My Thoughts on 28 Years Later
Nearly three decades after the events of 28 Days Later, the world of the Rage virus returns in 28 Years Later, and while this new installment doesn’t quite reach the raw, unforgettable impact of the original, it still delivers a bold, haunting, and often gripping vision of a world long since broken.
Director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland reunite for a sequel that doesn’t play it safe, as it's bigger, stranger, and more ambitious than what came before, at while at times it's a bit messy, it's also always interesting.
The story opens far from the chaos of the infected cities we remember. Britain remains cut off from the rest of the world, quarantined and left behind like a diseased limb. The infection, though mostly contained within the UK, still lingers in the shadows. Life has gone on, but not in any familiar way, and on a bleak, remote island, a small community has managed to survive by reverting to the the very basics of living.
It's here we meet Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a father doing his best to protect what’s left of his family. His wife, Isla (Jodie Comer), is ill and bedridden, while their son, Spike, is preparing to take part in a coming-of-age ritual that sends him across to the mainland.
Their journey takes them into the heart of a landscape still marked by decay, silence, and danger. And that’s where the film finds one of its strongest elements with Kelton, played by Ralph Fiennes. Kelton lives surrounded by bones, and he’s unsettling, captivating, and yet sympathetic.
The first act of the film, set entirely on the island, is surprisingly quiet and immersive. With its simplicity, strict rituals, and ignorance of what’s happening beyond the coastline, Boyle manages to capture it all beautifully. It’s one of the most effective stretches in the film, and it gives you enough time to care about the characters and setting before things start to spiral.
From there, the movie opens up, and that’s where things get more chaotic. The film doesn’t stick to a single genre or idea, it’s part horror, part survival drama, part philosophical musing, and occasionally something else entirely. It's certainly an ambitious film, which I respect and appreciate, but it also makes it feel a bit scattered at times.
The very best thing about 28 Years Later though are the visuals, they are absolutely stunning. The post-apocalyptic landscapes, crumbling cities, empty highways, overgrown ruins are quite a sight, and it there's a constant sense of decay, of time frozen and nature taking over that is beautiful to watch.
If you're a fan of Ralph Fiennes, you are in for a treat, too. Hell, even if you don't like him, you will after watching this. He is clearly the standout. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is also really good playing Jamie with a quiet intensity, and he’s a man worn down by years of hardship, but still driven by love for his family.
Jodie Comer, unfortunately, isn’t given much to do, yet she still shines when she is on screen, and Spike, while important to the story’s structure, never quite comes into his own really, which was a bit disappointing.
As mentioned though, the films ambition is to be applauded, and it tries to introduce some larger themes you might not be expecting, and you can feel Garland’s script brushing against bigger questions about how societies rebuild, what people are willing to sacrifice, and whether survival without humanity is worth it.
These ideas don’t always go as deep as they could, but the movie is reaching for something, and that effort is appreciated, even if the follow-through isn’t always strong. Even with some flaws, 28 Years Later never feels lazy or uninspired. It’s messy at times, but also quite memorable.
It takes risks, and is a sequel that dares to grow and change rather than repeat the same beats. Boyle’s direction still has bite, Garland’s writing still provokes, and the film feels alive with ideas, even when it’s struggling to hold them all together.
I'm not really going to discuss the ending, as I will wait for the sequel 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple to release in January, 2026 to decide whether it was good or not, because as of right now, I am not a fan, but there's more to it and more to appreciate about it, I am sure. Well, I hope so, anyway.
But anyway, 28 Years Later is a film that will definitely work better if you are open to its ambition. If you’re coming in hoping for an experience like 28 Days Later, you’ll need to adjust your expectations, as this is a different kind of film, stranger, grander, and more experimental in places.
But it’s also one that for the most part, works. It’s hard to watch 28 Years Later and not come away with at least a few images, performances, or moments burned into your memory, and while it may not be perfect, I very much doubt you'll ever be wondering how long is left at any point, hoping for it to be over.
And in the end, that might be what matters most.
Oh, and yes, I know they technically aren't zombies, but c'mon, we can call them so. This franchise has done so much for the zombie genre, that it feels rather pedantic not to be able to call them zombies, doesn't it?