SPOILER WARNING: The following article contains major spoilers for 28 Years Later. If you have not yet seen the film, proceed at your own risk!

There is an oxymoronic quality to the acting profession. The best in the world are able to transform themselves in front of our eyes and become wholly different people… but the best in the world also become some of the most recognizable people on the planet – making it all the harder for them to be convincing in their performances. Brilliant as Brad Pitt, Meryl Streep, Jake Gyllenhaal and Emma Stone are, there is always a certain picture of them that one keeps at the back of their mind while watching them work.

If an actor isn’t going to play the same kind of part for their entire career (and some of them do), but best antidote to this catch-22 is for them to constantly expand their range and never give people something they are expecting. Ralph Fiennes is easily one of the best modern examples of this: last year, he earned overwhelming acclaim for playing the moral center at the drama of Conclave, and there is no point watching his turn when you are thinking about SS officer Amon Göth from Schindler's List or Lord Voldemort in the Harry Potter movies.

Fiennes' exceptional skills alone make any film better, but during and after watching Danny Boyle’s 28 Years Later, I have come to recognize a special way that the new horror feature utilized his talents. An air of mystery is maintained around him for the vast majority of the movie’s runtime, and it’s incredibly effective because I truly didn’t know what to expect. Would the story see him in full psychotic/villain mode, or would he present as warm and kind? With Fiennes in the part, I had no firm notion of what was coming, and that had its own part in upping the stakes in the narrative.

In 28 Years Later, protagonist Spike (Alfie Williams) sees a fire in the distance when he goes out on his first hunt, and he is told by his father Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) that it is the homestead of Kelson (Fiennes) – a mad doctor whom Jamie once spotted collecting dozens of dead bodies. Despite learning about this scary reputation, Spike feels that Kelson is the only hope for his sick mother, Isla (Jodie Comer), and he journeys with her to find him.

Jamie doesn’t exactly present as the most reliable source of information (one of the character’s most prominent scenes features him lying about Spike’s accomplishments during his first hunt)… but I had also seen the brilliant trailers for 28 Years Later prior to my screening, and I knew to expect Kelson covered in some kind of dark goo and wearing ragged clothing while living in a temple constructed from human bones. Most importantly of all, though, I knew that Ralph Fiennes could be equally successful playing an empathetic doctor or a violent psycho, and that provided a special dose of curiosity to my watching experience as the young hero got closer to his destination.

Of course, when Spike and Ilsa do finally make it to the doctor, they and we understand that Jamie was indeed wrong – and the performance by Ralph Fiennes is simply phenomenal. He may look scary, but that’s only because he has covered his skin in iodine, which he has come to understand via scientific observation repels individuals infected with the Rage Virus. And as for his temple of bones, it’s not the work of a savage; on the contrary, it’s his way of attempting to honor the dead. Even in chaotic times, Kelson understands the immortal importance of care, knowledge, and empathy, and delivered with Fiennes’ spectacular charisma, presence, and dramatic depth, it’s awesome and powerful.

There is no shortage of great performances in 28 Years Later (up to and including the surprise appearance by Jack O’Connell in the film’s final scene), but both the casting of and work by Ralph Fiennes deserve to be highlighted independently – contributing in a big way to make a great movie even greater.

In the here and now, the 2025 movie schedule has scored a win with 28 Years Later’s impressive box office opening. And anyone who’s already got an eye on the 2026 calendar is probably presuming that the already completed sequel 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple will do just the same.

But to fan those flames a bit higher, Danny Boyle has been dropping some interesting tidbits throughout the various interviews he’s done with the press. While I’m grateful for the man’s enthusiasm to promote director Nia DaCosta’s chapter in the story, there’s one detail I kind of wish he hadn’t been so open with; even if you could totally call it from a mile away.

Danny Boyle Has Just Made The Wait For 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple Even Harder To Endure

The good news is that through chats like the one Boyle did for Soundtracking with Edith Bowman, we’ve got some pretty awesome hooks to follow when it comes to The Bone Temple’s story. And seeing as I recently highlighted Jack O’Connell’s 28 Years Later cameo, hearing the Trainspotting director discuss his role in the following terms is a true delight:

I’m starting to think my hunch on Dr. Kelson’s fate in The Bone Temple may have been given a little more credibility. What’s more, I’m starting to wonder just how and/or why the Alpha known as Samson (Chi Lewis-Parry) factors into this conflict? Perhaps O’Connell’s Sir Jimmy Crystal wants to use him as a weapon of righteous judgement; with Ralph Fiennes’ more peaceful Dr. Kelson standing in his way.

I have to admit that there’s a bit of a bias in this prediction, as I have what I feel is the perfect scenario that keeps the “handoff’ strategy of 28 Years Later’s cliffhanger ending firmly in play. Just picture Sir Jimmy Crystal and his cult, standing at the end of the causeway to Holy Island, releasing Samson on this very spot. “In The House, In A Heartbeat” starts playing, and we cut to black after one final, menacing one-liner from our Sinners star.

There’s one ingredient that I’ve withheld from this vision. And now thanks to Danny Boyle, we know that it’s indeed going to be part of whatever finale The Bone Temple has in store.

We Will See Cillian Murphy At The End Of 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple

I know the participation of our 28 Days Later star isn’t exactly a secret; as the potential 28 Years Later trilogy was confirmed to have the Oppenheimer star on deck. However, the question has always been when we’d see him; and as of late Danny Boyle has been promising a major role for Cillian Murphy in this untitled sequel that’s awaiting a greenlight.

While that sets us up for Jim’s second coming to be predicted as part of 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple’s finale, we didn’t know for sure. At least, until the helmer of Slumdog Millionaire laid these cards on the table:

The one potential silver lining to this strategy is that Danny Boyle is talking up Cillian Murphy’s return so boldly to hide another secret. What if 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple will also see Naomie Harris’ Selena returning as well? You couldn’t find a better smokescreen to distract the crowd in the months to come.

With this second chapter in the can for a January 16, 2026 release date, we won’t have to wait too long to find out. But to really get the full effect, you'll need to see 28 Years Later, which is currently in theaters. Which would also help that final Cillian Murphy-heavy installation get its greenlight...if this past weekend's show of fan loyalty hasn't already.

28 Years Later is off to an amazing start, with critics embracing the film, including in CinemaBlend's own 28 Years Later review, and it had a solid opening weekend at the box office. However, while many people are talking about the relaunched franchise and are already looking forward to upcoming sequels, one of the major topics of conversation has been zombie dong.

Zombies aren’t exactly style mavens. And since they don’t exactly get dressed each morning, many of the infected are naked throughout the film given how long the apocalypse has lated. This means a fair amount of nudity in the film, including male nudity, which isn’t as often seen on the screen. But it’s not all actual nudity as Alpha Infected Chi Lewis-Perry told Variety he wore a prosthetic for legal reasons as he filmed scenes with a then 13-year-old child. He explains…

Prosethetics for male nudity aren't uncommon; they're done for various reasons, though this is the first time I'm aware of it being needed to comply with the law.

I appreciate that Lewis-Perry wouldn’t go around hugging people if he were completely naked. Although this statement implies that he did go around hugging people when he was nearly naked and covered in prosthetics to look like an Alpha infected who appeared naked. And I'm not sure if that's much better.

Chi Lewis-Perry’s Alpha infected is one of the naked infected getting the most attention because, while he might have been wearing a prosthetic, it was a…significant prosthetic. Variety asked the question everybody else was afraid to ask, wondering if the prosthetic was, we’ll say, a worthy representation. Lewis-Perry simply pointed out that he is, in general, a fairly large person. He said:

I’m not even sure what kind of conversation you have with an actor when creating a prosthetic penis. Do you use the real thing as the model? If the actor asks for the prosthesis to be “enhanced” is that a thing that you do? Lewis-Perry certainly indicates that what you see, while it may not be real, is approximately on par. So now you have that information, whether you wanted it or not.

If you haven’t already seen 28 Years Later, then I suppose you can consider this something of a disclaimer. There’s a fair amount of naked infected action, which is about as sexy as that sounds. It’s also a safe bet that next year, when the first 28 Years Later sequel arrives, there will be plenty more.

Mild spoilers below for 28 Years Later for anyone who hasn’t watched, so proceed with caution.

I doubt anyone expected to come out of the first official weekend of summer with this question: "Will any upcoming horror movies give audiences more shots of low-hanging undead dicks than 28 Years Later?" Yet there it is, all asked and everything.

Director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland's long-awaited sequel quickly became a divisive one — read our review — on its way to reaching second place at the box office, thanks in part to its final 10-15 minutes being as bonkers as any in other movies releasing in 2025. But one thing that seemingly everyone can agree on is that the film features a wild amount of gnarly nudity, represented most notably by the infected’s massive Alpha leaders called Samson and Berserker.

The pair of vicious antagonists are slightly evolved behaviorally, and are impressively evolved in the physical sense, with their imposing height just making their imposing crotches closer to normal humans’ eye levels. To be expected, plenty of theater-goers whose eyeballs witnessed all the rage-fueled penises had some hilariously transparent thoughts to share on X. Such as this one below:

You know the old saying: one good reaction to a plump zombie dick deserves another.

As it goes with social media, themed reactions like the above were prevalent, with several different variations making it clear that a lot of people felt more than little hot and bothered by the nudity on display. Despite the fact that, you know, the dangling manhood is attached to most deadly rage-infected beasts out there. Hornballs are gonna hornball, and I'm not here to be the judge, jury, or sexecutioner.

Now feast your eyes on this blood-moistened smattering of other reactions to 28 Years Later's most phallic threats:

• You are not prepared for the sheer volume of penis #28YearsLater is packing - @DavidOpie
• You’ll either love or hate 28 Years Later. Side note. Why did they build the alphas like… that? - @miicheladapapi
• So many self-proclaimed “Alphas” are gonna go home feeling insecure, after watching 28 YEARS LATER 😂 - @Sye_Lokata
• i see why they called him Alpha #28YearsLater - @cherryrckcndy
• 28 Years Later was fucking great and all but why was that alpha so damn hung omg just slinging that thing around chasin people - @lovedawoon
• Does anyone know why the Alpha zombie has two credits in 28 Years Later? - @bradmiska

As far as the "Why?" side of things goes, I can only assume that there aren't a plethora of organic ways to make the mostly brainless and entirely nude Alphas stick out amidst their monstrous breathren. (Not everyone can be a glowing orange weirdo like Ralph Feinnes' character.) And so if you're limited to just the body's visuals, there's nothing more fitting than a literal example of Big Dick Energy.

While most of the X reactions concerning the Alpha dongs immediately dove into the gutter, I have to appreciate this two-part reaction that starts off highbrow-ish enough before going low.

• not at all what i expected. and just when i thought i had it figured it out, it swerved again. not mad at it, though. #28YearsLater was visually stunning, gripping, and unexpected. ...[second post]...ALSO we all saw what that alpha was workin’ with right??? 👀😳 - @meganxmarie

It only makes sense for the final reaction here to be the one seen below.

Had the Samson Alpha's name been "Nathan's" instead, that might have skewed too close to actual hot dogs to avoid such comparisons.

Danny Boyle Confirms 28 Years Later's Alpha Penises And More Were All Prosthetic

While I doubt this admission will actively hurt the social lives of the actors who portrayed the film's Alphas — Chi Lewis-Parry and Chris Gregory — director Danny Boyle cleared up any questions about how 28 Years Later featured so many nude actors working with the wildly talented young actor Alfie Williams, telling ComicBook.com that all of the nude infected aren't actually nude. In his words:

Pour one out for all the men, women and beyond who no longer feel a certain kind of way after hearing that the Alphas' dongs were crafted rather than grown organically. I suppose one can walk away from this with the belief that the prosthetic penises were actually hiding even larger dicks, though I don't expect the Bone Temple sequel releasing in 2026 to provide an answer.

28 Years Later is currently in theaters, and I'm sure there's already a petition out there for a life-sized Alpha action figure.

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!

As the 2025 movie schedule pushes forward, there are still plenty of great titles to look forward to. One that particular piques my interest is Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s return to the 28 series by way of a long-awaited sequel that's a long time coming. Ahead of the film's release, I was able to attend 28 Years Later’s footage presentation and was surprised to learn some new lore surrounding the first film, especially how it actually got its title.

Being on hand for Sony’s New York event that showed 28 minutes of 28 Years Later, I was able to hear an introduction from director Danny Boyle. Mixed in with the setup for what we saw of this new potential trilogy starter were some 28 Days Later trivia points that even I, a millennial, didn’t know. Which included this story about that horror classic’s title, as told to the audience that CinemaBlend was a part of:

Well now, that charming scene where Jim (Cillian Murphy) and his friends are gleefully looting the grocery store just might make more sense after learning this fact. Not to date myself, but I remember the run-up to the release of 28 Days Later rather well; which is part of why this random fact is so surprising to me.

Fittingly enough, this tale came after a story I did remember, about how Danny Boyle needed to heavily disclaimer early screenings to festival audiences. The reason being that Fox Searchlight thought that audiences would mistake the origin film of the Rage Virus as a sequel to the Sandra Bullock rom-com 28 Days.

Sadly, a lot of the news and marketing materials released from 2002 to 2003 are lost to the sands of time; much like tons of treasures from the era of Internet 1.0. So much like that Sandra Bullock story, any word on the title's origins is also buried in the digital wasteland. And, seeing as 28 Days Later's long out-of-print status has recently been remedied, this horror title (which belongs among the best 2000s movies) hasn't exactly been pushed as hard as some of its contemporaries.

Much like a situation of confusing Hotel Artemis with a kids movie, this scenario could have left some people seriously bewildered. And, if you read some of the Amazon product reviews on the DVD for Ms. Bullock’s movie, some still are. The good news is, much as Danny Boyle pointed out in his introduction to 28 Years Later’s sizzle reel, you have more than a month to return said disc if you mistakenly bought it!

I learned quite a bit that day about that 2002 franchise origin story, thanks to a one-on-one interview I took part in with the Slumdog Millionaire director. It was in that session that I found myself surprised to learn of some other actors who vied with Cillian Murphy for his eventual role in 28 Days Later. But, as some movie fans will tell you, sometimes the simplest facts from the past turn out to be the ones that give you the largest shocks.

Speaking of shocks, we’re closer to 28 Years Later than we’ve ever been; as the legacy-quel is about to debut in theaters on June 20th. And, if you’re looking to revisit 28 Days Later or check it out for the first time, you can currently stream the film, free with ads, on PlutoTV.

While we’re a couple years shy of 28 Years Later’s specified timeframe, that hasn’t stopped director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland from returning to the horror franchise they first launched back in 2002. The first of a planned trilogy will be debuting on the 2025 movie schedule in a matter of weeks, and anticipation couldn’t be greater for the full feature.

So when I was invited to recently check out just the first 28 minutes of this picture, I was a bit bummed... despite loving what I saw. And in speaking with director Danny Boyle, I learned about a scene that may have played a part in Sony’s decision to keep the film under a veil of secrecy.

Danny Boyle Really Wants To Start Showing The Complete 28 Years Later

This afternoon, I was on hand for a screening of what’s basically the first act of this upcoming horror movie. A lot of what we know about 28 Years Later was featured, but with more detail. Before we got started, Boyle introduced the footage with a huge amount of excitement, while also noting that he really wished the entire film was being shown to us. The filmmaker shared some thoughts on why we weren’t getting the full experience:

One quick note here, before we move on: despite my theory, we’re not seeing the origins of 28 Days Later’s church scene. However, if you’ve been worried about 28 Weeks Later’s canonical standing, this opening will answer your questions once and for all - as that sequel is properly tied into the narrative fabric. And with that, let's get into a light overview of what was seen at the screening.

28 Years Later's First 28 Minutes Are Stellar, Terrifying Worldbuilding

Most of what we saw in 28 Years Later's sizzle reel deals with the community of Holy Island and introduced how it’s run. Before we got to that point, we were shown the entirety of the Teletubbies flashback, with a boy watching his family overtaken by the first wave of Infected.

Jumping head in time, Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) prepares to take Spike (Alfie Williams) on his first Infected hunt. There’s also a moment with the ailing Isla (Jodie Comer), who is supposedly not Infected... but is having moments of anger, a constant fever, and pain.

Also, part of what was shown included the previous 28 Years Later clip that was included with the re-release of 28 Days Later where we see Spike's second kill, exploding the head of a hanging Infected. Throughout this final section of the presentation, father and son interact with the two new variants of Infected they know about: “slow lows” and “Alphas.”

Both operate at different speeds and strengths, but they prove one thing: the Rage Virus’ evolution has started to switch things up. And just as we get to the end of the reel, before abruptly smashing to the title card, an Alpha does something you wouldn’t expect. It yells out a command: “RUN!”

28 Years Later’s promising start is just as chilling and horrific as you’d expect; and it certainly left me wanting more. Which brings us to the subject of why Danny Boyle thinks the rest of the movie is currently under lock and key.

Danny Boyle Thinks 28 Years Later Is Still Under Wraps Because Of One Scene

When I had the chance to speak with Danny Boyle about both the past and present of the franchise, the filmmaker shared a number of interesting anecdotes that fill in some of the history in the 28 franchise’s past that points toward what waits for audiences. While I’ve omitted most of the defining details of this particular scene, it's a moment that the Sunshine helmer shared was based on a makeshift COVID-19 memorial in London.

The details sounded akin to the scene where Jim (Cillian Murphy) finds his parents dead in his childhood home in 28 Days Later, which ties into how Boyle feels this particular moment is responsible for the hold up:

Thinking back, this philosophy seems to share commonality with how 28 Days Later was marketed prior to its theatrical release. As you can see in the trailer below, the marketing went hard on haunting imagery and rock music, but light on the emotional moments that audiences still remember:

Based on the 28 minutes we saw, what I can say for certain is that more of Danny Boyle’s signature style is present – reteamed with the meticulous brutality Alex Garland has honed through his career from Ex Machina to Warfare. Knowing that the tender heart of the first film will be present is a huge tease for a die hard fan like myself, and it ensures that I’ll partake in the finished feature as soon as possible. If you’re of the same mind, I suggest you don’t walk, but ruuuuun to get your tickets for 28 Years Later, once they go on sale June 3.

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.

In early 2024, I was over the moon when the news was announced that filmmakers Danny Boyle and Alex Garland were not only developing a new follow-up to 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later, but they were developing a full trilogy. The plans for continuing the franchise found a home at Sony, and not only did Boyle quickly start work directing 28 Years Later (set to hit theaters this summer), but Nia Da Costa was hired to take the helm of a second installment: 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple (currently scheduled for January 2026).

I remain thrilled to learn what is going on in the fictional world that has been overrun by the Rage virus... but I'll also admit to being a touch distressed today after learning at CinemaCon that the third 28 Years Later feature has apparently not yet gotten the green light to move forward.

CinemaCon, the annual Las Vegas-based convention for movie theater owners, kicked off this evening with a presentation by Sony Pictures, and two of the earliest projects previewed were 28 Years Later and its sequel, with both Danny Boyle and Nia Da Costa taking the stage to take about their work on the respective movies. An epic and scary new trailer for the 2025 feature was premiered (it will surely be online in the coming days/weeks), and Da Costa showed off a still of The Bone Temple star Ralph Fiennes shirtless, covered in war paint, and wildly smiling, but the standout thing that caught my attention was the commentary about the trilogy-capper written by Alex Garland not being guaranteed. Said Boyle,

It's not exactly difficult to read between the lines to understand what Danny Boyle is saying here. While Sony Pictures was excited enough about plans to continue the zombie apocalypse from 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later, the studio wasn't gung-ho enough about it in the dealmaking to immediately promise a budget for a full trilogy. In order for Boyle and Alex Garland to complete their vision, 28 Years Later and 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple will have to hit an unspecified number at the box office. If audiences show up, the sequel will be made; if they don't, then it won't.

This development should make any fan of the franchise nervous, as the prospect of any great artistic vision being halted before completion totally sucks, but I also still have confidence, because 28 Years Later looks phenomenal. While the first trailer for the upcoming horror movie was principally focused on showcasing a tone (it looks utterly terrifying), the preview that was showcased today at CinemaCon offered more insight into the plot. The film will center on a father and son (Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Alfie Williams) who live in a community on an isolated island but must venture to the mainland, which is overrun with infected people.

In addition to previewing 28 Years Later, the Sony Presentation also provided massive updates about Sam Mendes' Beatles films and an early look at 2025's I Know What You Did Last Summer... and the fun is only starting here at CinemaCon. Be sure to stay tuned here on CinemaBlend all week for more of our on-the-ground coverage of the event.

It’s been a quarter century since director Danny Boyle and Leonardo DiCaprio teamed up for The Beach, and while the movie was a hit at the time, it was divisive with critics then, as it still is today. The Beach marked a huge inflection point in DiCaprio’s career and his decision to do the movie over a few other options set in motion everything that has followed. Let me explain.

The Summer Of 1998 Was Huge For DiCaprio

Hop in the way-back machine and set it for 1998. Madonna’s “Ray Of Light” had everyone dancing, except, it seems, DiCaprio, who was moving at his own speed. The Titanic star kept Hollywood at bated breath for months before signing on to his first movie after the film about the ill-fated ocean liner had become the biggest hit in Hollywood history. Rumors circulated that he might take the leading role in The Talented Mr. Ripley, or American Psycho. Instead, he surprised everyone by signing on to star in The Beach in July of ‘98.

At the time, it was a bit shocking. Danny Boyle had certainly made a name for himself with Trainspotting, but was coming off the box office disappointment, A Life Less Ordinary. The movie had been optioned from a novel written by Alex Garland, but Garland was still years away from making his impact on Hollywood. The Beach did not seem like it was sure to be a blockbuster like DiCaprio’s other options.

Of course, before Titanic, DiCaprio first impressed with character-driven roles in movies like What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, and The Basketball Diaries, so looking back, this seems like a more natural choice than it did at the time, maybe. It also shows that despite the poor reviews of a movie that hasn’t aged well either, starring in The Beach was worth it for the actor.

Characters, Not Matinee Idols

Leonardo DiCaprio drew a line in the sand at that moment. He would still pursue characters, not just roles for “movie stars.” It’s something he’s stuck to for the rest of his career and now, 25 years later, it’s easy to see how he made the correct choice. After The Beach came Gangs Of New York, which began his long, fruitful partnership with Martin Scorsese. That was followed by Catch Me If You Can, The Aviator, and The Departed (the latter two again with Scorsese). It’s a hell of a run and of course it didn’t stop there.

Rather than become the modern version of a matinee idol, as he could have easily done in the wake of Titanic, DiCaprio stuck with what he knew and loved best, challenging roles and interesting characters. He had his pick of the litter and he chose the harder route and for that he should be commended. He could’ve coasted forever on the back of Titanic, but instead we’ve gotten movies like Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, The Wolf of Wall Street, and The Revenant, and all the other amazing roles DiCaprio has played that were all possible because of The Beach.

I’m not underselling things when I say that the 2025 movie schedule has my mind in its grasp. A lot of continuations of properties I love as a fan are happening throughout the landscape, one of which is undoubtedly 28 Years Later.

I’ve followed all of the recent updates like a hawk, and one recent piece of information has stood out to me as a bit of a problem. As if I wasn’t already asking how much 28 Weeks Later will be affected by Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland’s legacy-quel, some new plot details have come out that only have me asking more questions about the franchise canon.

What Danny Boyle Has Said About 28 Years Later’s Story

Legacy-quels can be quite fun when it comes to whether or not they take into account the story of the previous entry. So when I saw that Empire had some comments about where 28 Years Later’s story is going, I was intrigued. As far as Danny Boyle’s comments on how this new trilogy will treat the story that came before, here’s what he had to say:

That still sounds awesome, but it’s the further details the publication shared that gave me a slight pause. In addition to confirming that our new would-be protagonists are named Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), Isla (Jodie Comer) and Spike (Alfie Williams), this family unit is apparently in a very different UK than one would have expected.

Not only is the whole country quarantined from the rest of the world, it appears that “the rest of the globe remains relatively unaffected” by the Rage Virus. Which leads to my first big 28 Franchise question, and perhaps the most glaring.

Is 28 Weeks Later About To Become Soft Canon?

Spoilers for those of you who haven’t seen 28 Weeks Later, but by the end of the 2007 sequel to 28 Days Later, the virus did indeed leave jolly old England. The final moment of director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo’s follow-up saw an Infected horde running through subway tunnels, and eventually in front of the Eiffel Tower, in a chilling finale.

But now, according to this 28 Years Later update, that may not be the case. Huge question #1 is, does this new twist mean that 28 Weeks Later is now considered a soft canon event? It doesn’t necessarily have to be that way, as there are plenty of circumstances that could have seen France contain and extinguish the Rage Virus within its borders.

As someone who was recently pleased with David Koepp’s Jurassic franchise story commandments, I’m hoping returning writer Alex Garland hasn’t ditched 28 Weeks Later totally - especially when the key to another 28 Years Later development would be better suited by keeping that story intact.

Could 28 Weeks Later’s Important Contribution To 28 Years Later’s Story Still Remain?

Throughout the language in the promotional campaign shared along with 28 Years Later’s trailer, one word, and its many forms, keeps popping up: mutation. That’s a huge uh-oh when trying to eradicate a virus, especially one as deadly as Rage. As we’ve seen in small glimpses throughout the first footage from this upcoming horror movie, there appears to be a new variant of the Rage Virus that may allow some Infected to become physically imposing.

Big question #2 arises out of this concern, as I wonder if 28 Weeks Later’s current state in the canon will allow its greatest gift to 28 Years Later to still exist. The Rage Virus could have very easily mutated after the events of Weeks, considering the big twist is that the gene for heterochromia somehow allows for a person to become an asymptomatic carrier.

The second wave outbreak from Weeks could still be the explanation for 28 Years Later’s fun new mutations. So even if we don’t find ourselves read into what may have happened with the survivors of this questionably canonical adventure, just knowing that it happened would be enough.

Can We Get An Official Ruling On Whether Selena’s 28 Days Later Sequel Comic Is Canon?

Speaking of survivors, it’s time to turn back the clock to a time when 28 Days Later had freshly wrapped, leaving the Manchester Three to be discovered by a pilot speaking Finnish. There is a huge gap between the 2002 franchise starter and the present day, which means we’re not totally sure what has happened to Hannah (Megan Burns), Selena (Naomie Harris) and Jim (Cillian Murphy).

At least, that statement would be true depending on the answer to the next canon question I’m asking: is Selena’s sequel story from Boom! Studios actually canon, or not? The short, short version of this fantastic story is that 28 Days Later saw our survivors go through hell after surviving threats from Infected and horny military types alike.

Selena kind of goes into hiding, but is lured back to the UK around the same time London is reopened in 28 Weeks Later. The ending is a somewhat happy one for Selena, as she flies off to the US just as hell is breaking loose on France. So I’m not sure how much my theory for 28 Years Later - The Bone Temple bringing Selena back into the fold would suffer. I mean, would you voluntarily return to a vicious hot zone if you didn’t have to?

How Will 28 Years Later Bring Jim Back?

The canonicity of 28 Weeks Later’s 2009 - 2011 comic sequel brings one more major question to the table, and also gives us a potential answer. You see, Cillian Murphy’s confirmed 28 Years Later return is the last major concern I’m wondering about, at least for the moment. I’m sure plenty of other fans are wondering the same thing, so let’s just get this final query out in the open: how the hell is Jim going to return in this ravaged UK?

If Boom! Studios’ 28 Days Later comic is canon, then our hero was supposed to be executed, thanks to his part in the death of Major Henry West (Christopher Eccleston). Even if that event is still held as canon, it wouldn’t be the first time the former bike courier escaped certain death. There’s a chance that Jim could have escaped the clutches of the UK’s military and gone to a secluded location in the countryside.

That’s certainly what looks to have happened, if the recent Reddit post claiming to have an on-set photo of Cillian Murphy filming his role for the 28 Years Later trilogy is accurate. Which, more than likely, could be a secret shooting day to include some sort of tag promising his return at the end of 2026’s The Bone Temple; seeing as Murphy will not be in 28 Years Later.

I won't be leaving this rabbit hole any time soon, so you can count on me to keep digging for answers, which may create more questions in the process. The bright side is 28 Years Later's first chapter is set to debut on June 20th, so I probably won't have to hunt for much longer. However, if you want to join me, you can always digitally rent 28 Days Later and 28 Years Later, and start to connect the strings along with me. Or you can have a productive, normal life.... it's your choice!

As our eyes turn more intently towards the upcoming 2025 movies, the dream of the long awaited second sequel to 28 Days Later continues to come further into focus. The first trailer to director Danny Boyle’s latest apocalyptic nightmare was recently dropped, and it’s prompted many theories about Cillian Murphy’s 28 Years Later role.

Some even think they’ve spotted the Oppenheimer lead in the first footage, but that's not true. We now know this, as the actual party on display has stepped forward to debunk that claim.

The Identity Of 28 Years Later’s Infamous Infected Has Been Revealed

That’s totally fair, but I don’t think it debunks my theory of the return of Jim. As reported by The Guardian, the decaying party you saw bearing a resemblance to Mr. Murphy is actually art dealer Angus Neill. Admitting to his part in the latest entry of the 28 Franchise, Neill shared this story about being cast:

For the record, the report cited above has Neill credited as “Emaciated Infected,” which totally tracks with the figure in question shown briefly in the trailer. Don’t worry though, as what we know about 28 Years Later hasn’t changed the fact that Cillian Murphy is an executive producer on the three-quel, as well as confirmed to be reprising his role of Jim from 2003’s indie horror blockbuster.

It’s not like we won’t see the Christopher Nolan Repertory Company member in action. Again, we know Cillian Murphy will be in 28 Years Later. The real question at the moment is how the 2024 Oscar winner will be making his grand re-entrance into the hellscape of infected England. Which still leaves the door wide open for my 28 Years Later theory to come to fruition.

Why This 28 Years Later Character Doesn’t Debunk My Theory

In case you haven’t read the theory of Jim’s resurgence in full, the short short version is I think that Cillian Murphy’s character is hiding in plain sight. Furthermore, I think he’s this universe’s version of the boogeyman, in a sort of I Am Legend style twist. After two rounds of chaos with the Rage Virus, anyone could potentially snap - and I think Jim has.

I mean, who else would build a tower of skulls that seem destined to be featured in the Nia DaCosta-directed middle entry of the 28 Years Trilogy? You know, the one that's rumored to have the subtitle "The Bone Temple?" That is not a healthy mind, and we've already seen what it looks like when Jim goes into Beast Mode through 28 Days Later's ending.

With all of those cards on the table, Angus Neill’s “Emaciated Infected” does bear a strong resemblance to Cillian Murphy, especially in his post-coma state in 28 Days Later. You can see that in photos from modeling agency Ugly Models’ Instagram account, as they feature Neill’s unique look in several photographs. So the theory that this vaguely named character is a result of a fever dream that causes an Infected to look like Jim is still in play.

Then again, this could all just be a convenient coincidence. Perhaps Angus Neill’s casting is a result of Danny Boyle having a type when it comes to recruiting actors for his apocalyptic visions. Or maybe there’s something hiding behind this convenient story we don’t know yet?

It’s going to be fun to keep guessing where the truth lies, as the 28 Years Later trailer has given us quite a bit to dissect before its eventual release on June 20th, 2025. Which leads to the unfortunate news that you can’t currently stream 28 Days Later for research, and the physical disc has been long out of print.

However Fangoria has reported that the film will be available on Digital HD, for the first time in what feels like 28 years, at an unspecified point of 2025. So keep an eye for further developments on that front. And if you want to return to the world of the Rage Virus’ vicious hold on society, 28 Weeks Later will be available to stream through a Hulu subscription until December 31st.

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.

Though it’s been “only” 22 years since director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland teamed up on one of the best horror movies of all-time, 28 Days Later, they’ve reteamed anew for the highly anticipated sequel 28 Years Later. Now fully in production on the way to its eventual 2025 release, the upcoming horror flick has still only unveiled a limited number of details for what fans can expect, including character info for its previously announced cast.

But what if that all-around lack of information was as telling as a two-sentence synopsis? Specifically when it comes to Killing Eve vet and The Bikeriders stars Jamie Comer’s character, who was revealed to have signed on for 28 Years Later alongside rumored James Bond candidate Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Ralph Fiennes, with Jack O’Connell’s addition and Cillian Murphy’s return confirmed in the ensuing weeks. Jim being back is key to my biggest theory about Comer’s storyline, so let’s dive in.

Could Jodie Comer Be Playing 28 Days Later Survivor Hannah?

Before Cillian Murphy was revealed to be returning to this franchise as Jim, the glassy-eyed protagonist from the first film, it was easier to consider the idea that Danny Boyle and Alex Garland intended to make this sequel stand completely apart from the previous two films, as far as character connections go. The speculation center of my brain was happy to conjure up casual theories, as opposed to all the alarms that started blaring in there after the Oppenheimer star’s involvement made the rounds.

Because one good returning character deserves another, perhaps the most likely throughline to ponder about is the possibility of Comer popping up in this post-apocalyptic universe as the all-grown-up version of Megan Burns’ Hannah, the daughter of Brendan Gleeson’s Frank in the original film. After all, the franchise has never offered up an official update on her whereabouts after she, Jim and Selena captured the eyes of a jet pilot with their “Hello” sign at the film’s conclusion. (She went unmentioned in the two comic follow-ups and film sequel.)

As far as age goes, Jodie Comer technically skews too young to properly play a grown up Hannah, who would be in her 40s during 28 Years Later’s timeline. The Tony and Emmy winner is currently 31 years old, which is a fairly large gap by all means, but certainly isn’t impossible to fake with some makeup and style choices.

Jodie Comer has always looked potentially well beyond her age, though it tends to depend on the role she’s playing. If she’s meant to portray a more bubbly and optimistic personality, there’s not a problem. Alternately, as it went with Killing Eve and The White Princess, if she’s meant to be playing a serious character who does lots of thinking and scheming, she can appear to be way older.

Could Jodie Comer Be Playing 28 Weeks Later's Tammy?

It’s probably obvious that the following line of thinking squares up with the idea that Jodie Comer could be playing the first movie’s young female survivor: she could also possibly be portraying the sequel’s Tammy. For the 2007 sequel directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, Imogen Poots plays Tammy, the daughter of Robert Carlye’s Don and Catherine McCormack’s Alice, as well as the brother of Mackintosh Muggleton’s Andy.

By the end of 28 Weeks Later, Tammy and Andy are among the only survivors, as they’re picked up via helicopter by Harold Perrineau’s Flynn, who is taking them to France, though it’s made clear that the bulk of Europe was hammered by the Rage Virus plague. So she obviously could have been taken to some kind of haven where she and her brother were kept safe. (There’s a whole separate leg of this theory that could be tied to Jack O’Connell possibly playing Andy, but we’ll keep this limited.)

Imogen Poots will be turning 35 in June 2024, so she’s slightly younger than Megan Turner, and thus wouldn’t need as much aging up for Comer in the sequel, presuming that’s how they would go about things.

Could Jodie Comer Be Playing Jim And Selena's Daughter?

This bit of speculation takes its inspiration from nothing, really, since at no point in this franchise was it implied that Jim and Naomie Harris’ Selena ever had kids once they were “saved,” as it were at the end of the first film. No surprise there, since Selena had a partner in Noah Huntley’s Mark, who tragically got infected later on. And in fact, Selena was the one character from the film who did appear in the 28 Days Later comic series that was published from 2009-2011, and she was neither with Jim nor with child.

But we’re not going to act like that comic series was 100% canon, especially since it’s not fully clear how much of the second film’s story is canonized within Boyle and Garland’s universe. On a theoretical scale, though, it’s definitely possible that Jim and Selena formed a bond that went beyond just friendship, and that, despite all odds, they managed to start a family in the middle of the apocalypse. Maybe not likely exactly, but possible.

Because let’s think practically for a moment. If Jodie Comer & Co’s characters aren’t directly related to one or more survivors introduced in the first two films, then why not share a character name and simple synopsis for each? It wouldn’t be spoilery if we learned that she’s playing someone named Rashida Dinklemeyer or Ingrid Gallo, and would only tip the story’s hand if the names Hannah or Tammy came up. So for now, I’m staying hopeful that we’ll be catching up with old friends, as opposed to meeting all-new people.

28 Years Later is currently set to hit theaters on Friday, June 20, 2025.

I have been obsessed with 28 Days Later ever since I first saw the trailer when my dad took me to see X2: X-Men United back in May 2003. Since then, I’ve watched it countless times and still consider it one of the best zombie apocalypse movies, even though the infected aren’t really undead ghouls. So, you can imagine how stoked I was to hear that Danny Boyle and Alex Garland were re-teaming for 28 Years Later. 

After the initial shock and awe wore off after hearing the news in January 2024, I immediately began to think about questions I had regarding the upcoming horror movie. There are a lot of things we don’t yet know about the long-awaited sequel, especially when it comes to its story and how it fits into the franchise, so I decided to share them with you. Let’s rage! 

Will The Survivors From 28 Days Later Play A Part?

Depending on which 28 Days Later ending you watch, there are any number of survivors from the first movie that could hypothetically still be alive when 28 Years Later picks back up. Though Frank (Brendan Gleeson) is long gone after being infected by a drop of blood falling from a crow’s beak, Jim (Cillian Murphy), Selena (Naomie Harris), and Hannah (Megan Burns) made it until the credits, after escaping the army fortress and being spotted by a fighter jet. 

But even if they are still alive nearly 30 years later, will they play a role in the new movie? Murphy previously told The Independent that he would be there “in a flash” to reprise his role, but the question remains about how they’d make it work. Regardless, I’d be down to see the Oppenheimer actor and his co-stars reprise their roles. 

Were The Attempts At Making A Cure In 28 Weeks Later Successful?

Though not as well-regarded as its predecessor, 28 Weeks Later is an awesome horror sequel that further expands the franchise. One of the main plot points of the film was the mission to come up with a cure for the Rage virus and attempt to bring things back to normal. Since we don’t know anything about the story that will be told in 28 Years Later, I’m left wondering if those attempts were fruitful, either briefly or in the long run, or was it all for nothing and violent infected hordes still plague the streets of London?

Has The Infection Made Its Way Across The World Or Is It Still Contained To Europe

Sticking with 28 Weeks Later, the 2007 movie ends with a group of infected coming out of a Paris Metro station, implying that the virus had made it out of the supposedly contained England and into mainland Europe. This kind of branches off my previous question, but has the virus spread across the world in the nearly 30 years since the initial outbreak or was it somehow contained to the European continent?

Either way, this could lead to some great things when 28 Years Later finally comes around as it can either focus on the containment measures put in place or show a world completely ravaged by the spread of the virus. With the way Alex Garland has been crafting stories over the past decade or so, this could be a great aspect to explore.

What Is Society Like Decades Into The Rage Outbreak?

Ever since hearing about 28 Years Later, I’ve been wondering what is society going to be like decades after the natural order of things was thrown into chaos. Will it be like other intense post-apocalyptic movies in which the survivors live in some dystopian world and are essentially trapped in “safety zones,” or will that cure mentioned earlier be successful? Even if it’s the latter, it could very well be a situation where the cure worked for a short time but things have since gotten worse and further devolved to a point where it was worse off than the early days in London back in 28 Days Later.

Have The Infected Evolved Over The Years?

One thing I love about George A. Romero’s Dead movies and video games like The Last of Us (as well as its HBO adaptation) is how they handle the evolution of zombies throughout their respective franchises. The zombies in Night of the Living Dead struggle to do just about anything besides eat flesh, but by the time Land of the Dead comes around, they can lead packs and use weapons. The nature of the infected is different in the 28 Days Later universe in terms of them not technically being undead, but I would love to see the Rage-infected ghouls evolve or mutate.

This could be the ability to have semi-intelligent thoughts and problem-solving skills or have different variations. A massive infected monster like the Rat King from The Last of Us: Part II would be absolutely terrifying but so much fun to watch.

Will The Potential Trilogy Start A New Story?

When The Hollywood Reporter first announced that 28 Years Later was actually happening, it was reported that the movie could potentially be the start of a new trilogy, which is great news for fans of the franchise. But with the prospect of a new trilogy comes all kinds of questions regarding its overreaching story and how it connects to the previous two films. 

I keep wondering if the upcoming movie and its possible sequels will start fresh and take a page from George A. Romero’s playbook in that they are set in the same universe but focus on completely different characters. Or will we meet new survivors and stick with them for three movies if everything goes as planned?

Are We Going To Spend More Time Learning About The Rage Virus?

Another thing I’d like to see in 28 Years Later is a further examination of the Rage virus that allows us to know more about its origins and properties, especially if it has mutated or evolved in the nearly 30 years since it was first unleashed upon the world. The first scene of 28 Days Later showed primates being subjected to an onslaught of violent imagery after being injected with the serum and later attacking the group of animal rights activists who thought they were doing the right thing, but it would be cool to learn more about the lab and the whole operation in general.

I think learning more about the virus could be key to the story, especially if the plan for a new trilogy comes to fruition.

Will all of these questions be answered when 28 Years Later finally arrives somewhere down the road? I’m not entirely sure. But I am positive it’s going to be one hell of a ride when it does happen. And with Alex Garland’s next project, A24’s Civil War, set for release in April 2024, we might be hearing more very, very soon. 

That recent 28 Days Later good news which revealed that not only were Danny Boyle and Alex Garland reteaming to make 28 Years Later but that the horror sequel officially found a studio home and roped in original lead Cillian Murphy to produce and potentially star should please all zombie-movie fans. However, there's one famous fan who is likely extra excited: Stephen King.

Yes, the iconic horror author behind classic scary titles like Carrie, Cujo, The Shining and Salem's Lot — all of which were turned into film adaptations, with the latter upcoming movie set to star Lewis Pullman, Makenzie Leigh and Alfre Woodard — is reportedly a big fan of the Danny Boyle-directed flick. So much so, in fact, that the writer allegedly bought out 800 movie tickets when the post-apocalyptic film hit theaters in November 2002. 

But exactly why did the author do that? Here's the full story behind Stephen King buying all those 28 Days Later tickets.

Why Stephen King Bought Hundreds Of 28 Days Later Tickets

According to a recent Inverse oral history on the "genre-redefining" zombie flick —which stars Murphy as a bile courier who awakens from a coma to discover that a highly contagious "rage virus" has been accidentally unleashed on society, turning everyday Brits into freakishly fast and strong zombies — Stephen King was an early supporter of the movie, despite initially middling reviews from critics. Film producer Andrew Macdonald told the outlet: 

Of course, King is one of the world's foremost horror fans, so it's not a shock that he would champion a freaky film like 28 Days Later. And he's a noted zombie fan, as evidenced by his 2006 novel Cell, which featured a mysterious cell network signal that turned average citizens into vicious, zombie-like creatures. 

However, the author may also have been drawn to Boyle's film for its character-driven drama, which set it apart from other jump-scare-loaded genre titles. As King proclaimed during the 2011 TCM special, A Night at the Movies: The Horrors of Stephen King:

Clearly, he loves a high-stakes story. Along with Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Christopher Eccleston, Megan Burns and Brendan Gleeson brought exactly that. 

How Did 28 Days Later Change The Zombie Movie Genre?

Grossing more than $82.7 million worldwide on a budget of just $8 million, 28 Days Later would clearly bounce back from those initial poor reviews to become one of the standout horror titles of the past two decades. It would spawn a 2007 sequel, 28 Weeks Later, starring Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Jeremy Renner and Idris Elba, and, as mentioned, that upcoming 28 Years Later follow-up.

The film series' brand of fast-moving zombies mixed with gritty realism and character-driven storytelling revitalized the zombie apocalypse subgenre. It also reinvented it, ushering in an undead renaissance with movies like the Dawn of the Dead remake, its spoof Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland, World War Z and more. 

If you don't want to pull a Stephen King and buy out an entire movie theater to watch Boyle's original zombie flick, you can stream 28 Days Later with a Sling TV plan. 

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).

20 years ago, a horror classic unfolded in the UK with the debut of director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland’s 28 Days Later. Introducing the world to “The Infected,” as well as making a splash in the early careers of Cillian Murphy and Naomie Harris, the film is still regarded as a genre favorite. 

So much so that the question of another sequel to the saga is something that Murphy and Boyle are still asked about, even if it’s not likely to make the schedule of upcoming movies any time soon. A recent interview with NME saw the 28 Days Later collaborators both fielding the matter with a new update. 

With a proposed sequel that has often been named 28 Months Later floating in the consciousness since 2007’s 28 Weeks Later continued the story, Cillian Murphy’s answer to the question is still optimistic. However, as you'll read below, it's to be taken with some specific caveats: 

In the years since Murphy’s Jim made that harrowing voyage up the English countryside, his profile has risen with projects like Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy. The former star of Peaky Blinders has even had his name suggested as a well favored James Bond candidate from time to time. And yet, you can tell that if a 28 Days Later sequel could plausibly bring him back to the fold, Cillian Murphy would probably say yes in a heartbeat.

Pairing that with director Danny Boyle’s remarks on the potential for another entry in the 28 Cycle is a recipe for fans to become absolutely ravenous. Recalling the fact that an Alex Garland draft of 28 Months Later does exist from a couple of years ago, Boyle’s update on the potential project is just as cautiously optimistic as that of Cillian Murphy: 

28 Days Later is another darkly beautiful franchise that hasn’t gotten a trilogy, despite a really good hook existing at the end of 28 Weeks Later. Invoking the spirit of Top Gun’s own legacy-quel is probably the best move when trying to make a third chapter happen in the end. Should that come to pass, here’s hoping the concept allows the director and star that helped make the original a legendary fright get to reunite for another journey into the apocalypse.

Cillian Murphy’s next big project sees him hitting the schedule of 2023 new movie releases with Oppenheimer, which is set to open on July 21, 2023. Meanwhile, readers with a Hulu subscription can watch Danny Boyle’s punk rock history series Pistol, as all episodes of the FX show are currently streaming on that platform.

For better or worse, Sex Pistols have long been considered one of the most consequential bands of all time and helped usher in one of the first waves of punk rock and took the genre and lifestyle to new heights. And while there have been several books, documentaries, and even a 1986 drama starring the incomparable Gary Oldman as the outfit’s one-time bassist Sid Vicious, the story of how the band formed and changed the world has largely gone untold in terms of mainstream exposure. Well, that will certainly change with Danny Boyle’s six-part FX series Pistol which is currently streaming on Hulu.

If you’ve watched the show already or at least saw a trailer or two in the lead-up to its release, you may be wondering where you’ve seen the actors before, including two familiar faces from the Game of Thrones cast. Well, never mind the bollocks, here’s the Pistol cast…

Toby Wallace (Steve Jones)

Let’s start off the raucous bunch with Toby Wallace, who portrays Sex Pistols guitarist and founding member Steven Jones whose memoir Lonely Boy: Tales from a Sex Pistol serve as the basis of the biographical drama series.

Before landing the role of the most influential figures of the punk rock movement, Wallace cut his teeth in movies like The Turning, Boys in the Trees, and Babyteeth, as well as shows like Romper Stomper and The Society. He’s next set to share the screen with Tommy Lee Jones, Ben Foster, and Jenna Ortega in the Paramount+ crime thriller Finestkind, per Deadline.

Jacob Slater (Paul Cook)

Next up is Jacob Slater who sits behind the kit as Sex Pistols drummer Paul “Cookie” Cook, who is also Steven Jones’ longtime friend and partner-in-crime on Pistol. Slater’s portrayal of the punk pioneer on Danny Boyle’s new six-part limited series is the young actor’s first acting gig though he has long been a prominent figure in the South London music scene with bands like Dead Pretties and Wunderhorse.

Anson Boon (John Lydon)

Stepping in as the former Sex Pistols eccentric and controversial frontman John Lydon, aka Johnny Rotten, is Anson Boon, who has started to build up quite a resumé for himself in recent years.

Throughout his short career, which goes back to an appearance on All at Sea in 2014, Boon has popped up on shows like The Alienist, Living the Dream, and The Defeated, as well as movies like The Winter Lake and Crawl. Boon also had a brief appearance on the 1917 cast.

Christian Lees (Glen Matlock)

Taking on the role of the Sex Pistols’ original bassist and songwriter Glen Matlock on Pistol is Christian Lees. 

Throughout his career, Lees has appeared on shows like Parents, The Bill, Little Crackers, and probably most notably Sun Records, on which he portrayed another musician, a little rock and roller named Jerry Lee Lewis. Lees also had a role in the 2021 British biographical sports drama The Phantom of the Open, which is opening stateside in June 2022.

Louis Partridge (Sid Vicious)

One of the most iconic figures in the history of punk music, Sid Vicious, the young and charismatic bassist who joined up with the Sex Pistols at the height of their fame, is portrayed by Louis Partridge on Pistol.

Throughout his career, Partridge has appeared in movies like Paddington 2, Pan, and Enola Holmes, and will soon appear in the eagerly awaited sequel to the Netflix mystery drama starring Millie Bobby Brown and Henry Cavill.

Sydney Chandler (Chrissie Hynde)

Sydney Chandler shows up on Pistol as Chrissie Hynde, founding member, guitarist, vocalist, and primary songwriter of American rock outfit The Pretenders, as well as someone who had a personal connection with the Sex Pistols before making a name for herself.

Since making her debut in 2016, Chandler has appeared in a a variety of short films like Jellyfish and Chemistry. She is next set to appear in Olivia Wilde’s upcoming psychological thriller Don’t Worry Darling alongside Florence Pugh, Harry Styles, and Chris Pine.

Talulah Riley (Vivienne Westwood)

Talulah Riley appears in Pistol as Vivienne Westwood, one of the founders of the legendary boutique SEX that became ground zero from London’s punk and fashion culture in the 1970s.

Over the years, Riley has landed prominent roles on shows like Nearly Famous and Westworld as well as smaller parts on everything from Poirot to Doctor Who. Her film work includes Inception (she was Eames’ disguise), The Dilemma, Bloodshot, and Pride & Prejudice.

Maisie Williams (Jordan)

Taking on the role of the late London fashion icon known as Jordan (real name Pamela Rooke) on Pistol is former Game of Thrones star Maisie Williams.

Obviously best known for her portrayal of Arya Stark on the long-running HBO fantasy drama series, Williams has been quite busy on the small screen since her days in Westeros came to an end. In the past couple of years, Williams has appeared on Two Weeks to Live and Gen:Lock. She has also popped up in movies like The Book of Love, Mary Shelley, The New Mutants, and The Owners.

Emma Appleton (Nancy Spungen)

Nancy Spungen, the second half of the infamously ill-fated couple Sid and Nancy, is portrayed by Emma Appleton on Pistol.

Appleton is no stranger when it comes to TV shows as she previously appeared on The End of the F***ing World, Genius, Traitors, and The Witcher. Outside of a few short films, Appleton’s other film credits include L.O.L.A. and The Last Letter from Your Lover.

Thomas Brodie-Sangster (Malcolm McLaren)

And rounding out the main portion of the Pistol cast is Thomas Brodie-Sangster who portrays Malcolm McLaren, who managed bands like Sex Pistols and New York Dolls throughout his life.

One of the most recognizable faces on the Pistol cast, Brodie-Sangster has appeared in movies like Love Actually, The Maze Runner franchise, Nowhere Boy, and was one of the many notable cameos in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. His TV work, which is just as impressive, includes Game of Thrones, Doctor Who, Godless, and The Queen’s Gambit.

This is just a portion of the Pistol cast and doesn’t include all of the other prominent figures of the punk rock movement who appear on the six-episode streaming series available to anyone with a Hulu subscription.

Prior to Cary Fukunaga coming aboard to helm No Time to Die, Daniel Craig’s fifth and final outing as James Bond, Yesterday’s Danny Boyle was attached to direct what was once simply known as Bond 25. Creative differences led to Boyle and writer John Hodge’s exit from the project, but that doesn’t mean he’s not interested in sharing his opinions on the 007 franchise anymore. In fact, he’s shared who he thinks should succeed Craig as Bond: Robert Pattinson.

Daniel Craig began his run as James Bond in 2006’s Casino Royale, and he bid the character adieu last year in No Time to Die. You can read through our No Time to Die ending breakdown to learn how things ended for this iteration of the character, but looking to the future, Danny Boyle threw out the name of The Batman’s lead actor as a candidate for the next Bond while speaking with Esquire, saying:

That’s a good pick, especially since Robert Pattinson has some experience in the spy genre with Tenet. Yes, Christopher Nolan’s 2020 movie was also steeped in sci-fi through its use of time inversion, but there was enough subterfuge and espionage infused in the story that Pattinson’s Neil could be considered a trial run for a potential Bond run. Plus, between The Batman and his time as Edward Cullen in the Twilight movies, Pattinson is an actor who already knows how to navigate major franchises.

While it’s fun to imagine Robert Pattinson playing James Bond going off of Danny Boyle’s suggestion, in reality, he’ll probably be too busy in the coming years to inherit on this fictional mantle. Following The Batman’s critical and commercial success, Warner Bros. announced in late April that The Batman 2 is officially happening, with Pattinson coming back as Bruce Wayne and re-teaming with filmmaker Matt Reeves. The sequel doesn’t have a release date yet, but assuming that Pattinson would still like to act in smaller movies when he’s not continuing his Batman run, it’s doubtful that he’d have time to squeeze in playing James Bond too. That being said, should Pattinson’s name be thrown into the Bond betting mix, alongside actors like Regé-Jean Page and Henry Cavill, we’ll let you know.

Suggesting Robert Pattinson would make a good James Bond is one of several ways Danny Boyle had talked 007 lately. The filmmaker (whose other big credits include Trainspotting, 28 Days Later and Slumdog Millionaire) also said that his version of Bond 25 would have seen Daniel Craig’s version of the character traveling to Russia, and that No Time to Die actually retained an idea that he and John Hodge came up with: giving James Bond a child, although how that kid was used differed in their story. Speaking of Hodge, he speculated back in March that the powers-that-be behind what became No Time to Die only wanted him gone, but Boyle “took the bullet, too.”

No Time to Die is available to buy/rent on physical and digital formats, and as soon as any concrete information about what’s next for the James Bond franchise comes in, we’ll let you know. As for Danny Boyle, his latest project, the FX on Hulu miniseries Pistol, premieres for Hulu subscribers on May 31.

In 1975, a band by the name of the Sex Pistols came onto the scene and forever changed the music industry and pop culture with a smash mouth style we know today as punk rock. Although not the first punk band, nor (some would argue) the best, the Sex Pistols quickly became the face and attitude of the movement that swept across the United Kingdom, the United States, and the world in short order, inspiring countless bands along the way.

The story of groundbreaking band’s meteoric rise and legacy will be covered in great detail in the upcoming biographical drama FX limited series, Pistol, which will show how a handful of angsty Brits turned turned society on its head. Here’s everything we know about the upcoming limited series, including its release date, cast, and if you’ll be hearing any of those legendary Sex Pistols tracks when it premieres.

Pistol Premieres May 31 On Hulu 

Pistol is technically an FX production, but the six-part limited series will be exclusive to Hulu in the United States when it premieres May 31 on the popular platforms. But unlike some of the other great Hulu shows, the story of the Sex Pistols will be available in full on the day of its release, making for a great binge session for longtime fans of the band and punk rock historians. 

FX has also announced that series will be available on Disney+ on the same day in the U.K., Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore. 

The Pistol Cast Includes Toby Wallace, Maisie Williams, And Thomas Brodie-Sangster

When Pistol premieres on Hulu come May, it will feature a young and exciting cast with a handful of big-time names portraying icons of the early punk movement and the London scene in the mid-1970s. Toby Wallace will be leading the series as Sex Pistols guitarist Steve Jones, with Anson Boon playing frontman Johnny Rotten, Christian Lees portraying the band’s original bassist Glen Matlock, Jacob Slater taking on drummer Paul Cook, Dylan Llewellyn as guitarist Wally Nightingale, and Louis Partridge stepping in as the young and ill-fated punk icon, Sid Vicious.

Other key figures of that era are set to be portrayed throughout the series, with Maisie Williams playing fashion icon Pamela Rooke, a.k.a. Jordan, Thomas Brodie-Sangster portraying Sex Pistols manager Malcolm McLaren. Emma Appleton will be taking on the role of Sid Vicious’ girlfriend and alleged murder victim Nancy Spungen, who was previously portrayed by Chloe Webb in the 1986 biographical drama, Sid and Nancy, alongside Gary Oldman.

Pistol Chronicles The Rise Of Punk Outfit Sex Pistols

Over the course of the show’s six episodes, Pistol will chronicle the rise of the Sex Pistols and how the band helped lead a revolution in popular music. According to the show’s official logline, the upcoming limited series will feature a story of a band of “spotty, noisy, working class kids” who didn’t really see a future for themselves.

How much of the Sex Pistols’ story is included in Pistol has not been revealed at this time, but expect for all the major moments of the band’s legendary, and brief, run to be included in some shape or form.

The Series Is Based On Steve Jones Memoir, Lonely Boy: Tales From A Sex Pistol

When show creator Craig Pearce and co-writer Frank Cottrell-Boyce set out to tell the Sex Pistols’ story, they drew from Steve Jones’ 2016 memoir: Lonely Boy: Tales from a Sex Pistol, which broke down the story of how a group of young men drew from their past experiences to create one of the most notable rock and roll bands of all time and helped usher in a phenomenon that transcended music and changed culture while also impacting the lives of millions of people for years to come.

Academy Award Winner Danny Boyle Directed Pistol

Academy Award-winning director Danny Boyle, who took home a Best Director Oscar for his work on the fantastic Slumdog Millionaire, helmed all six episodes of Pistol, which has to be another reason for fans of the Sex Pistols, punk, and the filmmaker’s body of work to check it out. In addition to sitting behind the camera of the new limited series, Boyle also served as one its executive producers. Although he has worked in the medium before, Pistol is Boyle’s biggest TV commitment in his more than 30-year career. He previously directed episodes of Screenplay, Inspector Morse, and Trust. 

The limited series is also Boyle’s first project since completing the music-centric 2019 comedy, Yesterday. Music has long been a focus of Boyle’s work, especially with the 1996 dark comedy Trainspotting, which featured one of the best soundtracks of the 1990s, with songs from Iggy Pop, New Order, Sleeper, Lou Reed, and Blur among others.

Pistol’s Producers Wanted To Work With Sex Pistols Frontman John Lydon But Had No Luck

Considering Pistol will be tackling the Sex Pistols story with more depth than ever before, you can see why Danny Boyle and the rest of the show’s producers wanted the band’s frontman, Johnny Rotten (real name John Lydon), to participate in the production in some form. But, that just wasn’t in the cards as no one from the show could get ahold of the punk rock pioneer despite their best efforts. 

When speaking with Deadline, Danny Boyle revealed that he couldn’t get past Lydon’s manager. Despite that, Boyle expressed his appreciation for Lydon and sounded hopeful that the icon will watch the show so and realize how much everyone involved loves his work.

Pistol Is Expected To Feature The Sex Pistols’ Music

Having a show about the Sex Pistols without featuring “Anarchy in the U.K.,” “God Save the Queen,” or “Holidays in the Sun” would make it a hard watch for fans of the band, but luckily it appears that won’t be the case. Though the exact songs used in the upcoming series have yet to be revealed, the show’s producers have been cleared to use the material throughout the six-part limited series, following a bitter legal battle between John Lydon and his former bandmates after the singer attempted to block their usage, per The Guardian.

The gist of the legal fight came down to Steve Jones and Paul Cook being able to invoke what are called “majority voting rules” against Lydon, who was vehemently opposed to licensing the catalog of music, with a British court pointing to an agreement signed by the band in 1998 which made it so that all decisions could be decided with a majority vote.

We will have to wait until May 31 to see how Pistol plays out, but there are still plenty of other great 2022 TV shows to keep track of in the meantime.

Before the success story that is No Time To Die closed out the Daniel Craig era of James Bond movies, there were some growing pains that peppered the project’s road to the big screen. One of the most notable happenings was that time when the still-unnamed Bond 25 lost director Danny Boyle and writer John Hodge to “creative differences.” However, in a recent interview, Hodge seemed to think that Boyle’s departure may have been more voluntary than we thought. 

Was Danny Boyle Meant To Leave Bond 25?

John Hodge may have lost out on the Bond 25 writing gig, but he still found himself tackling the world of espionage. As the writer of ITV’s modern TV remake of The Ipcress File, Hodge has brought Harry Palmer back to life in a modern series. Speaking with The Guardian about that project, thoughts obviously turned to the film that would become No Time To Die; and John Hodge provided the following insight into his ultimate departure:

If you want a quick history lesson in Bond 25’s short flirtation with the Hodge and Boyle team, we’ve covered that very ground before in a story. While talking about how No Time To Die was influenced by the team’s abandoned concept, Danny Boyle seemed to be the source of those “madcap ideas” that triggered the Bond 25 change up. John Hodge’s comments above tell a different story, suggesting that the creative differences may have laid solely on his writing, with Boyle potentially leaving to support his Trainspotting collaborator.

We may never know the full story about Bond 25’s big creative clash, despite there being heavy rumors that Daniel Craig’s finale would have centered around a “modern Cold War” with a Russian villain. John Hodge is certainly not going to be the one to spill the tea, as he’s very tight-lipped about any potential influence his script had on No Time To Die. 

Why John Hodge Won’t Spill The Tea On His Bond 25 Exit

The James Bond franchise is such a valuable asset to both MGM and EON Productions that you’d think something like the abandoned concept of Bond 25 would be NDA’d to the hilt. Evidently not, if John Hodge is any indication, as he’s imposing his own moral code of silence. However, Hodge did reveal what wasn’t a part of those “creative differences”: 

While the world has been clued into the fact that Daniel Craig called his exit at the time he made Casino Royale, the potential death of James Bond previously gained a bit of traction as a potential creative split. As that’s been well and fairly ruled out, the actual differences in Bond 25 now feel all the more mysterious. Still, John Hodge is maintaining that “British discretion” on all fronts to what could have been.

His most stalwart example of holding that line comes from the fact that No Time To Die actually does contain part of John Hodge’s original dialogue from Bond 25. More specifically, “half a line” was the exact measure mentioned in this interview, which saw Hodge pressed for what that morsel might have been. Refusing to give an inch, Hodge explained why he’s so precious with those details: 

As a James Bond fan, it’s frustrating to not get the full story of what Bond 25 was meant to originally be before being scrapped. That script probably sits on the “holy grail” list of 007 fans, right next to the draft of Spectre that saw Chiwetel Ejiofor cast as a vastly different Blofeld, as well as any of the unused ideas that could have been Timothy Dalton’s third film. However, John Hodge and his dedication to keeping secrets is admirable, and one could only hope that he and Danny Boyle might be considered to help usher in the new era of James Bond adventure.

No Time To Die, in its final and known form, is currently available for rental and purchase on physical and digital media. Meanwhile, Bond 25 is secreted away safely in the personal records of John Hodge, and anyone else who was party to that draft’s creation. For the rest of us, the 2022 movie releases may hold some sort of relief, as we maintain hope that maybe the truth will be revealed some day.

The only thing that outpaces the rumors that have surrounded the James Bond franchise is the amount of unmade ideas that have been banked by the series in its almost-60-year history. No Time To Die is certainly not immune to that phenomenon, as the finished product came after the “Bond 25” concept turned in by director Danny Boyle and writer John Hodge led to a creative split. While that film never happened, there were some aspects of that production that survived to influence No Time To Die’s finished product.

Before wrapping my conversation with James Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, our reflection on the Daniel Craig run ended with a question I was almost afraid to ask. With Danny Boyle’s departure from No Time To Die still fresh in my mind, the subject of why that script wasn’t exactly a good fit came up. After asking what ideas they might have liked from the Boyle/Hodge draft, Michael G. Wilson answered with the following insight:  

Not familiar with Danny Boyle's times to the 25th James Bond movie? Don't worry worry, we have you covered.

Danny Boyle’s Bond 25 History, In A Nutshell

A quick history for those who need it: early in 2018, Danny Boyle and John Hodge were hired to bring “Bond 25” to life. The usual rumors of casting and plot points flew around, but eventually the project would see Boyle leaving due to “creative differences” between himself and the powers that be. In September 2018, roughly a month after Boyle’s departure, director Cary Joji Fukunaga would step into the director’s chair, and No Time To Die was born. What would be left behind, according to Danny Boyle hired production designer Mark Tildesley, was the “crazy, madcap” unmade draft that remains one of the most compelling mysteries in the modern 007 canon.

What Danny Boyle’s Bond 25 Contributed To No Time To Die

However, as you can see above, Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli did keep some of the DNA from Danny Boyle’s “Bond 25,” and in some rather profound ways. Not only was Mark Tildesley and his vision kept on board after the transition, but so was costume designer Suttriat Larlarb. At the point in the process, according to Titan Books’ No Time To Die: The Making of the Film, the three months that had passed saw location scouting, set building and stunt planning all moving along. While exact concepts may not have stayed in the film, the talents of both Tildesley and Larlarb were kept on board for the ride ahead.

Contrary to what some may have been thinking when Danny Boyle’s exit from “Bond 25” took place, the “creative differences” weren’t from some dramatic falling-out. Rather, it was a cut and dry case of two roads diverging from the same origin, with No Time To Die resulting from Cary Joji Fukinaga’s hiring and collaboration with James Bond screenwriters Neal Purvis and Robert Wade. Describing that split in author Mark Salisbury’s comprehensive behind-the-scenes tome, here's how Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli’s recalled how it all happened: 

This sort of story is a tale as old as time when it comes to the James Bond franchise. Just as Michael G. Wilson had said in our interview, even rejected drafts have ideas that spark the imagination, finding their way into future Bond films. Of course, that’s not the only well that the 007 films use as building blocks for each new entry.

The Ian Fleming Book That Helped No Time To Die Complete The Daniel Craig Era

A more potent source of inspiration than the unmade Timothy Dalton films, or even Danny Boyle and John Hodge’s “Bond 25,” has to be the works of Ian Fleming himself. No Time To Die is another example of pulling from aspects of the original 007 novels that haven’t made their way into the cinematic franchise. Barbara Broccoli highlighted one specific instance when discussing this topic in our sit down: 

Originating in Ian Fleming’s literary version of You Only Live Twice, the poison garden is one of a handful of references pulled from the 1964 novel. Though the title was already used for Sean Connery’s fifth James Bond outing, the thematic material was still ripe for influencing the course of No Time To Die’s story. Which, as Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson pointed out, is a firm example of ideas never really going to waste in the Bond franchise.

Unless we somehow get further confirmed details on Danny Boyle and John Hodge’s idea for “Bond 25,” we’ll never truly know which pieces survived in No Time To Die, and which ones supposedly perished. Maybe through a prose novel or even a comic adaptation, we could see that idea come to life in the same way that William Gibson's Alien 3 and George Lucas’ The Star Wars draft have seen the light of day. Or maybe, in an adventure with the next James Bond, some of those concepts will find a way to thrill us another day. 

Back in the world of the here and now, audiences can finally experience No Time To Die at a theater near them. Or they can look forward to doing so real soon, depending on what part of the world they reside in. Though if you’re ready for something new at the movies, take a look at 2021’s movie releases that remain to be seen in the wild. 

In the earlier history of the James Bond franchise, the position of who directed the films seemed to circulate through the hands of four individuals alone. With the exception of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service director Peter R. Hunt, directors Terrence Young, Lewis Gilbert, Guy Hamilton and John Glen were the team that shaped 007 history for the first 16 films in the series. But when you include Hunt, all five men were part of the James Bond team in some position or another. Which makes the fact that in the classic history of Bond films, we could have seen a pretty big name break into their ranks, if history had been a bit kinder.

But even in the modern practice of almost a new director every film, with only Martin Campbell and Sam Mendes being the recurring figures in Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig’s tenures, there have been some amazing “what if” scenarios we missed out on. Today, we’re about to dive deep into the ranks of history, and see how eight directors had a brush with the world of Ian Fleming’s secret agent, and how each of them either lost out or passed up the opportunity to command the gun barrel, along with the man who walks across its gaze.

Steven Spielberg, The Spy Who Loved Me/Moonraker

Back when Steven Spielberg was a young, hotshot director making hits like Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the world seemed to be his oyster. And yet, even after making two of the biggest films that defined his career and the history of blockbuster filmmaking, James Bond producer Albert R. Broccoli still wouldn’t hire Spielberg as a director in the Roger Moore era of Bond. Calling his shot two different occasions, history could have seen Steven Spielberg directing either The Spy Who Loved Me or Moonraker, based on the timing of when Spielberg personally called Broccoli to offer his services. Funny enough, both times Steven Spielberg tried to get into the 007 series, Jaws would have been there to greet him if it had worked out.

Alfred Hitchcock, Thunderball

Before Dr. No became the first James Bond tale to be adapted into a 007 film, Ian Fleming originally wanted the script that would eventually become Thunderball, entitled Longitude 78 West, to be directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Even more amazing is the fact that Hitchcock himself was a fan of Fleming’s work, thanks to Casino Royale winning him over in book form. Timing scuppered the works, and the world lost out on what’s now considered to be a “lost Hitchcock.” Even stranger, as Hitch’s North by Northwest leading man Cary Grant was also in the mix as one of the first candidates to play James Bond back in the day, we might have seen the two reunite on the film that eventually became one of the biggest legal headaches in Bond history.

John Landis, Bond 17

The other large legal quagmire that threatened to derail the James Bond series for good was that time that home studio MGM/United Artists was bought by another company, which unlawfully leased the rights to the Bond franchise to another company. Were it not for this hiccup, the film that wasn’t quite Goldeneye, but would have been Bond 17, might not have seen Timothy Dalton fail to renew his contract. And if that film moved ahead, one of the candidates mentioned for the director’s post was National Lampoon’s Animal House/Coming To America helmer John Landis. But with the dissolution of that project, the man who also helped shape the story for The Spy Who Loved Me found his chance at directing this nebulous film fading fast.

John Woo, Goldeneye

It takes a lot of confidence to accept a gig like directing the long awaited return of James Bond, which saw Pierce Brosnan finally getting his turn in the tuxedo in Goldeneye. However, it also takes just as much guts to turn it down with a smile and a polite well wish. That very story showed up in author Christopher Heard’s biography on Face/Off director John Woo, Ten Thousand Bullets: The Cinematic Journey of John Woo. According to that text, Woo was allegedly offered the gig to direct the actual 17th James Bond movie, but he declined with the greatest respect. A year after Goldeneye’s explosive debut, John Woo would break into the consciousness of western audiences with his action thriller Broken Arrow. So you could say it all turned out okay.

Peter Jackson, The World Is Not Enough

Imagine a world where The Lord of the Rings isn’t directed by Peter Jackson. That might have been the case if history shook out differently, particularly in the version of events where Barbara Broccoli pursued Jackson’s directorial skills for 1999’s The World is Not Enough. Apparently, according to the authorized biography Peter Jackson: A Filmmaker’s Journey, Broccoli was at once impressed and repulsed by Jackson’s resume. The story goes something like this: it was the serious and sobering drama Heavenly Creatures that put Peter Jackson on Barbara Broccoli’s radar in the first place. This in turn led her to being invited to view the more comedic horror romp The Frighteners, which promptly put her off his hiring. Which is probably a good thing, as The World is Not Enough released in November 1999, a month into his back-to-back-to-back production schedule on The Lord of the Rings.

Quentin Tarantino, Casino Royale

If the powers that be listened to Pierce Brosnan’s pitch for Casino Royale, things might still be a lot different from what they turned out to be in the world of 007. As Brosnan himself told this story during this year’s Goldeneye watch party, a boozy night out led to the then current James Bond and director Quentin Tarantino, fresh off of Kill Bill at the time, to cook up an R-rated version of Ian Fleming’s first Bond adventure. Apparently there were talks about this film also being a black and white period piece, and that may have been what ultimately pushed those in the decision-making seat to pass. Then again, with Pierce Brosnan being released from the role not too long after that point, other wheels may have been turning.

Roger Mitchell, Quantum of Solace

You probably don’t know director Roger Mitchell by name, but you definitely know one of his most memorable projects as a director: the romantic comedy Notting Hill. Believe it or not, there was a time when Mitchell was approached to get Quantum of Solace off the ground, and in a hurry. With a 2007 release firmly in mind, and no script developed at the time, Roger Mitchell was asked if he could develop some action sequences that Daniel Craig’s second 007 outing could employ to wow the audience. But Mitchell wasn’t comfortable without a script and bowed out as he felt the gig just wasn’t for him. Eventually, World War Z director Marc Forster would take over the reins and deliver the finished project.

Danny Boyle, No Time To Die

And here we are: the most recent and arguably most painful 007 parting of the ways we’ve seen in the current age. When you hire someone like Danny Boyle to make a movie, you kind of expect the man who shepherded Trainspotting, A Life Less Ordinary and 28 Days Later to do something at list a little bit unconventional. Yet when he and writer John Hodge were hired to craft the movie that was eventually No Time To Die, it felt like maybe the series was ready for that sort of approach. Five months after their hiring, and a ton of speculation later, Boyle left the then titled Bond 25, and it was supposedly over a bunch of “crazy, madcap ideas.”

One can only imagine how different the history of James Bond would have been if any of these directors had landed their moments in the 00-sun. These are some experimental ideas and wild chances that might have paid off... or failed spectacularly. It's something to keep in mind as we make our way into the next phase of the Bond franchise, as any new hirings on the directing front could see a quick and sharp reversal of fortune. No Time To Die closes out the Daniel Craig era of films, with its planned release in theaters on November 20, and we can't wait to see how Cary Joji Fukunaga earns his place in the ranks of those who were lucky enough to walk away with the job in hand.

This poll is no longer available.

Hollywood is loaded with iconic directors who have given audiences some of the best entertainment for decades. For that reason, they're often given more work, which always opens them up to giving audiences more to love... or something they may really, really hate. Most of these icons hit far more often than they miss, though even the greatest have that movie where they struck out.

To be completely upfront, there will be some hot takes on this list. Every item on this list is the lowest-rated movie from the mentioned iconic director on Rotten Tomatoes, so blame the critics of the time, not me. With that out of the way, let's run down the list of terrible movies from iconic directors that may or may not deserve a spotlight.

Guillermo Del Toro - Blade 2

Ironically, what many would consider the best Blade movie is also the worst movie made by Guillermo del Toro. Not that Del Toro is ever really given a ton of blame for that; his job was to direct, and he did his best with the script he was given. Unfortunately, even the most foreboding and dark areas fall flat when the movie uses fight scenes with dialogue only to move Blade along to the next fight scene. Thankfully, del Toro would win critics over in the superhero genre with his two Hellboy movies down the road.

David Lynch - Dune

David Lynch had a tremendous task cut out for him in Dune, and by most metrics to this day, he failed. The man who perfectly captured the life of The Elephant Man somehow couldn't find a proper way to adapt Frank Herbert's classic in a way that could be easily understood by its audience. The movie is widely considered a miss for Lynch, and while he's come close with a couple of features, it's the only movie of his considered "rotten" by critics on Rotten Tomatoes.

George Lucas- Star Wars: The Phantom Menace

George Lucas' track record is somewhat skewed considering 2/3rds of his directing work is for Star Wars projects, but he did create the franchise after all. Unfortunately, he also gifted the world the most critically panned entry in the franchise, The Phantom Menace. I thought it was fine in my younger years, but a recent re-watch made me question why plans for the trilogy weren't heavily reconsidered after that entry alone. Was the world just so desperate for more Star Wars that they looked past it? Obviously, there were people who knew right out the gate, as many critics were not shy to say this wasn't nearly on the same level as A New Hope.

Martin Scorsese- Boxcar Bertha

When it comes to violent movies that revolve around a world of crime, typically Martin Scorsese is the guy to call. That said, that wasn't known back when he made Boxcar Bertha, which was only his second directorial feature at the time. Hilariously enough, most of the complaints were due to the violence, which was often a criticism Scorsese has gotten for successive films that are now considered masterpieces. Unfortunately, Boxcar Bertha has not been nearly as acclaimed as the rest.

Tim Burton- Dark Shadows

Tim Burton has a knack for putting his own spin on classic stories, even with works that may not initially seem like they could work with his dark charm. Weirdly enough, Dark Shadows seemed like a perfect and relatively sensible fit for Burton, and he had Johnny Depp on board. It should've been a hit, but critics found the premise played out. The jokes fell flat and Burton was criticized for struggling to find a tone throughout the movie. Sometimes the "sure things" in Hollywood just don't work out in execution, and this movie is proof positive of that.

Peter Jackson - The Lovely Bones

Peter Jackson is known for a lot of things, but paranormal thrillers aren't really his bag. Sure, Frodo did turn invisible a handful of times in The Lord Of The Rings, but even in the context of all he'd done before this movie, The Lovely Bones was a pretty out-there film for Jackson. Of course, that was part of the point, as Jackson went on the record saying he enjoyed doing something that wasn't a large-scale epic for once. Three years later he was doing The Hobbit, though it's worth noting he wasn't the first choice.

Steven Spielberg - Hook

Hook is a beloved classic by many, but that was not how it was received by critics. This movie got a thorough thrashing for being an ill-begotten story of Peter Pan and was hated by critics so much that its aggregate Rotten Tomatoes score is a measly 28%. The movie was called unimaginative, the effects were not well integrated, and the overall story was garbled down by too many Hollywood ideals. Perhaps the biggest criticism was that it had such a great premise, but did so little to further adapt or bring in elements from the original story.

Ridley Scott - A Good Year

Similar to what I touched on earlier with Peter Jackson, there are things iconic directors are known for, and things they aren't. When you think of Ridley Scott, I highly doubt you think of romantic comedies. Scott has a wide range of movies he can make a hit, and with Russell Crowe as the lead in A Good Year, it stood to reason he could do it again. This time it just didn't happen, as the end result was seen as a soulless romantic comedy that went on a little too long. It's not necessarily bad, but certainly not one anyone needs to make time for.

David Fincher - Alien 3

The final entry is the most perhaps fitting, because not even David Fincher will defend Alien 3. The third installment in the Alien franchise already had a lot to live up to with the first two movies, which was directed by two other directing icons, Ridley Scott and James Cameron. Unfortunately, Fincher's film wasn't considered nearly as exciting or bold as the prior two films, though it has gathered its share of fans over the years. Still, when even Fincher himself disowns it, it's hard not to side with the crowd who thinks this sequel just wasn't up to par.

Spike Lee - She Hate Me

She Hate Me has all the ingredients for a great film. It's a challenging script from Spike Lee and Michael Genet, it has a dynamite cast that includes Anthony Mackie, in one of his earliest roles, and Kerry Washington in the lead roles, and, of course, is directed by Lee, one of the most acclaimed directors of the last 30+ years. The movie misses though, weighted down by the heavy message it tries to make while also trying to be a comedy. 

Barry Levinson - Sphere

After the huge success of Jurassic Park in 1993, Hollywood was clamoring to adapt other Michael Crichton novels. The mid and late '90s were chock full of adaptions like The 13th Warrior, Congo, Rising Sun, and Disclosure. Right in that mix was Barry Levinson's adaptation of Sphere and while the book was fantastic, the movie just falls flat, perhaps because people staring at mysterious orb for most of a movie isn't all that exciting. 

Sam Raimi - For Love Of The Game

Director Sam Raimi has a remarkable hit record, with only a couple movies rating below 50% on Rotten Tomatoes, the lowest being the Kevin Costner baseball movie For Love Of The Game. If you love Costner and baseball, it's actually a decent movie, but it isn't Raimi's best, that's for sure. 

Francis Ford Coppola - Jack

Francis Ford Coppola had a run in the 1970s that is almost unprecedented in Hollywood with The Godfather movies, The Conversation, and Apocalypse Now. He found success in the 1980s too, with movies like The Outsiders and Tucker: A Man and His Dream. Then there is 1996's Jack. All you can ask is, "What were Coppola and Robin Williams thinking?"

Penny Marshall - Renaissance Man

The late Penny Marshall is a Hollywood icon for many reasons. Renaissance Man is not one of them. If you've never seen it (which wouldn't be surprising) think of it like Dead Poet's Society crossed with Pauly Shore's In The Army Now, and just as unfunny as the latter. Danny DeVito plays a guy who loves quoting Shakespeare and finds himself teaching army recruits how to read. That's all you need to know, really, there is no reason to ever watch it. 

Oliver Stone - Alexander

Oliver Stone knows how to tell a war story. His Vietnam films Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July rank among the best war movies of all time. His telling of the ancient battle of Alexander the Great in Alexander is as good. The original release was a hot mess and while he has improved it with a couple of subsequent director's cuts, it still doesn't hold a candle to his other films. 

Ivan Reitman - Father's Day

The late Ivan Reitman has always been hit-or-miss with critics. Even some of his most popular movies, like Twins, were poorly reviewed. His worst movie though, based on both audience and critics' scores. is Father's Day starring Billy Crystal and Robin Williams as two men trying to find their former lovers' son to determine which man is the father. It's... not funny, nor is it heartfelt. It's just a miss. 

Amy Heckerling - Night At The Roxbury

Clueless and Fast Times At Ridgemont High are two of the most beloved teen comedies of all time, both define two generations. For director Amy Heckerling they are high water marks in her career. On the other side of those is Night At The Roxbury. Though it’s her lowest-ranked movie on Rotten Tomatoes, it’s not the worst movie based on SNL characters, so it could be worse. 

Kathryn Bigelow - The Weight of Water

Oscar-winner Katheryn Bigelow is pretty picky about the movies she chooses to direct, and most of the time, she nails it, like The Hurt Locker, Point Break, and Zero Dark Thirty. Occasionally she misses, like The Weight Of Water. Though it’s nowhere near the worst movie on this list, it’s still the worst of her movies according to the critics on Rotten Tomatoes. 

The Coen Brothers - The Ladykillers

When your worst-reviewed movie on Rotten Tomatoes is still 54%, you’re doing pretty well. For the Coen Brothers, The Ladykillers is a very rare example of a miss, as they have 13 movies north of 80%. I’m a fan of The Ladykillers and I think it’s vastly underrated, but sticking with the rules, it’s the one of this list. I’d have Hail! Caesar at the bottom, however. 

Danny Boyle - The Beach

Before Alex Garland became an acclaimed director of movies like 2024’s Civil War, he was a novelist. He wrote The Beach in the ‘90s and captivated a generation of would-be adventure travelers. Combine that with the talents of the great director Danny Boyle and star Leonardo DiCaprio and you’d think there was no way the movie would be bad. The Beach isn’t terrible, but it’s not Boyle’s best work by far. It just misses the sense of adventure the novel has. 

Alfonso Cuarón - Great Expectations

Alfonso Cuarón takes his time when making a movie, and while Great Expectations is no exception, it falls short of the lofty expectations we have of the director. Sure, it’s based on a classic novel (though a modern retelling of the Dickens book) and it has a great cast, but it just misses. It’s certainly not up to his usual standards. 

Alex & Emma - Rob Reiner

Some of the best rom-coms of all time have been directed by Rob Reiner. Alex & Emma, starring Luke Wilson and Kate Hudson is not one of them. It’s a rare miss from the This is Spinal Tap director, with a brutal 11% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. 

M. Night Shyamalan - The Last Airbender

M. Night Shyamalan has never really been a critical darling, but his fans always stick up for him, with one exception: The Last Airbender. The movie, based on the Avatar: The Last Airbender franchise, is despised by critics and fans alike, especially fans of the source material. 

Eagle Vs. Shark - Taika Waititi

As debut movies go, Taika Waititi’s Eagle Vs. Shark isn’t that bad. The director’s now-legendary humor is very evident, but it’s clearly a low-budget first outing for Waititi. It’s excusable, given what would come later. What is less excusable is the miss he had with Thor: Love & Thunder, but it’s still better ranked than this one, for some reason. If given the choice between the two, pick Eagle Vs. Shark.

James Cameron - Piranha II: The Spawning

Okay, so this one really isn’t fair. The worst movie that the great James Cameron directed is a B-movie called Piranha II: The Spawning. From the title alone, you know it’s going to be bad. There isn’t much redeemable about it, except that it got Cameron’s foot in the door in Hollywood and his next movie, The Terminator has a perfect 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, so you can ignore the 5% this one got. 

Ron Howard - Inferno

Did you know that Ron Howard and Tom Hanks teamed up for three movies based on the books of Dan Brown? You probably remember The Da Vinci Code and you might have even seen Angels & Demons but there is a third, terrible installment in the franchise called Inferno. CinemaBlend called Howard’s direction “slow, ponderous and dull,” which is not what you explicit from the Hollywood legend. 

Robert Altman - Beyond Therapy

Throughout his career, director Robert Altman had some serious highs, like The Player and MASH, but he also had some pretty low lows, and none were lower than Beyond Therapy in 1987. It came at a low point overall in the legendary director’s career, a time that also included similarly poorly reviewed movies like Popeye and O.C. and Stiggs.

Ivan Reitman - Beverly Hills Cop III

This one is a little unfair, because Ivan Reitman and Eddie Murphy have both made worse movies, but it likely suffers from coming on the heals of two previous Beverly Hills Cop movies that are, without a doubt, superior to this sequel. 

Elia Kazan - The Arrangement

There is no doubt of Elia Kazan’s place in Hollywood history. Considered one of the most influential directors of all time, fans of his can also boast that his movies launched the careers of actors like Marlon Brando and James Dean. However, not every movie he made was a classic and while The Arrangement has been somewhat re-evaluated in recent years, it still holds a dismal 15% ranking on Rotten Tomatoes. 

Brian De Palma - The Bonfire Of The Vanities

Tom Wolfe has only had a couple of books adapted into movies. The first, The Right Stuff is one of the best movies about The Cold War. The second, The Bonfire of the Vanities, directed by Brian De Palma, is… not very good. In fact, it’s pretty brutal. It tries hard to hit all the cultural critiques that Wolfe laid out in his novel, but it just doesn’t get the point across nearly as well. It’s a clunky mess. 

Richard Linklater - Bad News Bears

When he sticks with his own original stories and writes his own screenplays, Richard Linklater is a master. Movies like Dazed and Confused, Before Sunrise, and Boyhood are iconic. The Bad News Bears is also iconic, just not the remake Linklater directed in 2005. The original is far, far better. 

Gus Van Sant - Even Cowgirls Get The Blues

For Gen X, the combination of Gus Van Sant and novelist Tom Robbins was an enticing prospect. Sadly, the movie adaptation of Robbins’ classic Even Cowgirls Get The Blues is simply a disappointment, a very rare miss for Van Sant, especially at that point in his career coming off the back-to-back masterpieces Drugstore Cowboy and My Own Private Idaho. 

No Time to Die may have been pushed back due to the coronavirus outbreak, but it is set to finally hit theaters later this year after a long development period. Before Cary Fukunaga was tapped to direct, the plan was for Trainspotting’s Danny Boyle to helm what was simply known then as Bond 25, as well as work on the script with John Hodge.

Both Danny Boyle and John Hodge ended up leaving the James Bond movie due to creative differences, and while it’s never officially been revealed what the duo had in store for Daniel Craig’s 007, according to No Time to Die set designer Mark Tildesley, it was quite bonkers. As Tildesley put it:

Had Danny Boyle stayed aboard Bond 25, it would have been his first time working on a major franchise. Considering his directorial resume also includes things like 28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire and Yesterday, one would imagine that he would have brought a unique filmmaking sensibility to the James Bond film series, which has been going for almost 60 years now.

Mark Tildesley added to Total Film that Danny Boyle and John Hodge’s Bond 25 script featured “some extraordinary ideas, they just needed a little pulling together.” There have been various rumors about what Boyle’s Bond 25 would have included, such as a “modern day Col War” with Russia and James Bond perhaps even being killed off. Whether any of those rumors are true or not, evidently Boyle’s vision for Daniel Craig’s final Bond adventure didn’t line up with what Eon Productions heads Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson had in mind.

Danny Boyle and John Hodge ultimately decided to step away from Bond 25, with Boyle later saying that the powers that be “didn’t want to go down that route” with him and Hodge. Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, who’d penned the previous Daniel Craig-led James Bond movies, were brought back to write a new script, and Cary Fukunaga was hired not long after. Purvis said:

While Mark Tildesley indicated that he’ll try to get Danny Boyle looked at for another James Bond movie down the line, it seems unlikely that Boyle would be game for that, as following his exit from Bond 25, he said he learned that he’s not cut out for franchises. It hasn’t been announced what Boyle’s next movie will be, but count on it existing outside the mainstream franchise sphere.

As for No Time to Die, which also received a script polish from Fleabag’s Phoebe Waller-Bridge, it takes place five years after the events of Spectre and follows James Bond being pulled out retirement to help find a missing scientist and uncovering a new threat to the world involving advanced technology. Reprising their respective roles alongside Daniel Craig are Léa Seydoux, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Jeffrey Wright, Ralph Fiennes, Rory Kenner and Christoph Waltz, while the new faces include Rami Malek, Ana de Armas, Lashana Lynch, Dali Benssalah, David Dencik and Billy Magnussen.

Previously set for release in April, No Time to Die will now be released in theaters on November 25. Check out our 2020 release schedule to see when the rest of this year’s movies will drop.

Though it centers on a rather odd high-concept premise, Danny Boyle's Yesterday is ultimately a very passionate love letter about its subject matter. The film may be about a world without The Beatles, but it's ultimate message is that a world like that is a lesser world. It's beautiful in its respect and adulation - and yet the movie's director was still worried about how the actual band would react to the finished product - particularly when it came to using their songs.

It was during an interview with Billboard and a discussion about the acquisition of the right to The Beatles' music that Danny Boyle both talked about his apprehension he felt regarding how the band would respond to the project, and what he actually did to remedy his emotions. According to the filmmaker, not long after signing on to direct he contacted the surviving band members and the widows of George Harrison and John Lennon, and then got a lovely response:

In Yesterday, the protagonist Jack Malik (Himesh Patel) winds up covering a total of 17 Beatles songs, becoming a global superstar thanks to music and lyrics that he didn't create, but for which he takes credit. Not all of the tracks are exactly the same, as there is a joke made that he doesn't precisely remember every lyric to every song that he plays - but joking aside, what elevates the performance is that Patel is a wonderfully talented singer and guitar player who brings fantastic life to the classic hits.

Danny Boyle doesn't specifically mention it, but one has to imagine that the letters he wrote included not only his approach to the music for Yesterday, but also the presence of John Lennon - who is played by Robert Carlyle in the movie and is depicted as still being alive, having never been a target of an assassination attempt as an extension of his fame. This is one of the film's more controversial bits, and something that Boyle actually recognized as such when the movie was coming out, telling USA Today:

Hopefully at some point we'll be able to learn how Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Olivia Harrison and Yoko Ono felt about the sequence in more detail.

While it arrived on the big screen on June 28th, Yesterday is actually still playing in over 400 theaters around the country, but it won't be long until you'll be able to enjoy the film in the comfort of your own home. The movie will be available for digital download starting September 10th, and available for purchase on 4K, Blu-ray, and DVD starting September 24th.

Warning: SPOILERS for Yesterday are in play. If you haven’t seen the film yet, and want to remain unspoiled, bookmark this story and come back once you’re current.

The world of Yesterday is one that’s built on major change. In particular, the Beatles and several other key pop culture contributions have disappeared, thus changing the world that protagonist Jack Malik, played by Himesh Patel, inhabits.

Strangely enough, the story of the film underwent some major changes itself, as one of the conditions director Danny Boyle laid out in order to secure his participation was that he wanted to see 20% to 25% of the script changed before he signed on.

Writer Richard Curtis, working from an original draft by writer Jack Barth, may have shaped Yesterday into the film that it eventually became in its final draft, but Boyle made some key changes that served as cherries on top of the completed narrative.

During a conversation with CinemaBlend on one of the press days for the film, Curtis revealed the following changes that were added into the film, through the suggestions of Danny Boyle:

As Richard Curtis discussed the original version of Yesterday that he’d drafted, there were quite a few points that were altered to streamline and refocus the film’s narrative. Part of those edits were revealed to take place through deleting an entire character played by Ana De Armas.

Just as her removal from the final cut of Yesterday was to prevent Jack from looking like he didn’t deserve Lily James’ Ellie, there was more content that was cut from the movie’s first act for other reasons.

In light of those cuts, the addition of the third act’s “grand sweeping gesture” seems to be part of a trade-off that was made between Danny Boyle and Richard Curtis. With De Armas’ Roxanne gone from the film, and Jack revealing his feelings to Ellie during his final concert, the love story that Yesterday wanted audiences to be invested in needed some new notes during the finale to make the story work.

Even more investment material was originally included in Curtis’s draft of the film. Initially, he had intended to include a lot more of Jack’s background as a failing rock star. Danny Boyle would step in again with some notes, as Richard Curtis pointed out his reasoning for including the material, and how it was cut, in the following terms:

Looking back at all of the changes that were made to Yesterday’s story, Richard Curtis’ admission that Danny Boyle helped shave the film into fighting shape is really easy to agree with. Not only that, but getting this look into the extensive changes made to the film really shows just how collaborative the process was between writer and director.

In the wrong hands, a film like Yesterday could have been an overly maudlin film that hit all of the standard notes a romantic-comedy is expected to. This makes the revisions that both Boyle and Curtis made to the film all the more valuable, in that they deliver a film that’s traditional enough to be accessible, but freshens the formula up to the point that it feels new and effective as well.

You can enjoy the results for yourself at your earliest convenience, as Yesterday is currently in theaters now. Meanwhile, if you’re interested in a new song to sing along with at the movies, check out our 2019 release schedule!

Warning: spoilers for Yesterday are in play. If you’re interested in staying away from spoilers, bookmark this story and come back once you’ve seen the film.

In the world of director Danny Boyle and writer Richard Curtis’ Yesterday, the loss of the music of The Beatles changes a lot of things. Along with their legendary catalog of songs not existing, certain aspects of pop culture are altered because of the lack of their meteoric career.

Without their hordes of screaming fans and singles like “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” climbing the charts in the ‘60s, the four members of that band were never famous; that's a fact we saw play out in the film when Himesh Patel’s Jack Malik met a very much alive John Lennon, played by Robert Carlyle.

But per a recent discussion CinemaBlend had with Richard Curtis, John Lennon was apparently not the only Beatle that was supposed to appear in Yesterday. In fact, George Harrison and Ringo Starr were supposed to also make an appearance, which came out in a story Curtis told me during the film’s press day:

That temperature raising that Richard Curtis mentioned is the fact that before he got Danny Boyle to sign on as the director of Yesterday, Boyle wanted about 20-25% of the script to be changed and/or trimmed in the film’s story.

That was one of the many facts mentioned during the film’s Tribeca Film Festival Q&A, which made for perfect conversation during our brief time chatting about Yesterday. In the name of full honesty, it’s an opinion that not only Richard Curtis agreed with, but it’s something I’m totally in line with.

Much like when the Love, Actually writer had to determine how far he could push the gag of what items were missing in the world of Yesterday, figuring out how many Beatles could appear before the effectiveness of their presence wore off was equally important to how much audiences would buy into the world of this particular fantasy-comedy.

Circling back to Danny Boyle’s remark about how that particular card should have only been played once, seeing John Lennon alive and well in the world of Yesterday is such a bittersweet moment, it shatters the heart of the audience. Lennon’s tragic death at the hands of his assailant is one of those pivotal moments in pop culture that defines how a fandom dealt with loss.

While the entire Beatles line-up being just regular joes is an interesting concept, narrowing it to the one member that left way too soon turns the twist into something that earns a lot of emotional real estate in the film. Not to mention, if that one scene with John Lennon divided audiences so sharply, could you imagine how much more polarizing it would have been with another run at that gag?

There are other things that Danny Boyle and Richard Curtis tinkered with in Yesterday, including a moment that was added to give the film’s third act its most romantic moment. All of these choices, be they additions or cuts, make that film into the special product that it currently is today.

Yesterday is currently in theaters now, but if you’ve already seen that film, or would like to find something new at the movies, head on over to our 2019 release schedule.

Every time a filmmaker’s places a hit song in their movie, they have to secure the rights to it and pay for its inclusion in their film. In Danny Boyle’s Yesterday, he tasked himself with including some of the most recognizable songs in the world when he set out to helm a film full of Beatles covers. He needed the big ones too: “Hey Jude”, “Let It Be”, “Help” and so forth. So how did he pull it off and what was the price tag?

What made things easier was the production company behind Yesterday, Working Title Films already had a deal with Apple and Sony to allow screenwriter Richard Curtis and Boyle to choose up to 18 songs, and even switch up their picks while they were shooting and editing the film. The filmmakers had to choose the Beatles most recognizable tracks. Here’s why according to Curtis’ words to NY Daily News:

Yesterday follows Jack Malik (Himesh Patel) as a struggling musician who becomes the only person who remembers the Beatles exist after being hit by a bus at the same time as a freak global blackout. He then capitalizes on this knowledge to become a universally recognized singer himself, bringing the Fab Four’s hits to the present day.

With this premise in mind, the movie’s jokes needed to bounce off the familiarity of the songs Jack  is covering. Danny Boyle admitted the biggest challenge was picking the songs to go along with the film. Thankfully they already had a deal with the record label, but Boyle also wrote letters to surviving members Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr and the widows to George Harrison and John Lennon, Olivia Harrison and Yoko Ono on his intentions for the film. Here’s what Boyle told Billboard about obtaining the rights:

Billboard estimates it cost $10 million for the songs to be featured in Yesterday, making up about 40% of the musical comedy's $26 million production budget. The film also scored Ed Sheeran (Boyle’s second choice to Coldplay frontman Chris Martin), Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again’s Lily James and SNL’s Kate McKinnon.

The film has already scored $56 million, maintaining its No. 3 spot during its two weekends at the box office. This weekend it will go up against new releases Crawl and Stuber.

Have you checked out Yesterday yet? It’s among many exciting 2019 summer releases worth hitting the theaters for.

Being a music star is just as much about the image as it is about the music. Some musicians cultivate an image that they're "bad boys" or otherwise difficult to work with. Others are the girl (or guy) next door.

Ed Sheeran is one of those pop stars that comes across as just a really nice guy. He seems pretty friendly and like he would be easy to get along with. However, when it came to working on Danny Boyle's new movie Yesterday, even Sheeran says that he got downright rude with the director when it came to one particular aspect of the movie. Unsurprisingly it was the music.

Newcomer Himash Patel portrays the lead character Jack Malik who becomes a superstar on the backs of the Beatles' music in Yesterday, and Ed Sheeran says that when making that music on the set, the singer insisted that Patel's performance be clean, with as little interference from the technical side of audio production as possible and that the music was all done live. According to Sheeran...

Danny Boyle tells Indiewire that making sure that the natural performance of Himesh Patel came through was his "main job" on the set of Yesterday. It seems that after Ed Sheeren insisted that the music not be interfered with, Boyle ran with the idea and made sure that Patel's vocals stayed clean. They have apparently not been altered in any way.

It makes one wonder how things might have turned out if Sheeran hadn't been cast in the film in the first place.

The director says that the reason Patel was cast in the role was because he had soul, that there was a connection between the performer and the music that others who auditioned did not have, regardless of how well they could sing. The fear was that if the music was processed too much, that soul would be lost.

Yesterday follows struggling singer/songwriter Jack Malik, who, following an accident, wakes up in a world where, somehow, the Beatles never existed. In a last ditch effort for musical success, he "writes" the Beatles music and passes it off as his own. Needless to say, the idea works, and Malik becomes an overnight sensation.

While the character of Jack Malik performs for large crowds in the movie Yesterday, the real audience of the music is the audience of the film. By keeping the music free of alternation the movie audience has the same experience hearing the music played as the in-movie audience had.

Clearly, the decision to keep the music simple worked. While Yesterday is a movie with a few issues, and one divisive scene, the music isn't one of the film's problems. The idea that the songs written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney would be hits regardless of era or performer certainly feels true having watched the movie. While the Beatles were no strangers to using technical trickery to enhance their songs, most of the numbers performed in Yesterday are much simpler, and the performances are better for it.

For whatever it's worth, the Beatles apparently liked the way the movie worked too.

Yesterday is in theaters now.

Spoilers for the new Beatles-oriented, or rather disoriented, movie can be found throughout this article, including a major spoiler. Don’t say we didn’t warn ya.

When Yesterday hit theaters this weekend, it brought a lot of laughs and plenty of sentimental scenes. It also brought one shocking moment that has both been a talking point and has been divisive among the people who caught the movie over the weekend and at early screenings.

Although the remaining members of The Beatles were allegedly encouraging about the project, Danny Boyle is aware of the divisive reaction to the most major Beatles-oriented scene, as he mentioned in a recent interview, noting,

The scene in question features newly minted musician Jack Malik meeting a couple of other people in the world who still, in fact, remember The Beatles. After a quick conversation in which they give him their blessing, Malik is gifted with an address that leads him down the long and winding road to John Lennon.

Yes, in Yesterday’s universe, John Lennon never became famous, so he was never assassinated in 1980 in New York City by Mark David Chapman. Instead, he grew old and lived a happy life without the trappings of fame. He even gives Jack Malik some advice on what makes life worth living that ends up being important to Malik’s on-screen journey.

Danny Boyle went on to tell USA Today in the recent interview that the actor playing John Lennon, Once Upon A Time’s Robert Carlyle, was the best casting for John Lennon. It wasn’t just because he could capably look like the character either. Per Boyle:

The appearance of John Lennon is not the only big change Yesterday makes to the world as we know it. Along with the lack of The Beatles, major products including Coca-Cola, Harry Potter’s Universe and even cigarettes are gone, poof, vanished into thin air. There's a whole process to what was chosen and why.

It’s an interesting fantastical romp, even if one of the chances the movie takes doesn’t land with everyone. From what it sounds like, your mileage may vary with the movie depending on whether or not you buy the John Lennon moment. That may be the reason for the discrepancy between Yesterday’s critics and audience score, as well. The movie ended up in third place this weekend with a solid enough start, so we'll have to see how it plays with audiences in the weeks to come.

If you haven’t caught the movie yet, first why did you read this? Secondly, you can catch Yesterday in its theatrical run, out right now.

Danny Boyle's Yesterday isn't just about a world where The Beatles never existed. Called “a total joy of a film that cements Danny Boyle and Richard Curtis as master storytellers of our time,” the film explores the pursuit of fame through fresh eyes and a determined heart. Apparently, director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Richard Curtis sent the film to the surviving members of The Beatles. Spoiler alert: They loved it.

Wildly popular from the early 1960s onward, The Beatles is often considered one of the greatest bands of all time (if not the greatest). The band was comprised of four extremely talented, extremely well-known members: John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Star (who was recently knighted). John Lennon was shot dead in New York City in December 1980 and George Harrison died in November 2001 after a battle with lung cancer. Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr are alive and to this day enjoy thriving music careers. Meanwhile, the music they produced as a band continues to touch every corner of pop culture, including video games (Titanfall 2, most recently).

So you can understand Danny Boyle's desire for their approval. Fortunately for him, when he reached out to the surviving members of the legendary band, he got encouraging responses.

Andrea Mandell of USA Today had the chance to speak with Danny Boyle, who said:

It would certainly be interesting to hear Paul McCartney's thoughts on Yesterday, so hopefully he does find time to watch the full movie.

Danny Boyle, whose influences include Battle of the Bulge, The Sound of Music, and others, has directed a number of high-profile films -- with Trainspotting, 127 Hours, and Slumdog Millionaire ranking as some of his most well-known efforts. There are obviously more, but for brevity's sake I'm keeping the list short. He has also produced, directed, and written for television since the late 1980s.

At one point, Danny Boyle was supposed to direct the upcoming Bond 25. However, he dropped out of the project. There wasn't any real word regarding what actually happened, but, at a certain point, it became clear that Boyle didn't want any part of Daniel Craig's final James Bond adventure. It's a shame, really. He probably would have done some great things with the character. Boyle's fame as a filmmaker means headlines for each new project he tackles, and the hype surrounding Yesterday and the Bond fiasco only confirms that.

Yesterday is now playing in theaters everywhere. If you're a fan of The Beatles, you should probably check it out!

Sometimes, in the service of a story like writer Richard Curtis’ Yesterday, big changes have to be made. In some cases, material gets cut before the script goes in front of cameras directed by talent like Danny Boyle. Yesterday certainly had that sort of issue crop up, as Boyle and Curtis worked to drop 20 to 25% of the script in order to enhance other pieces of the narrative.

Because of this, there was one subplot containing an entire character who was cut from the film, despite staying in Richard Curtis’ script and even remaining in the trailer for Yesterday’s theatrical release. It’s her picture you see at the very head of this story, and her name is Roxanne, played by Blade Runner 2049’s Ana De Armas.

Originally, Roxanne would have been the third point of the typical love triangle you’d see in a romantic comedy like Yesterday, coming between the romance of Lily James’ Ellie and Himesh Patel’s Jack Malik. Still, since this is a Danny Boyle/Richard Curtis collaboration, it’s far from typical. And when CinemaBlend got to speak with Curtis about his writing process on the film, he explained the decision to cut Ana De Armas from the film as such:

With a cut like that, you know you would be glad if you’re one of the audience members who really latched onto Ellie and Jack’s romance during Yesterday’s story of love and talent. Describing Ana De Armas’ performance as radiant, you can see how if Richard Curtis left Roxanne in the mix, the central romantic tension between Ellie and Jack would flounder. The way the film plays without Roxanne and Jack’s romantic complication does streamline the romance that buds between the one true pair occupying the center of Curtis’ story.

But with those cuts also came the omission of a joke that Curtis really enjoyed in the film. As he continued to describe the full weight of the Roxanne plot’s deletion, he mentioned this particular a gag that was near and dear to his heart:

If “Something” is one of your favorite Beatles songs, you needn’t fear: it’s still on the soundtrack, and Himesh Patel has actually performed it a couple of times during the promotion of Yesterday. Having seen one such performance during the film’s Tribeca premiere, it is indeed a moment we’d love to see added back into the film.

Though, as promised earlier, you can actually see some of that song’s performance, through one of the deleted scenes from one of Jack’s appearances on James Corden’s show. To fully deliver a happy ending, you also get to see one of Richard Curtis’ favorite jokes from the film, reinstated in the theatrical trailer that sold Yesterday to the world.

To see what we’re talking about, you should skip to 01:57 in the trailer below, and watch through to the 02:16 mark.

Buttoning this whole story of deleting characters and actors from Richard Curtis films came a really funny anecdote involving James Corden himself. Not only did Curtis admit he’d cut him from an episode of a sitcom he’d made in the ‘90s, he also brought up the fact that scenes of his were also cut from his second directorial effort, Pirate Radio. So while Yesterday deleted another character from its total package, at least Corden got his moment this time around.

It’s always interesting to come across instances such as Yesterday where the story process is so openly on display, you can see where the film would have gone if it had taken a certain turn. But at the same time, that sort of thinking also helps one appreciate how the story turns out in the end; especially when the result is as beautiful as Danny Boyle and Richard Curtis telling a story about how the world would change without one key factor.

Though much as almost the entire world forgets The Beatles in Yesterday, only a few will remember Ana De Armas’ Roxanne, and her place in that very world. Quite the fitting irony, once you stop to think about some of the other changes that were made over time.

If you’re worried about how, or if those changes clearly work, you’ll be able to judge for yourself in a short while, as Yesterday will be in theaters in early showings tomorrow.

Ever since his debut film, Shallow Grave, Danny Boyle has delivered some of the most visceral cinematic experiences of our time. From Trainspotting to Slumdog Millionaire and 127 Hours, his films seamlessly jump from comedy to action to tragedy, and they are impossible to forget. With Yesterday, he proves yet again to be a master of juggling more than one tone in a single film.

I caught up with Danny to discuss the visceral moviegoing experiences that made him the filmmaker he is today.

What’s your earliest moviegoing memory?

I have a twin sister, and I think it was on our 10th birthday that my mom took my sister to see The Sound of Music and my dad took me to see Battle of the Bulge … so there was some terrible gender stereotyping right there. That was the first time I’d ever been in a cinema. It wasn’t a natural part of our lives until we were 10. We didn’t go as young children to see animation or anything like that, so that was my first experience … and obviously it’s an overwhelming, visceral experience that you have. It’s that element of cinema that I respond to more than anything in my taste and the work I try to do with people. I want you to be dazzled and mesmerized by the experience you are going through. I certainly got that from Battle of the Bulge.

Of course, I later caught up with Sound of Music. I met the film’s director Robert Wise—who is one of the great underrated directors—and that was remarkable. I’ll tell you a story about that: we had a screening at the DGA [Directors Guild of America] of the first film I ever made—Shallow Grave—and after the screening and Q&A was over there was an old guy sitting in the back of the auditorium and as I walked out he stopped me and said “Very good, young man. Very, very good.” That was Robert Wise. I didn’t know it at the time, someone told me afterward.

Are there any moviegoing experiences you had as a teenager--or in your twenties—where you walked out at the end and said, “I want to be a director.”

There are three. One is a general one. Where I was brought up there was a mainstream cinema, and in order to get to the art cinema you had to go to the big town, which is Manchester. Outside Manchester there was an art cinema called the ABC in Hulme, and it had four screens—which wasn’t that common at the time in Britain—and they were all showing art movies. I used to go there regularly even though it was quite hard to get to. I didn’t really understand the films because I was 14 or 15, but there was something about them. They played really weird films like El Topo by [Alejandro] Jodorowsky, and a lot of Claude Chabrol films. I read later that the popstar Morrisey would go to that cinema as well.

The second one was seeing Apocalypse Now in all its majesty. I’ve seen it dozens of times since, and I’ve taken people because I’ve wanted to convince them of its genius. It remains my favorite film of all time. If you talk about a visceral experience that’s the overwhelming example of it. I was very lucky to meet Francis Ford Coppola. I’ve met some famous people in Britain—the Queen and people like that—and I never really got nervous about meeting those people, but when I met Coppola I was like jelly on the floor. I was an embarrassment. I was in my 50s, but I was a quivering teenage child again.

The final one is a Nic Roeg film called Eureka. It’s a film he made with Gene Hackman, who gives his greatest performance in it. The studio released it for only week in one cinema in Britain. I went to see it at a cinema in North London—the only place you could see it—and that film electrified me. Again, it had that visceral nature. In the first half of the film [Gene Hackman’s character] discovers literally liquid gold in Alaska, and he becomes the richest man in the world … the man who has everything. The moral dilemma of the film is: When you have everything, what can you want? I was so affected by the film, and I went back the next week to see it and it had gone. I was really upset. I’ve managed to get it on DVD since and if any theaters ever show it that would be great.

Speaking of Apocalypse Now, it’s going to be back in theaters for its 40th Anniversary. Will you try and see it again?

I’ll be there! I know [Coppola] has slightly recut it. I’ve seen the Redux and I’ve seen the five-hour version. I’ll watch every single version of it there is. As I’m promoting Yesterday, people are asking, “If there was one thing that disappeared and you had the chance to remake it, what would it be?” It would be Apocalypse Now.

I’d like to see your version of Apocalypse Now.

It would be shot-for-shot like the Pyscho remake! I can remember every shot. I wouldn’t imagine that I could improve on it, so I’d just have to make it exactly as Mr. Coppola made it.

Moving to Yesterday: what did you take away from watching the film with a crowd at the Tribeca Film Festival premiere?

The warmth of the communal enjoyment of a comedy … with any film you do, if there’s comedy and you have a crowd that’s enjoying it there’s something wonderful about that communal moment which is very special in cinema. You don’t get it anywhere else. Sometimes you get it with soccer.

The communal experience is very special, and we have to be careful we don’t lose that. Because it’s one of those things that when it’s gone it might not come back again. It’s really special, and people sometimes don’t value it enough. They enjoy it at the moment, but when they think about going to the cinema they might say “Oh, I have to go out to the cinema, and I’m feeling tired,” but when you get there and you have a great time with a lot of people it’s very special.

I remember seeing Dumb and Dumber in a full cinema, and when his tongue gets stuck I was rolling in the aisle laughing. And you can do that because everybody’s a stranger and you can release like that and have a group sensation.

Let’s talk about the industry a bit. Right now there’s a debate going on that says the rise of streaming has to come at the expense of cinema. But the directors that I talk to believe the two can peacefully co-exist. Do you agree that they can?

I think we have to hope there will be. We—and by we I mean those who love cinema above all forms— are vulnerable at the moment. Long-form television, or streaming, is obviously in the ascendancy. There’s a lot of money in it and a lot of people are moving into it. For me—and I’m not speaking against long-form television because it’s very important it doesn’t become adversarial—cinema is unique because of the contract of time you have with the audience and what you are allowed to do in that very precious, exclusive time. Somebody buys a ticket and they give you two hours of their time, and what’s extraordinary about it is they give it to you exclusively. It’s very rare that they’ll leave—you have to be doing a really bad job or there has to be an emergency—and you don’t do that with long-form television when you watch it at home. Even when you love long-form television, you’re not giving your exclusive time to it. Your peripheral vision is different, and in long-form television the contract is endless. That’s the point: that it just goes on and on into the distance. There’s the joke that it’s a bit like getting married: you don’t quite know what’s going to happen down the line, but you sort of sign up for it. Then people joke that everybody knows Season 6 is going to be pretty poor, but you go along with it anyway because the finale might be good. I think in film it’s different. The uniqueness of film is that because of that undivided, exclusive time you get, you can experiment with time. That’s what cinema does more than any other art form. That’s what you learn working in it: you are changing, compressing, and interrupting time. You can stop time in a way that’s so powerful when it’s used right in cinema. That gives you an almost God-like power for a couple of hours. Obviously it’s an illusion, but we want that illusion that we have power over our own destiny. Cinema can introduce you—in what is apparent real time—to a miracle and say, “There, it’s every day. It’s simple and plain and it’s right in front of you, and now it’s gone.” You don’t get that in any other art form, and it’s been a privilege for me to learn that. As long-form television explodes and becomes more prevalent in people’s lives, it makes me realize more and more how precious those moments of time are for us in cinema, and we should protect them for as long as we can.

Danny Boyle is a maker of movies, a prominent voice in the directorial world with features spanning plenty of genres and different types of stories. His latest, Yesterday, is hitting theaters this weekend. However, while you may note Yesterday is a fanciful and escapist tale set to Beatles music and is very different from a lot of Boyle’s other movies, it does have one thing in common: a male lead.

Recently, the director talked a little bit about his penchant for male protagonists in his movies, noting that he does have concerns with the idea of directing a movie geared around a female character. He noted:

There are plenty of notable female characters in Danny Boyle movies, characters like Rosario Dawson’s Elizabeth Lamb in Trance or Joanna Hoffman in Steve Jobs or Freida Pinto as Latika in Slumdog Millionaire.

His new movie Yesterday does have one female character in particular who is given agency and an engaging storyline. In fact, I’d argue that while Himesh Patel is charming, Lily James is the actor who really steals the movie in Yesterday, playing a ray of sunshine in Jack Malik’s life who eventually has to find a way to stand up for herself and what she wants out of her life.

Still, Yesterday is ultimately Jack Malik’s story and not Ellie’s.

Slumdog Millionaire is Jamal’s story and not Latika’s.

Steve Jobs has Steve Jobs in the damn title, so we know what that movie is about. I could go on, but you get the gist. (And besides Trance is a little more of an ensemble.)

Danny Boyle went on to tell The Independent in the same interview that a lot of the projects he personally enjoys, particularly lately, have female names and voices front and center:

On that note, Gentleman Jack, which airs on HBO in the States, has been a genuine delight to watch on the small screen. Suranne Jones is the lead in that project and Fleabag is a Phoebe Waller-Bridge project that’s also earned a lot of nods. (Waller-Bridge has also notably worked on the script for Bond 25, a movie Danny Boyle was supposed to helm but then backed out of.)

What Danny Boyle seems to be intimating is that while he watches a lot of female-led projects, he’s just concerned about how it would look if he were to helm one, given he’s not a lady and the current climate with directing is trying to get more female projects made by actual females. Danny Boyle's always pretty much been a straight shooter, so his response isn't a gigantic surprise here.

It’s not clear what exact question he was asked, but it’s an interesting minefield to navigate as a prominent name in the movie-making business. Of course, we want more female directors, but it probably would just be cool to have more movies with female stars in general. Just don’t expect Danny Boyle to do is anytime soon.

Yesterday opens on June 28. Come for the Beatles songs, stay for Lily James.

Oscar-winning director Danny Boyle was at one point set to direct the upcoming Bond 25 before dropping out due to creative differences. Although that experience made him realize that franchise filmmaking isn’t for him, Boyle still thinks about the Bond franchise and even who should play 007. While watching Claire Denis’ High Life, Boyle had an epiphany that Robert Pattinson should be the next James Bond, as he explained:

There is a lot of speculation and plenty of opinions on who will be the next James Bond after Daniel Craig presumably ends his run with Bond 25, and for Danny Boyle that question has a simple answer: Robert Pattinson. The sudden realization of Pattinson’s rightness for the role came to the director while watching the actor’s performance in the acclaimed High Life, as Boyle told The Guardian.

As someone who came awfully close to directing a James Bond film, Danny Boyle has a certain idea and vision of the character in his head that Robert Pattinson apparently fits. When pressed on the notion that Pattinson is too young for the role, Danny Boyle cited original big screen Bond, Sean Connery. Boyle was right, too, Connery’s first 007 film was Dr. No in 1962, when the actor was 32-years-old.

Robert Pattinson just turned 33. So if an arbitrary number is a deciding criteria, Robert Pattinson is no younger than Sean Connery was, and Connery is probably still the most famous and iconic 007. Most studios tend to look for younger actors anyways for these kinds of franchise films so they can lock them in for multi-picture deals that will have the actor playing the character for several years. Also, crucially, Pattinson is British.

This isn’t the first time Robert Pattinson’s name has been brought up for the role, but the names that have been the most prominent it seems to me have been Richard Madden, Sam Heughan, Tom Hardy, Tom Hiddleston, Cillian Murphy and, the people’s 007, Idris Elba.

Robert Pattinson has plenty on his plate at the moment between Matt Reeves’ The Batman and Christopher Nolan’s Tenet but maybe he could be a multi-franchise actor. Although, despite his indie work and the fact that he was Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter, fans might riot in the streets if the Twilight actor gets James Bond and Batman. Until he (hopefully) changes hearts and minds in The Batman, of course.

But before we get a new Bond, we first have to see the last film for the current Bond Daniel Craig, and that is proving easier said than done. Bond 25 has suffered delays; director changes; rumors of onset issues; and injuries, including to star Daniel Craig.

Bond 25 is still scheduled for release on April 8, 2020 and Danny Boyle’s new film Yesterday hits theaters on June 28. Check out our 2019 Release Schedule to keep track of all this summer’s biggest titles.

Hollywood’s recent trend of showcasing the most iconic discographies of all time continues next week with Yesterday. The comedy from director Danny Boyle isn’t a biopic of the Beatles, but a fun thought experiment. What would happen is one day everyone forgot about the Fab Four? Everyone except for one struggling musician, that is.

Yesterday follows Jack Malik (played by newcomer Himesh Patel) who is the only man in the world who remembers the words to “Hey Jude”. As he starts publically playing their music, he gains the attention of a hotshot agent (played by SNL’s Kate McKinnon) and Ed Sheeran… who recommends he changes the title to “Hey Dude”.

It takes connections such as these to reach the mass popularity, so Danny Boyle always had a big name in mind to join the film-- but it wasn’t always Sheeran. At the London red carpet premiere of Yesterday on Tuesday, Boyle said this:

Oh, interesting! It actually would have made sense for Yesterday to enlist Coldplay’s Chris Martin since he fronts a four-man British popular act, just like the Beatles. However, the band had been touring their album A Head Full of Dreams until the end of 2017, and Chris Martin was not ready to sign on for another project so soon.

While Ed Sheeran jokes about not being the first pick, he’s probably the best choice of the three and could end up drawing in the most audiences at the time of release. Sheeran is the only one of them with a popular new song on the radio right now. Coldplay hasn’t technically released new music in four years and Harry Styles, in two years. Plus, Styles has a specific, younger fanbase.

Danny Boyle also went on to tell Associated Press about his experience with Sheeran on set. In his words:

The musician previously made a guest appearance on Game of Thrones during the season 7 premiere and reportedly will be a stormtrooper in Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker (but that’ll be tough to spot).

Ahead of its release, Yesterday has already been receiving praise from critics. CinemaBlend’s own Mike Reyes gave it 4 out of 5 stars in his review, calling it a “total joy”. The music-comedy hits theaters on June 28.

A lot of movie fans got very excited when Danny Boyle was tapped as the director of the next James Bond movie. Unfortunately, it was not to be, as the director eventually left the project under the nebulous cloud of "creative differences." While it's still unclear what exactly the problem was between Boyle and Bond, the director of the upcoming film Yesterday says the experience taught him an important lesson, he's not cut out for franchises. According to Boyle...

Whatever the reasons behind Boyle's departure, his comment that he didn't like "digging in the same hole" makes it clear that he found the idea of working within an existing franchise a bit too constricting. Boyle tells Metro that works better just outside of the mainstream franchise movie scene.

The James Bond franchise is one of the longest running series of films still going today. With 24 previous films there's a lot of history and with that history comes a lot of expectations. While new writers and directors are often able to bring something of their own spin to a property, there are usually limits and places that are out of bounds. It's possible that Danny Boyle discovered he didn't care for those limits.

There have been numerous rumors regarding what exactly was the straw that broke the camel's back that caused Boyle to leave Bond 25. What does seem clear is that the script written by Boyle and John Hodge wasn't working for the studio, and Boyle was ultimately unwilling to work with any other writers.

Becoming a director in a major franchise can actually be a dream for many. Considering how long many of these franchises have been around, some might have grown up as fans, and so the idea of becoming part of that franchise could be incredibly exciting.

It is, however, certainly very different than directing a movie that is completely original and doesn't have the history or requirements of the franchise.

It seems if anybody was hoping Danny Boyle was ever going to direct a popular comic book movie or take on something in the Star Wars universe, we can probably all forget about that. James Bond has taught him that he's not interested in that. It's unfortunate, as he probably would bring some unique ideas to some well known titles.

At the same time, Danny Boyle has made some unique and special movies simply by doing his own thing, and if he were too busy making James Bond movies he wouldn't be able to do that. Boyle's new film Yesterday is getting solid reviews and looks to be a great deal of fun, especially if you're a fan of The Beatles.

Danny Boyle's Yesterday will be in theaters next week. The as yet untitled James Bond movie, now being helmed by Cary Fukunaga, is set for April 2020.

If director Danny Boyle is to be trusted to do anything, it’s taking the everyday world we see in front of us and twisting it ever so slightly into a fantastical version of itself. His latest film, Yesterday, falls into that similar mold, with the big difference being that this time out Boyle is paired with legendary comedy writer Richard Curtis. Putting the director of A Life Less Ordinary and the writer of About Time together is about as perfect on paper as it is in execution, as Yesterday takes an old song and makes it better.

Aspiring singer Jack Malik (Himesh Patel) writes his own songs, plays tons of pub gigs outside of his retail job, and has hit a wall in his creative process. Ready to quit and leave the dream that he and friend/manager Ellie (Lily James) have been pursuing for some time, Jack’s fortunes change after a freak accident that Yesterday’s story hinges upon. All it takes is a 12-second worldwide blackout to wipe The Beatles from the world’s collective minds, setting Jack up for the ultimate career boost.

The premise of Yesterday is so simple and so outlandish that it helps drive the film without overtaking its characters. Using the hook of The Beatles never existing, Danny Boyle and Richard Curtis tell a story about how their music affects the world on a macrocosmic level. Rather than imagining a world where huge chunks of history haven’t occurred because of their absence, Yesterday is the story of a young man who digs deep inside himself, learning while recreating the music that only he can remember.

Another fantastic part about Yesterday’s storyline is the fact it doesn’t delve too deeply into the well-worn tropes that you’d expect out of this sort of story. Indeed, there are twists that drop into play throughout the film, but much like the current of humor that Yesterday engages in, those moments don’t follow the usual beats that you'd normally be able to call from a mile away.

Playing the role of the pivotal Jack is newcomer Himesh Patel, who not only has to play guitar and sing through recreations of a slew of Beatles hits, but also has to focus on bringing to life this singular blend of Danny Boyle’s directing and Richard Curtis’ writing. All of this falls on his shoulders this first time at bat, and Patel delivers as easily and gracefully as the musical catalog he helps pay tribute to.

Himesh Patel is a fresh young face who seems ready for the big time from frame one, and it shows every time he puts his talents to the test against a cast that includes the charming Lily James, among others. It’s no secret that Patel and James get to play a couple of friends who should have seen something between them a long time ago, but the way that Richard Curtis’s writing has them play that story out is atypical, with moments that start out on an emotional front, only to give way to comedy.

The way the material of Yesterday shifts between emotions and gags feels very natural, both because of the writing and the performances driving said writing, that you can still laugh at a joke and find yourself upset over the more emotional parts. I definitely found myself laughing with tears in my eyes, and it’s that drive that helps sell the overall story of the film to an ability that makes it a crowd-pleasing, warm blanket of a film.

Of course, the legendary Beatles song catalog shines brightly in Yesterday, as Himesh Patel stumbles through remembering lyrics the world has oft-quoted, sung, and memorized over decades of existence. Seeing these songs being written and recorded for the first time in Jack’s world gives new life to tracks like “I Saw Her Standing There,” “I Want To Hold Your Hand,” and in particularly memorable fashion, “Eleanor Rigby.”

That last song pretty much ties together everything wonderful about Yesterday, as watching Jack fumble for the lyrics and emotional meaning behind one of Paul McCartney and John Lennon’s hits shows everything that Danny Boyle and Richard Curtis do well in their execution of this film. The creative, the emotional, and even the comedic processes of Yesterday all come through in the visual and linguistic language of the moment. You’re not just hearing Jack work his way through the lyrics, you’re seeing them come to life as they’re altered and cemented. You feel the song growing, and in turn, Jack growing as well, through his efforts of trying to remember what exactly Father McKenzie was doing in that song's story.

Yesterday is an uplifting triumph of heartfelt comedy, believable drama, and just the right amount of quirk to remove this film from any sort of mundane reality. In its own way, it even ponders how successful The Beatles's material would be, and the challenges it would face, if it were coming up in the modern music industry; which only adds to the film's sly thoughtfulness.

Add in some perfect comedic seasoning from the likes of Ed Sheeran and Kate McKinnon, and you’ve got a film that sparkles through its entire length. Though there is only one minor problem with Yesterday's story, as a couple logical gaps aren’t quite sewn up by the end. Considering one of the film’s running gags depends on that sort of logical clarity, it’s something that glares a little more than somewhat in the film’s story, and still stuck in my mind as I walked out of Yesterday. Thankfully, it doesn't kill the joy that the film espoused in me, but it will lead to some intense discussion.

With that caveat in mind, Yesterday is a a total joy of a film that cements Danny Boyle and Richard Curtis as master storytellers of our time, as well as Himesh Patel as a rising talent who has limitless potential on display. I believe in Yesterday, and you will too.

The Beatles have written some of the most globally recognizable and universally loved hits in history. So, imagine if one day everyone forgot about them except for one struggling musician. He’d say “Hello, Goodbye” to an ordinary life as he knew it. This is the uniquely clever circumstance of Danny Boyle’s upcoming film Yesterday. Check out the first trailer below:

Woah. This upcoming gem from Universal Pictures amidst summer blockbusters just popped up out of nowhere, and I'm floored. Yesterday looks like it’s got just about everything an impressive cast, heart, comedy, music and a one-of-a-kind premise and I'm here for it!

Danny Boyle’s latest film project, following his 2017 Trainspotting sequel, is completely out of his typical dramatic fare. But the movie is exciting nonetheless. Yesterday is written by British rom-com extraordinaire Richard Curtis, who has also penned Love Actually, Notting Hill, British Jones’ Diary and most recently Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again.

The film stars newcomer Himesh Patel as Jack Malik, who becomes the lucky man with the seemingly only surviving memory of the Beatles’ discography. As shown in the trailer, Jack gets into a bus accident during a freak-global blackout. When he plays the Beatles’ classic “Yesterday” in front of friends, including his childhood BFF Ellie (played by Mamma Mia’s Lily James), he finds out they’ve all forgot about the good ole mop-top British Invasion band.

Jack then pays a public service to the world by injecting the Beatles’ greatest hits back into the world by performing songs like “Let It Be”, “Something” and “Hey Jude” and becomes a music legend overnight, starring as a guest on The Late Late Show with James Corden and working in the recording studio with Ed Sheeran, who hilariously suggests he call it “Hey Dude” instead.

Jack also has a run in with an American agent, played by SNL’s incredible Kate McKinnon, who helps him book stadium shows and become a music superstar. In the meantime, the relationship with his bestie Ellie starts to become rocky as he becomes famous and the deception that he himself wrote these big hits starts to catch up with him.

Given the excitement this trailer emotes, Yesterday could be easily one of the best under the radar films of 2019 and a breath of fresh amidst superhero releases, sequels and remakes. It could also be a stunning breakout role for lead actor Himesh Patel who has never starred in feature film, though may be known by some for BBC’s EastEnders.

Add in the current interest in music-filled movies with the recent success of A Star is Born, Bohemian Rhapsody and the upcoming release of Rocketman ­– Yesterday could be just what audiences are itching for. The film comes out on June 28, though it opens alongside Ford v. Ferrari starring Jon Bernthal, Christian Bale and Matt Damon and between Toy Story 4 and the next Annabelle film.

It's been a long and challenging road for Bond 25. The 25th James Bond movie hasn't had much momentum since Spectre hit theaters, but it seemed like it things were finally coming together when Danny Boyle signed on to direct. However, the film hit a significant snag when Boyle departed over creative differences, sending Bond 25 back to square one. It was a severe blow to be sure, and now the movie is on the road to recovery. It's still unclear what exactly this movie will be about, but the writers are getting the go-ahead to turn their treatment into a script.

Danny Boyle was initially hired to write and direct Bond 25, which would see the return of Daniel Craig to the iconic role. However, creative differences forced Boyle to leave the project, and screenwriters Neal Purvis and Robert Wade were brought onboard to write a new treatment. Purvis and Wade have a long history with the Bond franchise since 1999's The World Is Not Enough, so it makes sense that they'd be involved with the latest movie.

According to Deadline, the screenwriters have turned in their treatment, which the duo will now work on turning into a script. It's not quite as big as finding a new director, but it's progress. The writing duo is reportedly using elements from Danny Boyle's script, so the director's version of Bond 25 will live on in some form. There's no word on any plot details, which probably won't surface in an official capacity until sometime after the script is turned in. The hunt for a director is still underway with names like Edgar Wright, Yann Demange, and David Mackenzie being floated around.

While the news that progress is being made on getting Bond 25 to the big screen is good, it can also be viewed as a mixed bag. Neal Purvis and Robert Wade have written some good Bond movies, but it could also mean that we are getting more of the same. Part of the reason people were excited about Danny Boyle's involvement was that is signaled something new and unique was in store for the franchise. However, getting more of a good thing is not necessarily bad, and Purvis and Wade were the writers of great films like Skyfall and Casino Royale.

There are still tons of details that we don't know about Bond 25, but stick with CinemaBlend, and we'll be sure to keep you updated with new information as soon as it becomes available. The movie is still scheduled to be released on November 8, 2019. In the meantime, it's not like there aren't tons of other films to keep us all occupied. Stay up to date with everything coming to theaters shortly with our handy 2018 movie release guide.

The Bond franchise needs some fresh talent. That goes without saying. We recently reported on the departure of Danny Boyle from Bond 25, leaving the series to now, once again, go on the hunt for a new director to take the reins on this shaken-but-not-stirred series.

I recently wrote about my own personal desire to see The Hurt Locker's Kathryn Bigelow take on the film, and that's still the best option. But if we're in the market for other realistic options, I have put together a list of potential directors who actually could handle Bond 25 and deliver it in time for the November 8, 2019 release date. On that note, let's dive in with an Oscar nominee whose name has been lumped in with the Bond franchise several times already.

David Mackenzie

David Mackenzie has quickly become a hot commodity in Hollywood, largely due to the success of 2016's Hell or High Water. The neo-western became a major Oscar contender after its initial debut, and Mackenzie has remained a consistent frontrunner on the Bond franchise shortlist ever since. The Scottish director doesn't have much on his plate aside from promoting November's Outlaw King (with Chris Pine) and prepping the upcoming TV series, Gemstone, so there's room for him to potentially move in and direct the next installment in the Bond franchise. Given his experience working with dark and dreary tones, intense, hyper-violent action, and beautiful camerawork in complex narratives, he seems like a very safe bet to capably step up to the plate of a blockbuster franchise and do something that the series has not seen before.

Steve McQueen

An Oscar-winner for his work on 12 Years A Slave, Steve McQueen has handily turned into one of the film industry's most beloved and talked-about drama directors. He has not really delved into the action world at this stage of his career (though the upcoming Widows has flashes of the sort), but he has more than proven that he has the chops to do something incredibly interesting with the Bond franchise. His films like Hunger and Shame tend to be smaller in scale, with a heavy emphasis on dark and dreary stakes -- with stories that often don't end well for the protagonists. Given the recent rumors suggesting that Daniel Craig and the producing team behind Bond want to shake things up and do something unique with a story centering on the modern conflict between Russia and the western nations, McQueen could be the right guy to deliver that degree of drama.

Christopher Nolan

No list about possible Bond 25 directors would be complete without the inclusion of Christopher Nolan. Over the years, few filmmakers have balanced blockbuster spectacle with a distinct sense of ownership quite like him, which is readily apparent in The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception, Dunkirk, and several others. Nolan has been a fan-favorite choice to take on a Bond movie for years, and he has made no secret of the fact that it's something he's interested in pursuing at some point in his career. Moreover, it's also worth mentioning that Nolan generally does not keep himself overly busy between projects, and his schedule currently looks relatively open at the moment. If ever there was a time for him to get his Bond movie finally, now seems like the time.

Everything seemed to finally be going smoothly with the new James Bond movie, now that the lead actor was secured for the part, but now the movie is in need of a new director. The production will need to find one fast if it wants to avoid significant delays since Bond 25 already has a release date, and it's now being reported that the studio is already talking to potential replacements, including Jean-Marc Vallee and even Edgar Wright.

With Bond 25 set to open next November production will need to start fairly soon which means the movie doesn't have much time to replace Danny Boyle who left the project earlier this week due to the "creative differences" that so frequently throw a monkey wrench into film productions. However, Deadline has reported that producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson have already approached two potential directors. The first was Jean-Marc Vallee, the director of Dallas Buyers Club and the first season of HBO's Big Little Lies. However, it looks like scheduling may prevent Vallee from taking the job. The frontrunner then might actually be Edgar Wright who has also been approached.

If Wright doesn't work out either, there are allegedly a pair of other directors on the short list to take over from Danny Boyle, Hell or High Water's David Mackenzie is one and Yann Demange, director of the upcoming White Boy Rick is the other, though it sounds like neither of them has had an actual conversation about the movie yet, they're just people the producers are interested in talking to.

Needless to say, the most interesting, and exciting, name mentioned here is Edgar Wright. While he's mostly known for off-beat movies like Shaun of the Dead or Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, he is without question a skilled director and the idea of putting him in charge of a James Bond movie is a great one. Wright is a director with style and that's a huge part of any James Bond movie as well. While he may not be the first name you think of when considering directors for James Bond movies, Danny Boyle wouldn't necessarily have been at the top of that list either, so clearly the producers are willing to think outside the box, even though the first attempt at doing so didn't work out.

There's also a touch of irony in the idea of Edgar Wright being brought into the James Bond franchise after one director left due to creative differences, since the last time Wright was going to get involved in a major film series he ended up leaving the MCU's Ant-Man for the same reason.

The current rumor is that Danny Boyle's exit from the new James Bond movie came due to a clash with Daniel Craig over casting. Producers will certainly want to be sure whoever they hire now is on the same page with Craig. If they can find a replacement soon, and they plan to keep the existing script, then it's still possible Bond 25 could make its release date. We'll keep an eye on this to be sure.

The Bond franchise is building to a climax next year, with Daniel Craig potentially stepping down as the suave superspy following the debut of Bond 25. However, as excited as many fans are about the next installment in the series, it recently hit a setback with the departure of 28 Days Later's Danny Boyle from behind the camera. Now, the movie may be pressing pause to figure out which filmmaker will step in and take the franchise in a fresh direction. Yet, I'd argue the proposed story for Bond 25 seems tailor-made for Kathryn Bigelow to step in and work her magic.

The first thing worth mentioning is that the Bond franchise (along with other blockbuster series) has been pitched to Kathryn Bigelow below, specifically by Sony head honcho Amy Pascal. Addressing these opportunities to take on AAA blockbuster movies, the Zero Dark Thirty director opened up to Variety last year and noted she's currently more interested in films that appeal to her sense of journalism than pure entertainment. The director said:

That's what makes Danny Boyle's exit from Bond 25 feel like such a unique opportunity for Kathryn Bigelow. Though the film is still in development, and we don't know too much about it yet, some details that have surfaced in the wake of Boyle's departure have suggested that Bond 25 have suggested a story that leans into current headlines, with recent reports noting that the proposed story will focus on the "modern-day Cold War." With a real-life conflict serving as the backdrop of the newest installment in the 007 mythology, this could very well become the premise to pique Kathryn Bigelow's interest.

With all of this said, I also want to note the fact that a Bond film is right up Kathryn Bigelow's alley from a pure filmmaking point of view. With her work on Point Break back in the 1990s, she showed that she could stylistically do gritty action. Just look at the now famous chase scene from that classic heist film, below!

Moreover, with films like The Hurt Locker and Detroit she showed us what she could do in the realm of sustained tension. If she could combine all of those elements together with the budget and reputation that the Bond franchise is known for having (she has mostly worked on relatively-smaller films throughout her career) then we could have something very different and very enjoyable on our hands.

Then there's the simple fact that we've never had a female director on a James Bond movie. It's no secret that the franchise kind of needs a big shot of adrenaline in the wake of the polarizing Spectre, and a big part of that could involve bringing in a filmmaker with a decidedly distinct point of view. It's not that any of the male directors who have worked on recent Bond films like Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall, or Spectre have done bad jobs, but bringing in fresh blood that's notably different from previous filmmakers could work wonders on the path to giving the franchise a new flavor.

Of course, tying all of this back together, the biggest key would be selling Kathryn Bigelow on the opportunity. There's no indication that she has been approached for Bond 25, and her previous statements about franchise filmmaking have made it clear that she would probably need to be convinced to take on the job. Having said all of that, the idea of doing a Bond movie based on the current state of Russia-America relations could be the plot point to bring her into the fold, and her talents as a Hollywood legend could make Bond 25 one to remember.

All in all, that's my take, but what's yours? Let us know what you think of Kathryn Bigelow as the possible filmmaker to take on Bond 25 in the poll, below! Until we learn more about the film, you can check out our movie premiere guide to stay in-the-loop on all of the movies that will debut on the big screen in 2018!

This poll is no longer available.

Things seemed to finally running smoothly for Bond 25. Daniel Craig confirmed last year that he would reprise James Bond one last time, and in March, it was officially announced that Trainspotting director Danny Boyle would helm the project and work on the script with frequent collaborator John Hodge. However, word came in this week that Boyle departed Bond 25 due to creative differences, and now it's being reported that instead of simply looking for a director to replace Boyle, MGM and Eon want to go back to the drawing board with Bond 25, which could lead to the movie being delayed.

According to Variety, after Danny Boyle left Bond 25, MGM and Eon put the word out for a writer or writer-director to join the project. Apparently the bigwigs at those companies don't simply want to find a new director to fill Boyle's shoes, but want to recruit someone to work on the story since the script that Boyle drafted with John Hodge didn't meet the approval of Daniel Craig and Eon producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli. In other words, major rewrites are in store. If that happens, then Bond 25 wouldn't meet December production start, subsequently requiring the release date to be pushed back from its current November 8, 2019 slot.

What's interesting about all this is that even before Danny Boyle boarded Bond 25, there was already a script around written by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, who co-wrote the last six James Bond movies. If this report is accurate, apparently there isn't any interest in returning to this earlier draft, with the goal now being to start Bond 25 from scratch. That's a bold move, but if MGM and Eon feels that's the best course of action to deliver the best Bond 25 as possible, then better to go down that path than churn out a product they don't like.

Whatever the next step for Bond 25 is, one thing is clear: Daniel Craig isn't going anywhere. While at one time he insisted he wasn't interested in playing James Bond again after Spectre, he's getting a $25 million paycheck and "an enviable amount of creative control" for changing his mind. As far as directors go, previous candidates Denis Villeneuve and David Mackenzie are no longer available because they're working on the Dune reboot and Gemstone TV series, respectively. Mission: Impossible - Fallout director Christopher McQuarrie is rumored to have been floated as a replacement, although he has indicated he would like to do an original movie next rather than stay in franchise territory.

Stay tuned to CinemaBlend for continuing coverage on what's happening with Bond 25, but for now, look through our 2018 release schedule to find out what movies arrive in theaters later this year.