I’m not the biggest gamer in the world, I’ll admit. I play a few games, to be sure, but I have my favorites, and I stick with them. Elden Ring has never been one of the favorites, and while not every video-game-adaption grabs my attention, the recent announcement that this game is going to be turned into a movie has. The reason is simple: Alex Garland has been attached to direct it. I’m excited to see what Garland can do in this genre.

Elden Ring Isn’t My Thing

I’ve never played the hit created by Hidetaka Miyazaki, with the story coming from the mind of George R.R. Martin. I don’t know if I’d love it or hate it. I’d probably at least like it, because I’m a big fan of Martin’s books and Game of Thrones, so I’d like to think that would grab my attention. One of the few games I do play regularly is Assassin’s Creed (which is getting a new adaptation as well), and I could see myself getting into the historical nature of the fantasy story. Much like I did with Game of Thrones (and the books).

I’ve actually never played any of the hits from Elden Rings’ developer, FromSoftware. I’ve never played Dark Souls or Demon's Souls, for example. I don’t have any particular aversion to them; they’ve just never found their way into my, admittedly limited, game rotation. With that in mind, I’m seriously considering picking up a copy of Elden Ring to play while I patiently wait for Grand Theft Auto VI. And, of course, to familiarize myself with the game, because I’m definitely excited for the movie.

Alex Garland Rarely Does Anything Wrong In My Book

I’m an unabashed fan of Alex Garland. The writer and director has almost never made a misstep in my opinion. That goes all the way back to the novel that put him on the map, The Beach, which I first read in college. I loved the book, and while the movie adaptation starring Leonardo DiCaprio leaves a little to be desired, I don’t hate it. Garland shifted from novels to screenplays with a pair of films directed by Danny Boyle, 28 Days Later and Sunshine.

2012’s Dredd is one of my favorite comic book movies of all time, and one I really wish would eventually get a sequel (a pipe dream at this point). Garland wrote Dredd, and by some accounts, directed a lot of it, despite not getting official credit. His first credited director role came with the fantastic Ex Machina in 2014. Garland has been busy over the last couple of years, directing and writing Civil War in 2024, and co-directing Warfare last year, which was one of the most intense times I’ve ever had watching a movie. He also wrote both 28 Years Later and 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple.

It’s going to be a couple of years, as Elden Ring isn’t expected to be released until 2028, so there is plenty of time to build up the anticipation for Garland’s first dive into the video game genre.

The Elden Ring movie is real and, apparently, it's going to feature one of the most off-the-wall characters from the games. When I first pleaded for an adaptation, I never would've guessed we'd be seeing the Dung Eater in live-action, but recent set footage seemingly confirms that's going to be the case. With that, I'm excited for the film for yet another reason.

Some leaked set footage hit the internet this week, and the video uploaded to X shows the Dung Eater hanging from a noose while a crowd of townspeople hurl some sort of green vegetable at him. It's blowing my mind that this wild character is actually going to be in the movie, and it has opened my eyes to what this could mean for Alex Garland's film as a whole.

Who Is The Dung Eater?

The Dung Eater is a criminal of note in The Lands Between, known specifically for performing a ritual on victims that severs their souls from the Erdtree, and that fates them to eternal torment. In the Elden Ring game, the character offers the player a chance to align with him and spread the Seedbed Curse to others, and doom the world to eternal torment in the process.

His presence is unsightly, with his red armor littered with the cut horns of Omens, creatures that live in the world of Elden Ring. To address the elephant in the room, it's undecided or never said if he's even actually eaten dung. While it's not confirmed, TheGamer and others have noted that Japanese folklore believes the soul is located in the rectum, so readers can draw their own conclusions as to how this creature removed souls after killing victims. He's somewhat notable in the game, but the movie certainly could've been written around him. I'll be curious to see what end he's used.

I'm Optimistic We'll See Some Of Elden Ring's Most Twisted Characters

While the Dung Eater is one of Elden Ring's most despicable characters of note, there are other wild beings within this universe as well. And, if DG is getting screentime, I'm hyped about the possibility of other crazy characters will get the spotlight as well. I can't help but think what Margit, The Fell Omen would look look like in a live-action film, and the same goes for a massive boss like The Fire Giant.

When the Elden Ring movie was first announced, I feared there may be efforts to make the fantastical elements more muted, and similar to George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones. To me, this game has always had the vibe of Lord of the Rings (if it was slowly marching toward an apocalyptic hell, of course). This fictional world is clearly in rough shape in the games, but there's still some beauty to be found.

The Dung Eater's existence in the movie, no matter how fleeting (seeing as he looks to have a noose around his neck) has me confident this movie is going to be the dark fantasy epic it was in the video games. Between this reveal and the latest Street Fighter Trailer. It seems like Hollywood is finally putting movies in the hands of people who understand how to bring video games to life in film. Suffice it to say, I'm pumped for other upcoming video game adaptations.

While the Elden Ring movie isn't slated to release until March 2028, there are plenty of great titles to check out by way of the 2026 movie schedule. This brief look also has me wanting to play the game all over again (and maybe this time, I'll actually be able to beat it).

Spoilers ahead for 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple.

The horror genre's current renaissance is showing no signs of slowing down, with some of the best horror movies returning with new sequels. That includes 28 Days Later, which has treated fans to two new sequels in quick succession. The Bone Temple is in theaters now, and director Nia DaCosta spoke to CinemaBlend about one sequence that she was originally nervous about, and thinking about how "crazy" it would be.

The Bone Temple picks up immediately after 28 Years Later's ending, and we follow Spike as he attempts to survive living with the Jimmys. Ralph Fiennes also returns as Kelson, whom the cult of murders think is Satan himself. The third act features the Harry Potter star putting on a wild fire show and dance number to convince them he's actually the Dark Lord, to hilarious and epic results. I spoke with DaCosta ahead of the movie's wide release, and she shared her initial trepidation to that sequence, telling me:

The Candyman director clarified that she was joking about Alex Garland's reaction, although her nerves about bringing Ralph Fiennes' pyrotechnic performance of Iron Maiden's "The Number of the Beast" were very real. Luckily, she had some great support behind her in order to nail this memorable scene from 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple.

The Bone Temple's ending kicks off with this fiery musical number, and an outstanding performance by Ralph Fiennes. While Nia DaCosta was originally nervous about bringing that sequence together, she spoke to me about how her collaborators helped to pull it off. In her words:

She's not wrong. The entire sequence really came together in the theatrical cut of The Bone Temple, resulting in epic moments as well as some comedic beats. The Jimmys were raised in an apocalyptic world void of technology and rock music, so their reaction to Kelson made sense... even if it was funny to audiences to knew the truth about Fiennes' character not actually being Satan.

Later in our same conversation, DaCosta shared a few more reasons why this daunting scene in the horror sequel ultimately paid off. As she told me:

Filmmaking is a collaborative art form, and this is just one example of the way various departments come together in order to make a movie exist. On the page Kelson's pyrotechnic number was daunting, but Nia DaCosta worked and trusted her crew and designers, and it worked out in a big way.

The Bone Temple brought Cillian Murphy back to the franchise, and set up a third installment which would round out a new trilogy. It's unclear when that upcoming horror movie will will actually start production, but hopefully we get more information about that soon.

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is in theaters now as part of the 2026 movie release list. We'll have to wait and see if/when the threequel gets officially greenlit.

Ralph Fiennes may not have been the primary focus of last year’s 28 Years Later, but the introduction of his character Dr. Ian Kelson left an impression on moviegoers, including myself, who did a pretty terrible job of hiding my sobs through his big scene. Now the sequel 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is set to premiere with more Kelson, more of the Jimmy cult and tons of violence, and critics are giving their takes.

The sequel hits the 2026 movie release schedule on January 16, picking up where its predecessor left off, with Spike (Alfie Williams) being taken in by Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal (Jack O’Connell). In CinemaBlend’s review of 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, Nick Venable says he was entranced by the way Nia DaCosta takes an already-unpredictable franchise even further into unexpected territory. He ranks the film 4.5 stars out of 5, writing:

Robert Daniels of RogerEbert gives the upcoming horror flick 3.5 out of 4 stars, noting its bleakness, bloodiness and brutality. 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is “a gnarly, mind-bending trek through inhumanity,” Daniels says, writing:

Jesse Hassenger of AV Club grades The Bone Temple a B+, saying it doesn’t quite live up to 28 Years Later but is still more than worthwhile. In Hassenger’s words:

Jas Keimig of the Seattle Times rates the movie 3.5 out of 4 stars, writing that the director takes the focus off of the zombies, turning the spotlight on the people living in virus-ravaged England and how they often pose an even greater risk to each other. Keimig continues:

Clint Gage of IGN gives 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple a “Great” 8 out of 10, calling it “easily” the most gruesome installment of the franchise, which is saying quite a lot. The sequel is “surprisingly funny, exceptionally brutal,” Gage says, writing:

The critics all seem to agree that 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is a worthy — though unequivocally violent — sequel, thanks in large part to Ralph Fiennes’ performance as Dr. Ian Kelson. The movie has been Certified Fresh with 93% on Rotten Tomatoes, so if you have interest in this next chapter of the franchise, be sure to grab a ticket, because the film is in theaters as of Friday, January 16.

If you want a refresher of what came before the current movie, 28 Years Later can be streamed with a Netflix subscription.

Warning: massive spoilers for 28 Years Later are quarantined within. If you haven’t made your cinematic journey to the mainland yet, you’ve been warned.

Well folks, we made it. Almost 23 years later, the 2025 movie schedule has reunited the world with the zombie-adjacent apocalypse of 28 Years Later. With a planned trilogy in the works, and a second film already in the can, that cliffhanger you’ve just witnessed is quite something - especially since the potential third entry is still being considered for a greenlight.

That’s not only left people questioning this first chapter’s ending, but also has us wondering if we’ll see a bigger cliffhanger in January’s sequel The Bone Temple. So if you haven’t seen this film yet, you can divert to our 28 Years Later review and stay spoiler-free. I say that because I need to talk about what happens in the finale, as well as how Danny Boyle and Alex Garland view the story’s pacing in relation to that uncertainty.

28 Years Later's Cliffhanger Is A "Handoff" To The Next Film

We see 28 Years Later ending with Spike’s (Alfie Williams) seemingly random meeting with “The Cult of Jimmy.” To some, this represents a jarring tonal shift, especially when Sir Jimmy Crystal (Jack O’Connell) and his merry band of rogues gleefully spring into action while wearing colored tracksuits.

This upbeat moment arrives after 28 Years Later’s bittersweet tale, and that notion ties into my conversation with Danny Boyle and Alex Garland. That shift, as well as the cliffhanger nature of the movement, fits their approach to the stories ahead. And Mr. Boyle had something to say on the matter, which made it make the most sense. Here's what he told CinemaBlend:

So, for those of you who thought that 28 Years Later ended on a random moment, relax. This is a planned trilogy, with a hook teasing where director Nia DaCosta’s The Bone Temple will take things. And that ending didn’t come out of nowhere, as Alex Garland’s full vision expanded what was once one film into a three-picture epic.

Alex Garland’s Approach To 28 Years Later’s Story Ignored The Third Chapter’s Lack Of A Greenlight

When talking with the writer/director behind movies such as Civil War and Ex Machina, he turned me onto something I think we all forget at times. Alex Garland reminded me that even a “low budget” film of a couple of million dollars is a “massive amount of money” for anyone who isn’t a captain of industry. So trying to play your cards to make sure that money is paid back is still playing it safe, which, as you’ll read in his remarks to CinemaBlend, is the total opposite of what he intended to do:

It’s almost enough to make you want a “Write Like No One’s Paying” needlepoint to hang on the wall. Though if it were themed after 28 Years Later, it’d have to have some cool font choices, and a lot of blood. Some are probably miffed that despite clear indications being laid out, Cillian Murphy’s planned return to the franchise hasn’t even happened yet.

Admittedly, that would be the traditional hook to get folks in the door. But instead, Alex Garland and Danny Boyle have saved that card in the deck, as it probably won’t be until later on in 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple; with a major upgrade in the unproduced finale. Which is something that was probably decided when looking for the proper ending to a trilogy-starting entry.

According To Danny Boyle, The Search For An Ending Is Part Of The Process

Alex Garland’s full story plan for 28 Years Later is still pretty unknown to the world at large. And considering 28 Days Later’s history of ending decisions, anything could change between now and the release of that third film. Though that might put pressure on the more business-minded folks, that’s just not how you tell a story–and Danny Boyle understands that–as you’ll read in his continued remarks below:

Spike’s meeting with Sir Jimmy Crystal and his cult is a more mysterious final note, especially because of that tonal shift. And we can’t really tell where it’s going to lead, at least until the first trailer for 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple arrives. Which brings us back to the subject of the uncertain final chapter, and how Danny Boyle is confident it’ll happen after all.

Danny Boyle Is Confident 28 Years Later's Story Will Make It To The Fans

As an impatient fan, I share those worries about 28 Years Later’s potential finale not being greenlit. During my previous interview with the director, back when he introduced the film’s 28-minute sizzle reel, I posed the question of whether or not there’s a backup plan. It was then that the Yesterday director gave me the most Danny Boyle answer he could:

So just to recap: Cillian Murphy is supposed to be a major part of 28 Years Later’s unnamed third chapter, with the potential to appear in The Bone Temple’s ending “hand off.” But without the market reflecting the people’s desire for such a story, we may not get to see it. Whether the numbers on this first movie deliver or not, that leaves me thinking about a specific final note about the next cliffhanger in the line.

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple's Finale Has To Go Bigger

If you didn’t like the ending of 28 Years Later, I apologize if what I’m about to say sounds like heresy. But we need to set the expectation that Nia DaCosta’s entry in the saga is going to have an even bigger swing as its hand-off finale. It needs to, as middle entries in a trilogy tend to be more downbeat, while raising the stakes for a grand finale.

With 28 Years Later’s impressive presales going into this weekend, I’m confident that the third movie will happen after all. And after talking to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland, I also feel that we’ll see Spike’s story ending in the way that best suits the overarching message.

So now it’s just a case of getting in front of a screening of 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple as soon as humanly possible. But for those of you who either haven’t seen the movie or want to revisit it to form your opinion, head to your nearest theater and prepare to embrace the Rage in a good way.

I have been obsessed with director Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s vision of the apocalypse ever since discovering 28 Days Later in the early days of internet film discourse. In a weird way, the 2002 movie become a sort of comfort watch for me, as it never fails to captivate whenever it’s available to watch. For over two decades, this indie horror classic has seen a larger studio sequel, and a couple of tie-in comics, keeping the flame alive. But fans perpetually wondered if we’d actually get the long teased sequel that Boyle and Garland seemed to periodically drop hints for.

That sort of hype is what 28 Years Later has been up against since its announcement, and it’s something that makes any legacyquel a daunting prospect to produce (or even watch out of fear of disappointment). Now that the wait is over, I’m pleased to say that 28 Years Later is the epitome of what these sorts of follow-ups should aspire to achieve, as it honors the time-tested adage that slow and steady wins the race... provided, of course, you’re not racing against the Infected.

Decades after the initial Rage Virus outbreak, the UK is officially quarantined from the rest of the world. 28 Years Later’s first act wastes no time filling us in on how military patrols and an information blackout leave the country cut off from foreign populations. In this tale, our focus is on Spike (Alfie Williams), a child coming of age in the sequestered community of Holy Island.

As his father Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) tries to teach him to hunt the Infected on the Mainland, mother Isla (Jodie Comer) is suffering from an unknown affliction. As a turn of events sees Spike fleeing the island with his sick mom, he ventures into the world abandoned, encountering obstacles that will shape him into the man he wants to become.

While it arrives 18 years after the previous entry, 28 Years Later doesn’t waste time picking things up.

A long wait between sequels is always intimidating, especially with a genre like horror. What was once fresh and frightening can feel dated and unnecessary without a proper hook. That was never a problem with the movie that started it all, and 28 Years Later doesn’t succumb to that pitfall either. The Rage-plagued UK is a logical extension of what its predecessors (28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later) had done in the past, but remains timely as ever.

Writer Alex Garland’s potential trilogy of follow-ups is inspired by, among other things, the COVID-19 pandemic and Brexit, but it’s never solely defined by those recent influences. As modern as 28 Years Later feels through its various upgrades, the poignant storytelling present in 28 Days Later isn’t abandoned at all. Instead, it uses the advantages available to heighten some aspects of the original vision for the franchise's seminal title – as seen in an early sequence where Jamie and Spike make a star pre-dawn run for safety against a super starry sky.

Director Danny Boyle’s eclectic style is still sharply present, and isn’t a mere nostalgic return to an aesthetic. Shooting on a fleet of iPhones with returning cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle, Boyle is still capturing the apocalypse through his prosumer tech lens, giving the film an intimate look with which the audience is well-familiar. It also allows the 127 Hours filmmaker to include some pretty amazing bullet time shots, capturing the deaths of some Infected with a new twist.

Musical accompaniment by the hip hop outfit Young Fathers offers a non-traditional score that also bolsters Boyle’s unique view on the end of the world with a special flare. Though 28 Years Later is a visually crisp and refined product, it retains the lo-fi charm that made its progenitor a classic.

Even with a cast full of recognizable names and the aid of several modern technological advances, 28 Years Later doesn’t betray its indie horror roots.

Though I’m a fan of the 2007 sequel 28 Weeks Later, one cannot deny that it’s definitely a more traditional Hollywood offering. So when it came time to mentally prepare for 28 Years Later, I was naturally a bit worried we’d be getting a course correcting legacyquel that simply “plays the hits” in order to recapture the magic of days gone by. I swear, if someone had said, “Somehow, Christopher Eccleston's Major West has survived,” I would have been acting like an Infected myself.

Fans can put that concern aside, as Alex Garland’s new chapter in this ongoing story does adopt familiar beats but also offers a much deeper examination of themes embedded since day one of the plague. That specific note shines brightest with the employment of a more A-list cast including Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Jodie Comer, and Ralph Fiennes.

The fact that such marquee names are present this time around isn’t a distraction, as Danny Boyle’s direction allows all to be easily immersed into the 28 cycle’s existing world – which makes the story consistently tense, even outside of scenes where the running Infected pursue the leads. You're not watching familiar stars pretend to be terrified by the speedy or crawling masses that want to devour them; you're watching people in a horrific a slice of life.

However, there is a young breakout star that needs to be highlighted, and it’s young Alfie Williams. Playing Spike, Williams definitively holds his own among his veteran co-stars, looking poised to become one of their peers after 28 Years Later. The majority of the narrative rests on his shoulders, and it never loses its potency in his hands.

Alex Garland’s writing for this young innocent is as tight as it is for the seasoned adult cast, and Williams never takes that for granted. While he’s clearly in good hands with top tier talent on both sides of the camera, the actor emerges as a name to watch out for by the time we arrive at this first chapter’s exciting finale.

28 Years Later is a darkly beautiful examination of the desire to return to the past and the necessity to move into the future.

Many may have forgotten the emotional and dramatic weight that 28 Days Later carried upon its release. In the wake of a decades-long wait for more, 28 Years Later still proves that it hasn’t run out of things to say about the duality that is human nature facing the end of life on Earth. In its radically transformed world, Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s horror homecoming revisits the themes it’s always held in its tender but frightening heart.

One pivotal moment (that I won't spoil here) acts as a reminder of that bittersweet terror, which may surprise some in the audience who came purely for the horror show. But long time fans will recognize that decades after seeing Cillian Murphy wander around a deserted London, the drama is as well preserved as the scares. The screams, as well as the tears, are back in fine form.

28 Years Later is a captivating return to form that casts away cheap nostalgia and doubles down on the powerful nature the first movie was known for. Danny Boyle and Alex Garland recognized that the message of empathy versus conflict still carries a charge, and pick things up in a sweeping epic that doesn’t miss a heartbeat.

The six month wait for 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is now even more of an endurance test for fans who’ll be hungry for more. But I think we should all take comfort in one last drop of happiness that could spread into something greater: 28 Years Later already feels as rewatchable as 28 Days Later; which in and of itself is an awe inspiring feat.

If you listen closely, you can hear the sound of Infected running towards the 2025 movie schedule. The long-awaited arrival of 28 Years Later has certainly looked like an occasion to celebrate, even through its mere existence. And now it appears that the good news is starting to spread even further, as some early reports on the upcoming horror movie’s pre-sales will inspire the total opposite of Rage for anyone who’s looking forward to it.

Per Deadline’s reporting, advanced ticket sales for the potential trilogy starter surpassed four notable horror hits in the first 24 hours, raking in $34 million! Thanks to this feat, Sony’s first venture into the Danny Boyle/Alex Garland franchise is now the “best horror pre-seller of 2025,” as it surpassed Final Destination: Bloodlines and Sinners as well as the 2024 hits Alien: Romulus and Nosferatu.

I mean, can we really be that surprised, considering the speed of a garden variety Infected? Much like this year’s Final Destination legacy-quel, 28 Years Later sees its status as a legacy-quel as a positive. So, if we operate on the basic assumption that Bloodlines’ opening weekend box office is par for the course, our return to an isolated UK ravaged by the Rage Virus could blow the doors off of cinemas yet again.

Of course, a lot of that is going to depend on what happens this weekend, as Universal/DreamWorks’ How to Train Your Dragon seems set for a stellar opening itself. And as we saw with Lilo & Stitch’s impressive box office hold, families have been showing up for new versions of old favorites. In a funny sort of way, that’s exactly what could happen with 28 Years Later, even if its legacy-quel approach ventures into new story territory - and minus the “family” audience.

With an estimated $75 million production budget on the books, it shouldn’t take too long for 28 Years Later to start making money. Even with the crowded box office scrum of upcoming movies like F1, M3GAN 2.0, and Jurassic World Rebirth all on the horizon, a slow but steady tide of repeat viewings could make all the difference on the international stage. Hopefully, that means we won’t have to wait long to hear if 28 Years Later’s final chapter has a green light.

The end is extremely night once again, as 28 Years Later hits theaters on June 20th, with its sequel 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple set for a January 2026 debut! And if you want to catch the original 28 Days Later, that classic is currently streaming free with ads on Pluto TV!

Warfare, from co-directors and co-writers Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland, is my favorite movie on the 2025 movie schedule, at least so far. It has pretty much everything I thought was missing from Civil War, which, a year ago before I saw it, was the movie I was most excited about for 2024. Garland, who I am a huge fan of, really hit this one out of the park alongside his cohort, a veteran of the battle depicted, Ray Mendoza. There are so many things they get right here.

The Tension In Warfare Is So Palpable

One of the things I was most disappointed in about Garland’s 2024 release, Civil War, was the lack of real tension. I just never felt any real stakes in most of the movie. Maybe it’s because it was from a journalist’s point of view and not a soldier’s, but the tension never grabbed me. The journalists were in peril, but that never translated to my emotions.

Garland and Mendoza succeed at the very opposite of that in Warfare. From the moment the movie begins in the dark with the SEAL team infiltrating the home of a family until the final moments of the film when the soldiers are finally evacuated, I was white-knuckling it. The calm of the first act is so layered in that tension that every time a member of the platoon walked in front of a window, I expected a jump scare and the bullets to start flying. It was truly the calm before the storm, and I was completely engrossed.

Because Warfare Was A True Story, I Was More Invested

As is the case with a lot of movies I watch (I’m not someone who avoids spoilers at all), I read a little about the actual events the movie is based on before I watched Warfare. Because of that, I was immediately more invested in the characters and the real people who inspired them. The movie doesn’t need to tell the backstory, though, as the audience is immediately thrown into this intense and terrifying reality. We learn enough about the characters in that first act than we learn about any of the characters and their relationships throughout his previous war film.

In Civil War, none of the characters felt “real” to me. I think this is because Garland purposely didn’t take a “side” in the fictional conflict happening. We aren’t asked to take sides either, or, more to the point, we’re not allowed to take sides because we don’t really know what the sides are. The movie is deliberately vague, and that makes the characters equally undefined. There may be more backstory to the characters, but those feel as hollow as the reasons for the war do.

I watched Warfare after purchasing the movie with my Amazon Prime subscription, and while I’m annoyed with myself for not making it to the theater, I am excited to watch it again (or again and again and again), because I know there are things I missed and aspects (like the sound design) that are so impressive, I want to relive them. I’m not sure I’m ready to handle the stress of the movie again, and I can’t imagine how the soldiers felt, but I know I will watch it again soon. It will deserve every award that comes its way, and I hope there are plenty.

When I first heard about Warfare and the early visceral reactions to Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland’s intense and uncomfortably real military thriller, I knew I had to see this movie. I didn’t get to see the 2025 movie on the big screen, but I made sure I was going to watch it as soon as it joined the list of new and recent movies streaming (even if I had to pay a premium to watch it). That day has finally come…

Though it’s impossible to recreate the theatrical experience without spending a massive amount of cash turning my basement into a state-of-the-art screening room (I can dream, right?), I found a way to make the experience as epic, as thrilling, and as loud as the big screen. Here’s how…

Warfare Is The Most Intense War Film I've Seen In Years

Despite opening with a great and nostalgia-inducing scene, Warfare quickly turned into what I can honestly say is the most intense war film I’ve seen in years, and one of the most harrowing ever to come out. Without giving too much away, Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland’s tour-de-force A24 movie has one intense scene after another as a platoon of Navy SEALs attempts to survive the Battle of Ramadi.

With no music, no emotional backstories, and an unrelenting pace that doesn’t let up once the action starts, Warfare had me on the edge of my seat for the majority of its 95-minute runtime. This movie will stick with me for a very long time, that’s for sure.

I Missed Warfare In Theaters, I Found A Way To Recreate The Experience Streaming At Home

As much as I wanted to see Warfare on the big screen, it never happened (vacation, kids’ busy schedules, company in town). That said, I didn’t hesitate to buy a digital copy the moment the great A24 movie arrived on PVOD services like Amazon in May 2025. When it came time to finally check out a thriller so many colleagues raved about, I tried my hardest to recreate the cinematic experience at home. Here’s how it went down…

My soundbar isn’t as great as it once was, so I decided to watch Warfare while wearing the Sony PULSE 3D wireless headphones I bought for my PlayStation a few years ago. That decision paid off HUGE, especially during the various shootouts, rescues, and a certain scene involving Bradley Fighting Vehicles (BFV).

I also turned off every light in my basement, put my phone on silent and out of reach, and positioned my chair directly in front of the TV, creating a highly immersive experience. Considering this movie is based on a true story and real-life heroes who risked everything for their comrades, I felt Warfare needed my full attention just as I would in a theater. Guess what, it made the experience even better!

This Is A Must-Watch For War Movie Fans, And Anyone In General

I cannot recommend Warfare enough, even if you aren’t a big fan of military thrillers. However, if you love loud, intense, and all-time great war movies, then this is something you don’t want to miss, and you shouldn’t waste any time checking it out. As I’ve mentioned, along with just about everyone else who’s seen the movie, this is 95 minutes of pure intensity, even when sitting with the SEALs just waiting for stuff to pop off. A masterclass in tension is another way of describing it.

Though Warfare is all but guaranteed to be available for anyone with a Max subscription in the coming months (the platform is the exclusive home to A24 streaming release), I would honestly say it’s worth spending the extra money to watch it right now. It’s that good!

You know a movie is good when you can’t stop thinking about it after you finish it. It’s been three weeks since I watched Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza’s Warfare, and I still can’t get it out of my mind. Warfare was one of my most anticipated films on the upcoming 2025 movies schedule. The sounds were haunting, and the acting was incredible, but what hit me like a ton of bricks that I can’t stop thinking about was how REAL the movie felt.

I was a big fan of the movie Civil War last year, so I was stoked to hear that Garland was immediately following up with Warfare. I loved how he told the story about journalists going into an active warzone. Civil War's ending left room for debate, which added to the depth of the story for me. It gave me hope that his latest project would be just as good. And let me tell you, it was better.

Hollywood Loves Making Sensational Movies About War

I do want to preface that I am not ex-military. I have family that served, and many friends that I love dearly who went to war or who were stationed in active zones. We often talk about movies due to our shared love for cinema, and they let me ask how accurate something is. And while we all have a deep passion for a fun, action-packed movie about the good guys going in and getting their top-secret mission done, the criticisms are always the same. The majority of Hollywood films about war are not even remotely realistic. We ranked some of the best war films, but some are more fantastical than others.

There have been some incredible war films made that lean more into realism. Black Hawk Down is a personal favorite of mine. We see clearly how brutal and chaotic that war can be. We see how scared and tired the soldiers are, and we see the mental toll it takes on soldiers when they are under fire. The extra layer is that the movie was based on the Battle of Mogadishu, which is a real event. These elements combine to give us a movie that doesn’t romanticize war, making the movie very impactful.

However, for every realistic film about the pain and devastation of war, there are plenty more that fall into the bucket of unrestrained boys' adventures. Big knives, bigger guns, and one-line zingers abound. The Rambo movies are a great example of war movies that I feel fit this. The violence is over the top and highly stylized. Another example would be any of The Expendables movies. The action is relentless and choreographed in a way that feels more like a dance than a scene in war.

As cool as it is to see Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone walk away from a building being blown up or take out a whole bunch of bad guys without any issues, that's not even close to what happens in real life. These perfectly executed impossible stunts and nonsensical explosions might be fun to watch, but don't reflect reality.

We Are Seeing More Realism About War In TV And Film

While not every show or movie about war or veterans of war needs to be completely realistic in all aspects, I get excited when I see that efforts were made. Another movie I appreciated that leaned into realism was American Sniper. There is a scene when Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper) notices that a man has a bruised elbow. Veterans can tell you that snipers will lie prone (flat on their stomachs, up on their elbows) for hours, which leads to them having bruised elbows. It’s a specific detail that some might miss, but people who know what it means immediately pick up on. When asked about making the film, Garland shared with CNN:

Warfare Is Raw, Real, and Unapologetic

I was blown away by how raw and real Warfare was. Our own Eric Eisenberg tipped his hat to the realism in his Warfare review. The Warfare cast did an incredible job of humanizing how real men react in war. Some were scared, while others kept themselves even-keeled and able to function. They were battered and bruised and didn’t jump back up right away to start killing more bad guys.

As we follow the Navy SEALs of Alpha One on their journey, shit hits the fan, and they have to regroup. Therein lies Warfare’s true brilliance. The reality of war is ugly, scary, and suffocating in a very un-Hollywood way.

The Sounds In The Film Were Another Layer Of Realism

Warfare’s sound design also influences how the action is handled. We are so accustomed to war movies constantly filling our ears with aggressive noise, but that’s not what this story does. There are points in Warfare where the silence engulfs you, and since you can’t hear anything, you’re filled with dread. The sound mix on this movie was so impactful that I had to remind myself to breathe, especially in an early scene where a grenade goes off and everything goes completely silent. You feel the weight of it all right then and there.

On the other end, there are moments in Warfare that are so loud that you can feel it in your chest. There are two points where a show of force is called in, and when the jets pass over the area, you feel pinned down to your seat. The sound is deafening, and the visual of the sand in the area being completely displaced shows you how powerful the planes are. Of course, there is a lot of gunfire and some tank fire, but it doesn't go on in the entirety of the movie the way that some war films do. There are also screams from the injured soldiers that I haven’t been able to get out of my head. The portrayal of shock, panic, and pain was gut-wrenching. There wasn't anything pretty about it.

War is not loud all of the time. An old adage that a friend shared with me summed it up perfectly. It was something like, "warfare is months of boredom punctuated by moments of extreme terror." Many war films depict elaborate fighting and constant action. The reality is anything but that. Warfare showed that the team was waiting around for orders. They were taking meticulous notes and watching the area. They were radioing in information and reporting on activity in the area. There was a lot of waiting around. Until all hell breaks loose.

Warfare Is A Tribute To The Soldiers

Once Warfare was over, I sat for a moment to collect myself. Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza, who co-directed and co-directed the film, had done more in 95 minutes for this genre than I thought was possible. It was the closest thing I can imagine to serving, and I think we all need that reminder. This film is visceral and bloody. It sticks with you because it is raw. Garland and Mendoza didn’t go for cheap shock-value gore. They gave us reality. In my opinion, reality is way more intense.

While not everything needs to be hyper-realistic and perfectly accurate, it’s been a long time since we have had a combat-accurate film that shows what soldiers face. These men are not robots; they are uncles, brothers, and husbands. They are any man or woman who went through basic training, put on the uniform, and protected our country. Warfare was made for them.

I also appreciated the way they ended this film. Without any spoilers, it is a very abrupt conclusion, reminding us that there is no storybook ending to war. There’s always a fight going on somewhere in the world, and for those who serve, leaving the combat zone doesn’t always mean leaving the fight.

Before the end credits roll, behind-the-scenes footage shows some of the actual service members the movie is based on. I was so moved by seeing them working with the actors like Shōgun’s Cosmo Jarvis and the rest of the cast, all of whom were paying close attention to their movements and instructions. You can see the respect between the cast and crew. The final photo of the cast, crew, and soldiers giving the camera the middle finger is somehow heartwarming.

Go See Warfare in Theaters

Warfare is a cinematic powerhouse that demands to be seen on the big screen. It shows you the human cost of war, and was meant for you to immerse yourself in the story. If you're looking for a movie that combines adrenaline with dread, Warfare delivers it all, and there's no better way to experience it than in a theater. I think that Alex Garland and A24 make a great team, and I hope to see more from them in the A24 movie schedule in the future.

Days turned to weeks in 2007, and on the 2025 movie schedule, weeks skip straight over to years - in the name of terror. Director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland’s return with 28 Years Later has been a long time coming, and as a fan of the previous films, I’m loving what we’ve seen so far from the upcoming horror movie.

That notion was proven to be correct yet again, as not only has the Aaron Taylor-Johnson-starring picture dropped a new trailer, but Mr. Garland made a pretty huge admission about canon during a recent interview. Seeing as we’re all amped up like a Rage-plagued Infected, let’s tear into how the past looks to be affecting the future.

We Might Finally See The Origins Of 28 Days Later’s Infected Priest

From the moment we all locked eyes on 28 Years Later’s first trailer, one scene from 2002’s 28 Days Later has frequently cropped up in conversation. After seeing swarms of Infected flooding a random church in the teaser’s prologue, people started to wonder if Cillian Murphy’s first big encounter with this holy menace would be revisited.

If you don’t remember or are not familiar with that scene, that’s OK. Considering 28 Days Later was out of circulation for years, you may not have seen it, or it’s probably been a while. So enjoy this throwback to memory lane:

With the widely held belief that 28 Years Later is going to show moments from the initial Rage Virus outbreak as the picture’s opening, this assumption seems to have gained some steam. In fact, some seem to think that this could be a connection to Jack O’Connell’s mysterious character, Sir Jimmy Crystal.

Yes, that may very well be the Jimmy at the heart of my theory on Cillian Murphy’s 28 Years Later return; so perhaps Jim hasn't broken bad after all. Though I will admit, even if this isn't the priest from 28 Days Later, it looks like we'll at least see how that location was so wrecked by the time we saw it in that horror classic.

However, as I previously promised, there’s another piece to the puzzle that’s fallen into place. If you’ve been worrying about whether 28 Weeks Later was still canon or not, allow an expert to ease your troubled mind.

Writer Alex Garland Found An Explosive Solution To Handling The Ending Of 28 Weeks Later

Another interesting development came from an AMA that Alex Garland was on hand for, in order to promote his recent film, Warfare. Naturally, the question of how a Paris overrun with Infected at the end of director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo’s follow-up to 28 Days Later would fit with the vision of this potential trilogy has been weighing on some franchise enthusiasts.

Sure enough, the Civil War writer/director had an answer for that question, in this statement shared to Reddit:

So much for those plans to visit the Eiffel Tower. The world of 28 Years Later is slowly coming into focus, and through these two segments, we could have something special on our hands. Although this could be only the beginning of a long and interesting game, which leads me to one final note to share.

28 Years Later Could Have A Viral Marketing Site Debuting Real Soon

When the teaser for this new 28 Years Later trailer was shared, another Morse Code message popped up. Take a look at that clip for yourself below, and make sure you know your dots from your dashes:

For those of us not born into the Navy, that message appears to spell the name of a website: RageLeaks-dot-net. The good folks at Reddit seemed to crack that code, and the site does seem to exist, albeit locked up with an Admin password that, at the time of this writing, no one’s figured out.

The popular guess is that if everything checks out, this could be an official viral marketing site that provides a lore dump for the events between 28 Weeks Later and 28 Years Later. So if you’re someone who wants to relive obsessively combing Cloverfield's viral marketing for backstory, that glorious day may be upon you.

And speaking of glorious days, 28 Years Later will be in theaters starting June 20th. Be thankful for everything, for soon there will be nothing.

A year after Alex Garland depicted a harrowing dystopian future in Civil War, the filmmaker is back with an offering for the 2025 movie calendar, this time teamed with co-writer/co-director Ray Mendoza and this one’s based on real events. Warfare follows a team of Navy SEALS on a mission in 2006 during the Iraq War and is based on Mendoza’s own experiences, and those who caught early screenings had visceral reactions. Now that critics have had time to sit with Warfare for a bit, let’s see what they’re saying.

Alex Garland’s Warfare features an ensemble cast including D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai (as Ray Mendoza), Will Poulter, Kit Connor, Joseph Quinn and Charles Melton, who are executing a mission effectively in real time, which ratchets up the intensity. In CinemaBlend’s review of Warfare, Eric Eisenberg gives the movie 4 out of 5 stars, calling it an “awesome piece of work” for its “impeccable verisimilitude.” In his words:

David Rooney of THR says Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland have crafted a bold new landmark in screen depictions of combat that makes for can’t-look-away real-life drama. Warfare belongs alongside other nail-biting combat dramas like The Hurt Locker and Black Hawk Down, Rooney says:

While the above critic likens Warfare to some of the best war movies, Jacob Hall says in SlashFilm’s analysis that the filmmakers’ latest project is beyond compare. It is, by design, the least exciting war film ever made, depicting a job that is tedious until it is terrifying. Hall gives it an 8 out of 10, writing:

Eric Goldman of IGN also rates it a “Great” 8 out of 10, writing that the film is incredibly effective at putting you into the middle of combat, evoking feelings of dread and terror usually reserved for the darkest horror movies. Goldman continues:

Not every critic felt as connected to the action as the ones above. Owen Gleiberman of Variety argues that Warfare — while a skillfully made film — doesn’t portray the existential reality of war in a way that we haven’t seen before, and by stripping away the cinematic excitement in the name of authenticity, the audience remains detached. The critic continues:

Either way, Warfare sounds like quite the intense, edge-of-your-seat moviegoing experience. If you want to check out this upcoming A24 movie, Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza’s latest creation will be storming onto the big screen on Friday, April 11.

One of my go-to gripes about movies these days is that titles tend to really suck. There is a tendency for them to be far too generic and simple, and in their generic simple-ness, they often fail to properly represent the story and/or are totally forgettable (I have a whole special rant about features that go the “common first name” route that I can save for another time). In a vacuum, Warfare from writer/directors Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland would be a film that I would normally complain about in this context, but in this particular case, the generic and simple title is actually perfect: as its name suggests, it’s a cinematic experience of warfare, and it is breathtaking.

A high-concept thriller based on a true story, the movie serves to take you back to the year 2006 and embed you with a group of soldiers operating during the Iraq War, and it’s an utterly transfixing 94 minutes that flies by as it nails you to your seat in suspense, terrified of what may happen next. It makes no apologies for reality, and it doesn’t go through the process of making everything specifically cinematic with dumbed-down jargon, sweeping narrative developments or constructed character arcs. It exists to be a recreation of actual events from the memories of co-director/co-writer Ray Mendoza, and in its impeccable verisimilitude and constant intensity, it’s an awesome piece of work.

After a perfect opening establishing the period setting, with gleeful soldiers gathering around a laptop to witness the audacious music video for Eric Prydz’s “Call On Me,” a unit of U.S. Navy SEALs executes maneuvers at night in Ramadi, Iraq – insurgent territory – to occupy a two-floor residence. In daylight hours, things are quiet but intense in the apartment building, as various positions are set up to keep an eye on locals and track enemy behavior. The streets are monitored through the lens of a sniper rifle… and when things go to hell, they get there quickly.

The unit is discovered and targeted, with shots fired and grenades thrown, but everything goes from bad to worse during an attempted evacuation. The SEALS try to make their way to an armored personnel carrier deployed to their location, but the activation of an improvised explosive device aborts the effort and leaves multiple dead and two badly injured. While enemy fire persists, a rescue operation is initiated, and the soldiers fight to survive while they await backup and extraction.

Story is kept simple in Warfare, but its intention is conveying an experience.

The power of Warfare is found in its focus and intensity, defying cinematic convention in the process. There are no overt efforts to create specific personalities or individually introduce characters and their independent roles, and there are no heart-to-heart conversations or meaningful dialogues about life back home to de-escalate action before ramping things back up again and forge familiar pacing. These are things that I might negatively criticize in other works, but Mendoza and Garland earn this minimalism with clear intentions that end up being extremely powerful and effective.

The film’s constant mode is realism, and the spell is never broken (which is actually somewhat strange considering that my method of recognizing characters was identifying the various actors in the ensemble from their other works). It never halts action to have soldiers clearly lay out missions and objectives to each other, and radio communication isn’t dumbed down as civilian speak. Casual exposition is blissfully non-existent, but everything is also perfectly clear via context and action, and this serves to simply grip you harder amid the action. Despite the familiar faces, you’re never specifically reminded that you are watching a movie, and it is hypnotizing and powerful.

Warfare is an impeccably crafted film in its cinematography – but especially its sound.

Set in and around a single location, the scope of Warfare is very small, but that also makes it intimate, and the visceral impact of the filmmaking is massive. Whether it’s via tight close ups within the limited confines of the Iraqi household or first-person looks through the scope of a sniper rifle, the cinematography strategically entrenches the audience alongside the film’s characters throughout the first act, and thus, when the shit hits the fan, you feel like you are trapped in the nightmare right alongside them.

Deserving particularly special mention is the sound design, as no aesthetic aspect of the movie better sells the hell. When the IED explodes and rocks the armored personnel carrier, I felt like my own body was launched 10 feet into the air, and the ratatat and whistling of gunfire practically has you expecting the feeling of plaster dust on your cheeks as your eyes stay fixed on the screen. More than just shocking and terrifying noise, however, the film is also able to lock you into the characters’ various perspectives with dangerous ringing silence and a wild sequence of overwhelming radio chatter. This is a movie that you feel.

While Alex Garland’s works are usually about big ideas – from the meditations on artificial intelligence in Ex Machina to the valor of journalism in Civil War – his collaboration with Ray Mendoza is relatively uncomplicated but equally powerful. Its aim is to convey an experience, and it does so with incredible skill and emotional impact: it immerses you in its terror and horror and actually hits at your fight-or-flight response. It’s an unconventional cinematic experience, but it’s a deeply effective one.

While Snow White’s big, PG 2025 movie release is just around the corner, we’re gearing up for two other releases which are bringing something quite different to the table. I’ve seen this week’s release Novocaine and next month’s Warfare in an early preview and I can tell you they were two of the most exciting movies I’ve seen in a long time. They both ratcheted up the tension through their runtimes, and inspired dread in a way that made me feel like I was glued to my seat.

We’ve been talking in recent years about how to create awesome, original movies that don’t necessarily follow the format of big budget tentpoles or superhero flicks, but that are really still must-sees on the big screen. The entire horror genre has been doing a great job of this lately, but the visceral nature of what happens to Jack Quaid (repetitively) and many of the characters in Warfare lends itself to watching on as large of a screen as possible.

Novocaine Is A Really Funny Movie, But You May Have To Look Away Multiple Times

I knew Novocaine was a movie about a man who can’t feel pain and goes after some baddies who have kidnapped a coworker and love interest. The Novocaine trailer showed Quaid getting shot up with an arrow in his leg, but that does not even begin to scratch the surface of the gross stuff that happens to him across the movie's 109-minute runtime. I couldn’t look away, and trust me, I wanted to watch through my fingers multiple times, as my co-worker Kelly Bambrick did.

The movie is also really funny, which helps to lighten things considerably between each nasty injury and even the occasional self-inflicted one. It’s a movie experience I’ve seen in some ways before with movies like Saw or Hostel, but it’s nature as a comedy and action movie makes the ride a way different experience. It’s been a low box office weekend, but I really hope people give it a watch.

Warfare Is A Horrific-Yet-Realistic Take At How A Day Can Go From Unspectacular To Hellish In The Blink Of An Eye

Which brings us to Warfare, Alex Garland’s latest upcoming A24 movie, a movie he created with Iraq War veteran Ray Mendoza. I had no expectations whatsoever for the film before I went in, but it absolutely made my heart palpitate in ways that can’t be healthy when I was watching. I was so in this movie the entire time, I distinctly remember kind of having to pee before I started watching, and then I didn’t even think to move from my seat for the film’s entire hour and 35 minute runtime. You don't know me, but this is a big sacrifice for me. It sucked me in that hard, and early reactions to Warfare indicate I'm not the only one.

Even more brutal in tragic moments than you might guess, Warfare is a look at what happens when an opp goes wrong. It’s a look at what it’s like to be dropped in a place to do a job where you are unwanted and unwelcome. It’s as close to a play-by-play look at a real-life mission as a movie can get, and it’s unrelenting until it’s over.

At a glance, Novocaine and Warfare don’t have a ton in common. One is a funny popcorn flick with an over-the-top big baddie, and the other is an intense look at what a real-life day at war can look like. Yet both had me sitting up in my seat in the theater in a way I can’t remember doing in a long time, maybe even since 1917 came out in 2019. And both movies are bringing the angsty anticipation in totally unique ways. If this is the future of what the movies is going to bring, I’m so all in.

Alex Garland thrilled audiences with his last project Civil War — one of the best movies of 2024 — and now he’s back with another tale of conflict. Warfare is set to hit the 2025 movie calendar in April with an ensemble cast including D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Cosmo Jarvis, Kit Connor, Michael Gandolfini, Noah Centineo, Joseph Quinn and more. Early screenings of A24’s Warfare have taken place, and the first reactions hitting social media sound utterly terrifying.

Warfare is co-written and co-directed by Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza, who worked together on Civil War, and is based on Mendoza’s time as a Navy SEAL during the Iraq War. CinemaBlend’s own Jessica Rawden is one of the lucky ones to see the film before its release, and she writes on X (Twitter) that the experience was more stressful than some other movies in theaters right now:

Perri Nemiroff agrees Warfare is overwhelming and romanticizes war less than any other movie of the genre that she’s seen. In the end, Nemiroff says on X that she was “left utterly shattered by the reality of modern warfare.” See the full post:

As well, Hunter Bolding of The Hashtag Show says he was “absolutely floored” by the way the upcoming A24 film plays out like a horror movie. Bolding says:

The Nerds of Color agree with the above assessments that Warfare does not glorify any aspects of war and is, in fact, “devastating on every level.” More from their post:

Many are describing Warfare as a visceral experience, including Zach Pope, who seemed to be experiencing physical effects from the movie long after the credits rolled. This one’s not for the faint of heart, the film critic says, writing:

Dana Abercromby of The Koalition notes the “jarring violence” and “traumatizing damage” depicted by Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza, writing:

Moviegoers like Ben Meter are saying Warfare sucks you in and makes you feel right there in the middle of the action. Several first reactions are praising the sound design. In Meter’s words:

Has Alex Garland created another year-best movie in Warfare? Will this come to be known as one of the best war movies ever made? Time will tell, but from these early reactions, it sounds like audiences are definitely in for a gutting experience when the film hits theaters on Friday, April 11.

28 Days Later was a unique take on the zombie concept that, and it garnered praise from fans and critics alike over 20 years ago. The film received one sequel in 2007, 28 Weeks Later, and fans later hoped for a threequel. Well, now, not only will they receive a third movie with 28 Years Later, which is on the 2025 movie schedule, but they can also look forward to multiple new films. Cast member Ralph Fiennes just shared some details regarding what can be expected, and he's getting me pumped for what's to come.

It was known that 28 Years Later would act as some sort of direct sequel to 28 Days Later, with Cillian Murphy set to reprise his role from the original film. Still, up to this point, the exact plot of the new movie, or movies (with three being planned) was unclear. While speaking with IndieWire, Ralph Fiennes revealed that he will be playing a doctor in the new movies, and he explained how his character fits into the overall story. Fiennes said…

Each of the previous two films focused on different people who simply tried to survive in the new world they had been subjected to. Interestingly, the new film will center on a character who apparently have never known any other world. It’s actually a very intriguing concept that we don’t see often and will likely set 28 Years Later apart amongst zombie movies. Writer Alex Garland revealed that time will be a major element in the latest films, which makes this even more interesting.

As the title indicates, 28 Years Later will take place decades after the initial infection, and it seems that the dangerous creatures (which used to be human beings) will still pose major threats to anybody trying to navigate the world. While the new film will feature both franchise veterans and new faces, from what we can assess, the latter group of characters will truly take center stage.

Ralph Fiennes also revealed that the producers are wasting no time in plotting out the trilogy of new films. It was known that the first movie had already completed filming but, apparently, the second film has as well. That's exciting news and, hopefully, these upcoming flicks will live up to the high standard set by the original movie.

While 28 Days Later is not currently available to stream, 28 Weeks Later can be accessed using a Paramount+ subscription.

Alex Garland is coming out with another film with Ray Mendoza – This is what we know so far about Warfare.

Garland is a director who has worked on and created some of the best films of the last twenty years. Whether he's written them, like 28 Days Later (which is getting a sequel called 28 Years Later), or directed them, such as the latest release, Civil War, Garland is great at what he does. Now, he will be coming out with another new film with Ray Mendoza, with whom he worked on Civil War. 

But what will this film be about? And who will star? This is what we know so far about Warfare. 

What Is The Warfare Release Date?

At the time of writing this, May 2024, there is no set release date for Warfare. The film will not be part of the 2024 movie schedule. While casting announcements have been confirmed, we do not have a trailer or an idea of when it will be released—but hopefully, that means we'll get some more updates soon. 

Charles Melton, D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Kit Connor, And More Will Star In The Warfare Cast

While we may not know when Warfare will come out, we know that the Warfare cast is already stacked to the brim with stars. Here is who we know so far will appear in the film: 

Charles Melton

Reported by Deadline in early February 2024, Charles Melton was in talks to star in the film. The movie's name had yet to be released at the time, but now we know it is called Warfare. 

Melton gained fame in 2023 for his performance in May December, but many fans may also know him from his seven-season run on Riverdale, one of the most popular CW shows. 

Joseph Quinn

In mid-February 2024, Deadline reported that Joseph Quinn was in talks to star in Warfare. The actor has had a colossal career boost over the last few years when he had an all-star role in Stranger Things Season 4, where he played fan-favorite Eddie Munson. 

From there, he's only taken on more roles in several upcoming films. These include the highly anticipated Fantastic Four, the new prequel A Quiet Place: Day One, and the sequel to Gladiator. 

D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai as Ray Mendoza

Deadline reported in March 2024 that D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai would play Ray Mendoza in the upcoming film. Yes, Ray Mendoza is the name of one of the co-directors – which we will get into in just a bit with the plot section. Mendoza was a member of the Navy, specifically Seal Team 5. 

D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai is primarily known for his role on Reservation Dogs, where he plays Bear Smallhill. He's also appeared in Murdoch Mysteries, Creeped Out, and more. 

Kit Conner

In late March 2024, Deadline reported four additional cast members for Warfare. The first is Kit Conner. He is primarily known for his starring role in Heartstopper, which is getting a Season 3 in 2024. 

Cosmo Jarvis

Cosmo Jarvis was also confirmed by Deadline in late March 2024. Jarvis recently starred in the critically acclaimed miniseries Shōgun on FX, where he played John Blackthorne, a character who had a forbidden romance with one of the leads and was essential to the plot. 

Will Poulter

Deadline confirmed that Will Poulter had signed on for Warfare. He co-starred in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 in 2023 but has appeared in films like The Maze Runner franchise, Dopesick, one of the best A24 horror movies, Midsommar, and many more. 

Finn Bennett

Deadline also confirmed that Finn Bennett would join the cast of Warfare. The actor is primarily known for his role in True Detective: Night Country but has also appeared in other TV shows like Top Boy, The Nevers, and more. 

Talk about a stacked cast – one that makes me so excited for what's to come. So far, almost all of their roles have not been disclosed (aside from Woon-A-Tai), so we'll have to wait and see who they play. 

The Film's Focus Is Under Wraps – But There Are Clues That It's Based On A Real Story

So, as Deadline reported in the late March 2024 article, the story for Warfare is being kept under wraps at this time, but from clues, it's based on a real-life situation. 

Since Woon-A-Tai is playing a character who shares a name with the real-life co-directors, and Warfare is an upcoming war movie, it'll presumably be based on a real-life story. 

According to Deadline, Mendoza was an instructor for the Land Warfare Training Detachment and BUD/s and was awarded a Silver Star for his work in the army during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2006. 

The film's title is Warfare, so it seems like this film could be based on a real operation. 

Alex Garland And Ray Mendoza Will Co-Direct And Write

The Deadline article also confirmed with the Charles Melton news that Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza will co-direct and write Warfare. 

This will be their second collaboration, as Mendoza worked as a military supervisor for Civil War. 

A24 Will Handle The Global Release Of The Film

The last thing we know from the Charles Melton news at Deadline is that Warfare will be distributed by A24 – which is quite honestly great news for the film. 

Alex Garland has worked with A24 for many years now. He released Civil War with the film company and several of his other prominent films, like Men and Ex Machina. 

Truthfully, even if Garland hadn't worked with A24 before, I'd have complete faith that they would handle it well. A24 has released some of the best films of the last decade. Many of their movies have been critically acclaimed or highly successful. There are plenty of great A24 films I could point to – Everything, Everywhere, All At Once, the brilliant coming-of-age movie Lady Bird, The Whale, Hereditary, Moonlight, The Farewell, and so many others. 

Honestly, this excites me – and now I need to know more. 

What are you looking forward to with Warfare? I need to brush up on my war movies because I feel Warfare will be epic with this cast. 

For consecutive weekends, Alex Garland’s Civil War has captivated audiences, from its harrowing opening to its gut punch of a final shot. Many have come out of the movie wanting to discuss the film’s themes, or maybe even headed back to the theater with a friend in tow, so they could enter the fight from the front lines as seen through the POV of Garland’s main characters. This helped Civil War win the box office two weekends in a row… and set box-office records for A24 as a studio. But there’s one scene in particular that lives rent free in my head, even though – when I brought it up for Garland and his cast – they had different interpretations for it. 

The scene involves war-time photojournalists Lee (Kirsten Dunst), Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), and Joel (Wagner Moura) as they detour into a small AMerican town that is actively choosing to ignore the conflict that has engulfed our major cities. The townsfolk know that there is a Civil War happening. They’re just choosing to bury their heads in the sand, to keep living the life they led before the conflict. It’s unnerving. 

I wanted to know if filming the scenes set in the town provided a respite for the actors from the bombastic nature of the war scenes, but Cailee Spaeny explained why that wasn’t actually the case, telling CinemaBlend:

And as her co-star, Kirsten Dunst, added: 

Alex Garland’s Civil War does make frequent stops as the corps of journalists travels from New York City to Washington, D.C. to check in and see how the war is affecting different corners of our nation. It can lead to a tense confrontation with a militaristic stranger (played by Jesse Plemons). And it can lead to a shootout in the Nation’s Capitol, in front of some of our country’s most recognizable monuments. That’s what makes the ending of Civil War so unforgettable.

But the director did see how the sequence in the town provided a brief relief from his grueling schedule, as he shared with CinemaBlend: 

It’s undeniable that the scene set in the “normal” town was very abnormal. But what haunts me is how Lee and Jessie allowed themselves to drift out of their mental and physical Hell for even a moment, trying on new clothes and remembering how life used to be, and never would be again. Human, dramatic scenes like that in Civil War are winning over non-war fans, and making it one of the best movies you can see on screen all year.

Much like Charlie Kaufman (whose movies I've also ranked), Alex Garland is probably just as known for his screenwriting as he is for his directing several of the best sci-fi movies of all time.

With his recent movie, Civil War, Garland has established himself as one of the most distinctive filmmakers that we currently have. 

But, where does Civil War end up on the list of Alex Garland movies (both directed, and non-directed)? Well, you're about to find out.  

8. Never Let Me Go (2010) - Writer 

Directed by Mark Romanek and adapted by Garland, Never Let Me Go is based off of the novel of the same name written by Garland’s friend, Kazuo Ishiguro. And, I’ll be honest – I think Never Let Me Go is one of those movies that is arguably better than the book. That said, I never really liked the book (I know! How?), so that probably says a lot more about me than it does about this story. 

Speaking of which, the story is essentially a love triangle between two women and a man, played by Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, and Andrew Garfield, respectively. There’s a twist to the story that I won’t spoil here, but it’s the basis for why this tale’s so tragic. And, I like that the movie gets to that twist faster than the novel.

That said, when it comes to Garland’s work, I find this one to be his weakest. It’s a beautiful film, and Romanek does a great job of directing it, but the story just lacks that oomph of Garland’s other screenplays. That may just be me being a philistine, though. If you loved the book, then you’ll probably love this film, since it’s pretty faithful. 

7. Sunshine (2007) - Writer 

Oh, man. Directed by Danny Boyle, and again written by Garland, Sunshine honestly had the potential to be one of the best sci-fi movies of all time, but a late in the game genre-swerve definitely knocks it out of contention for me. 

The story is super high concept, though! The sun is dying, so astronauts are going to space to reignite it. The film also has some phenomenal actors, like Cillian Murphy, Michelle Yeoh, Hiroyuki Sanada, Cliff Curtis, and Rose Byrne, just to name a few, and they’re all great. I mean, more than HALF of this movie is amazing. 

But then…well, it turns into a slasher flick for some reason late in the film, and that just kills it for me. I understand that many can overlook that, but I just can’t. The tonal shift just sinks it for me. It could have been so good! 

6. Men (2022) - Writer/Director 

Men, which stars Jessie Buckley, and Rory Kinnear, is a fascinating film, and one that had me thinking about it long after it was over. 

The film is about a widow (Buckley) who vacations out in the countryside after the suicide of her husband, and she’s pretty much pestered/followed/and even terrorized by various men (who are all portrayed by Rory Kinnear) all throughout the film. 

There's a great deal of tension throughout. However, a part of me feels like the messaging – whatever it’s actually supposed to be – kind of misses the mark. 

There are some startling scenes, and the film is a fine representation of trauma, but much like Sunshine, the direction this movie takes (especially in the climax) might do it more harm than good. It’s a fine horror movie just on the cusp of being a great one.  

5. Civil War (2024) - Writer/Director 

Setting records for A24 when it comes to box office, Civil War is definitely Alex Garland’s most divisive film, in more ways than one. Many people (including ourselves) praised the film for its “electrifying” storytelling, and yes, it certainly wallops you with the bombast. But your mileage on the film really hinges on whether you’re okay with an apolitical political movie. I’ll explain.

Civil War doesn’t really take a side. Instead, it concerns four journalists (played by Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny, and Stephen McKinley Henderson), who are on a road trip through war torn America for various reasons. Along the way, we see some striking visuals, and it all culminates in an explosive conclusion.

But, that’s just it. ARE you okay with a nonpartisan movie about America at war with itself? I will say that this is a movie of moments. Like, I won’t soon forget some of the scenes in this film (especially the one featuring Jesse Plemons). However, I’m not sure if the whole movie works. It’s a great film that I will dwell on for a while, but it’s still lacking something by being so neutral. 

4. Annihilation (2018) - Writer/Director 

One of the most rewatchable sci-fi movies ever, Annihilation is a top-tier Alex Garland movie. Starring Natalie Portman, Tessa Thompson, Benedict Wong, Oscar Issac, and others, the film concerns a group of the most badass scientists you’ve ever seen entering an alien environment with all of these terrifying plants and animals. 

Based on the book of the same name, Annihilation is utterly haunting. Everything about it, from the way it philosophizes what "the shimmer" actually is, to the slow, deliberate nature of its pacing, just screams modern day classic. 

What I especially love about it, though, is that every time I think I get what the movie is driving at, it seems to slip away from me. But, it’s not frustrating. It’s mysterious! Annihilation is the kind of movie that keeps rewarding you, the more and more you plumb its depths.  

3. Dredd (2012) - Writer 

Depending upon whom you ask (cough Karl Urban! *cough*), Alex Garland directed Dredd and not Pete Travis. Either way, Dredd is still, after all these years, my pick for the best comic book movie ever. 

Its strength lies in its simplicity. Instead of an end of the world scenario, we’re just dropped into this day in the life of a police officer. It doesn’t hurt that Urban is the perfect Judge Dredd, never taking off his helmet and instead becoming one with the character.

I mentioned before how Annihilation is super rewatchable, but I honestly think that Dredd is infinitely rewatchable, as it’s pretty much the perfect action movie. He is the law!  

2. 28 Days Later (2002) - Writer 

It’s safe to say that Dredd didn’t change the comic book movie genre, but 28 Days Later very well may have changed the zombie genre (even though many people don’t even consider it a zombie movie). Directed by Danny Boyle and starring Cillian Murphy, as well as many others, 28 Days Later is still haunting to this very day.

The story might seem a little trite, as it’s about a bike courier who wakes up from a coma only to realize that the world he left behind is not the world that he’s waking up to, but you can cut the tension with a knife. The movie is constantly barreling forward, and the way the rage virus shuts down all of England, is all the more horrifying today once you think back to the empty streets amidst the Covid-19 pandemic. 

28 Days Later is one of the most startling movies ever made, but it’s still not Alex Garland’s best work… 

1. Ex Machina (2014) - Writer/Director  

That would of course be Ex Machina, which I’m still pissed off wasn’t even up for Best Picture. The story of an A.I. growing sentient, Ex Machina is pretty much the best Black Mirror episode ever, if it were a movie. 

Starring Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac, and Alicia Vikander, Ex Machina isn’t technically a horror movie, but it’s probably the scariest movie on this list. It’s likely because this film, which was released 10 years ago (!) honestly feels like it’s right at our doorstep. It seemed like the near future back then, but with the rapid acceleration of A.I., it seems like one of the most prescient movies ever made.

It doesn’t hurt that the film is immaculately paced, has some of the best acting I’ve ever seen, and is still just as twisty now as it was back then. I honestly don’t think any movie could beat Ex Machina in Garland’s filmography, but we shall see. He’s obviously immensely talented.

What’s your favorite Alex Garland film? 

MAJOR SPOILERS lie ahead for Alex Garland’s Civil War. 

A great movie ending is not easy to execute but, when it a filmmaker does hit the mark, it can make all the difference in regard to the lasting impact their feature has. When it comes to the end of A24’s Civil War, it may be a conclusions that sparks debate among moviegoers. No matter how you feel about it though, it’s hard to argue with the notion that writer/director Alex Garland went for a major moment with the movie’s final scenes. When CinemaBlend spoke to Garland, he opened up about the final shot and explained instrumental the last five minutes of a film are to his writing process. 

During our own Sean O’Connell’s interviews for Civil War, Alex Garland shared at what point in the writing process the movie’s powerful ending came to him. In his words: 

Ahead of this recent entry on the 2024 movie schedule, the director famously wrote the screenplays for other movies like 28 Days Later, Ex Machina and Men the latter two of which he also directed. As the seasoned storyteller shared with O’Connell, when he's crafting a story, he usually starts off with the final few minutes of the movie and works backwards from there. It's an interesting way to operate creatively but, given his past credits, it seems to work for the filmmaker. And I can only imagine how he worked his way forward with this latest endeavor.

In terms of making Civil War, which takes place in a fictionalized version of the United States that's experienced state secession, Alex Garland started in the White House, if we're keeping his creative process in mind. It's in that location that war photojournalists Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst) and Jessie Cullen (Cailee Spaeney) are accompanying members of the "Western Forces" alongside fellow journalist Joel (Wagner Moura) as the militia heads to take down a fictional president.

In a split second, Lee rushes to save the younger Jessie from being shot as she snaps a photo, and she herself is killed in the process. And, as she falls to her death, Jessie snaps her final moments. The team pushes on and locates the politician. Joel manages to get a final quote from the president and, after giving said sentiment, he's killed. Seriously, what a wild place to start writing a narrative! 

The film has a poetic ending that is really deepened by the characters that are established throughout the movie. From the beginning, Lee is established as a hardened and traumatized photographer covering the titular crisis. While the ending is tragic, it underlines the character’s belief that dying a hero is better than surviving to watch the world burn without capturing its injustices, as she has the gift to do. 

The Annihilation director's methods for crafting a story, especially in this case, worked to his advantage considering the success of the movie. Critics and audiences alike have been raving about the war drama, with CinemaBlend’s Civil War review giving the movie a perfect five out of five.  It also broke a big record for A24 at the box office during last weekend’s debut, as it notched a new milestone for in-house tickets sold. Now, its also expected to outpace this weekend’s new releases, Abigail and The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, per Variety. 

Should Alex Garland not direct any additional films as he's said, then this is certainly some way to go out. I have no doubt people will be talking about this movie's final shot for years to come. At present though, you can see Civil War for yourself in theaters now and read up on upcoming A24 movies. 

The latest of the 2024 movies that's playing in theaters is A24’s Civil War. The movie written and directed by Ex Machina’s Alex Garland is reportedly the studio’s most expensive film to date and follows a hardened war photojournalist (played by Kirsten Dunst) as she and her team travel across the United States to chase a big story amidst the country being in the middle of a brutal modern civil war. Now, Civil War blew me away, and that’s particularly surprising to me as someone who typically steers away from (or generally doesn’t enjoy) movies of the war variety. Let me talk about why.

War movies have always been important to the fabric of cinema. After all, war is seemingly an inevitable part of the fabric of humanity, as well, so of course I'm all for war movies being out in the world and appreciate them. But, I actually think Civil War in particular deserves a spot among the best war movies because it completely captured the attention of myself, someone who doesn’t usually gravitate toward the topic by choice.

If There’s One Movie Topic I Steer Away From, It’s The War Movie

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen some good war movies and appreciate the quality ones. I went out of my way to see 1917 in IMAX when it was getting award season buzz. I've also been exposed to movies like Saving Private Ryan, Glory and Black Hawk Down and I don’t regret seeing them by any means. In general, as a massive movie fan, there’s not necessarily any type of movie I wouldn’t watch, but if I had to choose one, it’s the war movie. I find it necessary for us as humans to reflect on war and have discussions about it, and movies are a great platform to do so, but it’s just not my thing.

Why I Went To See Civil War Anyway 

So why did I go see Civil War? Well, there’s a few reasons. One, I’ve never regretted watching an Alex Garland movie, especially in theaters if I can. Civil War’s writer/director got his start in the movie business by writing two fantastic scripts for Danny Boyle with 2002’s 28 Days Later and 2007’s Sunshine. He also penned the heart-wrenching adaptation of Never Let Me Go before making his electrifying directorial debut with 2014’s Ex Machina. The science fiction film is is so good that I think about it every few months. Yes, I’ll admit that I thought his follow-up, 2018’s Annihilation, to be underwhelming, and found 2022’s Men got a bit too weird for me (and that's saying a lot), but like I said, I still have never once regretted going on the journey of an Alex Garland movie.

There's that, plus the fact that A24 has definitely become my favorite studio to follow in recent years and the incredibly talented Kirsten Dunst being paired with Cailee Spaeny, who I thought had one of the best performances last year in Priscilla. So I made the plunge, and truthfully, I didn’t know how much about war it would delve into. I was willing to go in blind and enjoy the experience, and I definitely was not disappointed! So, for my fellow war scaredy cats, I actually would recommend you do the same.

How Civil War Caught Me Off Guard In A Great Way 

First of all, perhaps contrary to perception, Civil War is not a political movie. It takes place in a modern world where two sides of Americans are taking part in a war. That said, I was impressed about the ways in which the movie sidesteps taking sides or trying to preach some sort of grand-scale statement about the state of America these days or take any stance on this year’s upcoming election. The movie does a great job of being ambiguous about how the U.S. ended up in a new civil war and really puts the focus on the journey the main characters go on throughout its 109-minute runtime (contrary to previous rumors of it being over three hours) that absolutely grabs hold of you right away and never lets go.

The specific relationship that grabbed my attention, and will grab you too, is between two war photojournalists at different places in their career. Kirsten Dunst plays Lee, a rather renowned and famous photographer in her field who is established to be someone who has seen her fair share of the war up close and personal, and is pushing forward in her craft despite the deep-seated trauma and lethargy she feels from the work she does. Her foil is Cailee Spaeny’s Jesse, a much younger photographer who idolizes Lee and the work that she does. When Jesse ends up tagging along on a road trip across the U.S. with Lee’s crew of press, Lee has to wrestle with how she could inspire someone to run through the line of fire like herself after looking through the barrel of the lens she’s shared with the world.

Ultimately, Its Human Story Makes Civil War One Of 2024’s Best Thus Far 

By every definition, including in the title itself, Civil War is a war movie. There are some rather intense sequences showcasing the realities of war, whether that be through lots of gun shooting, hostage situations or tragic death scenes. In other words, it has everything I don’t like about the genre, and yet I was completely and wholeheartedly all in for Civil War thanks to its really impressive character studies, performances by the actors who play them and general empathy for humanity. Alex Garland continues to be a top-tier filmmaker for me with this release on both the writing and directing fronts.

I’m not going to get into spoilers here, but experiencing Civil War rocked me to my core in a way that movies seldom can. There were multiple scenes both early on and halfway through the movie where I felt completely emotionally invested in the characters in ways that were really unique to seeing this movie. One moment in particular, which is actually technically an action scene, had me veering on tears because of how powerful it felt to me.

I think most of all, Civil War does an excellent job of putting the audience in the shoes of war photojournalists on the ground witnessing war and being part of it. In today’s day and age, we see videos and photos all the time, on our social media perhaps, of war, but an image or video is distant to us. Civil War reminds one of the work and pure risk it takes to tell the truth and capture the crimes and heroics in our world, and my mind is pretty much blown at the care to which Civil War puts its audience in the shoes of the terrifying reality of war, in a way that is not glamorous by any means.

I’m not the only person in the world who’ve been raving about this movie. CinemaBlend’s own Civil War review was given a perfect five out of five, and the movie has received high praise since the first reactions came out of its debut at SXSW last month. You can catch Civil War in theaters now.

In the last decade, A24 has earned a terrific reputation when it comes to releasing quality films, but the company is not exactly known for putting out box office hits. Only one title from the catalogue, Daniels' Everything Everywhere All At Once, has earned over $100 million at the global box office, and the biggest opening weekend hit domestically prior to this year was Ari Aster's Hereditary, which debuted in fourth place and made $13.6 million when it made its theatrical debut in 2018.

Now, Alex Garland's Civil War has arrived, and it has fittingly made history for the indie distribution company. In addition to being the first film from A24 to make its debut in first place, the new movie has set a new in-house record for opening weekend ticket sales. Check out the full Top 10 below and join me after for analysis.

Civil War Is On Its Way To Being A24's Biggest Hit Yet

Civil War has been a buzzy title for months now. It first got a lot of attention back in December when the first trailer arrived online, and heat only grew for the film following its premiere at the SXSW Film Festival – which saw reactions that called it "scary as hell." The chatter has clearly been making people curious, and the end result of that curiosity is a record-breaking opening weekend.

A $25.7 million start (via The Numbers) is only big enough for Civil War to claim the seventh hottest opening for a new 2024 movie – the feature now sitting behind Reinaldo Marcus-Green's Bob Marley: One Love ($28.7 million) and Samantha Jayne and Arturo Perez Jr.'s Mean Girls ($28.6 million) – but it's obviously a big deal for A24. That revenue is nearly double what Hereditary made in its first three days, and the title is now well on its way to being a box office success. Per Deadline, the production had a $50 million budget and $20 million was spent on marketing costs.

To further contextualize just how big a win this is for A24, one need only to look at where it sits in the studio's box office history after just three days. Ticket sales from foreign markets haven't been reported yet, but already the film is the tenth biggest worldwide hit from the company – having bumped David Lowery's The Green Knight from that position (it made $20 million from its full theatrical run in 2021). It will only need to make another $5 million to outgross Sofia Coppola's Priscilla from last year (both movies just so happen to star young actress Cailee Spaeny), and it's about $15 million away from taking eighth place from Robert Eggers' The Witch.

In addition to being a big win for the studio, it's also the biggest box office success for Alex Garland as a director. His phenomenal sci-fi wonder Annihilation from 2018 was his previous best opening weekend performer, having made $11.1 million when it debuted), as neither 2015's Ex Machina ($237,264) nor 2022's Men ($3.3 million) set the world on fire when they first premiered.

As far as the long-term is concerned, it will be an interesting title to watch given some divisive responses. The intense anti-war film has been hailed by critics, CinemaBlend's Mike Reyes delivering a five-star review, and  it's now sporting a 83 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. The Audience Score is only trailing slightly behind on the aggregation site at 77 percent, and surveys distributed by CinemaScore returned a "B-" grade. What this will lead to in its second weekend is unclear: those results don't necessary suggest that movie-goers are going to go tell all their friends and family members that the release is a must-see, but there has been enough discourse surrounding the title that people may check it out in its second weekend to be a part of the conversation about it.

It is worth noting that unlike the major Hollywood studios, A24 doesn't typically rush titles to the digital/home video market, so if you haven't seen Civil War yet and have the desire to do so, you should make a point of heading to your local theater (and it's a movie that is best experienced on a massive screen with a deluxe speaker system). 

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire Crosses $150 Million Domestically And Is Nearing $450 Million Worldwide

With Civil War being A24's first #1 opening weekend hit, Adam Wingard's Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire got pushed down to second place – but at this point, the blockbuster kaiju film has made more than enough to register as a success. It wasn't cheap to make, with Variety reporting a $150 million production budget earlier this month, but the film has now made that money back domestically – with ticket sales from the United States and Canada now sitting at $157.9 million. 

It's the third biggest hit in the region thus far in 2024, sitting behind only Denis Villeneuve's Dune: Part Two ($272.1 million) and Mike Mitchell's Kung Fu Panda 4 ($173.7 million) – which, as you can still in the chart, are still drawing people to theaters. That's great... but it's also worth noting that the action film has only done about a third of its business domestically; it's a much bigger hit overseas.

Worldwide, Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire has grossed $436.5 million, which means that it is now just about $14 million away from outgrossing Adam Wingard's Godzilla vs. Kong from 2021 and becoming the third biggest success in the decade-long history of Legendary Pictures' MonsterVerse. It will have to make a lot more money to further climb up the ranks in franchise thanks to the half-billion dollar successes that were Gareth Edwards' Godzilla from 2014 (which made $529.1 million during its global run) and Jordan Vogt-Roberts' Kong: Skull Island ($561.1 million).

How will the Top 10 change next week with the arrival of both Guy Ritchie's The Ministry Of Ungentlemanly Warfare and Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillet's Abigail? To find out, be sure to head back here to CinemaBlend next Sunday for our latest box office report. 

By the time the upcoming horror movie 28 Years Later begins its potential trilogy, writer Alex Garland’s original story will be pretty close to that anniversary milestone. While current concerns see the directing/writing double threat hyping up his 2024 movie Civil War, people are understandably curious about what these new adventures could hold, and after learning Garland’s main theme in these new tales, I have even more questions than I did before.

It’s all thanks to Alex Garland’s appearance on our in-house ReelBlend podcast, as a segment with co-host Jake Hamilton approached the subject of the recently-announced legacy-quel. While inquiring about the road ahead, Garland provided some very interesting food for thought with this response:

Ok, so the first question I have is, what is the world of 28 Years Later going to be like? The “passage of time,” as well as the potential of a “post-apocalyptic state,” have me thinking about The Last of Us’ vision of a pandemic massively reshaping society at large. Seeing as the I Am Legend sequel cites that same influence, that’s no surprise. But given just how grim and dark the teaming of Danny Boyle and Alex Garland can be, this is already starting to sound quite concerning.

There’s certainly room for that approach to take hold, especially if 28 Weeks Later is still considered canon. As the ending of that 2007 chapter saw the Rage Virus spreading to mainland Europe, that post-apocalyptic state could be executed on a continent-wide scale.

That concern grows in the light of how we still don’t know if 28 Years Later will be working with its original characters. Academy Award winner Cillian Murphy is “available” for the sequel, but at the moment seems to be serving merely as a producer for the film. Another question that springs out of that subject is whether or not Naomie Harris’ Selena will be back for the ride as well, which seems like a dream concept for Nia DaCosta’s potential 28 Years Later sequel.

Tying this all together with a bow is one overarching question: could the 28 Years Later trilogy be setting the world up for a movie following each of the three survivors from 28 Days Later? That would be a tantalizing concept, especially since there have been rumors via World of Reel that The Bikeriders' Jodie Comer has been in talks to star in some capacity.

Could she be the new Hannah, as original actor Megan Burns has been out of the acting game for some time? You can see how dangerous this "what if" scenario can become, and for all I know, Alex Garland's statement somehow writes off everything I've just speculated.

For now, 28 Years Later is still in the early phases of making its way in front of cameras. But Alex Garland fans can currently catch Civil War, as that Kirsten Dunst-led war thriller is currently showing in theaters.

Alex Garland is one of the most interesting filmmakers working today and has delivered striking, awe-inspiring cinema as both a writer and director for over two decades. We are honored to welcome Garland on the show to discuss his latest film, Civil War. The cast blew away each of us, as well as the story centered on wartime journalists, and the grace with which the film navigates its controversial narrative through the real world it seems to depict so nearly. 

We discuss designing his set pieces with backstory, how Jesse Plemons joined the cast at the last minute and delivered one of the best performances of the year, and more. He even shares some details on the upcoming 28 Days Later sequel, 28 Years Later. 

Timestamps (approx. only)

• 00:00:00 - Intro 
• 00:02:49 - Alex Garland Talks ‘Civil War,’ ’28 Years Later’ and More
• 00:30:11 - Spoiler-Free’ Civil War’ Review
• 00:49:48 - ‘Civil War’ Spoilers!
• 01:08:09 - Sean Is At CinemaCon 2024
• 01:20:23 - Outro

Want More ReelBlend?

Sign up for our premium membership, which includes a bi-weekly newsletter from Sean, and ad-free episodes. Also, be sure to subscribe to ReelBlend on YouTube for full episodes of the show in video form. Finally, we have all kinds of fun merchandise for dedicated Blenders to flaunt their fandom with pride.

Warning: MASSIVE SPOILERS for Alex Garland’s Civil War are in play. It doesn’t matter what type of American you are, but there are some pretty revealing details ahead.

Some pictures are just made to spark conversation, and writer/director Alex Garland’s Civil War absolutely fits that bill. The 2024 movie is the latest from the man who gave us equally debatable conclusions through the ending to Ex Machina and Annihilation, as well as 28 Days Later’s various endings.

However, the discussion that this Kirsten Dunst-led ensemble thriller is bound to ignite isn’t a case of figuring out what happened, but rather over how to interpret two huge events that transpire. If you’d like to read more about the film in a spoiler-free context, you can check out our Civil War review. Otherwise, it’s time to embed ourselves with the Western Forces, and dig deep into what happened and why it matters.

Civil War’s Shocking 1, 2 Punch Finale

The entire third act of Civil War is a greased rail of adrenaline, and it’s part of why I continue to urge people to see the film in IMAX. But no matter what format you choose, the siege of Washington D.C. contains two powerful deaths, with very different discussions behind them. The first of which is the moment where Lee (Kirsten Dunst) sacrifices her life to save Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) from being gunned down by loyal Secret Service agents.

Not too long after that shocking death lands, complete with an extended shot of haunting composition that places the dead Lee next to Jessie on the White House floor, the action picks back up. In the final moments of Civil War, the Western Forces soldiers that have stormed the White House seize the President (Nick Offerman), with orders to kill on sight. Which, to be fair, is a moment we partially see in the first Civil War trailer, just with less context into why that moment is so important.

What's so shocking about it is that before this execution is carried out, fellow journalist Joel (Wagner Moura) is determined to get the story his group was headed to DC to capture in the first place. Asking the unnamed commander-in-chief for a quote, the President pleas for his life. Satisfied with getting the story, Joel lets the Western Forces team take out the tyrannical leader, ending Civil War with a trophy photo taken with the troops over his dead body.

Was Lee’s Death Justified?

When it comes to the first debate over Civil War’s ending, the discussion over Lee’s death was the first hot topic that came to mind. Admittedly, this came from talking with one of my colleagues about the ending, as she didn’t think Lee’s death was justified in terms of the story set up.

Rather, she thought that the more fitting finale would be seeing Lee’s war-inspired trauma come to a head, with her being left frozen in the hallway while Joel and Jessie move on to cover the story. I can see that point, but something that happened earlier in Civil War has me convinced that Kirsten Dunst’s character earned those tragic final moments.

After the death of fellow party member Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), Lee tells Jessie that the seasoned journalist could have died in a worse manner. My interpretation of that line was that between his advancing age and an implied physical condition that lessened his mobility, Sammy’s death as a hero saving his friends was more of an honorable warrior’s death. When talking about Sammy’s death, Lee was almost calling her own shot in life.

After reading Film Freak Central critic Walter Chaw’s review of Civil War, I’m also convinced that Lee knew she’d die in the field. This line in particular connected with my reading of this event:

As a war photographer, you’re exposed to all sorts of adrenaline-fueled moments of inhumanity, constantly scrambling to survive with the story in your hand. In Lee’s eyes, a normal life with illness and domesticity doesn’t cut it. So to some, the "fitting end" to a war correspondent’s life is being cut down in battle, helping tell the stories that might warn others not to let such horrific events happen in their own backyard.

How Should We Feel About The President’s Death?

Perhaps the even more divisive event that seems bound to cause much discussion and debate is the killing of Nick Offerman’s unnamed President character. Admittedly, we don’t really see this character much on screen, as brief appearances bookending the narrative and some audio broadcasts are what we are given to define his character. Well, that and a brilliant Q&A prep sequence between Stephen McKinley Henderson and Wagner Moura.

In a rapid-fire question session on the road, Henderson’s Sammy grills Moura’s Joel on the questions he wants to ask in the President’s first potential interview in 14 months. On top of destroying the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution so that he can serve a third term, the President has also used airstrikes on American civilians and disbanded the FBI.

With all of those acts on his resume, the President sure seems like a dictator, and military might is good at overthrowing dictators. So on face value, offing Mr. Offerman should be something cathartically pleasing. But there are two thoughts that prevent me from totally settling on that viewpoint.

The President’s death, cowardly final words and all, could still be seen as martyrdom by the Loyalist States. Also, with this political beast beheaded, at least three more stand to challenge its place as the ruler of the nation.

Is Civil War’s Ending Happy By Any Stretch?

The death of Civil War’s president is supposed to be the capstone to this large scale combat epic, and to a point, it succeeds. You would be forgiven to walk out of this movie keyed up on adrenaline and ready to sing its praises. It's when you start to dwell on what actually happened that the dread starts to challenge the notion that this is even a remotely happy ending.

Call it cathartic, cautionary or anything in-between, the quest that Alex Garland’s intrepid journalists set out to accomplish comes to an end. But while just looking at the ending on the surface level is a pretty dour experience, there’s another line of Sammy’s that came up when researching this write-up:

“They” are the competing factions of Civil War’s fractured political landscape, as by time the film starts, there are four parties in play. While the Western Forces are the party we follow the most intently through Alex Garland’s narrative, there’s mention of the Florida Alliance as well. To get a better look at why this notion is so frightening, take a look at the map A24 released before the film’s release:

Ready for the ultimate bummer that’s bound to become Debate #3? What did Lee and The President die for in the grand scheme of things? The endgame of Civil War is definitely to topple Nick Offerman’s regime, and that happens clear as crystal. But what’s the next move? Surely the Western Forces would want to keep power, but with three other players in the game, what sort of deal will there need to be in order to unite America again?

Civil War doesn’t exactly call out for a sequel, but at the same time there’s plenty of fertile ground for a follow-up. Part of me thinks that Alex Garland’s next film Warfare might be a secret follow-up to begin with. Or at least, that’s what I’m hoping, especially since Deadline announced he’s on deck to co-direct with Ray Mendoza, Civil War’s military advisor. A potential trilogy that could see follow-ups detailing the way forward, through the eyes of the military and a new governing body, would make for a hell of an ultimate vision.

However, that’s mere speculation on my part, and that’s part of what makes this ending so brilliant. No one needs to agree on whether or not Lee’s death was justified or if the President’s death is actually satisfying. Were there even a consensus reached on this matter, there’s still the factor that 19 states have ceded from the Union, and another battle feels right around the corner.

Should you have read this rundown without seeing Civil War, I still highly recommend this shock and awe spectacle as a theatrical experience. However, knowing what you know now, I challenge you to not only look closer at the ending, but the two acts that transpire beforehand. There’s still plenty to talk about, and we’ve only just started digging into this new Alex Garland parable of power.

Filmmaker Alex Garland is most notably known as a purveyor of sci-fi visions that delve into horrific territory while asking huge questions. That profile of the writer behind films like 28 Days Later, Ex Machina, and Men has only grown over time, with each project seeming to dive deeper into the unknown. For his latest project Civil War, Garland has scaled back the fantastical and focused his storytelling talents on a divided America that’s set in a future that feels uncomfortably close.

While Garland has eschewed his more genre heavy aesthetic for this grounded drama-thriller, that doesn’t mean that Civil War isn’t as intense as those previous films. As a matter of fact, the realism present in the story of correspondents (Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny, and Stephen McKinley Henderson) traveling across the war torn United States that makes this tale so urgent and horrifying.

Focusing on an American civil war in the aftermath of a third term president’s abuse of power (Nick Offerman), Alex Garland gives his audience two acts of strong character building that takes place through what is constructed as an episodic plot. Throughout those comparatively calmer moments, Garland’s skills are preparing the audience for the final wind up, which includes a third act so electrifying that it embodies shock and awe. The resulting combination is an intellectual blockbuster triumph that continues to prove why the writer/director is one of the most compelling storytellers in the contemporary cinematic landscape. 

Alex Garland’s Civil War is his most grounded film, but it also covers some ground very familiar to the filmmaker. 

For a movie with the title Civil War, you’d imagine a wide spanning cast bringing to life a larger-than-life conflict. That’s not the mode that Alex Garland chose, however and that decision is firmly in line with his credentials as a thought provoking creative. A strength of Garland’s projects has always been telling as big a story as possible with a tight knit cast of characters, keeping the stakes grounded even in totally alien environments.

That tendency only causes Civil War to dazzle its audience all the more, especially with a performer like Kirsten Dunst anchoring the story as its functional lead. As Dunst's Lee finds herself teamed up with Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny, and Stephen McKinley Henderson playing fellow journalists, the actor's stellar work challenges her immediate co-stars and their respective acting games – but it's a win-win scenario that brings out the best in the whole cast, while highlighting that Dunst is one of the finest actors of our time. 

Having that strong of a cast anchoring Civil War’s march into Hell gooses the nervous energy to a pleasing degree throughout Rob Hardy’s richly photographic cinematography. Random moments of chaotic action and tension are displayed merely through shutter clicks and the still images they produce. With the film operating with an A-list cast, those expressive moments can be even more harrowing than watching them in real-time.

Perhaps the greatest compliment to Civil War’s strong casting game is the fact that the supporting roles are also made all the better because of it. Alex Garland certainly knows how to assemble a cast, as seen with the inclusion of Nick Offerman and Jesse Plemmons into the mix for smaller parts. Their participation is never distracting or out of step with what the movie is aiming to accomplish, and especially in Plemmons’ case, it leads to one of the most nerve-wracking moments within this story.

Civil War is a thinking person’s blockbuster that is an urgent must in our modern, fractured world. 

Alex Garland’s Civil War has been talked up as an apolitical story, and seeing the film, it’s easy to agree with that assessment. By clearly delineating the actions of the antagonists, rather than merely assigning them an “evil” party affiliation, the main conflict is one of moral, not political, issues. There is such meticulous work put into Alex Garland’s story that it’s applicable to anyone who truly believes in law, order, and a free press. 

I’ll reinforce my opinion of Civil War being an intellectual blockbuster further here, because some may feel that Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer falls into that same bucket. I disagree, as while Nolan’s movie financially performed like a blockbuster, the scale and storytelling were of a more traditional biopic pedigree. Alex Garland, on the other hand, put together a lighting quick ride that is scaled like a blockbuster, but still has an impressive and thought provoking story as its spine.

As the first two acts of Civil War depict humanity’s best and worst impulses with great personal stakes, the final act is a sustained adrenaline rush that doesn’t betray the intimate nature of previous events. If you weren’t sold on the importance of seeing this movie in the IMAX format, the final stretch alone is worth the ticket, thanks to a combat heavy finale that stands shoulder to shoulder with the final moments of Zero Dark Thirty. 

There’s been quite a bit of talk about Alex Garland potentially leaving the world of directing after Civil War, as he seems to want to focus more on his writing. I certainly hope the man will keep moving forward with both his directing and writing work, but if he were to seriously step back after this picture’s release, I could totally understand. While Civil War seems to have invigorated his sensibilities on both sides, this would be a hell of a final statement to leave fans with. In Alex Garland I trust. 

Alex Garland, the writer and director behind projects including the 2022 horror Men and 2014’s sci-fi thriller Ex Machina is back with what some may consider horror of a different type with Civil War. The upcoming A24 movie is set in the near future during the United States’ second civil war, depicting a team of journalists’ struggle to survive. The dystopian action film, which is set to hit theaters in April, premiered at South by Southwest film festival, and it is garnering lots of attention as a “jaw-dropping,” “visceral cautionary tale.”

Civil War’s trailer looks like a weaponized panic attack, and many people are eager to see Alex Garland’s depiction of the fictional (but not altogether unrealistic) events. Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny star as two members of the news team, and according to CinemaBlend managing editor Sean O’Connell, the actresses’ performances are Oscar-worthy. He writes on X (Twitter): 

Other first reactions to Civil War echoed Sean O’Connell’s, with Scott Mantz writing that Alex Garland depicts a horrific scenario that America seems way too close to making a reality. The critic writes: 

The Hollywood Handle tweets that Civil War is leading the race for the year’s best film with its “terrifying” look at how tragic war can be. They say: 

If Dune: Part Two fans take issue with the claim that Alex Garland is delivering the best film of 2024, they’re really not going to like what Atom has to say, as the outlet isn’t even confining Civil War’s superiority to a specific year. According to the tweet thread: 

Some viewers, like Tucker Hazell are having a more visceral reaction than others. In Hazell’s words:  

Perri Nemiroff praises all aspects of the film, from the production value to immersive cinematography to the sound design. Alex Garland depicts a “deeply chilling reality" through the astonishing ensemble he’s assembled, Nemiroff says, writing: 

Civil War was already highly anticipated, coming out of A24 from the vision of Alex Garland, and after these reactions by the SXSW filmgoers, the buzz for this one isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. On Rotten Tomatoes, the movie sits at 85% Fresh from 20 critics, so we’ll have to see how that changes as more people have the opportunity to see it when it hits theaters on Friday, April 12. In the meantime, check out our 2024 movie calendar to see what other films are headed our way soon. 

Have you ever watched news coverage of a devastating international conflict and thought, “I can’t imagine that ever happening here?” You no longer need to imagine. Using jaw-dropping production work, harrowing set design, and visceral war-ravaged camera operation, Alex Garland’s remarkable Civil War takes us on a white-knuckle road trip through a divided America, as a team of journalists race from tragedy to tragedy hoping to complete an assignment in Washington, D.C. before a modern war between the States reaches its bloody conclusion. It’s a tense, magnificent achievement, and a genuine conversation starter – which is how Garland wisely described the movie after it held its world premiere at the 2024 South By Southwest Film Festival. 

Garland’s no stranger to provocative, jarring works of fiction that beg the audience to read beneath the surface and analyze what they find. From his collaborations with Danny Boyle (The Beach, 28 Days Later, Sunshine) to his own directorial efforts (Ex Machina, Annihilation), Garland has imagined conflicted visions of the future that have been impacted by mankind’s follies. This one, as opposed to his science-fiction excursions, feels disturbingly modern. Though the time frame is never given, Civil War easily could take place 10 years into our future. Five years, even. 

The first of many intelligent decisions made on Civil War is to root the story in the journey of four journalists, making this a pivotal entry into the “Power of the Press” cinematic genre. And inside of that plotting, we find painfully honest tropes that fellow journalists will recognize, and applaud. There’s a moment early on in the film where grizzled war photographer Lee (Kirsten Dunst) leaves a bar filled with reporters so she can finish uploading her latest files and pass out from exhaustion, and I nodded so hard at the accuracy, I strained my neck. 

As Civil War ramps up, Garland saddles Lee with a protege. Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) encounters the seasoned photographer at a protest that turns violent, then follows her back to the press hotel. Jessie wants to learn from Lee, who has zero interest in babysitting an intern in a war zone. But the next morning, Jessie’s in the van with Lee, video host Joel (Wagner Moura), and senior print reporter Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) as their caravan heads from New York City to the front lines of the conflict: the nation’s Capitol. 

Despite what’s suggested in the Civil War trailer, Garland’s movie is shockingly apolitical. I legitimately feared that the movie would stoke political fires by taking sides in contemporary political arguments. But outside of establishing the existence of such bodies as The Florida Alliance and The Western Forces, Civil War just drops us in the middle of an American conflict without justifying the actions of any side. Instead, we observe as the journalists observe, and process as they record. And as Garland marches to each explosive set piece, we marvel at his team’s breathtaking production work, crafting a decimated American landscape that too often feels uncomfortably real.

As a journalist, this movie speaks to everything I value at my core. It’s an ode to the men and women who risk their lives to document the facts by capturing reality. It reiterates our need for people to report the truth. To paraphrase Lee, in one of the lessons she passes on to Jessie, “We record it so others can ask questions.” That doesn’t mean Garland refrains from commenting on the horrors that are shown in Civil War… or by saying more about the turmoil of our times in valuable exchanges. Garland’s layered script, as he mentioned, should trigger important conversations about where society has been, and where it is going. There’s a fantastic scene that haunts me still where the press caravan stops off in a small town that’s actively choosing to ignore the war that’s happening around them. It’s a needed detour that allows the characters to reconnect with the humanity that they’ve lost, and it’s more damaging than any of the bloody fights the movie offers up. 

Alex Garland’s Civil War is a must-see, one of the best upcoming 2024 movies I’ve been lucky enough to screen. And if you can, see it in IMAX, where the production values and cinematography get their full due. I also hate to make such ridiculous proclamations in March – days after the most recent Oscars telecast – but I have a feeling we will be talking about Garland’s film, and the performances by Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny, all awards season. This movie is that good. 

Earlier this month, horror fans were delivered some incredible news. After years of waiting, it was officially announced not only that Danny Boyle and Alex Garland were reteaming to make 28 Years Later – a new sequel to 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later – but that the project would potentially set up even more new movies. Hearing all of that was exciting enough, but now things have actually gotten even better. In addition to the project finding a home at a major studio, it has been revealed that Cillian Murphy has come aboard as an executive producer, and there's a chance he will reprise his breakout role as Jim.

The latest update about 28 Years Later comes from The Hollywood Reporter. While there were many studios bidding to partner with Danny Boyle and Alex Garland on the project, Sony has won out and is now set up to make the film. The trade report says that Garland is going to be writing both 28 Years Later and a "Part 2," and Boyle is presently attached to direct the former but not the latter.

For those who don't recall, the original 28 Days Later is set in London less than a month after the outbreak of a deadly contagion called the Rage Virus. Much like zombies, those who become infected lose their ability to rationally think and get the instinct to attack those who are not infected (infecting them in the process), but the big difference is that they are not undead and basically always move at a full sprint. Cillian Murphy's Jim is introduced as a bicycle courier who wakes up from a coma to find that the city he lives in has been decimated. He ends up finding other survivors – for better and for ill – and while multiple endings were shot for the movie, the version that went to theaters saw Jim surviving along with his friends Selena (Naomie Harris) and Hannah (Megan Burns).

If Murphy does end up reprising his role in 28 Years Later, one has to wonder if Harris and Burns will come back as well.

Made with an $8 million budget (per Box Office Mojo), 28 Days Later was a massive hit that earned $84.6 million during its theatrical run, and the sequel 28 Weeks Later was released five years later without Danny Boyle, Alex Garland or Cillian Murphy in their original roles (Boyle and Garland are credited only as executive producers). Sporting a stellar cast including Imogen Poots, Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Idris Elba, Jeremy Renner and Harold Perrineau, the follow-up film is arguably underrated, but compared to its predecessor, it underperformed at the box office. There was chatter about another installment for years – with discussion about 28 Months Later as the angle – but only now is the project becoming a reality as 28 Years Later and the untitled 28 Years Later: Part 2.

The timetable for the exciting feature is unknown, but the latest report about the movies says that a theatrical release was a priority for Danny Boyle and Alex Garland during negotiations. It's also said that the two movies will have respective budgets "in the $60 million range," which means that they will be substantially bigger than the previous two franchise entries (28 Weeks Later was made for $15 million, according to The Numbers). Stay tuned here on CinemaBlend for all of the latest updates about 28 Years Later and its immediate follow-up, and you can get a preview of all the scary films on the horizon with our Upcoming Horror Movies guide.

It's finally happening – the official sequel to 28 Days Later is happening!

In 2002, a film came out that truly shook the world, 28 Days Later. Classified as a zombie horror film and a post-apocalyptic drama, it follows a bicycle courier who suffers a coma. Then, he wakes up to one of his life's most surprising and horrifying events – the world has turned chaotic as a virus was unleashed, turning humans into aggression-based monsters.

Directed by Danny Boyle and written by Alex Garland, 28 Days Later is considered one of the best of the early 2000s, and now a new sequel is happening, and it’s coming out as part of the 2025 movie schedule. This is what we know.

What Is The 28 Years Later Release Date?

28 Years Later is set to release on June 20, 2025, as confirmed by Sony.

28 Years Later has been discussed for a long time. The director and writer, Danny Boyle and Alex Garland, have spoken about a sequel for many years, and back in July 2023, they talked to Inverse about an idea that manifested a few years ago and that they were taking it "quite seriously:"

The person Boyle was referring to was his writing partner, Alex Garland, and now, since the film is confirmed, Boyle will be returning to direct, and Garland is writing it.

Check Out The Trailer For 28 Years Later

After all this time, we finally got a trailer for this movie. Featuring an absolutely chilling soundtrack in the back, we get our first look at the zombies of 28 Years Later, and the horrible journey our main characters are about to set out on.

The 28 Years Later Cast

If you were wondering who has joined the cast of 28 Years Later, we have you covered. We also have a few cast names thanks to an interview that Danny Boyle did with Empire in January 2025. Here is who you can expect to see:

Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Jamie

The first who will star in 28 Years Later is Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who will play Jamie. The actor is known for many roles. While he gained much fame for his portrayal of Quicksilver in Avengers: Age of Ultron, Taylor-Johnson has appeared in a variety of films like Savages, Anna Karenina, Godzilla, Nocturnal Animals, Bullet Train, Tenet, and the 2024 action movie The Fall Guy, as well as Nosferatu.

Jodie Comer as Isla

Jodie Comer is also set to appear in 28 Years Later, and she will play Isla. Comer gained worldwide significance when she co-starred in Killing Eve, earning her several accolades and nominations, but Comer has also appeared in shows like My Mad Fat Diary, Doctor Foster, and more. She’s also held roles in Free Guy and The Last Duel, among other films.

Ralph Fiennes

Ralph Fiennes will star in 28 Years Later. I’m sure many people of my age know Fiennes as the infamous villain, Voldemort, from the Harry Potter films. Fiennes is a very talented actor who has been around for several decades and appeared in many great films, such as The Reader, The Hurt Locker, Schindler’s List, The English Patient, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Menu, In Bruges, The Duchess, Conclave and many more.

Jack O’Connell

Confirmed by Sony, Jack O’Connell will also star in 28 Years Later. The actor took on the role of playing Amy Winehouse’s husband in Back to Black, but has also appeared in films such as Starred Up, Money Monsters, Trial by Fire and more.

Alfie Williams as Spike

Sony also confirmed that young star, Alfie Williams, will have a role in 28 Years Later, and play Spike. The young actor has appeared in His Dark Materials and A New Breed of Criminal.

Erin Kellyman

In June 2024, Deadline confirmed that Erin Kellyman had joined the cast of 28 Years Later. The actress has appeared in shows such as The Falcon and the Winter Soldier and Willow, among many other roles.

Talk about a cast – and I’m sure this isn’t even the end of announcements for it.

Cillian Murphy Won’t Be Back As Jim – At Least Not This Time Around

Deadline originally reported in May 2024 that Cillian Murphy would return as Jim in 28 Years Later, apparently in a “surprising way.”

But now, in an interview with producer Andrew Macdonald with Empire in January 2025, he’s been confirmed that Murphy won’t be back in 28 Years Later – but could return in one of the two sequels coming out after this:

Cillian Murphy gained a lot of fame for his starring role in 28 Days Later, and he's only continued to grow in popularity over the decades since. From his starring role in the hit show Peaky Blinders (which is one of the best shows to binge on Netflix), to his critically acclaimed performance as lead of the Oppenheimer cast, the Academy Award-winning actor is getting more popular each year.

In May 2024, it was confirmed by The Hollywood Reporter that Cillian Murphy would be returning to executive produce the film, and so far, that’s all he will be doing. But who knows what the future holds for Jim?

What Is 28 Years Later Going To Be About?

With this long-awaited sequel, one can only wonder what 28 Years Later will follow. Here is what we know so far:

28 Years Later Would Be A Sequel To 28 Days Later, Not 28 Weeks Later

While we might be all excited for 28 Years Later, let's not forget that there already was a sequel at one point – 28 Weeks Later. But this new movie isn't a sequel to that 2007 film; rather, it'll be a new story, according to The Hollywood Reporter article from earlier, regarding Murphy acting as a producer.

For 28 Weeks Later, Boyle and Garland only acted as executive producers, but this time, they will return to the main job of writing and directing.

Sony’s official synopsis says the movie takes place nearly three decades after the rage virus escaped that laboratory. Some have found ways to exist amongst the infected, including those who live on an island and can only access mainland U.K. through a causeway. In that interview that Boyle did with Empire, he said that it’s a very “closed” community:

However, soon our main characters must leave for a mission. While out in the real world, they discover horrors unlike any other, and secrets that will change their lives. Fun fact – the movie was shot on an iPhone, according to Collider, so this will certainly be an interesting apocalypse feature to watch.

28 Years Later Is Meant To Start A New Trilogy Of Films

Something else we learned from The Hollywood Reporter article is that 28 Years Later isn't going to be a standalone sequel – it is meant to begin another trilogy of films within the same universe as 28 Days Later.

There have been plenty of trilogies in Hollywood that have done immensely well, such as The Hangover films or The Lord of the Rings movies, but I wonder how many more clever titles there could be after 28 Years Later. Are we going to dive into decades or centuries now? 28 Centuries Later? How long can zombies live?

Jokes aside, the hope is to launch a new trilogy of films, further expanding the world and possibly making it one of the best zombie franchises ever.

Alex Garland, the screenwriter for the film, even opened up about turning this into a new trilogy in that January 2025 interview from Empire, saying that they attempted to condense it but it was just the natural way the story of the survivors developed as they wrote it:

The trilogy will continue in another film called 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple and a third movie that will be helmed by Boyle and won’t begin production until there are reactions from the first.

Danny Boyle Directed The Film

As mentioned before, Danny Boyle returned to direct 28 Years Later. He directed the first film, and has since only continued to spread his wings in Hollywood and direct several significant movies.

Some of his most-known films since then include Steve Jobs, 127 Hours, Yesterday, and even the Best Picture-winning Slumdog Millionaire. Soon, we'll see him back in the world of zombies.

We know that Danny Boyle, however, will not be directing the second film in the new trilogy. That will be Nia DaCosta, according to Deadline in April 2024. The director has done Candyman, Little Woods, and The Marvels.

Alex Garland Is Returning To Write All Three Films

Alex Garland isn't just signed on to work on 28 Years Later – he's set to write that film, as well as the rest of the trilogy that they are hopeful will follow the release of this sequel, which is freaking awesome if I don't say so myself.

Garland has also written some impressive movies since 28 Days Later, including Sunshine, Ex Machina, and more. He also wrote the series Devs (one of Nick Offerman's best roles) and the horror movie Men, as well as Civil War.

The 28 Years Later Rating

There’s no set rating yet for 28 Years Later, but I think we can expect that it’ll be rated R. The first film was rated R, while the second movie was also an R-rating – so it would be pretty shocking for this new film not to follow in its footsteps.

What are you looking forward to the most when it comes to 28 Years Later? I think it's time for a rewatch – Is anyone up for a zombie movie night?

In 2002, director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland forever changed the zombie subgenre. While the world had grown use to George A. Romero's classic shambling undead, 28 Days Later introduced audiences to the Rage Virus and the mindless infected who are basically in a full sprint at all times. It took five years for a first sequel to get made (director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo's underrated 28 Weeks Later), but now, more than two decades after the series launched, we are finally getting a 28 Years Later, and the project is reteaming Boyle and Garland.

The reunion has been revealed by The Hollywood Reporter, and their collaboration is apparently going to be pitched to "studios, streamers and other potential buyers" this week. What's perhaps most exciting of all is that 28 Years Later isn't the only project that they are thinking about. The trade is saying that there is hope to develop a whole trilogy of sequels.

While Boyle is presently only attached to direct the first of these three new movies, Alex Garland will write the script for all of them. The sequels are expected to be much bigger than the original, as while 28 Days Later was made for just $8 million (per Box Office Mojo), the budgets for the upcoming projects are said to be in the $75 million range.

For those who don't recall, the 28 Days Later ending (ignoring the drastically different alternate endings) features Britain managing to not fully collapse following the epidemic, with the protagonists played by Cillian Murphy and Naomie Harris surviving. But everything goes to hell in 28 Weeks Later, as containment of the Rage Virus fails, and that film ends with the disease making its way into mainland Europe. It feels fair to assume that the world didn't do a perfect job handling the situation, and what the aftermath looks like has always made 28 Years Later an intriguing premise. Boyle has talked about the potential of the project often, and it's thrilling to hear that it's actually becoming a reality.

Given the love for 28 Days Later and the box office success that the horror genre has seen recently, it feels fair to assume that the series will find a supportive home, but we'll have to wait and see which studio/streamer ends up winning the bidding war. After the dust settles, it hopefully won't be too long before we start hearing about production plans and release dates.

If you wish to celebrate this news by watching the original movies, the bad news is that 28 Days Later is not available on digital and the Blu-ray is out of print – but you can watch it for free (with commercial interruption) on Sling. 28 Weeks Later, meanwhile, is available to stream with a Hulu subscription (and is widely available on Blu-ray).

Dear readers, it’s time to get serious about the upcoming 2024 movies, as the new year is about to become our current reality. Concerns like running times and release windows for forthcoming release are about to be hotly discussed, and that first category recently came up in connection to Civil War. A rather juicy rumor about the length of writer/director Alex Garland’s latest film arose and was quickly debunked. It was suggested that a pretty long running time would be in play for the upcoming A24 film. While I’m glad all was revealed in a swift manner, I’m actually kind of bummed about what the truth entails.

Let's Talk About Civil War’s Runtime Rumor, And How It Was Debunked

We're getting closer to seeing the weaponized panic attack from Civil War’s first trailer in its full glory in April. Amid that though, it was unclear just how long this hypothetical nightmare scenario would run. That was thanks to an initial rumor suggesting that this Kirsten Dunst-fronted ensemble thriller would clock in at a length of 3 hours 15 minutes. 

Cards on the table, I'll admit that I'm someone who's defended long movies after John Wick: Chapter 4 joined the ranks of pictures that make the most of near/over three-hour odysseys. However, don’t go spouting, “Sweet Killers of the Flower Moon!" because, as mentioned, that claim was in fact debunked. 

Studio A24 quickly confirmed, in a statement to Variety, that this flick is actually running at an hour and 49 mins. So we don't need to get into the discussion of, "Will my bladder be able to withstand Civil War's massive run time?', as that's apparently not the issue. Now to be fair, what we know about Civil War has come through careful and measured revelations. 

As always, Mr. Garland’s work has been kept “under wraps” from the word go; so no one really knew what to expect. However, considering the previously epic sized running time rumored, I’m a little upset that isn’t the reality.

Why I’m Kind Of Bummed Civil War Isn’t Over 3 Hours

While I haven’t always been on board with what Alex Garland has to offer in his stories, I will always show up for his work. As a fan of his since he collaborated with director Danny Boyle on 28 Days Later, I believe the gentleman has proven that his concepts -- both adapted and original -- are way out of the box. 

Anticipation is part of what makes a Garland movie an event, for better or worse. In fact, despite the rather grounded tone we’ve seen in the picture’s promotion, I’ve overheard secondhand rumors from other critics in the field that Civil War is going to be weirder than expected.

A near-future thriller about a second civil war, written and directed by Alex Garland, which could be weirder than expected? How am I not supposed to be excited? Especially when star Nick Offerman recently shared the trailer as well as this endorsement, on his Instagram:

The phrase “powerful masterwork” can equally be applied to a movie over three hours long, or one that’s just barely under two. Just as Roger Ebert said, the lengths of bad and good movies never happen to be quick or long enough to really make a difference. So, if A24 has a three-hour epic that could sustain some 28 Days Later/Ex Machina weirdness, I’ll gladly take it! 

At the same time, as an Alex Garland fan of a certain stripe, I can also see why the movie’s brevity could also be a potential gift. Not to mention, Mr. Offerman has reminded me that I need to finally watch Devs, and see where I land on that show's events. 

That point brings me to the other side of this potential Civil War coin. Because while I'd love a three-hour adventure that digs into these not so United States, two of the director's more recent pop culture offerings were tales that I just couldn't get behind.

What Are The Alex Garland Movies That Make Me Glad Civil War Is Under 2 Hours?

For every Ex Machina, there’s an Annihilation or a Men to remind me of the fact that in the worst of times, sitting through an Alex Garland movie can definitely be a slog. I’ll debate that fact with anyone else who’s familiar with those projects another time, as I know CinemaBlend's own Eric Eisenberg offered a perfect five-star recommendation in his Annihilation review.

Whereas I feel that in his last couple movies since Ex Machina, Alex Garland has become a bit self-indulgent as a writer/director without another party to help balance things. Again, 28 Days Later comes to mind, as Danny Boyle's directing style fit Garland's story like a hand in glove and, 20 years later, I'm still in love.

Something else Annihilation and Men have in common is the fact that they both run under 2 hours in length. As such, while a three-hour experience akin to Ex Machina would be very welcomed, a movie that inspires the same feelings I had during Men’s ending for that same amount of time would be absolute hell. 

If I haven’t totally angered Alex Garland fans, or even the man himself, I’d like to clarify that my feelings are more positive than anything else. Civil War’s trailer definitely hits the right buttons for me to be amped up for the latest A24 panic attack, and the mystery surrounding the movie is definitely intriguing to me.

Perhaps if this picture’s release is a successful one, we’ll be given word that there is a three-hour cut that we can all enjoy. I’ll probably still anxiously await the future if such an announcement happens, as the extra weight might sink what could be a swift and slim slalom of political terror. 

That’s a problem for another day, as Civil War’s terrifyingly divided landscape will be unveiled in full, only in theaters and IMAX, on April 26th, 2024. In the meantime, maybe I need to revisit Men or Annihilation, in hopes that maybe time has given me a new outlook on either story. Seeing as they’re both available using a Paramount+ subscription at the time of this writing, anyone else who is curious to do just that has an easy way to do so.

Alex Garland, whose previous directorial efforts include Ex Machina, Annihilation, and Men, all of which came after he made a name for himself writing movies like 28 Days Later and Sunshine, has long felt like someone with their pulse firmly on modern society. Now, Garland will give audiences perhaps his most frightening movie yet, Civil War.

The upcoming A24 movie, which is led by Kirsten Dunst, Nick Offerman, and several others on multiple sides of a massive conflict between the American government and rebel states, looks to be up there with everything else Garland has made over the years. If this is the first you’re hearing about it, don’t worry, because we’re about to break down everything we know about Civil War, including its release date, trailer, cast, and more.

What Is The Civil War Release Date?

Civil War is coming to theaters on April 12, 2024, meaning there’s not all that much time until we get to see what Alex Garland has in store for us with his vision of a divided America on the precipice of annihilation. The latest A24 film joins a crowded pack of theatrical releases in April, a slate that also includes Dav Patel’s Monkey Man and Zendaya’s long-awaited Challengers among numerous others.

The Civil War Trailer Shows A Modern-Day America On The Brink Of Disaster

We got our first look at Alex Garland’s version of a divided America in December 2023 when A24 released the first Civil War trailer, which can best be described as a weaponized panic attack, as CinemaBlend’s Mike Reyes put it. Though not a lot of details were revealed in the teaser, we did get to see a modern-day America on the brink of disaster by the time everything was said and done: 

Then, in February 2024, we got our hands on the even more terrifying second Civil War trailer, which showed a full-on assault on the nation’s capital. This sequence, which included an explosive battle at the Lincoln Memorial, was just one of the numerous set pieces teased in a trailer that also raised the stakes for characters on all sides of the civil unrest 

How To Watch Civil War

Though Civil War will most likely come to Max at some point in the future after the studio signed a streaming deal with Warner Discovery in 2023, initially the only way to see the movie will be in theaters. In addition to standard screenings of Alex Garland’s new thriller, the movie will also be presented in IMAX auditoriums across the country, according to Deadline. 

Kirsten Dunst, Cailee Spaeny And Wagner Moura Lead The Civil War Cast

Though we don’t yet know the names of their characters, Kirsten Dunst, Cailee Spaeny, and Wagner Moura lead the Civil War cast. Based on what we’ve seen of the movie thus far, it appears as if the actors will be playing journalists covering the ensuing military conflict and civil unrest caused by various states rebelling against the movie’s version of the United States government.

When Civil War is released in April 2024, it will be Dunst’s first feature film since the 2021 release of Power of the Dog, which won an Oscar for Best Director (Jane Campion). Spaeny is coming off the success of her starring role in Sofia Coppola’s A24 biopic, Priscilla, which earned her a Golden Globe nomination. Moura last appeared in the 2022 animated film, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, in which he voiced Wolf, a.k.a., one of the best DreamWorks villains to date. 

The Civil War cast also includes some great supporting actors who’ve made names for themselves on the big screen and in the world of TV over the years. One of those, Nick Offerman, will be playing the President of the United States, who is determined to defeat the rebel states through any means necessary. Jesse Plemons is also set to appear in an unnamed role.

Great character actor Stephen McKinley Henderson, whose credits include everything from Manchester by the Sea to the upcoming Dune: Part Two (he plays Thufir Hawat), also appears as another journalist traveling with Kirsten Dunst’s character on her journey across the battered and war-torn American landscape. 

Set In The Near Future, Civil War Follows A Journalist As She Races To The White House While Avoiding Capture Or Death

Set sometime in the near future, Civil War follows a group of journalists as they race to the White House while also navigating the various dangers (and dangerous people) on the road to Washington, D.C. In a race against time and other parties, the team of photographers and reporters also have to avoid capture or death, as any journalist spotted in the area stands the chance of being shot on sight, as alluded to in the movie’s trailer.

While we don’t yet know what preceded the war, we do know that large portions of the country have seceded from the union and are in the middle of a massive nationwide fight in Civil War.

Alex Garland Has Described Civil War As A 'Contemporary War Movie' That Was 'Difficult To Shoot'

Over the years, Alex Garland has given us one of the best sci-fi movies with Ex Machina, an all-time great zombie movie in 28 Days Later, and other gripping films before, between, and since. With Civil War, the writer-turned-director is making a “contemporary war movie,” as he told ScreenDaily:

Touching on the “difficult film to shoot,” line at the end of his comment, Garland expanded and said that while physical production was completed by the time of the July 2022 interview, he was still having to decide on where and where not to include VFX shots in post-production. He described it as a “non-stop process at the moment.”

Alex Garland Has Said Civil War Could Be The Last Movie He Directs

Though Alex Garland has had a successful run as a director the past decade with movies like Ex Machina, Annihilation, and Men, the filmmaker told the Telegraph that Civil War could be the last film he directs and that he only plans on writing scripts for a while. However, we’ll have to wait and see if Garland stays true to that or returns to helm another movie at some point in the future.

Civil War Is A24’s Most Expensive Production Yet

A24 has become one of the premier names in the movie industry over the course of the past decade or so with all kinds of engaging stories, tremendous performances, and even a Best Picture winner with Everything Everywhere All at Once. And in the coming months and years, the studio has even bigger plans in the works, including Civil War. According to Variety, Alex Garland’s new movie cost approximately $50 million, making it the most expensive in-house production from A24 to date. And judging from the explosive action and impressive effects (both practical and digital) we’ve seen from the movie’s two trailers, it looks like A24 used that money wisely.

What Is The Civil War Rating?

This probably won’t come as a surprise, but Civil War has been given an R-rating, according to FilmRatings.com. The MPA gave the upcoming thriller this restrictive rating on account of the movie’s strong violent content, disturbing images, and mature language. This is definitely a movie you won’t want to watch with your kids or the faint of heart.

What Is The Civil War Runtime?

Despite there being rumors of Civil War having a massive runtime of 3 hours and 15 minutes, the upcoming movie will not be nearly that long. In December 2023, right around the time the speculation about the move being 195 minutes long, A24 told IndieWire that the rumors were not true and that the Kirsten Dunst-led thriller would clock in at 1 hour and 49 minutes. As much as we would love to watch an intense film about a broken-down society on the brink of disaster with a three-hour runtime, that might just be too much to handle, at least in theaters. 

Expect to hear much more about Civil War and other exciting titles on the 2024 movie schedule as we get closer to its release this April.

SPOILER WARNING: The following article contains major spoilers for Alex Garland’s Men. If you have not yet seen the film, proceed at your own risk!

The year is still relatively young. As I write this feature, we are now getting toward the end of May, which means that 2022 is not even half way over – and all movie fans know that the end of the year is always filled with cinematic excellence. All that being said, it feels safe to bet that audiences won’t see many more films with a third act quite like the buzzed-about insanity that is featured at the end of Men, the new feature from Ex Machina and Annihilation’s Alex Garland.

As I note in the CinemaBlend review, the film is the first full-on horror movie from the writer/director, and while it is thoroughly creepy throughout its runtime, it’s really in the final act of the story when things go off the rails and the true nightmare material comes in. So what happens, what does it all mean, and how did it come together? If you’re asking all of those questions, you’re in the right place, as all of the answers to those questions are explored below – starting with a brief recap.

What Happens At The End Of Men

The ending of Men is principally centered around the battle between Harper (Jessie Buckley) and the titular antagonist (Rory Kinnear), who is no longer appearing as multiple men with the same face, but seemingly as a singular, morphing entity. Harper is able to wound him when he reaches through the mail slot in the front door, as she stabs him with a knife and cuts his entire forearm in half length-wise, but he is able to get into the cottage and terrorize her in his many forms.

The protagonist attempts to get outside and get to her car, and she thinks she has found help when Geoffrey, the cottage’s owner appears, but instead he violently rips her out of the blue sedan and steals it – driving off. There’s a brief peace with Harper, and we glimpse a star-filled sky with a mysterious rift, but then headlights appear and it quickly becomes apparent that Geoffrey has turned around and is planning to run her down. She runs back to the house.

Geoffrey’s plan isn’t successful, as the car crashes into a pillar and comes to a stop. But it’s not over. We see the feral, naked Green Man – his face now covered in plant growth – crawl out of the vehicle with a broken ankle and make his way to Harper. As his belly swells and he screams, he gets on his back and reveals a bleeding vulva that begins to give birth to another one of his multiple forms. This happens repeatedly, and they continue to move towards Harper, but she calmly turns and goes into the cottage.

The abominable births continue, and Harper grabs an axe and goes into the living room. Eventually, it is not one of the Men with Rory Kinnear’s face who enters, but instead her deceased husband, James (Paapa Essiedu). He sits on the couch, arm split and ankle broken, and he remarks on his own horrible death, blaming her by saying, “This is what you did.” Harper is about to apologize, but she resists the compulsion, and instead asks James what he wants from her. He responds that he wants her love.

Later, a car pulls up to the cottage, and we see that it is Riley (Gayle Rankin), who has come to check on Harper and follow up on their distressing, interrupted video chats. Riley, who is pregnant, sees evidence of the chaos from the previous night, including Harper’s crashed car and blood on the ground, and she eventually finds the heroine sitting peacefully in the back. They share a silent, serene moment, and the credits roll.

Men’s ending is intense and goes full-bore with the body horror, but what does it all mean, and how was it made? Let’s dig into that next.

Digging Into The Symbolism Of Men’s Ending

From the Eden-esque apple tree in the cottage’s front yard, to the shots of dandelion seeds gently floating in the wind, Alex Garland’s Men is stuffed with symbolism that makes the movie a terrific subject of analysis. It’s an exploration of gender roles in modern society and how they influence the way we think and process the world (with a specific focus on grief in the story), and it’s constructed with fascinating abstractions and allegory in both narrative and aesthetics.

To start with literal symbols, the film makes repeated use of ancient symbols both in action and in the production design: The Green Man and Sheela na gigs. The latter, carvings that date back centuries, depict a woman spreading her legs and using her hands to stretch her vulva. We first see this imagery when Harper discovers the small church while she is exploring, and it returns in horrifying fashion during the third act’s disturbing birthing sequence.

The Green Man is also first seen as a carving in the church, seen on the basin in the middle of the room, but it is personified as well. The feral man who stalks Harper after she discovers him in the echoing tunnel transforms into a human depiction of the symbol after we see him applying foliage to his face, and by the end of Men he fully reflects what The Green Man is said to represent: rebirth.

As noted, The Green Man is just one of many men in the English countryside sporting Rory Kinnear’s face, and more than just being unified as possessors of Y chromosomes, there is important symbolism in all of the parts as societal archetypes. The Vicar and The Policeman, for example, are both authority figures from male-dominated fields and they ultimately use their positions to undermine Harper (The Vicar by questioning her culpability in her husband’s death, and The Policeman patronizing her fear of the stalker that was caught trying to get into her house). Geoffrey as a character is a bit more nuanced, as he comes across as a kind of fatherly figure, but a subtle misogyny is exposed via macroaggressions, whether it’s repeatedly calling Harper “Mrs. Marlow,” or patronizingly lifting luggage and springing into action as “protector.”

These masculine viewpoints all attempt to influence Harper’s perspective on the horrible incident that led her to go away to the cottage in the first place: the death of James, which followed his threat to kill himself if she were to leave him. It’s not made clear at the end of Men if James committed suicide or suffered a terrible accident, but that’s incidental as the focus is put on Harper’s grief and guilt.

The injuries that the Men sustain (the split arm and the broken ankle) mirror the condition in which James is found after his deadly fall: having cracked his leg on the sidewalk and his arm run through by a metal post on a fence. Harper is driven towards guilt, and made to think that her husband’s mental issues are her fault – driving the aforementioned “I’m sorry” compulsion – but in the conclusion the protagonist is able to conquer this unfair emotional pressure.

Men’s Rory Kinnear Reveals The Secrets Behind The Insane Body Horror In The New A24 Movie

The end of Alex Garland’s Men is one hell of a thing to witness on the big screen. It’s nauseating and terrifying, but also a fascinating execution of body horror made with extraordinary craft. Garland has cited the anime Attack On Titan as a reference and influence on taking the third act of the movie to extreme levels, and the birthing sequence is stunning in its usage of practical effects to create imagery that will haunt audiences’ nightmares.

Given the impressive qualities of Men, I couldn’t help but ask about it when I interviewed Jessie Buckley, Rory Kinnear, and Paapa Essiedu during the press day for the movie. After discussing the surprising rehearsal time built into the film’s production scheduled (including a bizarre encounter with a woman walking a goat), I asked Rory Kinnear about his experience shooting the feature’s crazy third act, and you can watch his response in the video below:

Men is now playing exclusively in theaters – and you can keep track of every feature set to hit both the big screen and streaming in what remains of the year by heading over to our 2022 Movie Release Calendar.

When the first reactions to the new A24 horror movie Men came out, a lot of critics mentioned one disturbing element from Alex Garland’s third directorial effort — the body horror. “Brilliant” and “memorable” were two words used to describe what goes down, and now the reviews are in to expand on what audiences can expect come May 20. 

Starring 2022 Oscar nominee Jessie Buckley and Rory Kinnear, Men appears to be pretty horrifying judging from its trailer, moving away from the director’s sci-fi leanings featured in his past projects, Ex Machina and Annihilation. The movie sees Harper Marlowe (Buckley) vacationing in the English countryside after the death of her husband in a town filled with men played by Rory Kinnear. 

Let’s see what the reviews have to say, particularly about the body horror of it all, starting with CinemaBlend’s review of Men. Eric Eisenberg gives the movie 3.5 out of 5 stars, saying the actors are brilliant, and every frame of the movie adds to the symbolism of Alex Garland’s message, but not in a distracting way. Audiences will face specific fears as the director embraces the fantastical:

Valerie Complex of Deadline says no viewer will be left unscathed, calling it a frightening exploration of a suffering woman’s mind, and Jessie Buckley matches Rory Kinnear’s energy as he embodies his multiple roles with fervor. However, she says the film is frustratingly vague, and its ambiguity leads to weaken the statement Alex Garland is trying to make:

David Ehrlich of IndieWire grades the film a B, saying that anyone familiar with Alex Garland’s work will know that his take on toxic masculinity isn’t going to be easily digestible. Garland’s projects all make statements about self-definition, and Men shows an unnerving picture that audiences won’t be able to unsee:

David Rooney of The Hollywood Reporter calls Men a mind-bending dissection of manhood, and its reproductive imagery and body horror prosthetics are gruesomely effective. The descent into the grotesque is “dizzying,” and the ending is open to interpretation, which will likely make it a talker amongst horror lovers:

Brianna Zigler of The Playlist grades the movie a B, saying Men is sneaky in its self-awareness. That sneakiness, the review contends, starts in the trailer, which is intentionally made to look like any other horror movie. In the end, Men is a surprising slice of mutation horror:

Grotesque, disgusting body horror seems to be what viewers can expect from this one, along with a complex statement on masculinity. It sounds like audiences will be invited to draw a lot of their own conclusions about the message delivered in this offering from Alex Garland and A24.

If you’d like to check it out, Men is set to premiere in theaters on Friday, May 20. In the meantime, check out our 2022 Movie Release Schedule to see what other films are coming soon to theaters. 

In his first two directorial efforts, Alex Garland made two films with science-fiction as the primary genre, but horror is one of the key components in their brilliance. The plot of Ex Machina emphasizes meditations on the subject of artificial intelligence, and its tone is driven by the terror that comes from isolation, deception, and suspicion. Annihilation features the exploration of a new biological landscape following the arrival of an extraterrestrial entity, and some of its most memorable sequences are utterly bone chilling in depicting mutation and metamorphosis.

For his third film, Men, Garland takes a new approach. An embrace of the fantastical replaces the cold reality depicted in his previous work, and having the audience confront specific fears is made the primary focus. Not sacrificed in the slightest is his inventiveness as a storyteller, though, as the movie is a brilliantly layered allegory that examines gender relationships in our world. And while it’s not quite as phenomenal and engaging as the writer/director’s first two features, it’s an execution of awesome cinematic vision that delivers spectacular body horror in its finale that will drop the jaw of every genre fan.

Like Ex Machina and Annihilation, Men is Alex Garland’s third film that takes its protagonist out of the city and into seclusion, with Harper (Jessie Buckley) taking a trip to stay in the English countryside for a few weeks following the dissolution of her marriage and a tragedy involving her soon-to-be-ex-husband, James (Paapa Essiedu). She rents a lovely, 500-year-old cottage with an apple tree out front from a genial, posh man named Geoffrey (Rory Kinnear) and attempts to recover from her fresh mental scars.

While out on a walk one day, appreciating the beauty of nature and appreciating the intense echoes of a tunnel, Harper unfortunately gets the attention of a naked, feral man (Rory Kinnear) – whom she quickly gets away from, but still follows her back to her cottage. When she spots this man outside and he tries to reach in via the mail slot, she calls the police and they come to arrest him.

That terror briefly seems to be at an end, but Harper remains haunted by memories of what happened to James, and encounters at both the local church and the pub reveal that the nightmare of what’s going on around her is only beginning, and its broadening.

Alex Garland has something to say with Men, but he doesn't beat you over the head with it.

In this fantastical landscape where all men seem to have the same face, symbolism rules the aesthetic – and the movie’s most important strength is that it’s never distracting or overbearing. At some points it’s subtle (like shots of dandelion seeds blowing through the air, or Harper plucking an apple from the cottage’s apple tree) and other examples are overt and key parts of the plot (like Rory Kinnear’s characters each representing dominant masculine roles in society), but every frame adds to Men’s messaging and themes.

It’s a film that feels intricately built, and the meticulousness of the design makes it demand rewatching so that you can take in the whole experience and the details and fully appreciate how they build on what’s being said in Harper’s grief-stricken hell.

Jessie Buckley and Rory Kinnear deliver brilliant performances in Men.

Having previously played the lead in Charlie Kaufman’s I’m Thinking Of Ending Things, Jessie Buckley seems to have found an excellent niche for herself in surrealist features, as her performance in Men is pivotal, and she does a perfect job as the audience’s vessel through the evermore strange terror. She makes Harper’s devastation in the wake of what happened with James palpable, and she proves herself a talented scream queen reacting to and fight back against the horrors that emerge in the third act.

Rory Kinnear is given a tremendously daunting task, playing a total of eight roles in the film, and he does a marvelous job both bringing individual personalities to the parts, and delivering some disturbing performances. He is a dangerous and unpredictable threat as the feral stalker who follows Harper, but his greatest moments in Men are playing the vicar – who has one incredible scene in the churchyard with the protagonist that begins innocently, but turns sinister in such immediate fashion that it inspires goosebumps. Kinnear also deserves immense commendation for the remarkable and bold things he does in the third act… but saying anything more than that would mean giving away secrets best reserved for the big screen.

Men isn't as well-structured or compelling as Alex Garland's other work, but still fascinating.

Where Alex Garland falters with Men is in the execution of the film’s pacing, which simply put doesn’t have the intense narrative urgency that is built into both Ex Machina and Annihilation. While it would be wrong to call it messy, it isn’t as formally structured as his previous two movies, which leads to drags in the second act when it’s not wholly clear where the story is going. It certainly satisfies with its thrilling and crazy finale, but it doesn’t ever succeed in getting its hooks into you quite the same way as the best examples of Garland’s work (which includes his screenplays for both Dredd and 28 Days Later).

Alex Garland has consistently proven himself to be among the smartest and most impressive filmmakers working today, and while Men isn’t his most compelling work to date, it’s another fascinating addition to his resume. It continues his run of showcasing the amazing artistry that can be executed in genre storytelling, and, thanks to its shocking and grotesque ending, will surely be discussed and dissected for years to come.

Men, the third directorial effort from Alex Garland, looks like a straight-up hallucinatory nightmare. Known to lean more to the sci-fi genre with Ex Machina and Annihilation, Garland appears to either be creeping more into horror in the upcoming A24 movie, or Men’s haunting trailer is keeping some of its plot elements hidden. It could be a little of both, and that madness is part of what has fans excited for the movie. The film screened this weekend and the first reactions are online, giving us a better idea of what to expect when it hits theaters May 20.

Men stars Jessie Buckley, who was nominated for an Oscar in 2022 for The Lost Daughter and has plenty of experience in the genre of creepy mind-benders after I’m Thinking of Ending Things. The plot description is purposefully vague, with Buckley playing a woman traveling by herself after her husband’s death. Pure terror ensues. 

Let’s check out the reactions to the upcoming horror movie, starting with CinemaBlend’s Eric Eisenberg. He says while it may not be his favorite of Alex Garland’s projects, Men does continue Garland’s streak of fuck-with-your-head storytelling, and there’s the promise (threat?) of “brilliant body horror”: 

Hoai-Tran Bui of SlashFilm isn’t sure how audiences are going to react (actually, he’s pretty sure they’ll hate Men), but this critic loves it, or at least thinks she does. Maybe she hasn’t fully recovered from the viewing, as multiple critics are saying this one sticks with you for a while:

Sarah Musnicky of Nightmarish Conjurings notes that Alex Garland isn't afraid to take risks in this movie, which is encouraging but not surprising when considering his past work. She also states that viewers are going to find it polarizing, and there’s that body horror again...

Even ahead of seeing the film, critics were expecting Jessie Buckley to be great. The Irish actor has been on the rise ever since 2018’s Wild Rose, earning acclaim for her work in Charlie Kaufman's aforementioned I'm Thinking Of Ending Things and the series Chernobyl and Fargo. And that was all before her Academy Award nomination for Best Actress in a Supporting Role in Maggie Gylennhall's The Lost Daughter. Film critic Katie Rife confirms that Buckley comes through, and says the imagery from Men has followed her for days:

Jessie Buckley may get top billing, but Chris Evangelista of SlashFilm says this movie belongs to Rory Kinnear. The trailer seems to show protagonist Harper (Buckley) surrounded by an entire village of men, all revealed to be played by Kinnear. It’s unsettling, to say the least, and while this critic does classify the film as horror, there’s something more elusive to Men:

Eric Walkuski of JoBlo says some viewers will love the film and some will hate it, but Walkuski doesn’t sound like he knows which side he falls on. He says it’s not what he expected, but is definitely unforgettable, if not quite satisfying:

It’s hard to know which side you’ll fall on as a viewer when the critics mostly agree that a movie is polarizing. To say Alex Garland’s latest effort sounds disturbing is probably an understatement, and it seems to promise some unforgettable performances. Whether we actually like it, though, remains to be seen. We’ll get to see what Men is all about (including the body horror!) when this A24 film hits theaters on Friday, May 20. In the meantime, check out our 2022 Movie Release Schedule so you can start planning your next trip to the theater!

When writer/director Alex Garland teases top secret concepts like his latest film Men, you know that something sinister is just waiting in the wings. A recent teaser for the Jessie Buckley-led project put us all on edge with the simple, yet threatening tone set by its content. Now a new, fuller trailer has been released, with more information on who exactly No Time To Die star Rory Kinnear is playing in this hallucinatory nightmare of sights, sounds, and purposefully unnatural CGI. Yes, you read that right; and quite frankly, there’s several reasons that I can’t wait to indulge in the total madness that this upcoming horror movie looks to be selling.

Of course, to really understand what Men is bringing to the table, you need to see the trailer. I played my enthusiasm for this fresh look from A24 close to the chest, because there’s one very specific reason this movie is labeled as “total madness.” That said, watch the trailer below, and let the craziness overtake you: 

Now that you’ve experienced the world of Men, let’s freak out about what we just saw. However, it’s a good sort of freak out, as Alex Garland’s return to cinematic oddities absolutely has me ready to dive headlong into this latest nightmare.

Men Has A Simple Premise, And It’s Full Of Rory Kinnears

Let’s address the Rory Kinnear in the room, or rather the Kinnears that are in every room. The Alex Garland style twist offered in Men is that apparently our protagonist Harper (Academy Award nominee Jessie Buckley) is surrounded by an entire village of men. In slow, deliberate fashion, everyone is revealed to be played by that face you’ve come to trust in the Daniel Craig era of James Bond movies. Only this time, that trust is way out the window, as no matter where you look, the inescapable nature of his visage really starts to sow the seeds of distrust.

Introspective, Visually Stunning Nightmares Are Alex Garland’s Canvas

Alex Garland’s big screen follow-up to his adaptation of Annihilation is as nuts as you’d expect. As Harper is dealing with the suicidal death of her husband (Paapa Essiedu,) she hopes to find peace in Men’s quiet little village. If the town full of Rory Kinnears embodying various degrees of menace wasn’t unsettling enough, the local priest seems to insinuate that Jessie Buckley’s character may have driven her husband to his death. Combining intense introspection with visuals that drive the nightmare home, that old Garland magic is back in maddeningly exciting form.

A24 Has Been On A Roll With Its Most Recent Movies

I’m a movie fan that has been a bit critical of A24 at times, but their current output is shaping up to be quite an impressive run. Already the studio has released Ti West’s deliriously fun, but surprisingly tender X, which has left me even more amped for that movie’s prequel, Pearl. On top of that, the upcoming release of Everything Everywhere All at Once looks like its own special brand of Michelle Yeoh fueled mind bending; which is also a concept I feel quite fond of. Adding Men to the catalog of delights this indie darling is looking to expose the world to just makes the pot all the sweeter in the world of this studio’s portfolio.

I Need To Know What Men’s Explanation Behind This Wild Nightmare

At the heart of any Alex Garland concept is the method to its madness. Whether it’s more overt with the twist towards the end of 28 Days Later, or a bit more abstract like Annihilation’s final act odyssey, the why is usually as intriguing as the what. That track record has made me more intent than ever to see Men, because I need to know why this sleepy village is now playing a game of “Oops, All Rory Kinnears!”

If I was going to distill everything I’ve highlighted above into one statement, I think it might read as follows: Men looks absolutely batshit. Coming from a master of such peculiarity like Alex Garland, that statement is far from an insult, but rather a declaration of excitement. I’d be glad to never lay eyes on a new ad for this film again, just so I can be thrown for as many loops as possible upon seeing it for the first time.

Naturally this won’t be a movie that I, or most other film lovers will see only once. Diving into something like Men takes time and analysis to really dig into; especially when that initial viewing is going to be the trippiest of the lot. We’ll see why Rory Kinnear is terrorizing Jessie Buckley when Men opens on May 20th, which also happens to be the day Downton Abbey: A New Era starts its US theatrical run. That’s a prime example of counter programming in the world of 2022 movie releases, though if you start seeing any stray Rorys in that film, please contact a medical professional at once.

One could argue that the Academy just doesn't like sci-fi or fantasy (or horror, for that matter, since only six horror films have ever been nominated for Best Picture), given its track record with nominations. And while I've already wondered how a comic book film like Spider-Man: No Way Home didn't get nominated for Best Picture, the science-fiction film, Dune, was nominated just this year, and the fantasy epic, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King actually won Best Picture back in 2004. So, if those films could be nominated, it just raises this question for me: how did Ex Machina not get nominated for Best Picture back at the 2015 Academy Awards?  

Because look, I get it. The Academy usually likes to play it safe by giving Best Picture Awards to musicals or war pictures. And you know the Academy loves its hard-hitting dramas (though, I've already discussed how Do the Right Thing didn't get nominated for Best Picture back in 1990). But, when a sci-fi film like Arrival is so good, or, well-received as was the case for Star Wars and Avatar, well, even the sci-fi shy Academy has to take notice. So, I beg this question again: Why the hell didn't Ex Machina get nominated for Best Picture back in 2015? It still bothers me to this day!    

Why Ex Machina Should Have Been Nominated For Best Picture  

Let me be clear. I may be a little biased when it comes to Ex Machina. Alex Garland, who wrote what I feel is my favorite comic book movie of all time in Dredd, made his directorial debut with Ex Machina, and it hit all the right notes for me. It's bleak and depressing, but it's also staggeringly close to where we're heading as a society when it comes to A.I. technology. Not only that, but it tells its story economically with a relatively tiny cast, but HUGE ideas. In a lot of ways, it feels like the best Black Mirror episode that never aired. 

Not only that, but it's a message movie, which the Academy loves! Sure, A.I. is heading dangerously close to being so advanced that it will one day likely take our jobs, but, it also makes the point that maybe we want this to happen. Let me explain.

We sympathize with the main A.I., named Ava, played by Alicia Vikander, and we shake our heads at the playboy CEO, played by the brilliant Oscar Isaac. Not only that, but our protagonist, Caleb, played by Domhnall Gleeson, acts as our gateway into this story, meaning, he's the one whose emotions we're supposed to be following and relating to. But, get this. He falls IN LOVE with the A.I. I mean, jeez! If that's not a reflection of our current state, given our addictions to our smartphones and the internet, then I don't know what is. 

Top to bottom, Ex Machina is a masterpiece in cinema, and a film that was definitely worthy of being nominated for Best Picture back in 2015, especially when considered what it would have been up against.       

What Else Was Up For Best Picture That Year? 

Now, don't get me wrong. The nominees for Best Picture in 2015 were not bad. In fact, some of them were really good! There were eight out of a possible ten movies nominated for Best Picture in 2015 (I'll get back to that number in a sec), and those movies were: Boyhood, The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Whiplash, American Sniper, Selma, The Grand Budapest Hotel, and Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance). Out of those eight films, Boyhood and Birdman were the two front-runners, with Birdman snagging the eventual trophy, which I definitely approve of since I think Birdman is one of the best movies of the past decade. Don't hate!

2015 was actually an interesting year for me since I managed to watch every movie that was nominated. And while I loved Birdman, Boyhood, The Imitation Game, Selma, and Whiplash, I could probably do without the other three. But that's just it! I wouldn't even have to give up those three, as Ex Machina STILL could have been nominated for Best Picture, even with those three included. Because unlike this year where all 10 slots are filled up, there were still two empty slots available in 2015, and Ex Machina could have definitely filled one of them (and hell, Nightcrawler should have filled the other).

In that way, I think it's a crime that Ex Machina didn't even get considered for Best Picture when I guarantee that more people will remember that movie in 20 years than they'll remember The Theory of Everything or American Sniper. Foresight, people! Foresight!       

What Ex Machina Did Get Nominated For 

Now, it's not all bad, as not only did Ex Machina get nominated for 2 Academy Awards (Best Original Screenplay, and Best Visual Effects), but it even won the latter, which was perfectly justified since the humanoid robot STILL looks amazing to this day. So, at least it took home that trophy. 

But, it was nominated for scores of other awards as well from other institutions. The Golden Globes nominated Alicia Vikander for Best Supporting Actress, but she didn't win. That said, she did win at the Chicago Films Critics Association, where Alex Garland also nabbed the Most Promising Filmmaker Award. 

The Toronto Film Critics Association also awarded Garland for Best First Feature, and Vikander won again for Best Supporting Actress from said critics. So, it's not like Ex Machina just got completely shut out during the awards circuit, since it definitely nabbed some victories. Still, why didn't it get nominated for Best Picture? Well… 

So, Why Didn't Ex Machina Get Nominated For Best Picture? 

Well, and just hear me out, but I don't think the Academy really likes "hard" sci-fi films. What I mean is, out of the very few sci-fi movies that HAVE been nominated for Best Picture (I count 10 with E.T., Star Wars, Avatar, The Martian, Inception, Dune, District 9, Arrival, Gravity, and Her), I'd say that a majority of them are "soft" sci-fi, in that they involve sci-fi elements, like aliens or dream machines, but not so much science fiction that could be relatively conceivable in the nearby future, which is what hard sci-fi is all about. 

Of the films I mentioned, only The Martian, Her, and maybe Gravity really stand out as more "grounded" sci-fi, while the others are more concerned with spectacle than actual science. In that way, I think Ex Machina just might have been too cold of a sci-fi film (kind of like Children of Men) to be up for Best Picture, which is why, as great as it is, I think it was left out of the Best Picture race in 2015.

But what do you think? Do you love Ex Machina as much as I do? For more news on the 2022 Oscar nominations, make sure to stop by here often!   

If you're not already on the Jessie Buckley bandwagon, now is the time to get aboard. The Irish actor has been a star on the rise ever since her head-turning performance in Tom Harper's 2018 film Wild Rose, and after earning acclaim for her work in Charlie Kaufman's I'm Thinking Of Ending Things and the series Chernobyl and Fargo, this week she earned her first Academy Award nomination for her turn in Maggie Gylennhall's The Lost Daughter.

And as though that weren't enough, we now have this amazing first trailer for Alex Garland's Men, which features Jessie Buckley front and center in what looks like a mysterious and seriously scary film.

Men is the the third directorial effort from writer/director Alex Garland, who is best known for writing the screenplay for 28 Days Later and directing the films Ex Machina and Annihilation. He tends to go hard when it comes to implementing elements on science-fiction into his storytelling, which makes this new trailer interesting as there isn't any kind of sci-fi angle made explicit. Instead, it looks like a straight-up horror movie.

It's possible that whatever is causing the surreal events featured in the footage is based on futuristic ideas or advanced technologies... but that's not in the preview. Put in the position to describe what is presented, I find myself leaning toward "fantastical nightmare." Alex Garland most definitely knows what he's doing when it comes to making scary movies – the bear scene in Annihilation is one of the most terrifying cinematic moments in recent memory – and regardless of whether or not there is any sci-fi in Men I'm thrilled he is going back to the horror genre.

Details about the plot of Men are being kept under wraps, with the only description available saying that the film follows a woman who takes a vacation in the English countryside after the death of her ex-husband. Rory Kinnear, best known for his work in the Daniel Craig-led James Bond movies, co-stars, and based on the trailer I'd guess that he is playing the supposedly dead man... but admittedly that's pure speculation.

The genre-diverse studio A24, which produced Ex Machina (the best movie of 2015), is set up to distribute Men, and will be bringing it to theaters this spring. Look for it in cinemas on May 20 – and check out what else is on the way film-wise in the coming months with out 2022 Movie Release Calendar.

After becoming a huge name for playing Mary Jane Watson in the Spider-Man trilogy, Kirsten Dunst has primarily gravitated toward offbeat, independent films and that trend will continue with her next project. The actress has signed on to be in Alex Garland’s next film, the writer/director behind one of the best science fiction movies in recent memory, Ex Machina. 

Kirsten Dunst will be the lead in an upcoming movie called Civil War. No, it’s not a period piece, it’s reportedly an “action epic” set in near future America, per a press release. Along with Dunst’s casting, we know A24 is the studio behind the production. Alex Garland previously worked with A24 on Ex Machina and it became one of the early movies to not only put the studio on the map, but distinguish its particular flavor it now has a reputation for. 

As we’d expect from Alex Garland, further plot details are being hidden about Civil War, but also among the cast is Narcos’ Pablo Escobar actor Wagner Moura, Fences’ Stephen McKinley Henderson and Mare of Easttown’s Cailee Spaeny. Garland was nominated for Best Original Screenplay for Ex Machina at the Oscars and the film won for Best Achievement in Visual Effects. 

After Garland awed audiences with Ex Machina, which CinemaBlend’s Eric Eisenberg gave five out of five stars in our review, he made his second feature in 2018 with Annihilation (Eisenberg was equally a big fan). Garland has since worked on the series Devs and his upcoming film is Men, another science fiction film from A24. 

Men stars I’m Thinking Of Ending Things’ Jessie Buckley, Penny Dreadful’s Rory Kinnear and I May Destroy You’s Paapa Essiedu. The movie will be about a young woman who goes on a solo vacation to the English countryside after the death of her ex-husband. Garland consistently brings audiences thought-provoking and compelling films, so between Men and Civil War, it’ll be exciting to see how the filmmaker forwards his cinematography. 

Kirsten Dunst recently starred in The Power of the Dog, which was among the best Netflix movies of 2021. The 39-year-old actress has been showered with acclaim for her role of Rose Gordon alongside Benedict Cumberbatch, Kodi Smit-McPhee and her actual husband Jesse Plemons. She’s currently high in the running for Best Supporting Actress at the Oscars. Other notable names in the category are Ariana DeBose for West Side Story, Aunjanue Ellis for King Richard, Caitriona Balfe for Belfast and Ruth Negga for Passing. 

Even with an Academy Award nomination under her belt (which is quite likely), it could add more eyes to a project like Civil War. And we’re generally intrigued by the actress’ career moves after pulling off some incredible performances as of late. While we wait for Civil War, check out what 2022 movies are coming next.  

Before delivering sci-fi hits like Ex Machina and Annihilation, Alex Garland was arguably best known for writing and executive producing Dredd, the second cinematic adaptation of the 2000 AD comic book property following the critically underwhelming, Sylvester Stallone-led Judge Dredd in 1995. We learned later from star Karl Urban that Garland also handled directing the movie, but on the slim chance that Dredd 2 were to move forward, Garland doesn’t want any part in tackling it. As he put it:

Sorry to disappoint you folks who are still itching for Dredd 2 and were hoping that Alex Garland would work on it, but it sounds like his experience on the first movie was anything but enjoyable. While speaking with ScreenGeek about his upcoming miniseries Devs, while he still likes Judge Dredd the character, he’s not keen to jump back into that world, so a different creative mind would need to work on the sequel.

It’s been seven years since Dredd was released, and although it was a critical success overall, it failed to perform well commercially, making only $41.5 million worldwide off a budget in the $30-$45 million range, which Karl Urban attributes to a failure in marketing. Nevertheless, there continues to be talk about making Dredd 2 happen, be it as another theatrical release or as a streaming service series.

The latter seems to be the likelier option at the point, though there haven’t been any major updates on that front recently, and even if there were, scheduling would be complicated given that is busy with Amazon’s The Boys. Still, a follow-up project hasn’t been outright shelved, so we’ll just have to keep waiting to see if someone else can get it going.

Regarding Dredd itself, which also starred Olivia Thirlby, Lena Headey and Wood Harris, it was reported almost a year before its release that Alex Garland took over the editing process from original director Pete Travis, who was barred from that step of production due to creative differences. Karl Urban later revealed that it was Garland who “actually directed” Dredd, not Travis.

All of Alex Garland’s contributions were enough to warrant discussion about giving him a co-director credit, but in the end, Pete Travis was credited as the sole director. When recollecting on the behind-the-scenes Dredd drama, it’s no wonder Garland wouldn’t want to risk repeating that on a sequel.

Feelings about Dredd aside, Alex Garland has continued putting his mind to work on sci-fi projects, with Ex Machina and Annihilation both receiving numerous positive reviews and accolades. He also wrote a script for the Halo film adaptation way back when, although that project has since transitioned into a TV show on Showtime.

Stay tuned to CinemaBlend for any significant updates concerning Dredd 2. In the meantime, Devs is scheduled to premiere on FX in spring 2020, and check out our 2019 release schedule to plan your trips to the theater for the rest of the year accordingly.

SPOILER WARNING: The following article contains massive spoilers for Annihilation. If you have not yet seen the film, and don't wish to know any important details about the end, please bookmark this page and save it until after your screening!

While writer/director Alex Garland is best known for his contributions behind the camera, it may surprise fans to learn how he directly contributed to the most terrifying scene in his latest film, Annihilation. During production, Garland took it upon himself to operate the creature in the mutant bear sequence, and he did what he could to try and shock his actresses while slowly crawling around the small house. As seen on screen, this was very effective, but the filmmaker recently told me that it was actually Tessa Thompson who really scared him during the shoot, basically because she is just a crazy talented actor:

I first learned about Alex Garland operating the mutant bear from Tessa Thompson when I spoke to her earlier this year during Annihilation's pre-release Los Angeles press day, and I followed up with the writer/director about it when I spoke with him on the phone late last week. I brought up the sequence and mentioned to him that Thompson had sincerely complemented his work with the bear, when he countered with a compliment of his own. It turns out she is such a talented individual that she fully convinced Garland she was legitimately terrified of being eaten by a horrific creature. And to his credit, that's how you feel watching her in the scene as well.

Thankfully it sounds like Alex Garland didn't call, "Cut" mid-take, which allowed him to capture the full power of the scene. Of course, one big question still remains: why exactly was it that Alex Garland wound up operating the mutant bear in the first place? Thankfully, the filmmaker was very forthright in explaining. I asked him how he wound up with that gig, and he noted that it was really a matter of convenience, detailing the work that went into making that Annihilation scene as powerful as possible. Said Garland,

Fans can now relive this terrifying sequence over and over again, with Annihilation now available on home video. The film has been released not only on DigitalHD, but as of Tuesday is now available on Blu-ray and DVD. Be sure to pick up a copy, and stay tuned for more about the amazing film here on CinemaBlend!

Although 1995's Judge Dredd was the first movie to feature the 2000 AD character, the Sylvester Stallone-fronted movie was met with mostly negative reviews. Fortunately, the Dredd reboot came along 17 years later, and the general consensus was that it did a better job adapting the source material. Annihilation's Alex Garland wrote the script, and while it's public knowledge that he also helped out during the post-production process, according to Judge Dredd himself, Karl Urban, Garland is also the man who actually directed the movie. As Urban put it:

Here's some backstory for those unfamiliar with Dredd's production. Pete Travis, who previously helmed 2008's Vantage Point, is officially credited as Dredd's director, but when the reboot was in the editing stage, Travis was reportedly "prohibited" from participating in the creative process due to creative disagreement with higher-ups. Alex Garland, who was also an executive producer on Dredd, subsequently took over with editing, but now Karl Urban claims that it was actually Garland all along who handled the directing. In fact, as he said later in his interview with JoBlo, people should consider Dredd to be Garland's directorial debut, not 2015's Ex Machina. In the actor's words:

Alex Garland's contributions to Dredd's editing were reportedly significant enough that there was consideration into giving him a co-director's credit, but a few days after this news went public, Garland and Pete Travis issued a joint statement saying that while there was an "unorthodox collaboration" between the two of them, Travis was still involved and Garland wasn't interested in being labeled as a co-director. But now, from what Urban has said, it sounds like Garland was more than deserving of such a credit. This wouldn't be the first time that an actor had claimed that someone else is responsible for a movie's success. As an example, last year Val Kilmer stated that it was Kurt Russell who was the one who made Tombstone work so well.

There are still no plans to release Dredd 2, but a TV show called Judge Dredd: Mega-City One is currently in development, and it's possible Karl Urban will reprise Judge Dredd for that series. As for Alex Garland, his latest movie, Annihilation, is still playing in theaters. Stay tuned to CinemaBlend for news on what he's working on next, and check out our 2018 release schedule to see what's heading to theaters this year.

Warning! The following contains MAJOR SPOILERS for Annihilation, as well as touching on Jeff VanderMeer's Southern Reach Trilogy. If you haven't yet explored the mysteries of The Shimmer, come back once you've seen it.

Annihilation just arrived in theaters and we are still processing the weirdness, horror and beauty of Alex Garland's mind-bending film. It's not often that you get science fiction that challenges the viewer like this, and we're naturally curious to see more of The Shimmer on screen. But how exactly this world could continue is up in the air. For those unaware, Annihilation is based on a novel of the same name by author Jeff VanderMeer and it is the first part of his Southern Reach Trilogy. The entire trilogy was acquired by Paramount, but director Alex Garland has previously stated that he would not be helming any potential sequel. But that doesn't mean that the story can't continue.

Like Inception, Blade Runner and many of the genre's most memorable classics, Annihilation provides no easy answers, leaving the viewer with an unnerving and ambiguous ending. Of all the many differences between Jeff VanderMeer's novel and Alex Garland's film, the ending is one of the big ones. In the novel, Lena sets off from The Lighthouse towards an island off the coast, in search of her husband, but Area X and the veil of eco-horror enveloping it remains. In the film, Lena (Natalie Portman) faces her duplicate and defeats it, destroying The Lighthouse and the source of The Shimmer in the process. Lena returns to the Southern Reach and something that is not her husband but some part of The Shimmer remains inside of her. This ending leaves a far less obvious path forward than the novel but it still opens up some compelling possibilities.

So let's take a look at the ways an Annihilation sequel could continue to diverge from the books and forge a new path.

Break from the Books

There are several reasons why the books do not provide a good template for any continuation of the Annihilation franchise. Upfront, it is worth noting that the second and third books aren't nearly as beloved as the spectacular first one, and they diverge drastically from the atmospheric, waking nightmare of Annihilation. The second novel, Authority, focuses on the political maneuvering of those at the Southern Reach organization. The third novel, Acceptance, returns to Area X during the winter but focuses more on revealing the past of the area. These approaches would not work for a sequel film because of how Alex Garland's film has already diverged from the source material. The Southern Reach organization was not portrayed to be nearly as clandestine or manipulative in the film, and watching office politics as a follow-up to a surreal eco-horror film doesn't feel like the right way to go. There is also the fact that The Shimmer's hold over the area was seemingly lifted at the end of the film, rendering future expeditions or investigations of this area rather moot.

Despite the divergence from Jeff VanderMeer's novel, the film actually opens up new and interesting possibilities for a sequel that can take the Annihilation franchise in some unexpected directions.

The Shimmer Becomes A Pandemic

Although The Shimmer was expanding, it was still relatively contained, with the Southern Reach government organization keeping Area X and its horrors secret from the public. But now, with The Shimmer and the threat it poses seemingly extinguished, the government may see no more cause for concern. Yet, as the end of the film alluded to, although The Lighthouse is ash and the veil of The Shimmer is lifted, its influence persists. Lena (Natalie Portman) may have defeated her duplicate, but she is changed, having become both more and less than she was when she went into The Shimmer.

Now, her and Faux-Kane can set out into the world, like plague ships being welcomed into an unsuspecting harbor, carrying The Shimmer with them. This approach could allow for an Annihilation sequel to act as a pandemic story. Perhaps Lena returns to Johns Hopkins and spreads this nightmare. Those Lena comes into contact with could begin to have their DNA refracted, duplicated and infused with the DNA of things around them. This approach could create a really compelling pandemic and body horror story that evolves Annihilation into something different, something new.

Do an 'Invasion Of The Body Snatchers' story

Following Lena and Faux-Kane opens up a bunch of possibilities. But instead of taking the pandemic approach, an Annihilation sequel could explore how these two characters are not entirely human, if at all. While that could be used to examine what it means to be human, there are plenty of A.I. stories out there and that ground is well trodden. Instead this could be a body snatchers or Skrulls type situation where no one can trust their neighbors or those around them, fearing they might be not quite human.

In the novels, Kane isn't the first person sent into The Shimmer to return. If the Southern Reach was disingenuous with Lena or if they were simply unaware, The Shimmer could have sent more duplicates out into the world, either by nature or design. This would create a really fun and paranoid film, with Natalie Portman's Lena straddling the balance between what she was and what she is, perhaps growing to appreciate The Shimmer inside her.

The Lighthouse Was Just The Beginning

Part of what was so compelling about Annihilation is that you didn't necessarily get the sense that The Shimmer was a malevolent entity or force. It was simply acting in accordance with its nature. Unlike the novel, the film confirmed that this phenomenon was extra-terrestrial in origin. There is a concept in Astrobiology called Panspermia that hypothesizes that life on Earth may have originated elsewhere in the universe, brought to our planet via meteors carrying microbes and biological material. According to Slashfilm, an earlier version of the script ended with meteors like the one that hit The Lighthouse raining from the sky, presumably carrying with them more of The Shimmer and other horrors not of this world. This scrapped ending could still kick off a sequel film. With new Shimmers cropping up all over the world. There could be new expeditions to destroy the landing sites of each of these anomalies. Visually this would also provide a cool opportunity to see The Shimmer's surreal effects in different environments.

A variation of the Panspermia hypothesis is Directed Panspermia, in which the seeds of life were sent here by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. So instead of assuming that Earth is just in the unfortunate path of a particularly germ-ridden set of space rocks, this could actually be a deliberate attempt by aliens to invade the Earth, by using biological weapons to return the planet to its Edenic state. This would require the scale of a sequel to be much bigger than the original but science fiction films have a proud history of taking small horror films like Alien and Terminator and vastly expanding the scope and mythology in the sequel.

The possibility of a sequel is likely dependent on many things, and sadly, Annihilation hasn't exactly set the box office on fire. But with an international distribution deal through Netflix, anything is possible. So what do you think? Would you like to see more of Annihilation? And if so, where would you like the franchise to take things? Let us know what you think and for all the latest in sci-fi you need a shower after, stay tuned to CinemaBlend.

Warning! Spoilers to follow for Annihilation. Come back later if you haven't seen it yet.

With hints of Kubrick and Tarkovsky, Alex Garland's Annihilation is a serious mind-trip of a movie. It has a high concept plot -- a group of scientists enter a mysterious zone to discover the origins of a strange phenomenon -- but by the end of the story it successfully bends your brain into a pretzel. In a purposeful way, it's a movie that is meant to inspire debate about its meanings and themes, but as I recently learned from the writer/director, audiences will get a lot more out of the movie on a second viewing:

This was just one example that Alex Garland tossed out when I had the chance to speak with him and Annihilation star Oscar Isaac earlier this month during the film's Los Angeles press day. I asked the two men if the movie was specifically designed so that audiences will get new readings in repeat viewings, and Garland said that that is absolutely the case -- adding that there are things that movie-goers won't notice until the second go-round.

After discussing the conversation between Lena (Natalie Portman) and Daniel (David Gyasi) at Johns Hopkins at the start of the film, Alex Garland namedropped two more little mind-blowers that you may not have seen in Annihilation this past weekend:

Having now seen Annihilation a second time personally, I can confirm that these are two very cool details. For starters, the tattoo that Oscar Isaac's Kane has on his chest is a bear (y'know, the creature in the movie that screams like a human and winds up tearing Anya's face off). Also, the house that they discover at the end of the second act -- the one with all of the flower people -- has an interior that looks exactly like Lena's house.

Oscar Isaac also offered his thoughts on the question, comparing the movie to his previous collaboration with Alex Garland: 2015's Ex Machina. He pointed out that not only are there little plot threads and Easter eggs in the film, but that there are certain character moments that have a different kind of emotional resonance when you understand the larger context in which the movie puts them. Said Isaac,

As a person who absolutely loved Annihilation, I was excited to return to the film after getting this recommendation from Alex Garland and Oscar Isaac, and I did not leave disappointed. The movie is a truly fascinating piece of work, and I'd highly recommend returning to it when given the opportunity.

Annihilation is now in theaters everywhere in the United States, and will be hitting Netflix in a few weeks internationally.

Warning! Spoilers to follow for Annihilation. Come back later if you haven't seen it yet.

It may only be late February, but it's fairly easy to predict that by the end of 2018 will still be calling Alex Garland's Annihilation one of the headiest films of the year. The movie truly pulls no punches when it comes to science-fiction weirdness, coming together with a very 2001-esque finale, and it's guaranteed that audiences will spend years watching it and scratching their heads regarding certain confusing elements. Fortunately, for those of you who don't quite get it, we're here to help.

In this feature, we've collected five major questions that you may be asking after seeing Annihilation, and provide answers that we think should help explain exactly what it is that goes down inside the walls of The Shimmer. Read on, and be sure to leave your own thoughts and interpretations in the comments section below!

What happened to Kane?

The mystery of what happened to Kane (Oscar Isaac) behind the walls of The Shimmer is really what drives the entire plot of Annihilation, given that it's the information that Lena (Natalie Portman) is on the hunt for almost the full film. Unfortunately, it's not a question with a super happy answer. For starters, the thing that looks like Kane that arrives home at the start of the movie definitely isn't Kane -- it's a duplicate created by The Shimmer -- and the reality is that the real guy actually met a very violent end.

Like the team that is prominently featured in the film, Kane and his men were sent by Dr. Ventress (Jennifer Jason Leigh) to go to The Lighthouse and discover the cause of The Shimmer -- but also like the team that is prominently featured in the film, the mission doesn't go super well. The cell-altering effects of the alien presence doesn't sit too well with the soldiers/scientists, and as evidenced in videotapes they wind up kind of losing it as their bodies change in excessively strange ways. Kane is the only member who winds up actually making it to the end, but as seen on the camcorder in The Lighthouse he doesn't complete his mission. Instead, his confrontation with his duplicate instead forces him to lose all sense of self, and he commits suicide with a phosphorous grenade.

Was The Shimmer here to hurt us?

The question about what happened to Kane is what drives Lena through the story, but what Lomax (Benedict Wong) is after is any kind of explanation for the nature of The Shimmer. Clearly the cause of the strange effect was extraterrestrial, but what was its motivation? Was it on Earth to take over the entire planet and terraform it for a new species of alien?

Alex Garland clearly leaves the end of Annihilation open for interpretation where this question is concerned -- but based on the evidence suggested it seems that The Shimmer is not a malicious force. Instead, it was an alien nature that hitched a ride on a meteor, and just happened to land on Earth. It's true that it "annihilates" anything in its path, as anything within The Shimmer immediately finds its cellular structure completely re-written and mutated, but it's not destructive. Rather than meaning to destroy anything that it comes across, it is instead more about changing things -- as though reflecting the environment through a prism. It's possible that this isn't true, and that The Shimmer was part of some larger extraterrestrial plot to take over Earth, but this is certainly the conclusion that Lena seems to draw from her experiences at the end of the film.

Is The Shimmer gone?

Annihilation is a movie based on a book that is the first in a trilogy-- but based on what's presented in the adaptation, it's not really built to become a big screen franchise. This is because the most mysterious element of the story seems to go away before the credits roll. During her experience in The Lighthouse, Lena is able to convince her duplicate to let a phosphorous grenade go off in its hand, but it winds up doing a lot more than just killing the duplicate. Instead, the blast sets the duplicate on fire, and by going back into the core of The Shimmer the duplicate winds up seemingly burning the entire alien environment to the ground.

But is The Shimmer really gone? Evidence points to the answer being yes. Not only do we see a good amount of its destruction through Lena's eyes, as she watches The Lighthouse and various crystalline structures burn and disappear, but it's further confirmed by Lomax during the interrogation at the end of the movie (he mentions sending in a team to The Lighthouse but discovering that the whole thing is reduced to ash). From what's suggested, The Shimmer as an entity/environment is destroyed before the end of the film -- but that shouldn't be interpreted to mean that all evidence of it is gone...

What's going on with Lena's eyes at the end?

As mentioned earlier, Kane isn't really Kane when he gets back from The Shimmer. The real Kane kills himself, and lets his duplicate take his place in the real world. This is not the case for Lena, who is able to successfully destroy The Shimmer and make her way back to Area X -- but as seen in the final shot of the movie, the experience hasn't been totally left behind. Instead, while The Shimmer may be gone, it seems that the alterations that it made to Lena on a cellular level when she entered the alien environment don't just go away.

Explained by Josie Radek (Tessa Thompson) in Annihilation's third act, the alien nature manipulates the cells of anyone who comes in contact with it, and it seems that those effects are rather permanent. While they can only be seen through a microscope, it seems that Lena's cells are still mutating at the end of the film, evidenced by The Shimmer that remains in her eyes. So what is the effect? Does she simply have swirling fingerprints, or are her guts swirling around inside her body as seen earlier in the story? Those details are left to the viewers imagination, and given Alex Garland's resistance to sequel talk, we'll probably never get a full answer to the question.

What's going on with the tattoos?

Annihilation is a film that was purposely built to be watched multiple times, and one thing you may notice on your second or third viewing is that there is something funky going on with characters' tattoos. Specifically, there is an ouroboros design (snake eating its own tail) that seems to do a bit of rotation. We first see it on the forearm of the soldier whose guts Kane cuts open in the videotape; then it can be seen Anya Thorensen (Gina Rodriguez); and finally it finds a home on Lena. But what exactly does it mean?

For starters, the ouroboros is a wonderful symbol of one of Annihilation's most prominent themes -- the infinitely self-destructive nature of humanity -- but more to the point it's a reflection of the effect of The Shimmer. Within the walls of the alien environment, all cells are not only linked, but are in constant mutation with one another. Everything is constantly mingling. It's why tattoos can move from person to person, and it also explains the "malignancy" that Lena finds on a wall (presumably an extension of Dr. Ventress' cancer). Basically, it's a nice little touch that Alex Garland throws in to demonstrate the effects of The Shimmer that also has a nice bit of symbolism.

Before Alex Garland made the transition to film directing, he was a writer. One of his earliest efforts was the novel that became the basis of the Leonardo DiCaprio movie The Beach. After writing a couple books, Garland moved on to writing movies before directing them, such as his most recent film Annihilation. Recently, Garland was asked if he might ever consider taking a shot at adapting The Beach himself, the writer/director's response was nebulous but interesting. In Garland's words...

Alex Garland revealed the news that somebody is apparently working on another adaptation of The Beach, but he doesn't reveal anything beyond the fact that he finds them to be talented. So, is somebody else working on a script or he is working a script? With the fact that this project has never been officially announced, Garland would need to be cagey about any response that he gave, the studio wouldn't like it if he spilled the beans about the project before they were ready. Also, Garland calls it a "possible" adaptation, which means it like;y hasn't been given the green light, all the more reason he can't say anything.

With Alex Garland now committed to moviemaking fulltime, something else he confirms during the same Reddit AMA where he revealed The Beach news, it would make all the sense that if a studio was interested in remaking The Beach, it would call Alex Garland. Why would you call anybody else? There's really no argument to be made that Garland isn't talented, though he could be making a bit of a joke by pointing that out himself. Fans of the novel would probably like to see the writer of the book tackle it on the big screen.

Of course, if we take Alex Garland at his word, it could be that somebody else, who Garland legitimately believes is a talented writer, is currently working on the script, as the writer of the novel, Garland would be in the loop anyway, as the studio likely needed to work with him on the rights. The next best thing to a Garland written adaptation would be a Garland endorsed adaptation. It's barely possible that Garland could even be referring to the television adaptation that was reported several years ago, but that project is so old it's impossible to know if it's still active.

The original The Beach screenplay was written by John Hodge who wrote the screenplay for Trainspotting and it was directed by Danny Boyle who also directed Garland's own 28 Days Later. It wasn't well loved by critics, though the fact that it starred a post-Titanic DiCaprio made it a financial success.

One way or another, something related to The Beach is currently in development. We'll have to wait and see what it is.

Adapting any successful story from another medium to film is always a tricky proposition. Finding the balance between being faithful to a fault versus being the same story 'in name only' is quite the tightrope to walk. Adapting Jeff VanderMeer's Annihilation to the big screen is something else entirely. The acclaimed novel is surreal and nightmarish and borderline un-filmable. But director Alex Garland was able to take a story that pushes the bounds of imagination and make it work in the film medium. For author Jeff VanderMeer, much of the film's success has to do with the way it maintains the tone and spirit of the book, as he affirmed:

Annihilation is such an interesting case of adaptation because the film is wildly different from the book, but it still feels like Jeff VanderMeer's novel. Part of this has to do with the aesthetics of the film. The visuals of Annihilation manage to evoke the dreamlike, intangible quality of Area X in order to give the viewer that same unsettling feeling that haunted readers throughout the novel. As the author mentioned to Syfy Wire, the book and the movie share DNA (an extremely apt analogy) and this is the same story, just told differently. It also works like the author says, to just think of the film as a separate expedition into Area X with a different team and different outcomes from the one in the book.

Indeed, the book and the film do not spoil one another either, at least not in the traditional sense. There are points of commonality, but also huge differences between the narrative of the two. In fact, I would be very curious to see how those who like the film would react to reading the book for the first time. The two are such different yet similar experiences, like a reflection distorted in restless pond. I imagine there may be many who prefer one to the other and not necessarily the one they experienced first.

Warning! Spoilers to follow for Annihilation and Jeff VanderMeer's novel of the same name.

It is always interesting to see how authors react to their work being adapted by someone else into another medium. The written word is only limited by the author's imagination, while film is bound by the constraints of budget and the power of technology. Inevitably, this adaptation process often forces changes and omissions from the original work. Not everything that came across well on the page succeeds on screen and sometimes; precious elements have to be cut. For Jeff VanderMeer, there was one thing he really wanted the film to include that wasn't meant to be, as he recalled:

It is kind of funny that Jeff VanderMeer is so fearful of wild boars that, like Batman, he wanted others to share his dread by including a boar in Annihilation. The only confirmed boar in the novel is in the beginning of the book, when the expedition is making its way to base camp after crossing the border into Area X. A wild boar charges the group before turning away. There is also a point where the biologist (Lena in the film) is walking through the marshes and she is chased by a moaning creature that might have been a boar, although she never fully sees it. This moaning creature gave off an eerily human sound. So clearly Alex Garland took some of these disparate elements and came up with the bear-like creature in the film. The bear moaned in horrific fashion and cried out with the voices of its victims as it terrorized the expedition and thinned its ranks. The beast had qualities of a bear and a boar and moaned like the creature in the book, while also providing a visual terror not present in the novel.

I thought adapting Annihilation into a feature film was a seemingly impossible task, but Alex Garland managed to take a story, not well suited to the screen and make it work while still maintaining the spirit, tone and nightmarish qualities that made the book so memorable. Annihilation is in theaters now. After you've seen it come back and let us know what you think, and maybe give the book a try. This film is just one of many exciting science fiction films hitting theaters this year, check out the rest in our guide.

Warning! Spoilers to follow for Annihilation. Come back later if you haven't seen it yet.

Writer/director Alex Garland has long been one of the most fascinating sci-fi storytellers in the film industry. He was brought into the medium when Danny Boyle adapted his first novel, The Beach, back in 2000, but he has since left an indelible mark with scripts for movies like 28 Days Later, Sunshine, Never Let Me Go, and Dredd. In 2013 he made his fascinating directorial debut with Ex Machina, showcasing an ending that still has us talking today, but now he has stirred up a whole new conversation among cinefiles with his sophomore effort, Annihilation.

The new film is an adaptation of the novel of the same name by author Jeff VanderMeer -- but Alex Garland has notably taken some liberties with the source material, particularly with the end of the story. There are many things that go down in the third act of Annihilation that are not only very different than the book, but have the effect of changing how you see the events in the first two acts. So what is The Shimmer? What is the ultimate fate of Lena and Kane? That's exactly what we're here to break down today.

What Happens At The End Of The Film

The beginning of the end starts at The Lighthouse. After a long journey through The Shimmer, Lena (Natalie Portman) is the only remaining member of her team, and goes into the ground zero location by herself. Upon entering, she sees a charred body propped up against a wall, and a video camera pointing directly at it. Hitting play on the recording, she watches what she eventually learns are the final moments in the life of her husband, Kane (Oscar Isaac). After a few shots of the area surrounding The Lighthouse, the video has the Army sergeant talking about losing his sense of self in The Shimmer, and telling a figure off-camera to find Lena. He then pulls the pin on a phosphorous grenade and kills himself -- leading the off-camera figure to reveal itself as Kane's duplicate.

At this moment, Lena realizes that her husband never actually ever came back from his mission -- but she is determined to complete her own. She finds the hole that was created by the crashing meteor that brought The Shimmer, and follows it down into the ground. It's in a cavern that she finds Dr. Ventress (Jennifer Jason Leigh) sitting and muttering to herself. When the team leader notices Lena's presence, she asks about the last thing they discussed: needing to know what it was that was inside The Lighthouse. Like Kane, Ventress has lost herself within The Shimmer, recognizing the deterioration her body and mind, and dubs the spread of the extraterrestrial force, "Annihilation." Before Lena's eyes Ventress' form comes apart, and we see the energy that remains absorb blood from a cut on the protagonist's face. With this DNA a new form is created, featureless and reflective. Scared, Lena fires her gun into the creature, but it appears to have no effect.

Lena crawls back up to The Lighthouse, but is shocked to find the alien already there waiting. She attempts to escape, but finds that her efforts are thwarted by the being mirroring her every move. When she begins to understand the pattern, it begins to morph into her duplicate, but it's a process that is interrupted. Lena gives the entity one of the remaining phosphorous grenades, and it explodes after she leaves -- leading the duplicate to set fire to the core of The Shimmer and destroy it.

Back in the present, Lomax (Benedict Wong) wraps up his interrogation with Lena, trying to grasp the details of what happened in The Lighthouse. Lena can't speak to what the extraterrestrial force wanted, but notes that it wasn't destroying anything; it was creating something new. She is told not only that The Shimmer is gone, but that Kane has stabilized and that she can see him.

Lena goes to Kane's room in quarantine, but she approaches him like a stranger. "You aren't Kane, are you?" she asks. "I don't think so," he replies. "Are you Lena?" Without answering, Lena embraces the duplicate of her husband, and we see in his eyes that the Shimmer has not entirely gone away -- still left floating in his irises. He is not alone, however, as it's revealed that the Shimmer is still present in Lena's eyes as well.

So what does this all mean? What exactly happened? Let's dive in...

What Was The Shimmer?

As clearly stated by Benedict Wong's Lomax, the cause of the event known as The Shimmer was extraterrestrial. It landed with a meteor that crashed to Earth at The Lighthouse, and slowly began to alter the environment around it at a cellular level. That said, the movie also never assigns a specific intention to its presence, and because it can't exactly articulate, the goals are never made explicit.

This is not vague-ness for the sake of vague-ness, however. There is no clear mission to interpret from The Shimmer because there is no clear mission. Annihilation isn't the story of a destructive alien invasion, but rather the introduction of an entirely new nature that takes what exists, refracts it, and changes it. And while annihilation of the old is necessary in the forging of the new, it itself is an altered reflection of humanity's own self-destructive nature.

The entire film is a meditation on our existence, and it starts laying down its heaviest themes early -- beginning with the classroom lecture about the ever-splitting cell, and continuing into the bedroom flashback with the discussion of the fallibility of god. Our cells are constantly dividing and refreshing, and yet we age and die, which Lena posits isn't logical. Going further, the movie argues this flaw extends to a natural impulse in our humanity -- specifically an impulse that drives us to self-destruction.

In terms of illustrating this in the characters, Alex Garland is far from subtle in this arena, with Tuva Novotny's Cass Sheppard laying out most of it during the boat ride through the swamp, and the rest coming out naturally in the story. Cass lost her daughter and sense of self; Gina Rodriguez's Anya Thorensen is an addict; Tessa Thompson's Josie Radek cuts herself; Jennifer Jason Leigh's Dr. Ventress needs answers before cancer kills her; and Lena is an adulterer. These are flaws and tendencies not only carried into The Shimmer by the women, but what brings them there in the first place.

As Josie points out in the second act, though, none of them are the same after they cross the pearlescent walls of The Shimmer, now always in constant mutation with the environment around them. We ultimately see this manifest in multiple ways in the area, like tattoos shifting between characters and the "malignancy" on the wall, but the most significant and fascinating are the concepts of life and death (The ouroboros that appears on Lena's forearm halfway through the movie isn't just a cool design). Within The Shimmer, it's presented that there is harmoniousness between the two states -- beautifully represented in the duplicated deer with flowered antlers that Lena spots while searching for Cass' body -- but also clear extremes. On one end of the spectrum there is the horror of the decomposing-yet-living bear, practically the embodiment of violent slaughter that even absorbs Cass' sheer terror as it is ripping her throat out. On the opposite end there is Josie, who chooses not to fight or resist the nature of the environment. Relieving herself of her self-destructive impulses literally leads beautiful flowers to erupt from her scars. There is no alien insidiousness or aggression -- everything is simply a refraction of what already exists.

This is all perceptible within the events at The Lighthouse as well, and furthermore it's part of Lena's account during her interrogation. After the "annihilation" of Dr. Ventress, the core of The Shimmer creates a duplicate of Lena from her own DNA -- but it's an echo that doesn't do anything more than imitate every move that she makes. Because Lena attacks the duplicate, the duplicate attacks her, which is not only another perfectly literal illustration of self-destruction, but serves to illustrate the nature of the alien as part of the environment around it. She makes a different choice than Kane, using the phosphorous grenade to burn the duplicate and by extension the entire Shimmer... but not every remnant of the incident is turned to ash.

Who Are Lena And Kane Now?

Before their individual experiences in The Shimmer, Lena and Kane were a mostly happy couple, first meeting in the military and living a good life together. Lena having an affair with her colleague (David Gyasi) caused them to start drifting apart, and drove Kane to take the mysterious assignment at Area X. Because of these events, they were already well on the road towards changing as a couple and individuals, but the end of Annihilation they go through much more than just emotional growth.

For starters, Kane -- the man that Lena fell in love with and married -- dies. As seen on the video camera left inside The Lighthouse, he lost his sense of self, and committed suicide my detonating a phosphorous grenade in his lap. As part of this, it's revealed that the post-Shimmer Kane we first met in Lena's house at the start of the film isn't actually Kane, but instead his duplicate. Based on what we see, it appears that he initially struggles to adapt to the world outside the alien environment, but following Lena's return and the destruction of The Shimmer is able to stabilize and function properly.

A different case entirely is Lena, who is still herself, and not the duplicate that was created in The Lighthouse. That said, the final shot of Annihilation clearly shows that she has not left the experience behind. While The Shimmer has disappeared and all traces appear to be gone, Lena's cellular modification has continued, as seen within her eyes. The implications of this are left to be interpreted (Alex Garland has said he has no interest in making a sequel), but it's pretty easy to guess that her life with Kane won't just continue on as though the whole ordeal didn't happen. It's hard to determine the full effect of her transformation, but one might imagine that she spends the rest of her life with swirling fingerprints and maybe even squirming guts.

Annihilation is a film that was specifically designed to stir conversation and debate within its audiences, and surely there will be those with thoughts different than mine. Hit the comments section below to leave your own perspective on the film, and tell us what you think about the existence of The Shimmer and the ultimate fate of Lena and Kane.