28 Years Later Review - Is It Worth a Watch? Is It Good?

First there was "28 Days Later" in 2002, then there was the sequel, "28 Weeks Later", in 2007. Now, in 2025, we're back for a third installment, nearly 20 years later. This "threequel" was directed by Danny Boyle (who also directed the two other movies in this franchise and other critically acclaimed films, like "Trainspotting") and written by award-winning scriptwriter Alex Garland (who also wrote the script for the first movie in the franchise and for films like "Ex-Machina"), so the original creative team is back. However, for this movie, they decided to approach this universe with an entirely new perspective.

They embraced the bold aesthetic of the "28 Days Later" franchise and let the plot take center stage, which made many fans of the movies and horror enthusiasts quite excited. The studios' aggressive marketing sold this new installment as a big comeback that leans even more into the horror genre but with new characters, a new plot, and a bigger universe. Unfortunately, the delivery was a bit frustrating to some viewers.

Plot

The marketing campaign didn't reveal much about the plot itself. Instead, they let it hang between the lines. It became a mystery for us to solve.

The plot is set on a tidal island, untouched by the virus, and the family that lives there. The island itself is perfectly balanced, as it supports a somewhat varied fauna and flora. These resources are limited but reasonable for our main family.

The head of the family and its sole provider, the father, is a hunter. He regularly goes out hunting to get more resources for his son and wife, and the story starts when he, once again, leaves the island to hunt for more provisions and tools. His young son, 12, goes with him for the first time. As his mother is currently struggling with some sort of neurological disease, she stays at home.

They end up failing this mission and nearly die on the mainland. They're saved at the last minute by what the movie introduces to us as an "Alpha" zombie. When they return home, they're called heroes even though they didn't bring anything relevant with them. And then Spike finds out his father is taking advantage of his prestigious role on the island to cheat on his mother.

Angry, he goes home to his mother and is told by another islander of a mysterious doctor, who curiously hadn't been mentioned before. He then questions his father about the doctor and whether he could heal his persistently sick, delirious mother. Eventually, they leave the island with their mother to look for a cure.

This was a completely impulsive, and nearly stupid, decision, considering that, in the previous mission, Spike had already shown us and his father that he couldn't hit any moving targets with an arrow. Still, their most important quest begins: they need to save the mother.

Pros

The director was undeniably a good choice. From the backgrounds to the wardrobe to the worldbuilding to the nearly impeccable art direction and even down to the tension in each frame and whenever a character moves. Danny Boyle's bold decisions will definitely catch you off-guard.

In terms of technology, this movie also brought some innovation to filmmaking! In particular, Boyle decided to use iPhones to shoot the same scene through several angles, and this made that action sequence an original movement very similar to a videogame "finishing move".

Unlike the other two movies, Boyle added a bit of himself to this "threequel", and it's almost as if he put his own commentary on it. Shooting and setting up a scene like this highlights how each death in the story matters. Even the most pathetic infected dies in their own way, and matters in their own way.

The soundtrack, which combines sounds from the real world, like army chants, with a strong musical score highlighted by the sounds of the surrounding nature, creates a singular atmosphere. Every scene feels a bit off, full of tension.

We also can't deny how bold Boyle was to do this in a zombie franchise, especially considering this franchise has a clear-cut theme and formula. He definitely took a risk bringing innovation to "28 Weeks Later", but he was rewarded nicely for it.

Cons

The biggest problem this movie has is that the creative team apparently decided not to invest too much in a good script. The plot is dramatic and even has a clear tone and theme, but is brutally wasted on a mediocre script full of convenient beats and incoherent, senseless, loose ends.

How each of their two "missions" outside the island community plays out is not surprising at all. They're full of challenges, sure. But then our main characters meet a few allies, and they, in turn, help them go through certain obstacles. Then, they're discarded straight away whenever it's convenient.

The ending is simple, predictable, and nearly childish, in a way that is almost disappointing. It's also really out of tune with the rest of the movie. It's clear the creative team wanted to leave things open for another sequel, which would probably start with a senseless opening sequence tied to the forced ending of this installment. This feeling overshadows the overall theme and message in "28 Years Later" itself. The ending is so empty that any pyrotechnic action sequence would be better.

Personal Review

Honestly, this movie was plagued by greed, the desire to be creative above all else, and the push for another movie in this franchise, and this destroyed any possibility of solid development. The plot is rushed and unsuccessfully tries to grow our interest in this universe. It's as if they forgot to do this in the actual story.

It insists on opening the door to mysteries and plotlines that seem interesting at first but are then quickly forgotten and thrown out without any explanation. This is frustrating and, in the end, only leads us, the viewers, to consider this movie a large "act 1".

Finally, I must confess I consider it incredibly off-putting that the hook for the next movie alludes to a public figure who is widely known for abusing hundreds of underage victims. And, believe me, that's not a spoiler. I hardly have any interest in it after this.

Final Words

A movie with a good script but a bad director is still a nice story. A movie with a mediocre script but pretty pictures is just a photo album.

28 Years Later promises a lot but can't deliver. It loses itself in self-centered ambitions and forgets the essential basics: above all, to tell a captivating story.

What do you think? Tell us your thoughts in our comment section below.

Thank you for reading, and see you next time!