Cillian Murphy Is Amazing In 28 Days Later, But I Was Shook By The A-Listers Who Originally Vied For The Role
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
I'm still amazed that director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland have reassembled to deliver a new tale of terror to the 2025 movie schedule in 28 Years Later. The occasion has left me also thinking about 28 Days Later a lot, a film that would eventually become known as Academy Award winner Cillian Murphy's star-making performance.
But while the Oppenheimer lead has always been pitch perfect in the role of Jim, there's a long existing list of names that have been rumored to be up for the part back in the day. And when I say names, I truly mean 'names,' like Leonardo DiCaprio, Ryan Gosling and frequent Boyle collaborator Ewan McGregor.
When the opportunity to watch the first 28 minutes of 28 Years Later was paired with an in-person interview with its intrepid director, I had to try and weed out fact from fiction, which saw all three names debunked in the process. However, that's when Danny Boyle gave CinemaBlend two names I never expected to be in the mix:
I'll tell you who did audition for Jim. … Tom Hardy and Orlando Bloom, because they'd all finished either drama school or Black Hawk Down. … We didn't have very much money, we thought 'We'll never be able to afford a bigger actor.' And we wanted newbies who just didn't know which way it would break with them.
So the trio of Leonardo DiCaprio, Ryan Gosling and Ewan McGregor were never going to even make the list for 28 Days Later's casting. With that being said, I'm very surprised that Tom Hardy and Orlando Bloom hadn't been reported more often - especially at that point in their careers.
Although coincidentally enough, McGregor was in Black Hawk Down himself, as well as entrenched in the Star Wars prequel trilogy at the time. Likewise, by the time Danny Boyle's film was making the rounds in its initial 2002 release in the UK, Hardy and Bloom were going head to head at the box office thanks to their respective roles in Star Trek: Nemesis and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.
Honestly, either man would have been a distraction to the tense, harrowing journey 28 Days Later took, as audiences would know they'd survive the ride. The whole point of the third act is that by time Jim's on his rampage through Major West's estate, you're supposed to wonder if he's an Infected at that point.
While we now know that wasn't the case, and with Cillian Murphy set to return for 28 Years Later's sequel The Bone Temple, that point tends to get a bit lost. However, Danny Boyle's perspective seemed to see him pick between two finalists, with the Christopher Nolan vet winning out in the end. At least, that's what it sounded like when the 28 Years Later mastermind shared this with CinemaBlend:
And I remember seeing [them], and we saw Cillian, and I remember thinking, 'Whoa, he'll have an amazing career.' I remember thinking that. I was right. I remember thinking that about Orlando Bloom, I thought 'He'll do all right. '
The rest, as they say, is history. 2003's US release lit a fuse that saw both Cillian Murphy and Naomie Harris both launch into higher profile roles, and Danny Boyle and Alex Garland being heralded as the men who reanimated the zombie (and zombie-adjacent) subgenre.
Seeing as Stephen King bought out showings of 28 Days Later just so he could give them out to spread the word, that was clearly the right choice. And as Danny Boyle himself suggested, Orlando Bloom and Tom Hardy did 'do alright' in the end. Let's hope that 28 Years Later renews its franchise's King Seal of Approval, when it opens in theaters on June 20th.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Does the color purple really exist?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The world is awash with the color purple — lavender flowers, amethyst gemstones, plums, eggplants and purple emperor butterflies. But if you look closely at the visible-light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, you'll notice that purple (which is different from bluish hues of violet and indigo) is absent. That's because purple may be made up by our brains; It exists only because of how the brain processes color. So does that mean purple doesn't really exist? Not necessarily. The answer lies within the mind-boggling way that our brains perceive and combine different wavelengths on the visible light spectrum. "I would actually say that none of color actually exists," said Zab Johnson, an executive director and senior fellow at the Wharton Neuroscience Initiative at the University of Pennsylvania. "It's all the process of our neural machinery, and that's sort of both the beauty and the complexity of it all at the same time." Sign up for our newsletter Sign up for our weekly Life's Little Mysteries newsletter to get the latest mysteries before they appear online. All color begins with light. When radiation from the sun hits Earth, a range of wavelengths are present. There are long wavelengths, like infrared rays and radio waves, and shorter, high-energy wavelengths, like X-rays and ultraviolet rays, which are damaging to our bodies, Johnson told Live Science. Toward the middle of the electromagnetic spectrum lies visible light — the light our brains can see — which represents only about 0.0035% of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is what we perceive as the colors of the rainbow. On one end of the spectrum are longer wavelengths, which we perceive as red, and on the other are shorter wavelengths, which we perceive as indigo and violet. Our perception of color involves specialized receptors at the back of our eyeballs, called cones, that detect visible light. Human eyes have three types of cones: long wave, mid wave and short wave. Each is sensitive to particular wavelengths. Long-wavelength cones take in information on reddish light, mid-wavelength cones specialize in green, and short-wavelength cones detect blue. Related: What color is the universe? When light hits our eyeballs, these three receptors take in information about the light and their respective wavelengths and send electrical signals to the brain. The brain then takes that information and makes an average deduction of what it's seeing. "Our machinery is sort of doing this complex sort of calculation of these three different ratios all the time," which forms our perception of color, Johnson said. For example, if long-wavelength and mid-wavelength cones are triggered, the brain infers that we're seeing orange or yellow. If mid-wavelength and short-wavelength cones are activated, the brain will make a conclusion of teal. So what about purple? When short-wavelength (blue) and long-wavelength (red) cones are stimulated, your brain "makes something that's actually not out there in the world," Johnson said. Red and blue are on opposite ends of the visible spectrum: When the brain encounters these wavelengths, it ends up bending this linear visible spectrum into a circle. In other words, it brings red and blue together to make purple and magenta, even though that's not what light is really doing. As a result, purple and magenta are known as "nonspectral" colors, because they don't really exist as actual electromagnetic radiation. Nonspectral colors like purple are made of two wavelengths of light. In contrast, spectral colors — red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and, importantly, violet and indigo — are made of just one wavelength. RELATED MYSTERIES —Why is the sky blue? —Why do we see colors that aren't there? —What would colors look like on other planets? Regardless of its physical existence, purple has captivated people for millennia, noted Narayan Khandekar, director of the Straus Center for Conservation and Technical Studies at Harvard Art Museums. For example, ancient Phoenicians ground up sea snails to make a color known as Tyrian purple, which was reserved for royal or ceremonial robes. Today, purple is still often associated with wealth, power and even magic. "So that connection still exists, even though there are other versions of purple available now," he told Live Science. So, whether manufactured in our minds or made from ground-up shellfish, purple is unique and deserves closer look. "It doesn't really exist in nature. And so when you can create it, it has this extra value," Johnson said. "Now purple is even more special."
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Your favorite Apple Watch face could soon disappear – here are the 5 that are being axed in watchOS 26
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. watchOS 26 has removed several watch face designs They include the Gradient, Toy Story, and Vapor looks At the same time, there are no new faces to replace them Typically, you expect big software updates to add features, not take them away. Yet sometimes a handful of things disappear in the process – and if you're fond of a select few Apple Watch faces, you might be out of luck, as Apple is removing a number of well-known faces with the watchOS 26 update. As spotted by Reddit user flogman12, Apple has ditched five faces in watchOS 26: the Fire and Water, Gradient, Liquid Metal, Toy Story, and Vapor designs. It's not known why these faces have been removed – Apple never gives a reason for removing faces or even announces that they're gone – but they will likely be sorely missed by their fans. It's possible that the faces were simply less popular than other options, and have been cleared out to make way for others. Still, it's not all bad news, as watchOS 26 has updated a bunch of new faces that are available for all of the best Apple Watches. While the company didn't add any brand-new designs, it did bring its Liquid Glass visual style to a number of faces, bringing more translucency and light refraction to your Apple Watch. This isn't the first time Apple has cut a selection of faces from its watchOS operating system. It did so last year with watchOS 11. It's not an unusual move for the company, and it often does this to make room for other additions when it releases a major new watchOS update. This may also have been done simply to keep the list of watch faces at a manageable number. After all, if you're faced with a daunting list of hundreds of different designs to choose from it might feel a tad overwhelming. The fact that the Toy Story face has been dropped is interesting, as this was the first feature-length film released by Pixar while Apple founder Steve Jobs was Pixar CEO. You would think that would give this watch face a solid connection to Apple, but that wasn't enough to save it from being axed. While watchOS 26 hasn't added any all-new options to the Watch face gallery, it has brought a bunch of new features in other areas. Be sure to check out our picks for the best watchOS 26 features to see what's new. Apple watchOS 26: everything you need to know after WWDC watchOS 26: these are the 6 big updates coming to your Apple Watch soon – including an AI Workout Buddy and a Notes app Apple quietly got rid of four Watch faces in watchOS 11, and furious users want them back
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
General Hospital spoilers: Willow snaps and takes a page out of Nina's old 'criminal' playbook?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. We're not completely heartless when it comes to General Hospital's Willow (Katelyn MacMullen). Don't get us wrong, we were happy to see the judge in her custody battle with Michael (Rory Gibson) side with the Corinthos/Quartermaine heir. Heck, she's been infuriating as she continues to follow the deplorable Drew Cain (Cameron Mathison) down every wrong turn. But her complete breakdown in court was still gut-wrenching to watch. As General Hospital viewers know, in the episode that aired on June 12, things got so bad that Willow wound up fainting and being taken to the hospital. There, Elizabeth (Rebecca Herbst) told Willow she'd be getting a psych evaluation. Speaking of the hospital, it's believed that Sasha (Sofia Mattsson), along with baby Daisy, are still there. That makes complete sense, considering Sasha just recently gave birth, and both mother and daughter are likely recovering. With all that being said, we can't help but feel as if the powers that be at General Hospital are laying the groundwork for history repeating itself. Years ago, Willow's mother, Nina (Cynthia Watros), suffered from a mental breakdown of her own and stole Sonny (Maurice Benard) and Ava's (Maura West) daughter, Avery. Is it possible that so completely distraught after losing custody of her children, Willow takes a page out of Nina's book and kidnaps baby Daisy? Sure it is. If our theory proves true, Willow would cause a widespread panic throughout Port Charles, and she'd have every powerful family in town hunting her down. Literally, the Scorpios, the Spencers, the Quartermaines and the Corinthos clans are all connected to the newborn. And if Willow commits the kidnapping, we have to think about how this would all come to an end. Would Nina find her daughter first to talk some sense into her? Would the voice of reason somehow become Drew? Should Willow turn to a life of crime due to this custody outcome, we suspect her criminal tenure will ultimately end with her spending a stint at Shadybrook Sanitarium or Ferncliff Asylum. But that may be for the best. Not for nothing, Willow probably should get to the bottom of how she became so susceptible to Drew's callous manipulation in the first place. On a final note, we hate to disparage anyone's skills as a mother (even in the soap world), but Nina should feel guilty here. She could have helped stop this Drew trainwreck if she had just been honest about him with her daughter. So it bears asking: 'Was Carly (Laura Wright) right, and is Nina a bad mother?' New episodes of General Hospital air on weekdays on ABC. If you miss an episode, you can catch up on Hulu.
