"28 Years Later" - Feels more like it was made 2 years later.

Josh
Jul 6, 2025
4 min read

Updated: Aug 17, 2025

Danny Boyle (2025)

Zombie penis.

God, I am sick of zombies. Done. We've seen it all. Nothing is surprising about zombies. To make it fresh, you either have to put a spin on the genre, which is something we've seen a billion times as well. From comedies with Shaun of the Dead (2004), One Cut of the Dead (2017), The Return of the Living Dead (1985), The Dead Don't Die (2019), Zombieland (2009), and Re-Animator (1985). Blend it with action like Wyrmwood (2014), Overlord (2018) and Army of the Dead (2021). Romances like Warm Bodies (2013) or Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016). But we've seen all that before. So, like other played-out monsters like Vampires, you gotta spice up the logic of the monster. Do you keep them passive like classic Romero Night of the Living Dead (1968) zombies? Aggressive like World War Z (2013) but for some reason don't like diseases? Or take the sundown approach, where they become more aggressive, a night like I Am Legend (2007) or the video game Dying Light (2015)? Something more monster and evolving like The Last of Us (2013)? What about an angry British person who was bitten by a monkey? And behind all this, is often character drama that we've again, already seen. More often than not, the question lurking in the background is, “Who are the real monsters? Humans or the Zombies?” So you can see why I'm not very enthusiastic when a new zombie drops.

*28 Years Later, courtesy of Sony Pictures.*

But what makes the 28 Later franchise stand out? And when I say franchise I mean 28 Days Later (2002) and 28 Years Later because 28 Weeks Later (2007) sucks. Well, the first one was an early adopter of digital filmography, which gives it a true grungy feel, which even today feels like it works as a period piece aesthetic. Its presentation is exaggerated, energetic and budget-friendly. Utilising Dutch tilts, quick snap zooms and repeating imagery. By that I mean, we'll get a low-angle shot of something recognisable on the ground, have our hero run past it, then get the same shot moments later of the infected running over it. Giving us a sense of distance and tension between the two characters. All from one static shot. As mentioned, tired now, having a virus that didn't involve the dead coming back to life, but an infection that sends people into a frenzy was fresh to the “of the Dead” franchise we saw before.

So what does 28 Years Later do that's different to make it feel fresh after all these years, with a monster that has been done to death across all forms of media? Nothing. It feels like a direct continuation of 28 Days Later. But Alex Garland brings to the table something smart. It's creative. Throughout. Visually interesting. Bitter-sweet. Exciting. And tense. Following the trend of using less conventional cameras, Danny Boyle utilised an iPhone 15 Pro Max with cinema lenses to give us something that looks amazing. We have beautiful, wide shots of the Aurora Borealis, full skies, wide open UK fields and creative overhead shots to creatively show off the distance between our heroes and the infected. But it also lends itself to the iconic framing and blocking from the original.

Taking place on an offshore island protected by high tides and medieval-style barracks, we have a community that is surviving. Our protagonist, Spike, played by Alfie Williams, is a 12-year-old boy heading out to the mainland to get his first kill with his Father, Jamie, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, as a rite of passage for men in this community. The world-building is one of the stronger aspects that elevate it above the zombie swarm. After 30 years, these people have a way of life, celebrating with Bacon or a scattering of signs reminding people to save scrap or water. Even on the mainland, we see various forms of infected, from bloated, slow-moving infected, the regular runners and another evolution showing signs of intelligence. These are presented in a way where we may see a flashback to the event or see random interactions with characters to get to this point. To then run into those characters later in the film. Although it could be jarring to quickly switch to these vignettes, their presentation and execution were interesting enough to not feel not worth it. From small action set pieces to viewing the infected through a red night vision lens, watching them like a wildlife show.

We watch Spike see his father in a different light as he acts reluctant towards his sick wife (Jodie Comer). With the label of a man now attached to him, he takes his mum to the mainland to find a rumoured insane doctor (Ralph Fiennes). Here, our survival movie acts more as a coming-of-age story for Spike. They run into soldiers from outside countries. Again, this is where world-building was refreshing. It’s not the whole world that’s overrun by infected, as everyone else has continued to thrive with the inventions of iPhones and Botox. All unknowns to our child lead. Or, having the doctor explain why he does what he does. Preserving what humanity is. Creating monuments of skulls that will never have a single thought run through them again that was once firing elections and ideas within. A reminder that death is a natural thing, memento mori. Remember you must die. But also, with death being something we can’t stop, we mustn’t let it stop us from loving our fellow man. Memento Amori, remember to love. These human moments elevate this from a regular zombie that blends into a crowd of walkers.

And taking a left turn. The cheesy and out-there editing is matched with an ending that had me laughing so hard that I was ready to pre-order my ticket to the next film there and then. I’m not going to spoil it, but it felt like a homage to the goofiness in Army of Darkness. I only hope that, like 28 Days Later, this isn’t lightning in a bottle with the return of Garland and Boyle. But Nia DaCosta can keep the quality of 28 Years Later through to the next instalment. Striking that balance between cheese and high-energy scrappy creativity.