'28 Years Later' Review

Long-awaited sequel is full of ideas and naked zombies.

Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later was an intense and creatively alive work from a director relatively early in his career. It was shot on a cheap DV camera to give it an almost found-footage aesthetic akin to The Blair Witch Project. About twenty-three years later, Boyle and writer Alex Garland return to hallowed ground in a post-pandemic world where both, especially Boyle, have been in need of a career resuscitation. Luckily, they go for broke in a subversive sequel that is overflowing with thrilling creative desperation, even if it sometimes threatens to topple everything.

A big part of the film’s viral marketing’s success, besides the haunting recording of the “Boots” poem, has been keeping the narrative under wraps. What I will tell you is that it follows a family (Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Alfie Williams, and Jodie Comer) who live in a community that has learned to survive and even thrive at the margins of a zombie apocalypse. The unpredictability and odd pacing of the story is both refreshing and occasionally frustrating. There are some hiccups along the way, especially in fleshing out the characters, but the resolution is, surprisingly, a tearful meditation on death.

Beyond the mushy stuff, 28 Years Later also has plenty of… the other kind of mushy stuff. There is no shortage of gruesome zombie action. Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle uses a strikingly original variant of bullet time where the camera will quickly swivel around the zombie at the point of killshot. It is a really cool technique that feels straight out of a video game like Zombie Elite. The makeup is also spectacular from a team including Stuart Richards, who recently worked on Bill Skarsgard’s memorable appearance in Nosferatu. Suffice it to say, this is not a movie for the squeamish.

From a technical standpoint, the film is not only well-crafted, but stylistically audacious. In lieu of trying to recreate the lo-fi appearance of the first two films, Boyle and Mantle have chosen to shoot the entire film on iPhones (albeit with professional lenses and massive rigs). The result looks crisp, but entirely of the moment like the first film. There’s also a few queasy scenes shot in infrared, occasional usage of archival footage and a variety of other strange ideas. The editing, especially in the first act, is a bit off-putting. The closest comparison I can think of is the intentional choppiness of Terrence Malick’s recent work. This is some of the boldest blockbuster filmmaking in years. This is not the work of a has-been filmmaker.

Alex Garland’s screenplay has a huge number of issues on its mind: British identity, the denial of death, the corruption of children, Brexit, masculinity, community ritual, the maternal instinct, and more. He explicitly draws from influences such as Ken Loach’s coming-of-age film Kes and Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness (and Apocalypse Now). Garland is flexing here thematically. In the surface story, though, there could have been more.

There is unfortunately one major, glaring issue with 28 Years Later. It is simply an unfinished film. Boyle and Garland have planned a trilogy with Part II set to release in January directed by Nia DaCosta (The Marvels) and Part III to be made if the first is successful. Like Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse and Mission: Impossible: Dead Reckoning, the narrative ends rather abruptly with an extremely odd set-up for the next two installments. Most audience members will be left stunned and confused. Many of the thematic and narrative threads are left dangling.

I am not a hater of sequels or planned series. They have been around as long as film. However, there is a way to do it without having the first installment feel like just the first act. I simply cannot comment on much of what Garland is trying to do as it is not clear yet. For instance, there is some hint of a critique of religion, which could be problematic for many, but it is still developing.

There is one other element to note for readers of this Substack. The zombies are very much not clothed. While it is not meant in a sexual way, there is still a huge amount of graphic nudity. It has become a popular meme in the discourse. Especially when combined with the film centering largely on a child, this could put many off. I am generally okay with horror violence, but this did make me uncomfortable.

With these potentially problematic parts aside, 28 Years Later remains a refreshing genre exercise. Expect the unexpected and be open-minded to some of the wilder swings. Boyle and Garland do not pull any punches here and the unfiltered result is an often tragic, but nevertheless enthralling blast.

28 Years Later is now playing in theaters.