By George & Josh Bate
Zombie movies remain one of the most enduring horror subgenres, in part due to its numerous creative reinventions over the years. In 2002, director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland drew inspiration from George A. Romero’s seminal work and breathed new life into the living dead with a classic frenetic in its energy and dynamic in its directing. 28 Days Later has influenced zombie films and shows, ranging from The Walking Dead to Shaun of the Dead, ever since and spawned a sequel, 28 Weeks Later, that is deeply underappreciated. In an era populated by legacy sequels and reboots, it seems only natural that another story in Boyle and Garland’s British post-apocalyptic landscape would be commissioned. The result of this endeavor is 28 Years Later, which sees Boyle and Garland craft a movie that works far better as a standalone zombie story than a follow-up to 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later.
28 Years Later picks up (you guessed it) 28 years after the deadly Rage virus decimated the U.K. With the virus contained to the U.K. and the country quarantined from the rest of the world, survivors manage to live and create communities amidst the infected. One of these survivors is Spike (Alfie Williams), the 12-year old son of scavenger Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and the troubled Isla (Jodie Comer). When Spike and Jamie venture beyond their isolated island, which is connected to the mainland full of infected by a single causeway, the father-son duo begin a journey that opens Spike’s eyes to the dangers and possibilities of the outside world.
Arguably the most unique quality of 28 Days Later was Boyle’s gritty, dynamic, and almost documentary-style directing, something the director retains heading into the series’ third installment. One can tell from miles away that 28 Years Later is a Danny Boyle film. The Academy Award-winning director employs fast shutter speeds, shaky cam, desaturated colors at times and heightened colors at other times, and many of the other techniques that made 28 Days Later such an aesthetically different and unsettling film. Boyle even goes more ambitious with his directing at times here, going so far as to intersperse clips from old movies and news footage to parallel the events of the film.
Amidst some missteps in its narrative and continuity from the previous movies, Boyle’s directing proves undeniably gripping and intense in a distinctly Danny Boyle sort of way. The director shows he hasn’t missed a beat in the 23 years that have passed since the original film as he knows how to make a white-knuckle, edge-of-your-seat, visceral horror film like no other. The infected are terrifying, in part due to excellent make-up design, but primarily due to how Boyle shoots them. Quick edits, uncomfortable close-ups, and handheld camera work whenever the infected are on screen are just some of the techniques Boyle uses to effectively unsettle the audience. There is also a brutality in 28 Years Later not present in the prior installments. While 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later were obviously bloody endeavors, Boyle kicks it up a notch here with some truly graphic kills that leave a lasting impression. Those watching the film simply to behold a blood-soaked zombie thrill ride will come away overjoyed.
Unfortunately, Boyle’s razor-sharp directing is let down by disjointed storytelling. ‘Disjointed’ is the perfect word to describe 28 Years Later’s story in that the film is disjointed in more ways than one. Increasingly clear as the film progresses, Boyle’s threequel feels oddly disconnected from its predecessors. Certainly, as stated, the flair and style remain, but the world-building and expansion feel off. Garland’s script begins the film in a way that steps back from the conclusion of 28 Weeks Later, which saw the Rage virus spread through Europe, and overlooks a key part of the conclusion of 28 Days Later. The Rage virus was somehow pushed back from mainland Europe to be contained exclusively in the U.K. Almost three decades after the virus was unleashed on the world, the virus has evolved and created subtypes of infected, including slowly crawling, overweight zombies and Alphas, highly intelligent and particularly vicious zombies that can withstand arrows and bullets regular infected cannot survive. The introduction of these subtypes falls flat, with the slow zombies being far less frightening that the original infected and the Alphas proving to be a rather silly concept in the context of the film. With these different kinds of infected in the mix, 28 Years Later begins to stray away from one of the most effective elements of its predecessors – the unrelenting and fast-paced infected that plague our characters.
28 Years Later further loses touch with the original film with its post-apocalyptic setting. Aside from Boyle’s unique directing style, there is little in the new film that distinguishes it from other recent post-apocalyptic stories, in particular A Quiet Place: Part II and The Walking Dead. There are groups of survivors, communities, unusual people that may be more frightening than the infected themselves, cults, destroyed buildings, empty streets, a need for supplies, and so on and so on. Boyle’s engaging filmmaking only carries the film so far and doesn’t quite get one to ignore just how formulaic the film is. Any potential to explore the political and social implications of having an apocalypse contained exclusively to the U.K. and how this would influence people’s nationalism or preservation of British history is completely overlooked, which proves particularly frustrating given how the premise invites this sort of commentary and how much more unique the film would have been had it been included.
Disjointed is also an apt description for 28 Years Later in how the story progresses. The film begins as a father-son journey, before prematurely shelving this plot entirely in favor of a less interesting story turn. Garland subsequently throws lots of elements in the film that don’t quite land. In addition to the poorly conceived subtypes of infected, the screenplay introduces a character midway through the movie, who temporarily derails the story and detracts from the tension that was previously palpable. There is also the looming presence of Dr. Kelson, a mysterious survivor of the outbreak played by Ralph Fiennes. Dr. Kelson ominously hovers over the events of the film until finally making a rather anti-climactic appearance, although this is no fault of Fiennes’ performance. Then there is the film’s ending, which is undoubtedly the most bizarre occurrence across the three films of the franchise (however, it should be commended for finally introducing something bold and subversive of expectations to the proceedings, especially for those familiar with British pop culture). Collectively though, all of these different elements result in an oddly paced film that juggles too many different ideas, few of which work particularly well.
The overarching story plays out as a domestic drama situated in a zombie apocalypse. In addition to the aforementioned father-son arc, the film also explores the relationship between its lead character Spike and his mother Isla (played by Jodie Comer). Isla struggles with some mysterious illness that leaves her disoriented and bed-ridden most of the time. After taking a backseat for the first half of the film, Isla begins to play a bigger part heading into the second half and plays a critical role in the big emotional climactic moment, which admittedly works quite well and is simultaneously heartbreaking and heartwarming in a strange manner. Comer is phenomenal as the troubled Isla, but the real standout performance here is young Alfie Williams as Spike. Williams is firmly the lead of the film and nails every emotional beat he is given, which is essential given how important he is to the story.
VERDICT: 7.5/10
Director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland follow their zombie classic 28 Days Later with a sequel that works better as a standalone zombie thrill ride than it does a successor to the original film. Boyle retains the 2002 film’s gritty, dynamic, and almost documentary-style directing, filled with fast shutter speeds and shaky cam, and uses this to create a visceral, gripping, and intense moviegoing experience only Danny Boyle could engineer. Unfortunately, Boyle’s signature filmmaking only goes so far as the film is hindered by a disjointed story juggling too many ill-fitting elements and a post-apocalyptic landscape that feels all too similar to other stories. This lack of novelty, coupled with a reversal of the ending of 28 Weeks Later and misfired attempts to further develop the infected, leave 28 Years Later as an unusual, almost misguided installment in the franchise and, simultaneously, an undeniably entertaining standalone zombie horror film with strong performances, energetic directing, palpable intensity, and an emotional climax. With a sequel on the way in January 2026 that will inevitably expand upon the current film’s commendably bizarre ending, hopes remain high for what Boyle and Garland have in store for this infected wasteland.