

But be warned. You’ll most likely leave the cinema feeling pretty grim about the future.

4.6 stars

Philip Caveney

Men

01/06/22

Cineworld, Edinburgh

What is it about writer/director Alex Garland? He’s a man who continually comes up with great ideas, but from his collected works, I’d be hard pressed to pick out one film that’s truly satisfying. Men is a good case in point. For a good two thirds of this atmospheric folk horror tale, I’m absolutely loving it.

But then…

Harper (Jessie Buckley) has recently been through a tough time. She’s mourning her husband, James (Paapa Essiedu), and is haunted by the idea that he’s committed suicide because she wanted to divorce him. Badly in need of respite, she heads off to a remote country guesthouse in the hope that a bit of solitude will help to heal her wounds. There, she is greeted by the owner, Geoffrey (Rory Kinnear), a plummy, officious sort who playfully chides her for helping herself to an apple from his tree when she arrives. ‘Forbidden fruit and all that.’

Harper decides to take a walk in the countryside, (in a glorious extended sequence that really shows off the skills of cinematographer, Rob Hardy) and begins to think that she may be on the road to recovery. But then she has a spooky encounter in an abandoned railway tunnel and shortly thereafter, is terrorised by a naked man, who she thinks, may be stalking her.

As she encounters more of the local population (nearly all of them male), she begins to realise that this isn’t going to be the peaceful sojourn she’s been hoping for…

You’ll already have read that the film’s big conceit is that every male character (except for James) is played by Rory Kinnear – and played brilliantly, I might add, his creations ranging from a deliciously sinister local priest to a troubled teenage boy. Buckley too is terrific, in a challenging role where she is obliged to do most of her emoting in silence.

The film’s subtext would be perfectly clear even without the massive clue offered in its title. All of Kinnear’s characters are examples of toxic masculinity, the essence instilled from birth and manifested in different ways – in sarcasm, in outmoded chivalric beliefs and, sometimes, in outright violence. These men all stem from the same poisoned root. The idea is perfectly expressed in the film’s first two thirds and no viewer will be in any doubt about Garland’s intentions.

So why, I ask myself, does he decide, in the film’s final stretch, to double down on the message, presenting an extended body-horror climax that tells us pretty much what we already know. I feel as though I’m being bludgeoned repeatedly over the head with the same premise, as though I can’t be trusted to appreciate its meaning.

And then, there’s the final bit, which without any warning throws a handful of doubt into the mix, obfuscating that message and ensuring that I leave the cinema feeling confused.

At any rate, it’s a disappointing conclusion to a film that has me hooked from the start.

3.6 stars

Philip Caveney

Annihilation

16/03/18

Another day, and another movie goes straight to Netflix. After Mute and The Cloverfield Paradox, this is starting to feel like a trend, though in the case of Annihilation, writer/director Alex Garland has been very vocal about his displeasure in learning that his brainchild would not be receiving a theatrical release. The reason he was given by Paramount? The film was ‘too intellectual.’ More likely, perhaps, is the fact that too many big-budget science fiction movies have failed to put bums on seats over the past year.  Whatever the explanation, the film’s expensive credentials are evident and it must be said that some of the more eye-popping effects sequences really would have looked a lot more impressive on a big screen.

Soldier-turned-college-biology-lecturer, Lena (Natalie Portman), is in a bad place in the film’s early stretches. Her husband, Kane (Oscar Isaac), is a soldier, missing in action for over a year after being sent away on a secret mission – but she hasn’t quite given up hope that he will return. Then, quite unexpectedly, he does come back, acting very strangely, shortly before collapsing into a coma. On the way to the nearest hospital, the ambulance is intercepted by soldiers and Lena and Kane are rushed to a secret facility in Florida, where Kane is put on life support. Lena meets scientist Dr Ventress (Jennifer Jason Leigh), who tells her about ‘The Shimmer’ – a strange, shifting dimension that has established itself in the Everglades after a mysterious meteor strike. The Shimmer appears to be constantly expanding and Ventress tells Lena that Kane was part of a team sent in there to investigate. The other members have all disappeared without trace. Ventress explains that she is planning to lead an all-female team in there in a few days’ time and, perhaps unsurprisingly, Lena elects to go with them.

Once inside this unknown dimension, things begin to go very weird, very quickly. The team soon establish that here, species are getting their individual DNA all mixed up with others. This can be as enchanting as flowers sprouting multi coloured petals from the same stem, or growing into the shape of humans – but it can also be as sinister as a huge alligator which seems to have merged with a shark, creating a creature you most definitely do not want to spend any time with. As the team make their way closer and closer to the site of the meteor impact it begins to look as though their chances of surviving this mission are growing perilously slim…

Annihilation is a decent sci-fi movie, if not an exceptional one – and it’s nowhere near as effective as Garland’s previous effort, the criminally underrated Ex Machina. It’s refreshing though to see an action film that is predominately led by female actors, even if I really didn’t learn an awful lot about their respective characters – and there’s one particular sequence in here, featuring a mutated bear, that really did push the throttle headlong in the direction of terror. There’s an interesting conclusion too, which will doubtless prompt some discussion after the credits have rolled.

In the end, it’s hard to say whether this film would have done much business at the cinema. I actually doubt it. And, judging by what I’ve seen on social media, it’s getting plenty of  viewings on Netflix, even if most of the resulting comments are far from complimentary.

One thing’s for sure. It’s an easy matter to tune in and judge for yourselves.

4 stars

Philip Caveney

Ex Machina

06/03/17

There’s always the one that got away, isn’t there? I somehow managed to miss Ex Machina’s all-too-brief appearance on the big screen and I’ve been trying to catch up with it ever since, largely because I’d heard such good things about it. Discovering that it’s now available on Netflix was therefore great news.

Alex Garland’s 2014 movie, is a deceptively simple affair, pretty much a four-hander, laid out with cool clear linearity. Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) discovers he has won the opportunity of a lifetime – to travel to the remote hi-tech hideaway of Nathan (Oscar Isaac) the CEO of the world’s biggest internet company and to spend a week with him, getting a sneak preview of his latest creation. This turns out to be Ava (Alicia Vikander) an AI, and one so convincing that Nathan challenges Caleb to apply the Turing Test to her – designed to examine a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. Is she good enough to pass?

Caleb goes to work and soon establishes a powerful rapport with Ava – but, as he constantly asks himself, is she genuinely interested in him, or simply using him as a way of staying alive? Because, as Nathan makes all too clear, if she fails the test then she is destined to be replaced by a newer, better model. Nathan, meanwhile, is prone to drinking himself half to death and dancing around the apartment with his live-in housekeeper, Kyoko (Sonoya Mizuno). As the story develops it becomes apparent that nothing in this  state-of-the-art home is quite what it appears to be… and soon even Caleb is questioning his own existence.

The beauty of Ex Machina is the way in which it expertly unfolds its intriguing story, constantly pulling the rug out from under the viewer, until you don’t really know what to expect next. Vikander offers a fascinating performance in the central role, and Gleeson, Isaac and Mizono are all totally believable. If like me, you missed this film first time around, here’s your chance to catch up. It’s really rather good.

4.2 stars

Philip Caveney