It’s been nearly three decades since rage-infected zombies first stormed the screen in 28 Days Later, turning a low-budget horror film into a cult classic. That movie felt real, raw, and dangerously close to home. Now, with 28 Years Later, the same world returns… but it doesn’t hit quite the same.
Sure, Danny Boyle is back in the director’s chair, and Alex Garland pens the script again. On paper, that should be enough. But somewhere between revisiting the past and trying to build something new, the film loses clarity. It’s like it remembers the mood of the original—but not the muscle behind it.
Spike Steps Off the Island
At the centre of this strange new chapter is Spike, a boy who’s grown up far from the infected chaos, tucked away on an isolated island. He’s never seen the mainland. Never knew what the world used to be. But like most boys his age, curiosity gets the better of him.
What follows is his quiet, uneasy walk through a landscape that feels both dead and too alive. Alfie Williams plays Spike with a kind of stillness that makes you lean in. He doesn’t need big speeches—his expressions, often blank but searching, say everything.
Old Horror, New Filters
The first half of the film feels like home for anyone who loved 28 Days Later. The camera’s shaky, the colours are drained, and there’s a quiet tension in every frame. You can almost hear the silence echo. It holds onto that gritty, street-level style that made the original so intense.
But somewhere around the midpoint, things start to shift—and not in a smooth way. The movie suddenly leans into flashy choices: slow-motion action shots, bizarrely polished visuals, and weird camera tricks that feel out of place. You start to wonder if a different director quietly stepped in.
At one point, it even looks like some scenes were filmed on a phone. Maybe that was intentional—to feel raw or experimental—but instead it pulls you out of the moment. The contrast between the gritty start and the overly clean later scenes is so sharp, it feels like two films stitched together.
Canon Confusion: Ignoring the Past
Here’s where things get messy. The film doesn’t acknowledge 28 Weeks Later at all. That sequel, which had its take on the chaos, seems to be wiped clean from the timeline. While 28 Years Later tries to present itself as a spiritual follow-up to the first film, skipping over the second leaves a giant gap for those who’ve been invested since the beginning.
And then there’s the issue of the infected. How are they still around? How has the mainland not turned into a ghost town by now? The movie never really bothers to explain. You’re expected to accept that somehow, in 28 long years, a mix of humans and infected have just… learned to exist in this broken ecosystem. It’s a bold ask from the audience—and not one everyone will buy into.
The Ending: Poetic or Just Odd?
Without giving too much away, the final stretch of the film will definitely have people split. Some might find it moving in a quiet, unexpected way, while others could end up chuckling, unsure if that moment was meant to be serious or not. Either way, it doesn’t land as cleanly as it should. It feels like the film wanted to say something profound, but didn’t quite know how to say it. The result is a finale that’s more puzzling than powerful.
What Works (And What Doesn’t)
What works: the acting. Williams and Comer are both fully committed. The world-building in the first hour is unsettling in the best way. Some scenes genuinely recreate the dread that made 28 Days Later so memorable.
What doesn’t: the editing, the inconsistent tone, and the unexplained time jump that leaves you with more questions than answers. You’ll leave the theatre with a strong memory of certain scenes—but a lingering doubt about the story as a whole.
Also Read…
‘How I Met Your Mother’ Star Jason Segel Is Engaged; Inside the Special Moment
Final Thoughts: A Return That’s Brave but Bruised
28 Years Later isn’t a bad film. It’s just a conflicted one. It wants to be a horror film, a character study, and a franchise revival all at once. Sometimes it succeeds. Often, it fumbles. If you’re a die-hard fan of the original, there’s enough here to warrant a watch—just don’t expect the same stripped-down terror that made the first film iconic. For newcomers, the movie might feel uneven, but it still offers something different from the usual zombie fare.
In the end, 28 Years Later walks a tightrope between innovation and identity crisis, and while it never quite falls, it sure does wobble.
Writer – Subham Choudhary