28 years later sucks, and here’s why
Movie Review: 28 Years Later — A Fatigued Sequel That Should Have Stayed Buried
After nearly three decades since 28 Days Later redefined the zombie genre and 28 Weeks Later pushed the horror even further, 28 Years Later arrives like a reanimated corpse—technically alive, but lacking the spark of its predecessors.
Directed by Danny Boyle, returning to the franchise after his absence from the second installment, 28 Years Later promised a grand continuation of the viral apocalypse saga. Unfortunately, what it delivers is a film weighed down by its own legacy, stuck between nostalgia and narrative confusion.
The original 28 Days Later was groundbreaking. It gave us rage-infected sprinting zombies, eerie shots of an empty London, and a gritty, low-budget intensity that felt raw and real. 28 Years Later attempts to echo that energy—but instead of terrifying urgency, it offers bloated exposition, generic set pieces, and characters that barely leave an impression.
Gone is the visceral terror. In its place is a derivative, overly polished dystopia that feels more like The Walking Dead’s 20th season than a fresh cinematic experience.
Set in a Europe trying to rebuild after the long-decayed Rage Virus pandemic, 28 Years Later introduces a new outbreak, but with stakes that feel strangely small despite the film’s grander scope. The film meanders between bureaucratic melodrama, rebel factions, and an uninspired government conspiracy subplot. There’s no heart, no anchor, and no character nearly as memorable or engaging as Cillian Murphy’s Jim or even Robert Carlyle’s tormented father in 28 Weeks Later.
The horror has been sanitized. The virus no longer feels like an unstoppable force of chaos—it’s now just a plot device to justify uninspired action sequences and CGI-infected hordes that lack the chilling realism of the past.
Danny Boyle’s direction occasionally shines through in isolated moments—an overhead drone shot here, a brief use of silence there—but it's like watching an artist imitate their younger self. The raw, handheld intensity of 28 Days Later has been replaced by slick cinematography and lifeless editing. The emotional weight that once grounded the franchise has been replaced by shallow world-building and forgettable characters.
Even John Murphy’s returning score can’t save it. Instead of punctuating terror and tension, it feels forced—like a desperate callback to better days.
28 Years Later doesn’t just fail to justify its existence—it actively diminishes the memory of what came before. It’s not unwatchable, but it is uninspired. For a film about the aftermath of viral devastation, the most contagious thing about it is apathy.
Rating: ★★☆☆☆ (2/5)
28 Years Later is a slow, soulless stumble through familiar ground. The rage is gone—and maybe it should have stayed that way.
