Rated: PG
My Raiting: 3/10
When 28 Days Later hit cinemas in 2002, it completely redefined what a zombie movie could be. Danny Boyle and Alex Garland took a tired genre and injected it with raw energy, emotion, and terrifying realism. Even 28 Weeks Later in 2007, though a bit messier, managed to keep that adrenaline-fuelled dread alive. So when it was announced that 28 Years Later would reunite Boyle and Garland and continue the saga, expectations were sky high.
What we got instead is one of the most disappointing franchise follow-ups in recent memory. This film had so much potential some incredible talent in front of the camera, the return of the original creative team, and a world more than ripe for exploration. But all of that is buried under bizarre creative decisions, especially in the way the film was shot. Let’s get this out of the way now: shooting this film on iPhones might be the worst idea to ever come out of a studio meeting.
I get the artistic intention. Danny Boyle originally shot 28 Days Later on low-res DV to give it that documentary, found-footage feel, which totally worked at the time. But trying to replicate that with modern iPhones in 2025, while also layering in complex practical effects and horror set pieces, makes the film look ridiculous. It’s not gritty. It’s not raw. It looks like a PS2 cutscene pretending to be cinema. The contrast between high-stakes horror and the low-fi, hyper-digital visual style is jarring. There are scenes that should be terrifying or emotional, but instead they feel flat and awkward, like someone’s filming a school play with portrait mode.
And it’s such a shame because the acting is actually fantastic. Jodie Comer gives this film far more than it deserves. Her performance is grounded, intense, and fully committed. She plays Isla, a survivor navigating the outskirts of a quarantined and crumbling UK. There’s so much pain behind her eyes, and she somehow makes the weakest dialogue sound believable. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is solid too, playing a weary father trying to protect his son in a world that’s once again spiralling out of control. The emotional weight between them works when it needs to, even if the story doesn’t give them enough to work with. Newcomer Alfie Williams, playing the son, holds his own as well. If we were rating the acting alone, this film would be sitting at a 7 or 8 out of 10.
But a good cast can’t save a directionless plot. The story here feels like it was pulled together from loose notes on a whiteboard rather than an actual script. It introduces some interesting ideas, the notion that there’s a new mutated strain of the Rage Virus, one that slows the infected down but keeps them dangerous. They’re called “Slow Lows,” which already feels like a meme waiting to happen. Then there are the “Alphas,” which are infected humans who retain some level of intelligence and control. On paper, these are fascinating evolutions of the virus. In practice, they’re barely explored. We get vague hints at what they are, and then the film just moves on to the next scene.
The pacing is all over the place. Some sequences drag endlessly, while others cut away just as they start to get interesting. There’s a whole subplot about the world watching the fall of Britain in real time, with some half-baked commentary on Brexit and isolationism, but it’s never followed through. It’s just thrown in like the film is trying to say something important, without actually earning it. The whole script feels like it’s missing a second or third draft. There are scenes that feel incomplete, ideas that are mentioned and never returned to, and characters that disappear without explanation.
And let’s go back to the look of the film for a second, because it really is that distracting. There are moments where practical gore effects are used, bitten necks, bloody infections, people getting torn apart, but because of the iPhone-style cinematography, they look cartoonish. The lighting doesn’t help either. It’s all overly bright or completely blown out, giving everything a hyperreal, plastic look that kills any tension. There’s no atmosphere. No dread. No texture. 28 Days Later made you feel like the world was collapsing around you. 28 Years Later makes you feel like someone stuck a filter on their holiday video and called it art.
The original film also had a unique rhythm to it. It was slow when it needed to be. Quiet. It built suspense in the silences and let the horror breathe. Here, everything is so choppy and erratic that the film never finds a tone. It’s not scary. It’s not thrilling. It’s not even weird enough to be memorable. It just kind of exists. You sit there waiting for it to land, and it never does.
One of the biggest letdowns is how misleading the marketing was. The trailers and posters really positioned Ralph Fiennes as a major player in the story, setting him up as this central figure who would drive a lot of the narrative. In reality, he barely shows up until the final 25 to 30 minutes. It’s not just a cameo, but it’s far from the leading role the advertising implied. It leaves you feeling a bit duped, especially since Fiennes is such a commanding presence and could’ve added much-needed weight to the earlier parts of the film. Instead, his arrival feels like an afterthought, too late to rescue a story already struggling to find focus.
Even the music doesn’t hit the way it used to. The original’s use of “In the House – In a Heartbeat” by John Murphy is iconic. It gave scenes this haunting, almost operatic power. The new score tries to recapture that feeling but feels generic in comparison. There are moments where the music swells and you’re clearly meant to feel something, but you don’t. The film hasn’t earned it.
It’s hard not to be frustrated watching this. The talent is there. The history is there. The world of 28 Days Later has so much potential, especially now, with the world having gone through a real-life pandemic. There are rich, relevant stories to tell. But 28 Years Later just doesn’t know what to do with any of it. It wants to be urgent and angry and artistic, but it’s hollow. All style, no bite. And even the style isn’t working.
To be clear, I’m not anti-experimentation. I think trying new formats, new techniques, even shooting on unexpected equipment can sometimes result in something brilliant. But you have to know when it serves the story and when it’s just a gimmick. Here, the iPhone footage is a gimmick, plain and simple. It draws attention to itself constantly and pulls you out of what little immersion the film offers.
In the end, 28 Years Later is a massive disappointment. The performances are genuinely great, and the story had potential, but the creative choices derail everything. It’s not scary. It’s not emotional. It’s not exciting. It just feels empty. It’s the kind of film that makes you want to rewatch the original immediately after, just to remember what it felt like to care.
I give it a 3 out of 10. One point for the actors. One point for the concept. One point for the effort. That’s it.
Avoid it unless you’re a completionist. And if you are, go in knowing this one is a massive step down from what came before.
All Images and Videos are owned by Sony Pictures