"28 Years Later" + "F1" - *Spoiler Free* Dual Review
Torn out spinal columns amidst mother-son bonding on one side, and an aging legend absolutely mailing it in while having the time of his life on the other.
2025 is outpacing 2024 at the box office, and we’re only halfway through. Sure, there’ve been some headline-grabbing flops (I see you Disney and Marvel, and it pains me to say Tom Cruise may have finally found a mission he couldn’t complete), but Q2 has found success. Minecraft defied expectations. Sinners struck a nerve. Lilo & Stitch and How to Train Your Dragon both brought multiple generations to theaters. May I add a quick slow clap for the success of Final Destination Bloodlines.
Summer, as always, is the main event for film industry: the four-month blockbuster Olympics where studios go all in on IP, sequels, stunts, and spectacle. While the start has been a bit mixed in terms of both business and quality, June and July are always circled on the calendar as the big money-makers. For me, June especially had two of my most anticipated titles of the season, probably even the year: 28 Years Later and F1.
Did they both deliver? I’d say…mostly yes, with asterisks. One gave me something totally unexpected, but not always in a good way. The other delivered exactly what it said on the box: a very good-looking, technically masterful, very cheesy, crowd-pleasing spectacle that never pretended to be more than that.
28 Years Later
I think the first time I saw 28 Days Later, I was 14 at a summer pre-med program for high school kids at Georgetown University. And it…was…awesome.
It was very scary. It was smart. It was punk rock. It was grainy, urgent, and weirdly beautiful. It delivered a gut punch about how fragile civilization really is, all without ever stopping to let you breathe. Danny Boyle directed it like a man possessed, and Alex Garland’s script was sharp. Quite the pair of sickos. It was the perfect horror film for an underaged kid like me who was supposed to be studying anatomy.
Then came 28 Weeks Later in 2007, which was…well, fun. Loud, chaotic, eye-gouge-y (IYKYK). But with Boyle and Garland sitting that one out, it traded dread for spectacle. Less innovation, more mayhem. And that was fine! It just wasn’t the same. So when it was announced that 28 Years Later would bring the original band back together with Boyle in the director’s chair and Garland at the keyboard, and a perfect trailer was released, I was in immediately.
The final product is kind of two movies in one, nestled between a prologue and epilogue that both tee up yet another sequel coming first thing next year (Garland’s back for that one, but no Boyle…sigh). Both halves center on a fractured family, especially the relationship between a child and each parent.
Despite some breathtaking shots, a killer ensemble, and a few satisfyingly vicious moments, the film leans maybe too heavily into the emotional storylines. And look, I’m not anti-feelings. I’m usually never asking for two hours of nonstop carnage, especially from a guy like Boyle. But, when a franchise is built on existential dread and societal collapse, I need a few more instances of being truly terrified.
There’s still a lot to admire. The tension is there in flashes. The cast is stacked. The sound design rattles. Scenes clearly designed to pull at your heartstrings are, without question, effective. But for every moment that works, there’s another that feels either too repetitive or oddly muted.
I’ll admit, some of this might be my fault. I went in wanting 28 Days Later 2, and instead got something more meditative and grown up. There’s real value in that. However, I’d be lying if I said it didn’t leave me wishing it had just a bit more rage in its veins (laughable comment once you see the level of violence this movie offers). This franchise, at its best, doesn’t need to pick between brains, brutality and fear. It can, and should, do it all.
RECROOM Rating: 7.0 / 10
F1
May 27, 2022. Top Gun: Maverick hits theaters. The sky splits open, audiences cheer, Tom Cruise soars, and director Joseph Kosinski officially breathes rarefied air. Everyone went to see it. Well, everyone except the handful of self-declared cinephile martyrs who decided it was too basic for them. Bold stance. Comical, even.
February 13, 2023. Steven Spielberg pulls Cruise aside at an Oscars luncheon and basically says, “Hey, thanks for saving movie theaters.” Was it dramatic? Sure. Was it wrong? Not really.
And now, Kosinski is back. He looked at Maverick, looked at a globe, spun it, and said, “Let’s just do that again, but all around the world and with cars.” Instead of jets, we’ve got Formula 1. Instead of a death-defying, eternally sprinting Tom Cruise, we’ve got Brad Pitt, casually strolling through the same age bracket with half the urgency and none of the stress.
Let’s be clear: this movie is not Maverick. It doesn’t come close, really. But if you see it in IMAX as you should, and yes, I’m going to say that again because it matters, it’s still a very entertaining time. The racing scenes are thrilling and plentiful. They’re loud, fast, beautifully shot, and loaded with the kind of visceral energy that reminds you why theaters are still the move. It’s everything 2023’s Gran Turismo wanted to be and just…wasn’t.
Now, everything between the racing scenes? Bit of a different story. Think late-stage cable drama meets what seems like an AI-generated script, with lines of dialogue so predictable you could mouth them a full lap ahead of the actors. There are numerous moments that are very cliché. And yes, let’s be honest, it’s definitely more of a giant two-and-a-half-hour advertisement for F1, IWC watches, Heineken, and Apple, than it is a fully formed film. But you should kind of expect that going in, right?
Regardless, that’s all a bit easy to forgive when the real star is an IMAX camera bolted to the side of a Formula 1 car flying through Silverstone. Is it as cool as an IMAX camera bolted to a fighter jet ripping through a canyon? Not quite. But it’s still damn cool, and this movie knows it.
As for the performances: let’s talk about Brad. Brad is Brad. I will always support Brad. But this? This might be one of his weakest outings. It’s not because he can’t do it, I just don’t think he tried. The man clearly took this role so he could drive real F1 cars and call it work while getting a huge Apple paycheck. He’s basically admitted as much. Honestly, can’t really blame him.
The supporting cast fares better. Javier Bardem never makes a mistake. Kerry Condon, Damson Idris, Tobias Menzies, they all bring enough to keep things from completely flying off the track. But let’s be real: this movie isn’t about dialogue or acting. It’s about million-dollar cars going really fast around corners with little reliance on CGI. On that front, it delivers, numerous times.
Could it have had a better script? Absolutely. Should it have aimed a little higher? Probably. But sometimes, a big-screen spectacle set in a ridiculously cool world, starring an A-lister having the time of his life, is enough. And if you’re sitting at home waiting for it to hit Apple TV because you’re lazy, cheap, or both, I have no sympathy for you. Go see it in the loudest room with the biggest screen. You won’t have as much fun as you did with Maverick, but you’ll still have fun, and at the end of the day, sometimes that’s what summer movies are for.
RECROOM Rating: 7.5 / 10