Synopsis
Academy Award®-winning director Danny Boyle and Academy Award®-nominated writer Alex Garland reunite for 28 Years Later, a terrifying new “auteur horror” story set in the world created by 28 Days Later. It’s been almost three decades since the rage virus escaped a biological weapons laboratory, and now, still in a ruthlessly enforced quarantine, some have found ways to exist amidst the infected. One such group of survivors lives on a small island connected to the mainland by a single, heavily-defended causeway. When one of the group leaves the island on a mission into the dark heart of the mainland, he discovers secrets, wonders, and horrors that have mutated not only the infected but other survivors as well.
What We Thought:
28 Years Later is the biggest disappointment of 2025 if not the past five years. As a big fan of 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later I was highly looking forward to the third film. I rewatched 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later last week to get me ready for 28 Years Later and there was no need to. You can go into this new movie without ever seeing the first two films because it lacks everything good the first two films have.
Other than this taking place 28 years after the events of the first movie, there’s nothing else that connects the film. None of the previous characters make appearance or are even referenced. Other than the infected being quarantined to England, you don’t need to remember anything about the original film and sequel.
That’s mind boggling to me considering both Danny Boyle and Alex Garland returned for this film. Boyle directed the first one and Garland wrote it and I was hoping their return would bring back their magic. Instead I almost feel like Boyle wanted to do something new and different and it doesn’t work. Boyle shot the film with some new technology and I didn’t like the look or feel of the movie because of it. The story is definitely something from Garland and it feels like the resulting film leaned into Garland more than Boyle. I like Alex Garland, but didn’t like Annihilation and this feels very similar to that.
The only positive I have for the movie is the acting. Ralph Fiennes is fantastic as usual as a reclusive type. Jodie Comer is very good as usual and Aaron Taylor-Johnson is as well. Young Alfie Williams more than holds his own opposite his older co-stars and will earn a lot of praise for his performance. It’s a shame the movie doesn’t match the acting.
My biggest issue with 28 Years Later is that it’s really not a zombie movie. Yes Boyle and Garland’s first zombie movie is about humanity and how we respond in a situation like an apocalypse, but this third film is 99% that and 1% horror. The general movie going audience expecting the next great zombie flick will be bored to tears and I expect some to walk out (I considered it). The movie had so much potential and starts out decently showing how the people still quarantined survive in a land time has forgotten. The rest of the world is modern day, but to them, it’s like the beginning of mankind using bows and arrows and man returning to his hunting and gathering roots. The infected almost play second fiddle in a zombie movie. The ending is laughable with a group of characters that will make you cringe and leave you not looking forward to the fourth movie coming out next year. I didn’t like the look or the style of the film. There are scenes Boyle added that make no sense and are unnecessary like flashbacks to old warriors. I saw it with a friend who didn’t like it either and the more we talked about its issues afterwards the more I hated it. I could go on and on, but it’s just too disappointing and not worth talking about.
The Nerds Templar 