‘28 Years Later’ Movie Review: Danny Boyle & Alex Garland’s Erratic Return to the Zombie Apocalypse Gives Tonal Whiplash
Photo from Miya Mizuno/Sony Pictures
From Jeff Nelson
Another 28 Days Later installment was a long time coming. Original duo Danny Boyle and Alex Garland return to the gritty English apocalypse with 28 Years Later, but this time, it’s a very different landscape. The film’s focus shifts from the rabid, vomiting infected to a fractured family fighting to stay together.
Set nearly three decades after the initial outbreak, the rage virus has been contained to England. Twelve-year-old Spike (Alfie Williams), his mother — Isla (Jodie Comer), and his father — Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), live in an isolated community where some survivors thrive. However, that safety is an illusion. Jamie believes Spike’s training properly prepared him for his rite of passage: a trip to the contaminated mainland to secure his first kill (with Jamie’s company, of course). Ignoring Isla’s protests (she’s mysteriously ill), the father and son embark on a journey that exposes Spike to the horrors that reach far beyond his training and fractures their bond.
The film’s tone is best captured in an early scene where young children watch The Teletubbies in an attempt to remain oblivious to the carnage outside. 28 Years Later thrives when contrasting childhood innocence with brutal survival. Spike, robbed of a normal upbringing, confronts a world he never knew, soon thrust into a life-or-death encounter with the rage virus. The early-established rattling suspense and a mutated virus make for a terrifying reintroduction to this apocalypse.
Soon after their return, Doyle transitions the story away from the expected horrors into a more drama-focused core. Spike’s youthful tenderness only emerges around his mother, whom he’s determined to protect at all costs. He sneaks her to the mainland toward a mysterious fire in the distance, hoping to meet an ominous doctor (Ralph Fiennes) who might have the answer to cure Isla’s sickness. Their encounters with zombies are scarce; instead, the film dwells on nostalgia for a lost world. This story is about what once was, rather than what is. Isla recalls a world before the apocalypse, whereas Spike only knows it as ruins. Quirky characters they meet along the way underscore what was lost, but these detours further confuse the tone.
28 Years Later isn’t interested in the mythology erected before it. These are new characters in the same catastrophe, although it doesn’t connect its narrative threads to its predecessors. The evolved rage virus introduces Alphas, which are far more fearsome foes than the typical infected fodder. Their bare-handed brutality occasionally dials up the bloodshed, but the execution is a bit silly. The script frustratingly breaks its rules when it comes to the infected this go around. And why do these survivors not kill them when given the chance?
Boyle impressively shot this sequel with 20 iPhones mounted on a rig. He somewhat maintains the original movie’s gritty, fuzzy quality until he captures the deceptively gorgeous scenery shrouding death. Unfortunately, his playful direction occasionally slips into techniques reminiscent of his work in Slumdog Millionaire, which detract from the nail-biting suspense. Not to mention the fact that Young Fathers’ score pales in comparison to John Murphy’s famously tense work in the 2002 original.
In some ways, 28 Years Later doesn’t feel like a 28 Days Later movie after the first act. Perhaps that’s the intention moving into this planned trilogy, but it’s merely a passable familial survivalist drama with moments of brutality. Comer delivers moving vulnerability, but jarring tonal shifts undermine the emotional beats. The cliffhanger teases a new direction for the larger saga – one that is difficult to judge, for now. Boyle and Garland’s ambition is undeniable, but their genre-blurring gamble dilutes the series’ horror DNA.
Rating: 3/5
28 Years Later hits theaters on June 20th, 2025.
