It’s been 28 years since Danny Boyle introduced the world to a terrifying new breed of zombies in 28 Days Later, revolutionizing the post-apocalyptic horror genre. The film's mix of rapid, rage-fueled “infected” and the ever-looming dread of societal collapse forever changed the way we viewed zombie films. And now, on June 20, 2025, Boyle is back with 28 Years Later, a film that doesn’t just revisit the world of the Rage Virus—it reinvents it. This cinematic sequel doesn’t just tick the boxes of horror tropes, but pushes boundaries, creating a thrilling blend of survival drama, psychological thriller, and even a slice of social commentary.

Whether you're a long-time fan or a newcomer to the franchise, this flick will hit you like a zombie on a caffeine bender. It’s bold, it’s brash, and it’s deeply unsettling in all the best ways. It’s time to sit down, strap in, and unpack just how 28 Years Later not only keeps the pulse of the original but makes it beat with an entirely new, more ferocious rhythm.

🧬 The Rage Virus: From Rampage to Reflection – The Evolution We Never Saw Coming

In 28 Days Later, the Rage Virus turned innocent people into ravenous, rage-fueled monsters that could rip through human flesh like it was a Tuesday. Simple, deadly, and, in the most horrifying sense, mindless. But in 28 Years Later, Boyle throws a curveball. It’s not just about running for your life anymore. The virus has evolved—and so have the infected.

Say goodbye to the good ol’ brainless hordes and hello to the Alphas. These aren’t your garden-variety infected. These are more like the “supervillains” of the Rage Virus world. Faster, smarter, and disturbingly organized, the Alphas are far more than flesh-eating machines. They exhibit strategic thinking, leadership qualities, and, if you're lucky, maybe even a couple of boss-level tactics to throw at you.

Think of it as the evolution of the “zombie” genre—it’s less mindless violence and more "Oh, these guys can think." This isn’t just an upgraded virus; it’s a metaphor for how societies evolve (or devolve) after facing cataclysmic events. While the world has descended into chaos, the infected are starting to adapt, building their own warped forms of civilization.

The film takes us down a path of intellectual horror, asking the big questions: Is society doomed to decay? Can humans change? And most disturbingly: Are the infected really that different from the survivors? These questions leave us wondering if the real horror is the virus itself, or what it turns people into when left unchecked for decades.

By shifting from the chaotic, impulsive violence of the initial infection to a more calculated, purposeful aggression, Boyle creates a new level of tension. The survivors can’t just outrun or outfight the infected anymore—they must outthink them. It’s not just survival of the fittest; it’s survival of the smartest.

🎬 A Cinematic Revival – Boyle’s Back, Baby!

Danny Boyle’s return to the director’s chair is the cinematic equivalent of reuniting with an old friend who’s gotten even more interesting over the years. The original 28 Days Later set the bar high, and Boyle’s return with 28 Years Later proves he’s still got the magic touch. Boyle has always been a master of creating intense, immersive experiences—and with the film’s cinematography led by Anthony Dod Mantle, he continues to do just that.

Mantle's work in this film is practically poetic. The desolate, quarantined Britain is captured in stunning visuals that scream both beauty and horror. Wide shots show the eerie emptiness of abandoned cities, while tighter shots give us the intimate struggles of the survivors. This creates an emotional intimacy, allowing us to experience the claustrophobia of this world firsthand. The emptiness of the world is a constant reminder of what has been lost, and it’s beautifully captured in a way that makes the survivors feel even smaller.

But here's the kicker: Boyle and Mantle aren’t stopping at traditional filmmaking tricks. They’ve taken it a step further by using iPhone 15 Pro Max cameras for certain key scenes. Sounds wild, right? But it works. The rawness of the footage enhances the immediacy of the action, making it feel like you’re right there, trapped in the action with our characters. It’s a gritty, almost documentary-like approach that brings a new level of realism to the film, making the terror feel all too real.

And let’s not forget the music! The band Young Fathers is back with a haunting, atmospheric score that complements the bleakness of the setting. It’s like music for the end of the world—and we can’t get enough of it. Their eerie, ambient sounds will have you feeling both unsettled and oddly entranced. Young Fathers’ score provides the perfect backdrop, crafting a world where tension lingers in the air, thick and suffocating.

👥 Meet the New Faces – Characters at the Crossroads

As much as 28 Years Later thrives on its intense action and pulse-pounding thrills, it’s the characters who really give the film its emotional weight. This isn’t just about running from infected hordes; it’s about survival, love, loss, and the grey areas of morality. The characters in 28 Years Later are not just survivors; they are people struggling to maintain their humanity in a world that has all but lost it.

Spike (Alfie Williams): The world is a messed-up place when you're 12 years old and the Rage Virus is still wrecking havoc. Played by Alfie Williams, Spike is the new kid on the post-apocalyptic block. A child born in a world where survival is a daily battle, Spike's innocence is gradually stripped away as he faces the grim realities of life after the virus. Williams nails the role, portraying a young boy who must mature too quickly, carrying the weight of his survival while still holding onto some flicker of hope for the future. Spike represents the innocence of a generation that never knew life before the virus and the tragic loss of that innocence.

Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson): Spike's dad, Jamie, is a man who's lived through it all. Played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Jamie is a seasoned survivor, battle-worn, cynical, but still holding onto the desire to protect his family. Jamie’s character is a study in the balance between strength and vulnerability. He’s a man who has seen the worst of humanity but still believes in the possibility of redemption, even if the world around him offers little hope. His journey is as much about self-preservation as it is about attempting to instill values in his son—values that the world has almost forgotten.

Isla (Jodie Comer): As Spike’s mother, Isla is a deeply complex character. Played by Jodie Comer, Isla is battling a slow, painful illness in a world where medical care is scarce. Her vulnerability isn’t just physical; it’s emotional. Her struggle is a heart-wrenching portrait of what it means to be a mother in a dying world—fighting to protect her son even when she knows her time is limited. Comer’s nuanced performance adds layers to the character, making her one of the emotional anchors of the film. Isla’s character is a reflection of the world’s fragility—her illness mirroring the decay of the society around her.

Dr. Ian Kelson (Ralph Fiennes): Dr. Kelson is one of the more morally ambiguous characters in the film. Played by Ralph Fiennes, Dr. Kelson is a reclusive scientist whose obsession with the Rage Virus leads him to make some ethically questionable decisions. His character embodies the tension between scientific curiosity and moral responsibility. Fiennes brings a gravitas to the role, creating a character torn between the pursuit of knowledge and the ethical consequences of his actions. Dr. Kelson represents the complexities of human intellect—his curiosity driving him to explore the virus further, even as it costs him his humanity.

These characters provide the emotional backbone of the film, and it’s their personal struggles that elevate the narrative beyond just another zombie flick.

🧠 Themes of Humanity and Horror – More Than Just Scares

Yes, there are plenty of moments where you’ll be hiding behind your popcorn (or maybe clutching a pillow like it's your lifeline), but 28 Years Later is more than just a series of jumpscares. The film delves into deep moral questions that make you rethink everything you thought you knew about humanity.

The central question the film raises is this: Are the infected just victims of a virus, or are they inherently evil? Do they deserve to be killed, or is that just a survival instinct kicking in? By exploring these questions, the film blurs the line between the healthy and the infected, forcing us to question what it means to be human in a world where survival might require us to sacrifice our humanity.

The moral dilemmas don’t end there. The survivors must constantly make decisions about how far they’re willing to go to stay alive. Would you kill to survive? Would you betray someone if it meant saving your own life? In a world where the usual social rules no longer apply, the characters’ moral compasses are put to the test in ways that challenge their core beliefs.

This exploration of human nature in the face of crisis is what sets 28 Years Later apart from typical zombie fare. It’s a film about survival, but also about what survival costs.

🔮 Looking Ahead: A New Trilogy?

Yes, indeed! 28 Years Later sets the stage for a new trilogy that promises to take the story even deeper into the world of the Rage Virus. With 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple set to release in January 2026 and directed by Nia DaCosta, the saga will continue to explore the devastating effects of the virus on both the infected and the survivors. Expect more twists, turns, and moral quandaries in the upcoming films, as the Rage Virus continues to shape the future of this post-apocalyptic world.

📰 Critical Reception – A Horror Masterpiece?

Critics have been raving about 28 Years Later, calling it a bold reinvention of the zombie genre. Here’s a sneak peek at what the critics are saying:

Entertainment Weekly praises the film’s creative and daring blend of horror, fantasy, and emotional drama, calling it a refreshing take on a tired genre.

The Washington Post lauds the film for revitalizing the franchise while offering a compelling exploration of societal collapse, survival, and resilience in the face of overwhelming odds.

Time admires the film’s ambition and somber tone, highlighting how it manages to blend coming-of-age elements with the high-stakes horror the franchise is known for.

🎥 Conclusion – A Post-Apocalyptic Thriller Like No Other

28 Years Later doesn’t just breathe new life into the Rage Virus franchise—it gives it a full-on glow-up. With its thought-provoking themes, complex characters, and thrilling cinematic experience, this film is a must-watch for horror fans, genre aficionados, and anyone who enjoys a good intellectual challenge. It’s not just about surviving the infected—it’s about surviving what we become when everything else falls apart.

With a new trilogy in the works and plenty more to explore, we can’t wait to see what comes next for the survivors and the infected. One thing’s for sure: 28 Years Later proves the Rage Virus isn’t done yet.

I hate seeing the Wolfpack go.

It’s been two years.  Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Doug (Justin Bartha) are happily living uneventful lives at home.  Tattoos have been lasered off, files purged.  The last they heard from disaster-magnet Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong), he’d been tossed into a Thai prison and, with him out of the way, the guys have very nearly recovered from their nights prowling the seamy side of Las Vegas in a roofie’d haze, and being kidnapped, shot at, and chased by drug-dealing mobsters in Bangkok.  The only member of the Wolfpack who’s not content is Alan (Zach Galifianakis).

Still lacking a sense of purpose, the group’s black sheep has ditched his meds and given into his natural impulses in a big way—which, for Alan, means no boundaries, no filters and no judgment—until a personal crisis forces him to finally seek the help he needs.And who better than his three best friends to make sure he takes the first step.This time, there’s no bachelor party.  No wedding.  What could possibly go wrong?   But when the Wolfpack hits the road, all bets are off. “The Hangover Part III” is the epic conclusion to an incomparable odyssey of mayhem and bad decisions, in which the guys must finish what they started by going back to where it all began: Las Vegas.

I am just ecstatic about this film is not seeing Chow again. The writer is very successful in making Chow such a hateable character that I almost want to walk out everytime I see his face (That would be a series of walkouts and walkbacks if that happens). Zach Galifianakis character has a certain charm to it, the plain cluelessness of his character and disgusting antics, although disgusting is still funny.

The third installment is quite different from the first 2 films. There was a seriousness to it making me think that the message that the movie is trying to send across is “Hey, we kind of matured a bit.”  Which is true with two of the main characters Phil and Stu. Reading through some of the reviews of The Hangover 3, I see that a lot of people hated it. Maybe it is the toning down of the story that did not win the hearts of the fans of the first two. While some like it. As for me, I missed the craziness of the first 2 movies that was quite lacking in the third one. Maybe it was the most logical development of the film as the two guys Phil and Stu kind of lead family man lives, but looking at it into another angle I hope that the writers sustained the level of crazy that the old ones have.

In conclusion, The Hangover 3 is still great comedy that I would recommend to those who are looking for a great laugh. Don’t forget to see the clip after the credits.

The Showbook Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

The Showbook Rating 3/5 stars

“I beg permission to mention by name only four people who have given me the most affection, appreciation, encouragement, and constant collaboration. The first of the four is a film editor, the second is a scriptwriter, the third is the mother of my daughter Pat [Patricia Hitchcock], and the fourth is as fine a cook as ever performed miracles in a domestic kitchen. And their names are Alma Reville.”

-- Alfred Hitchcock

For some who may be itching to see a film about how marvelous and intriguing Alfred Hitchcock is, better look somewhere else. For this film is all about the softer side of the great director – particularly the heartaches, the inner side – the complex love story of Alma Reville and Alfred Hitchcock.

The film lets us in the process of making the spine-tingling 1960 thriller – PSYCHO, before it became the director’s most controversial and legendary film. A movie that according to this story, was a labor of love of husband and wife Alfred and Alma Hitchcock.

Anthony Hopkins lets us in to another spectacular performance as Alfred Hitchcock. In a time where the ingredients to get an Oscar is to lose weight, gain weight, change your voice, it was quite a surprise that Mr. Hopkins did not get an Oscar nod this year. Having watched some of the entries, I believe that he should at least be part of the nominees. I do not know much about Alma Reville to say that Helen Mirren did a good job in the film, but in a rather weird way, she was able to show that she is the star of the show, that Alfred Hitchcock is who he is because of her.

Great actors, great concept, however I felt that there is not much room to become stellar in the material that was presented. I felt that the dilemmas presented are quite shallow and the building up is not sufficient. There are also some scenes that puts Hitchcock in a rather unfavorable light, which was a little disappointing. Even the dilemmas that Alma Reville goes through, it felt like some scenes have to be stretched out just to make something out of the characters.

Ultimately, what resonates in the film is the genuine love of Alma and Alfred Hitchcock for each other. You watch the film because of Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren. The banter between the two was fun, the chemistry is spot on, and the acting, superb. It won’t hurt to watch PSYCHO too, to know why this film mattered.

One thing that I hate about some Academy nominated films is that you go out of the movie theatre, feeling that you’ve been preached, or with a heavy heart due to the complexities of the story and the problems of the character, or just plain dumbfounded because you failed to understand a thing about the movie you just watched. This is somehow the feeling that I am expecting to have before I watched “The Descendants” but I was completely mistaken.

The Descendants is a story about family with George Clooney’s character, Matt King, in the center. Matt King is  a privileged Honolulu attorney who is tasked to be the trustee of their families inherited properties. His character is a “hapa-haole” or half-white. His great-great-grandmother was Princess Margaret Ke’alohilani, one of the last direct descendants of King Kamehameha, who fell in love with her haole (Hawaiian for white or foreign) banker, Edward King, leading to Matt’s current life as a Honolulu lawyer with deep, tangled roots in the islands.

But his rich roots didn’t help at all in being a good husband and father to his family. Instead, he became an “understudy” father and a non-existent husband. But after his wife went into a coma after a boating accident, he is compelled to reevaluate his marriage and life. His mischievous daughters don’t trust him, his imperiled wife has been cheating on him and his broke cousins see him and the land trust he controls as a piggy bank. To add insult to injury, he’s surrounded by a lush, fertile, awe-inspiring landscape that defies his inner turmoil.

The Descendants made me laugh and cry at the same time. George Clooney may be great in the film, but the real rockstars are the writers: Jim Rash, Nat Faxon and Alexander Payne. The movie was a complete irony that worked. A film that may seem to be serious but was full of comedy, a complex storyline and drama. Even the setting speaks a ton that you are not seeing an ordinary movie.

The characters are colorful in their own ways. George Clooney's performance was heartfelt. I must say that this is a stripped down Clooney. Out of the snazzy costumes and portraying a disgruntled father, this is his performance that I liked best so far.

I particularly loved Nick Krause’ character "Sid”. He stole the scene in almost all those times where he opens his mouth. The banter between him and Clooney was just funny. Amanda Miller’s character “Scottie King” may be a little bit shocking but this kid did not cringe a bit in those scenes.

Great ensemble with a moving story. This is one film that proves that you don’t need monster special effects to produce a great film. Hoping to see more of Alexander Payne’s work.

Rating: 4 stars

“The Descendants” opens February 15 in theaters from 20^th Century Fox to be distributed by Warner Bros.

Alvin, Simon, Theodore and the Chipettes are back in Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked.  Due to their rowdiness, the chipmunks wreak havoc – to themselves. They accidentally got shipwrecked after a huge accident in the cruise. They are marooned in the island of Scilly, where they met a castaway who are about to turn things around.

I was quite hesitant to watch this sequel because I was not able to watch the first and the second one. Although I’m quite familiar with the Chipettes, I thought there will be some plot  points that will not be clear to me. But after watching this film, I found out that the sequel can stand on its own. There was a little introduction about the Chipettes that would make those who were not able to watch the first movie still catch up.

Although it may not be at the same caliber as that of other well loved animated/semi-animated films, it was still able to entertain. There are just silly characters that I hope the producers would bury 10 feet under a dark, murky grave because they are just not necessary in the film. Some of the humor worked, some are just plain corny and creepy. I don’t think putting a psychologically disturbed castaway and a guy who will not take off his chicken suit would teach the kids any lesson at all.

Putting those two characters aside, I felt that Dave, Alvin, the Chipmunks and the Chipettes are better off without any annoying supporting actors. Watching the chipmunks stylize the island is just fun, and their humor worked for me. I must say that Theodore is one ball of cuteness all throughout the movie, well, all of the ‘munks did anyway.

In true blue ‘munk fashion, there are contemporary song and dance numbers that are cute and funny. They used some famous pop hits…and old ones. I personally loved Funky Town and Bad Romance.

Ultimately, you watch this film with the kids. This movie do not have any ambitions to bag an award or to amaze you with a smart plot, rather it is there to celebrate the well loved characters we all know as Alvin, Simon and Theodore. Maybe you can have space in your heart for the Chipettes too. :)

Rating: 2 spotlights

“Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked” opens January 8 from 20^th Century Fox to be distributed by Warner Bros. nationwide.

A Game of Shadows may not be as entertaining as the first Holmes movie, but with Robert Downey Jr. as the famous detective alongside Stephen Fry, Rachel McAdams, Noomi Rapace and Jude Law, what can go wrong?

Guy Ritchie adapted some tested “tricks” he used from the first film and improved it on this one. Like how Holmes dissects/narrates his plan of attack to the audience before he does it, the interesting camera angles which highlights the fight scenes, and of course the dry humor.

Visually, I must say that Guy Ritchie has a keen eye to detail. I love how this period was depicted in the film, as seen in the furniture, the costumes, and the setting. There was this scene where a common fight sequence was, in my own terms, beautiful due to the use of interesting angles. Its the first time that I have seen such artistry in a somewhat common scene we see in action movies.

Alas, I felt that his attention to detail was a letdown in the numerous sequences of the movie. For a fast-paced movie, 2 hours felt like 3 hours. Although it was necessary in the film, the do-now-explain-later scenes where Holmes explains his strategy is a little overused. I would appreciate it if Ritchie lets his audience think instead of providing the explanations…all the time. It felt that it sucked out the mystery out of a mystery movie.

However, the witty banter of Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law saves the rather stretched and “spoiled” parts of the storyline. It was clear that Ritchie is showering “bromance” all over the place. Even though there are weak parts, it is still filled with witty dialogue and must-hear dry humor. Some are courtesy of Fry of course.

Overall, you will watch it because you need to watch how Robert Downey Jr. gives life to Sherlock Holmes, how Jude Law transforms into Dr. Watson and definitely the awesome fight scenes. Just have the mindset that you have to be in “thinking mode” when you watch this movie. Spoiler: Great wit in the ending.

The Showbook Rating: 3.5

Parental Advisory: There are a lot of fight scenes that might be too much for 12 year old below kids.