28 Years Later Review: Twenty-eight years after the terrifying outbreak that ravaged Britain in 28 Days Later, Danny Boyle and Alex Garland are back, this time with a bold yet unpolished sequel—28 Years Later. It’s gritty. It’s ambitious. It’s chaotic. And it’s unlike anything you might expect.
When news broke that director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland were reuniting after more than two decades, expectations were sky-high. The original film was a landmark in horror, redefining the zombie genre. So, does 28 Years Later rise from the ashes or rot in the wreckage?
Rating : (3.5/5)
Danny Boyle and Alex Garland Reunite
Boyle’s gritty visuals and Garland’s cerebral storytelling are a dream team on paper. But this time, it feels like they couldn’t quite agree on a single direction. It’s as if they mashed up two drafts—one action-packed, one emotional—and never trimmed the fat.
The Premise – A New Generation Faces the Old Nightmare
Meet Spike, a teenager played by breakout star Alfie Williams. His isolated island town is one of the few remaining “safe zones,” cut off by a tidal land bridge. But once that tide drops, the infected are only a few steps away.
Britain, still considered untouchable by the rest of the world, is left to its fate. With its crumbling buildings and infected inhabitants, the country has become both a prison and a hunting ground.
Dual Narrative Structure
The movie kicks off like a coming-of-age tale—Spike’s first infected kill alongside his father (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). But it suddenly shifts tone into a perilous journey where Spike must escort his mother (played by the phenomenal Jodie Comer) across the infected mainland. It’s thrilling but narratively disjointed.
The Cast – Strong Performances Save the Chaos
- Alfie Williams as Spike
Surprise of the year? Alfie Williams. Despite his youth and limited filmography, he carries this film. His performance is raw, powerful, and surprisingly mature.
- Jodie Comer: A Mother’s Mission
Comer shines as a mother determined to complete a mysterious mission. She’s not just “the mom” but a driving force of the film’s emotional core.
- Aaron Taylor-Johnson & Ralph Fiennes
Taylor-Johnson plays the grizzled, cautious father. Fiennes makes a brief but memorable appearance. These big names are used sparingly, yet effectively.
Cinematography – Shot on iPhones, But at What Cost?
Yes, much of this movie was shot on iPhones—with pro lenses and tech, of course. But it often feels too clean, too artificial, lacking the gritty realism that made 28 Days Later so haunting. At times, the background blur feels more like an Instagram filter than a cinematic choice.
The Infected – Evolved, Organized, and Terrifying
The infected are back—but this time, they’ve evolved. There are hints of a hierarchy or communication system among them, which opens up fascinating questions the movie never fully answers.
From fast, brutal assaults to eerie moments of silence, the infected sequences are nerve-racking. Some kills even feel straight out of Mortal Kombat—brutal, creative, and blood-splattered.
Tone and Editing
Some of the stylistic choices—like red night-vision shots and slow-motion arrow kills—feel jarring. Cool? Sure. Consistent with the tone? Not really.
At one point, the film randomly cuts to B-roll from an old medieval movie. Why? Who knows. It’s strange and indulgent, much like the awkward bullet-time effect straight out of 2001.
Timeline Confusion – Is 28 Weeks Later Now Non-Canon?
Boyle and Garland seem to be politely ignoring 28 Weeks Later. Officially, they say it’s not erased—but it’s clearly not considered canon. This raises timeline issues, especially around the survival of the infected.
The World Beyond Britain – A Mystery Still Unexplored
While the rest of the world seems fine, Britain remains a forgotten hellhole. How does that work geopolitically? Why has no one intervened? Garland’s script leaves too many open questions.
Final Act – Powerful or Laughable?
There’s a climactic scene that aims for an emotional gut-punch… but audiences laughed. Was it the delivery? The editing? Either way, it broke the tension and created an odd mix of horror and unintentional humor.
Pros and Cons – A Brutally Honest Take
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Alfie Williams’ performance | Disjointed storytelling |
| Visceral infected scenes | Over-stylized cinematography |
| Unique dual narrative | Tonal inconsistencies |
| Eerie atmosphere | Unresolved world-building |
| Jodie Comer’s strong role | Questionable editing choices |
Final Verdict – Is It Worth Watching?
If you’re a fan of the original and want to see how the story progresses—or resets—then 28 Years Later is definitely worth your time. It’s flawed but fascinating. Don’t expect a perfect follow-up, but do expect something bold, weird, and memorable.
How This Sequel Stands in the Zombie Genre
It doesn’t quite hit the cultural impact of 28 Days Later, but it brings new ideas to the table. As a zombie (or infected) movie, it earns points for originality and tension, just not execution.
Conclusion
28 Years Later is a strange beast. At times, it’s brilliant. At others, baffling. But one thing is clear—it takes risks, it dares to be different, and it leaves you thinking long after the credits roll. Whether you love it or hate it, you’re going to feel something.
FAQs
1. Is 28 Years Later a direct sequel to 28 Days Later?
Yes, though it seems to ignore the events of 28 Weeks Later entirely.
2. Is it necessary to watch the earlier films?
Not really. The movie gives you enough background to jump in fresh.
3. Who plays Spike in 28 Years Later?
Alfie Williams, a rising young talent, delivers a breakout performance.
4. Is this movie more horror or drama?
It’s a mix—blending psychological drama with survival horror and action.
5. Will there be more sequels after this?
The ending hints at future installments. If this one succeeds, expect more infected chaos.