‘28 Years Later’ Review: Ambitious and Beautiful, but Struggles with Narrative Overload

28 Years Later is an imperfect but undeniably bold movie - a worthy addition to the saga.

28 Years Later

I must confess – somewhat embarrassingly for a cinephile – that I had never seen 28 Days Later or its sequel 28 Weeks Later until last week. I approached them with great excitement, given the original film’s lasting impact on modern cinema and its role in revitalizing the zombie subgenre, which would go on to become a cultural phenomenon over the following decades. The 2002 classic turned out to be a far more human and profound piece of work than I initially expected, with a raw, realistic approach that still stands out today. The sequel effectively expands the apocalyptic world, though with less emotional sensitivity. So, I came into 28 Years Later, the long-awaited third chapter of this post-apocalyptic trilogy, with a fresh perspective.

Directed by Danny Boyle, written by Alex Garland, and shot by Anthony Dod Mantle – reuniting the original creative team – 28 Years Later takes place nearly three decades after the Rage virus escaped from a biological weapons lab. Despite the imposed quarantine, there are still survivors trying to coexist with the infected, including a group living on a small island connected to the mainland by a heavily guarded causeway. Jamie (Alfie Williams) leaves the island to seek help for his sick mother, Isla (Jodie Comer), and uncovers secrets, wonders, and horrors that have changed not only the infected – but also the surviving humans.

Let’s start with the performances: they’re exceptional and significantly elevate the material. Jodi Comer (The Last Duel) delivers a heartbreaking portrayal of a woman battling memory loss, trapped in a body she no longer recognizes. Her performance is subtle, avoiding easy melodrama, but deeply felt, capturing the tragedy of someone drifting between moments of clarity and darkness. Williams, in one of the most notable feature film debuts by a young actor in recent years, leads 28 Years Later with impressive emotional maturity, especially remarkable given the physical brutality of the role. His chemistry with Comer sustains the movie’s most passionate moments, although certain narrative shortcomings fail to fully capitalize on their potential.

See also  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows- Part 2: Adequate adaptation but little more

On the other hand, Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Nosferatu) feels somewhat underused in a stereotypical role that offers little space to shine, while Ralph Fiennes (Conclave) plays a surprisingly kind character who introduces unexpected thematic layers in the final stretch, acting as a vehicle to explore medical ethics, compassion, and the legacy of humanity after societal collapse.

From a technical standpoint, 28 Years Later is, rather naturally, the most polished entry in the trilogy. Mantle clearly shows an evolution in how he handles the camera, even bringing in a bizarrely creative setup involving multiple iPhones to capture high-definition footage while maintaining the raw instability that defined the earlier films. However, it never becomes disorienting or distracting like in those previous works. The shot composition is more carefully crafted, and there are moments of true visual beauty – like silhouettes of infected sprinting over hills at sunset, or vast empty fields that reinforce the apocalyptic world’s loneliness. Tension is built visually, without relying on typical jump scares.

28 Years Later

The score, composed by Young Fathers, leans more toward orchestral language, with dynamic arrangements that, at times, effectively replace dialogue. Particularly during the climax, there’s a clear attempt to tug at the audience’s heartstrings… too bad the narrative doesn’t give us enough compelling reasons to feel such powerful emotions.

And that’s precisely where 28 Years Later reveals its biggest weaknesses: in the script. Garland tries – perhaps with too much ambition – to blend several movies into one. There’s a coming-of-age story about a boy trying to become a man by protecting his mother and distancing himself from his alcoholic, deceitful father; a violent zombie flick with visceral deaths and multiple “types” of infected – slow, fast, intelligent; and also a socio-political study on nationalism and historical revisionism, complete with abrupt flashes of old battle footage and references to contemporary policies.

Themes like euthanasia, abortion, and the dignity of human life also pop up – with little setup – giving the sense of a thematic salad where everything is important but nothing is explored with the depth it deserves. Garland has shown in films like Ex Machina and Annihilation that he enjoys provoking and challenging audiences, but here his fragmented approach hurts the story’s cohesion.

See also  Review: Quentin Tarantinos's Inglourious Basterds

The ending is particularly divisive. There’s a long, cathartic sequence that ultimately doesn’t fully land due to the underdeveloped relationship between Jamie and his mother. The tears that should flow stay stuck, because we simply haven’t gotten to know these characters well enough. That said, it’s the final two minutes that will leave most audiences absolutely baffled.

For non-British viewers – and even, possibly, for some British ones – this conclusion feels like a parody. It’s a tonally dissonant moment, overly stylized and inexplicable, more reminiscent of a comedy sketch than an apocalyptic drama. After some research, one learns that it’s a cultural reference to a notorious British criminal figure, symbolizing the cycle of violence and decay – but even with that context, the execution feels misplaced and forced. It’s truly one of the weirdest, most out-of-place endings I’ve seen in a while.

28 Years Later is an imperfect but undeniably bold movie – a worthy addition to the saga. It’s more technically polished, features excellent performances, and even if some of its narrative risks don’t pay off, the thematic ambition is admirable, despite struggling to bring all of its elements into a cohesive whole. Danny Boyle and Alex Garland are commenting on the state of the modern world – from national identity crises to the ethics of human survival – delivering moments of high intensity, morally relevant questions, and striking visual filmmaking. Though not entirely satisfying, the film leaves us with a firm curiosity about the direct sequel arriving in just a few months.

28 Years Later
‘28 Years Later’ Review: Ambitious and Beautiful, but Struggles with Narrative Overload
3.5

Manuel Sao Bento

Portuguese critic based in Sweden with a tremendous passion for cinema, television, and the art of filmmaking. Strives to offer an unbiased perspective and has stopped watching trailers since 2017. Rotten Tomatoes approved. Outlets: FandomWire, Talking Films, Firstshowing, InSession Film, That Shelf, Filmhounds Magazine. Proud member of associations such as OFCS (Online Film Critics Society), IFSC (International Film Society Critics), and OFTA (Online Film & Television Association).

LEAVE A REPLY

Your email address will not be published.

Previous Story

‘Predator: Killer of Killers’ Review: A Violent and Visually Stunning Animated Anthology Film

Next Story

‘F1’ Review: A High-Octane Triumph of Technical Filmmaking