28 Years Later

A thoughtful sequel with heart, hindered by frantic editing

Every franchise with even the faintest hint of sequel potential is being squeezed for every last cent. This has needlessly revived properties like The Blair Witch, The Exorcist, and even My Big Fat Greek Wedding. The uninspired duds churned out to keep these IPs alive often feel embarrassingly greedy. But when an original creative team reunites to revisit an old story, it lands differently. Sure, money can convince anyone to sign on, yet the pairing of director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland—who brought us 28 Days Later (2002)—returning for a sequel sparks genuine curiosity. Their new entry, 28 Years Later (2025), follows the chronology and creative spirit of the originals.

Once again set in a zombie-riddled United Kingdom, 28 Years Later eponymously takes place nearly three decades after the initial outbreak. While the rest of the world has contained the virus, the UK remains quarantined, its survivors left to fend for themselves. We follow twelve-year-old Spike (Alfie Williams), who is taken by his father (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) from their safe island compound off the Scottish coast to the mainland, so he can get firsthand experience with the infected. Out there, Spike encounters the mysterious and eccentric Dr. Kelson (Ralph Fiennes), who burns something—or someone—every night, and may be the only hope for Spike’s sick, bedridden mother (Jodie Comer).

28 Years Later reunites Garland and Boyle after both have cemented their reputations as distinct filmmakers. Yet they fall back into the writer-director dynamic with ease. Garland’s script is structured and emotionally resonant, with strong family drama beats that Boyle brings to life through deft direction and committed performances. As with 28 Days Laterand 28 Weeks Later (2007), the characters’ emotional lives and society’s descent into chaos are depicted with thoughtfulness and poetic patience. This time, the characters are more developed than ever, with Spike emerging as an instantly likable protagonist—one you root for, even through his obvious missteps.

The zombie action is intense but sparing, allowing each scene to land with greater impact. Boyle and Garland wisely avoid the B-horror trap of inserting scares or action every few minutes. As a result, the horror scenes feel fresh, with inventive kills and gruesome imagery that will burn itself in your retinas.

Interestingly, the entire film was shot on an iPhone—a gimmick that goes largely unnoticed. What’s more apparent is the film’s jittery and impatient cinematography and editing. Boyle has always been an energetic filmmaker, but here the pace borders on manic. Scenes barely have time to breathe before we’re cutting to visual asides, foreshadowing, or abruptly jumping to the next moment. Whether due to studio constraints or a creative decision, the result is a dizzying visual style that dilutes key dramatic moments. Even the action sequences suffer: one arrow shot is edited with as many cuts as Liam Neeson’s infamous fence jump in Taken (2008).

These post-production misfires extend to the soundtrack. While the score includes some beautiful, inventive pieces, they are often mismatched to the scenes. A tense chase is paired with a serene string melody; pounding battle drums underscore a calm stroll across a bridge. It often feels as if the editors weren’t listening to the music they were dropping in.

Despite these issues, the film benefits from a strong cast. While Taylor-Johnson, Comer, and Fiennes anchor the marketing, it’s Williams who carries the movie. The young actor delivers a standout performance, evolving believably from a naive child into a hardened adolescent. He holds his own in emotional scenes, even opposite veterans like Fiennes.

Ultimately, 28 Years Later is a strong sequel—arguably better than 28 Weeks Later—but it doesn’t match the raw power of the original. Still, it proves that even a cash-grab premise, in the hands of skilled artists, can yield satisfying results. The compelling cast and emotionally grounded story hold the film together. Unfortunately, the frenzied editing and mismatched scoring become serious distractions. A shameless setup for a sequel in the final scenes leaves the story feeling incomplete, with a slow buildup that lacks a true payoff. Instead of delivering a gut punch, the ending fizzles—promising thrills yet to arrive.

7.0/10