28 YEARS LATER (2025) – What happens when an Undead Franchise Runs Out of Steam

After years away from the bloody and bleak world he helped define, Danny Boyle returns to the genre that cemented his legacy with the release of “28 Years Later.” Having last directed “Yesterday” in 2019, Boyle is no stranger to genre-hopping, with a filmography that boasts everything from musicals to science fiction, and famously, the Oscar-sweeping “Slumdog Millionaire.” His pioneering work with “28 Days Later” (2002) that redefined the zombie flick at that time, makes this third installment a highly anticipated event—at least in theory.

This latest chapter follows “28 Weeks Later” (2007), though Boyle ceded the director’s chair for that installment. Now, nearly two decades on, “28 Years Later” arrives as both a continuation and a stand-alone story within the infected, crumbling landscapes of England. In keeping with tradition, the narrative forgoes recurring characters, opting instead to drop viewers into a fresh hellscape of survivors and the ever-present threat of the rage virus. You don’t need to be caught up on previous entries; this film is designed to bite on its own.

The zombie apocalypse has been well-trodden territory, making it a challenge for even a director of Boyle’s calibre to inject new life into the genre. Reportedly, Boyle’s inspiration for this third act came from a desire to explore themes of rebuilding society post-apocalypse—an idea undoubtedly shaped by global events like Brexit and COVID-19. Unfortunately, “28 Years Later” struggles to find a clear narrative pulse, often lumbering where it should sprint.

The movie opens with a gripping flashback to the outbreak’s early days, culminating in the haunting image of a lone child survivor amid the carnage. This prologue hints at narrative connections, but the payoff doesn’t arrive until the final act, leaving audiences with more confusion than closure. The main storyline centers on another young boy undergoing a survivalist rite of passage within his isolated colony, attempting his first zombie kill under his father’s watchful eye. Aaron Taylor Johnson gave a less than engaging performance in a character that I felt is underdeveloped. These early scenes, however, deliver genuine thrills and a palpable sense of danger.

However, momentum falters when the film pivots to an unlikely subplot: the boy’s solo quest with his ailing mother, seeking help from a doctor (played by Ralph Fiennes in a nuance performance) based on the scantest scraps of information. Strangely, their departure goes unnoticed by the close-knit community, and the boy’s survival skills conveniently blossom without explanation. These gaps in logic make it hard to fully invest in the characters’ journeys.

Adding to the confusion is the introduction of a new subgroup: so-called “evolved” survivors who have somehow lived with infection for years yet retain some humanity and can even reproduce. The film’s attempt to explain this biological anomaly is half-baked at best, and the notion that the next generation is inexplicably uninfected strains credulity. Meanwhile, the once-terrifying zombies are reduced to sluggish, overstuffed targets, a far cry from the adrenaline-fueled monsters of the series’ earlier entries.

Ultimately, “28 Years Later” fails to rekindle the dread and urgency that made its predecessors so memorable. Instead, it shambles along, weighed down by narrative inconsistencies and missed opportunities. As the film climax with its final act there are hints at further sequels, but one can only hope this franchise finally finds peace—and stays buried. The film makers should accept that the infection has run its course.