28 Years Later

28 Years Later had the potential to be a haunting, meaningful return to the bleak, rage-infected world that first stunned audiences with 28 Days Later and its solid follow-up, 28 Weeks Later. Unfortunately, the latest installment delivers a visually competent yet narratively hollow experience that squanders its legacy.

The film does manage to re-capture some of the atmosphere that made the original so iconic-desolate cityscapes, tense silences broken by bursts of frantic violence, and that persistent feeling of hopeless survival. The performances are serviceable, and there are a few moments where the emotional core threatens to break through the surface.

But then comes the ending-a frustrating, empty finale that offers no real payoff, no thematic resolution, and, worst of all, no meaningful contribution to the world it inhabits. Rather than expanding the lore or delivering a final statement on humanity, rage, or survival, the conclusion feels like it either ran out of ideas or deliberately chose ambiguity over substance. It doesn't provoke thought-it just ends, with a shrug.

After nearly three decades since 28 Days Later, audiences deserved a story that either pushed the universe forward or gave it a satisfying closure. 28 Years Later does neither. It's a return, yes-but not one worth remembering.

I watched this on its premiere in my country. Tbh horror movies and the like have bored me lately. I was eager to watch this movie because I loved the older ones, but I was cautiously optimistic, because of all the other IPs getting worse and worse.

But this was amazing.

Imo, this is how you make a sequel. Take the premise and run with it. Especially if you have an excellent premise on your hands! After so many years, no, I didn't need old characters to return. A specific family story within a horror-movie universe, with excellent cinematography and not so many jump scares, as tension build-up, was exactly what I needed to watch, only I wasn't aware, until I did.

Don't expect to feel the same things you felt in 2002, but that's a good thing. They didn't try to recreate something that would 100% fail.

One of the best movies I've watched these last few years. Who would've told it would be out of a horror movie franchise? 😅

"28 Years Later" isn't a return-it's a reckoning.

Those entering the cinema expecting a nostalgic sprint through blood-slicked alleyways and anarchic survival horror may find themselves wrong-footed.

This is not a film of closure or simple thrills-it's a disturbing, mythic meditation on survival, trauma, and the virus of humanity itself.

Set in a post-pandemic Britain still reeling from the psychological aftershocks of lockdowns and the national isolationism that followed Brexit, "28 Years Later" isn't interested in being just another zombie flick.

It's richer and more elusive, threading political commentary, religious symbolism, and ecological anxiety into a story that never quite settles-on purpose.

What begins as disorientation slowly transforms into awe. The infected are back, but they are not the same.

Some crawl like insects. Some move in packs, led by terrifying Alphas. There is evolution here-not just among the infected, but within the society that's adapted to coexist with them.

As England's borders have closed, a new mythos has grown in their place: Viking-like clans, cultish settlements, temples built from bones.

The England flag and ghostly portraits of the late Queen Elizabeth linger in the background like relics from a long-gone era. Boyle is not being subtle-nor should he be.

This is an England both preserved and rotten.

Boyle's direction is bold, if occasionally uneven. The first act wobbles with a few disjointed sequences and jarring shifts in tone. Some are reminiscent of the frenetic "Trainspotting" editing-it's no accident. Others feel forced, such as a CGI-heavy scene involving crows that borders on cartoonish.

But Boyle finds his stride in the second half, where the cinematography and tone become more cohesive. His camera becomes feral-tracking, circling, obsessing-dragging us through wild landscapes that are reclaiming the country.

Nature and infection blend until they're nearly indistinguishable. Humanity, it seems, is no longer at the top of the food chain.

Our central figure, 12-year-old Spike (Alfie Williams), is used with deft purpose. As Boyle notes, "horror loves innocence," and here, the protagonist becomes a cipher for something more universal: the lies adults tell children to survive, and the truths they bury.

Around him orbit enigmatic figures-a grief-haunted grandfather, an ill mother, a doctor with unclear loyalties, a macho father, monstrous and smart zombies, and a literal giant named Samson.

Their mysteries are not answered-and that's the point. Look closer, and you'll find Boyle and co-writer Alex Garland constructing a portrait of a regressing species.

Despite our evolution, we seem to be reverting-back to the primal, the tribal, the monstrous.

This film is the first movement of a symphony, not a complete song. Its unanswered questions will surely drive the next two installments in this long-awaited trilogy.

There are moments of brilliance that recall '70s cannibal cinema-most notably "Cannibal Holocaust"-and echoes of modern human dramas like "The Last of Us."

The violence and gore are not shied away from-they're served up with grisly flair.

There's also an off-kilter comic absurdity that Boyle sneaks in just enough to unnerve.

It can, at times, slip into near-parody, but it's a calculated risk that mostly pays off, keeping the film buoyant amid its darker currents.

"28 Years Later" is less about terror and more about transformation. It shows us a world that has not just survived catastrophe, but redefined itself through it-for better or worse.

Frustrating, fascinating, and frequently mesmerising, it refuses to offer comfort or clarity.

Instead, Boyle gifts us with something rarer: horror with ambition, and a story that dares to wait for its own conclusion.

The rage hasn't faded. It has evolved. And this is only the beginning.

Having watched the second one the night before I watched 28 years later, it makes you realise how very different they are as a trilogy.

I think it might feel different to certain ages, I was in my 20's with the first film, which is still the best one, and loved the hard hitting raw violence and shock of it. 28 weeks later was a bit more 'Hollywood' vibe and then 28 years later has a more mature and in tune with the way the world has been over the past few years. Vulnerability is more prominent and it has maybe less violence but as the infected have aged and changed so have the characters. Spike the young boy is a likeable character, where as I find a lot of times they can be annoying. If you've grown up with these films you might find you like them more, just my thoughts on it.

When the movie tries to be layered it will either work for you or it won't. I get why Danny Boyle and Alex Garland chose this route.

This is my personal speculation, but I think Danny Boyle and Alex Garland thought that perhaps after the release of 28 DAYS LATER, there have been many zombie films since (some of which are good and innovative), so they just didn't want to be straight forward or play it safe with 28 YEARS LATER. In doing so, I don't think the film completely delivers on what it looked to promise in both incredible trailers.

In truth I did kind of know that going in because after watching other movies from Boyle and Garland, a seasoned movie buff knows they love to subvert so it really shouldn't be surprising. This is also the first in a new trilogy of films. I had to keep that in mind as I walked out because I don't have the big picture just yet.

I feel as though Alex Garland had like three ideas, presented them to Danny Boyle and they both decided to mash them up together. A story about coming of age/rite of passage, a bond between a mother and son, and the philosophical idea of death and what it means, almost nihilistic. All in the back drop of survival horror.

So that basically made my experience all over the place because it can get jarring. It's ambitious for sure and Boyle and Garland swing big, but I can see it being not cohesive for some people.

I'm in the center, but I do lean a bit towards a more favorable outlook and that's mainly because of the actors. I thought Alfie Williams who plays Spike, shouldered this film very well. He is the emotional anchor in the film and he carried it with striking maturity and nuance. There's a slow erosion of childhood innocence and it was very subtle, but also very powerful. The erosion of childhood innocence is also something I think Boyle and Garland has in play for a particular character in the next sequel - a boy named Jimmy who watched Teletubbies as shown in the trailer.

Ralph Fiennes is just always good in everything and he's a stand out as Doctor Ian Kelson. I hope we see more of him down the line. Jodie Comer is Isla, Spike's mother who is suffering from an illness seeking out Kelson with Spike. She is also fantastic and anchors all the emotional elements of the film with Alfie Williams. Aaron Taylor-Johnson's Jamie, Spike's father I think will have more to do in the sequel, and his character is used in good effect in the beginning of the film. Edvin Ryding's Erik a Swedish NATO soldier is memorable too. Everyone brought their A-game.

There are new concepts explored with the infected and the rage virus. While I have a lot of questions about it, they were all fascinating ideas. I'm curious to see those layers get peeled. Good action and some decent scares from the infected too, not to mention also very naked.

Boyle loves to experiment with editing and the sped up scenes are here just like in the first film, but there are moments of some awkward cuts in-between. I think people will either like or hate that.

The ending is the epitome of weird and jarring, but again, keep in mind that there will be a sequel and hopefully a concluding threequel where Cillian Murphy can come dominate his role as Jim. Speaking of Jim, I don't know if it was deliberate, but the name Jim seems to be a common thing and I am curious if it will have any kind of connection or none at all.

So bottom line, yes I enjoyed it. I enjoyed what Boyle and Garland were trying to say and the great performances help alleviate the jarring tonal shifts. However, I understand some of the disappointment, as I am a massive fan of the first, who also really enjoyed the comics in what I think are not canon anymore and mildly enjoyed the sequel 28 WEEKS LATER.

This film basically skipped straight to being a thesis film with horror elements. This isn't a one-off indie film, but Boyle and Garland sort of treat it like that. It's part of a franchise with a 20+ year fanbase. Fans want to be re-invited into the world they remember. Give some sense of continuity, not just in lore but also in tone. Then gradually show the new direction.

Boyle and Garland made the exact opposite of a nostalgic legacy sequel. They could have played it safe, but if they had and if it failed they risked creating another STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS situation, where nostalgia drives the hype, but the film ultimately lacks a real identity of its own and sets up a trilogy with shaky creative footing failing to evolve.

Instead, they forced a fresh, cerebral narrative at the risk of alienating the fans. That's the paradox. It's that classic art vs. Expectation battle and Boyle and Garland chose art, knowing full well the trade-off.

28 YEARS LATER is bold and new. I do tip my hat off for Danny Boyle, who thrives in visual and tonal whiplash and Alex Garland who is allergic to clean resolutions or simple narratives. Together they create artful chaos which is this film, but for a film that took over a decade to arrive, a bit of familiar footing first might have allowed the fans and the audience to follow them more willingly into the deeper waters they clearly want to explore.

7/10.