A One Mann’s Movies review of “28 Years Later” (2025).
Yesterday, in my review of “28 Weeks Later“, I described that film as being the “Aliens” – a militaristic action film – to “28 Days Later”s “Alien”. My fear was that the new film – “28 Years Later” – might follow that trend and be the “Alien 3” of the series! But with Danny Boyle and Alex Garland back at the helm, I need not have worried. But the film has left me with mixed feelings. There are indeed moments of utter 5-star brilliance. But overall, it’s not quite the home run that I was hoping for.
Bob the Movie Man Rating:
“28 Years Later” Plot:
It’s 28 Years after the events of the first two films. The European infection has (conveniently) been defeated, but the British mainland remains as a quarantined island of infection. “Put one toe on the shore…” says Swedish navy-grunt Erik (Edvin Ryding) “…and you stay here for good”. Separated from the mainland by a narrow, tidal causeway is Holy Island on which an uninfected community is thriving. But young men need to be initiated into the killing of the rage-infected on the mainland and Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) decides that for his 12-year-old son, Spike (Alfie Williams), it’s time.
Certification:
UK: 15; US: R. From the BBFC web site: “Strong bloody violence, gore, horror, very strong language”. (There’s also quite significant full-frontal nudity in this. It’s pertinent to the discussion of ratings-creep that “28 Weeks Later” got an ’18’ and this only gets a ’15’…. wow! As Mark Kermode is want to say, “Teens just don’t know they’re born!”)
Talent:
Starring: Jodie Comer, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ralph Fiennes, Alfie Williams, Amy Cameron, Jack O’Connell, Edvin Ryding.
Directed by: Danny Boyle.
Written by: Alex Garland.
Running Time: 1h 55m.
“28 Years Later” Summary:
Positives:
- Some moments of gloriously Boyle-fuelled cinema magic that takes your breath away.
- Some great acting performances, especially from Jodie Comer and Ralph Fiennes.
- Some gloriously arty and weird moments (but these might divide audiences).
Negatives:
- I’m not sure the story arc quite worked for me.
- The film bore no relation to the previous two… in fact airbrushed them in lots of ways.
Review of “28 Years Later”:
Definitely NOT what you might have been expecting.
To say that this film is different to the two previous films in the series would be an understatement. This film is something else altogether. Yes, we are in the universe of the ‘rage-infected’, but it is almost a multiverse variant. In this world, the zombies have somehow conveniently escaped “death by starvation” (as reported in “28 Weeks Later“) and evolved both upwards and downwards. Slug-like worm-eating humanoid creatures (a bit Morlocky, if you are familiar with “The Time Machine”) have evolved from infected Reform-voters/MAGAts*. And infected film critics have evolved into gigantic, powerful and terrifying ‘Alpha’ giants, (although their penis size remains largely unchanged… still huge)**.
- * Humo(u)r.
- ** More Humo(u)r.
There were elements of genetic McGuffin-ness in this for me, a bit like the engineers in “Alien: Covenant“. I’m sure there will be some in biology/genetics who might wish to rename the film “2,800 Years Later” to allow for greater realism in this regard.
Danny Boyle hallucinogens.
But viewers are likely to be more confused by Boyle’s artistic diversions into the classic film database. At various points in the plot we cut away to shots of old newsreel footage, marching troops, archers at the battle of Agincourt, and even Larry Olivier as Henry V astride his horse. In other dream/nightmare sequences we have some bizarre and disturbing imagery. I personally loved all of these artistic endeavours by Danny Boyle. But others are very likely to say “I came here to watch a f***ing zombie movie… not this arty/farty shit”. As such, I think the film will be very divisive and I expect the IMDB ratings for the film will end up being polarised.
The weirdness is matched by the soundtrack. The use of the strangely chanted and deeply unsettling Rudyard Kipling poem “Boots” is not just restricted to the trailer, but appears in the film too.
Some superb acting.
In my review for “The Bikeriders” from last year, I commented that it completely passed me by that Jodie Comer was playing Kathy until the end titles at the LFF came up! Blow me if she hasn’t done it again. For whatever reason, I’d never focused on who was going to star in “28 Years Later”. And it was only until well into the film that I suddenly twigged that the mother, Isla, was in fact Jodie Comer. The woman is a chameleon! Comer also sports a pitch-perfect (well, to my ears) Geordie accent. Her performance as the, in turns, confused and then lucid woman, struggling with a mystery illness is superb.
Also impressing, in only his second feature (and first significant feature), is Newcastle-born Alfie Williams who turns in a terrific performance, reminiscent to me of the young Christian Bale in “Empire of the Sun” (whatever became of him?). At one point he witnesses his Dad (a rather overly-mumbly Aaron Taylor-Johnson) bonking the village strumpet Rosey (Amy Cameron) and the hurt on his face is palpable. Top job young man!
Also turning up, as a iodine-yellow Doctor and looking for all the world like John Locke from “Lost” is Ralph Fiennes. It’s a typical Fiennes performance: meaning that it is as brilliant and nuanced as I would expect it to be.
Fans of Jack O’Connell (isn’t he just SO brilliant in the BBC’s “SAS: Rogue Heroes”) will be disappointed to know that he has a ‘blink and you’ll miss it’ (albeit entertaining) cameo in this. But fear not, we will clearly feature strongly in the sequel to this film – “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” – currently slated for release in January 2026.
The film goes to some topical places.
It’s curious (and for me, delightful) that the film really wants to go to some very deep places under the guise of a ‘zombie film’. Is infanticide ever justified? “Momento Mori” – remember that we are ALL going to die! In light of the current UK parliamentary debates on the ‘right to die’ bill, is it acceptable and right to choose how to exit this life… and how would doctors administer that right? These are all deep questions that I didn’t expect to be pondering as I went into the film.
There’s also an interesting angle on the French boats patrolling the English Channel, to keep the continent free from infection. (Oh, I see, you CAN keep the small boats from going in that direction, can you?!)
Action sequences.
Although sparse compared to some of the other films, the action sequences when they happen are well done and extremely violent (I am again amazed that this only got a ’15’ certificate). One though that I did think fell a bit flat was the opening scene… a flashback to 28 Years before and the outbreak of the infection is a small Scottish hamlet. It starts in fine style with Teletubbies, young Jimmy (Rocco Haynes) and terrified children. But the church-based outcome felt a bit cheesy and “oh!” (not in a good way). The film then took a while then to win me back.
So 5 stars then?
There was a lot for me to enjoy in this film. And I think it certainly deserves a second watch to take another view. But there was something that didn’t quite chime with me in the story arc. The whole thing felt a bit spasmodic and messy rather than being a satisfying arc.
The film also disassociated itself from some aspects of the previous films, especially “28 Weeks Later“. I raised in that review that I wasn’t sure how the writers of this film would write around that the UK population of the UK ‘died out’ within 6 months… so how would they survive after 28 years? This film does that by ignoring the thing completely! (I guess Alex Garland might argue that they achieved this by ‘evolving’)
Another aspect glossed over by an opening caption is the closing shot of “28 Years Later” implying that Paris was overrun by the rage-infected. How could the continent beat this thing when the UK couldn’t? I’m not sure it would have made much of a different to this film (possibly Erik and colleagues aside) if they had just left that be: surely in the context of this film the mainland/Holy Island separation was enough?
Summary Thoughts on “28 Years Later”
Not the film that you probably expected to see. Some will love this one; some will no doubt hate this one. I honestly feel a little bit on the fence at the moment, but with my 4-stars I am leaning towards the positive.
Where to Watch it (Powered by Justwatch)
Trailer for “28 Years Later”:
The trailer is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYGG55qwQZQ.
Subscribe
Don’t forget, you can subscribe to One Mann’s Movies to receive future reviews by email right here. No salesman will call!
