‘28 Years Later’: What the Critics Are Saying

by

Over two decades later, filmmaker Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland are back in the realm of the contaminated with the much-anticipated follow-up to their 2002 release titled “28 Days Later”, called “28 Years Later“.

The movie made its debut worldwide in London on a Wednesday, followed swiftly by critic reviews. So far, the feedback has been positive, with an impressive 95% approval rating from 78 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

The film premiered in London on a Wednesday, and since then, it’s been receiving reviews from critics. Currently, it boasts a 95% approval rating from 78 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, indicating strong reactions so far.

Check out the opinions of various reviewers regarding the upcoming movie that will be released this Friday, featuring debutant Alfie Williams, Jodie Comer, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, and Ralph Fiennes in key roles.

David Rooney from The Hollywood Reporter stated that one of the main advantages of the movie “28 Years Later” is that it doesn’t feel like a mere cash grab by revisiting familiar material. Instead, it seems as if the filmmakers are drawn back to a story whose commentary on today’s troubling political climate feels more timely than ever. The interesting elements set up for future chapters in the series have us eagerly anticipating their arrival.

In his critique of Boyle’s film, David Fear from Rolling Stone expressed that it wouldn’t have been sufficient if the movie didn’t tarnish the original by merely providing a sequel filled with hidden references and franchise expansion. However, he noted that the filmmaker and his team had gone beyond this by further developing their portrayal of a world on the verge, incorporating aspects of British folk horror, concerns about nostalgic nationalism, and highlighting the impact of living in an environment where chaos has become the norm for a generation.

In a piece published for Entertainment Weekly, Jordan Hoffman expressed his thoughts, stating that “Director Boyle blends various elements in this film in an unusual yet effective way. Non-essential snippets of ancient British propaganda films are interwoven to set the tone. Each killing of an infected character is abruptly halted with a still image, and the editing occasionally disregards linear storytelling for a rush of sensory experiences.

In his critique for New York magazine, Bilge Ebir pondered whether the film’s obligation to establish a trilogy may have been its downfall. He observed that despite powerful scenes and outstanding acting from Fiennes and Taylor-Johnson, the movie carries an anthology-like feel, appearing as a jumble of loosely related ideas rather than a cohesive vision or narrative. Perhaps it will all make sense in the end, or perhaps it’s not meant to be. Given our current times, wouldn’t it be fitting for a franchise film to descend into a series of tormented and disconnected outbursts? Indeed, 28 Years Later is fragmented, unclear, peculiar, and sometimes unconvincing. Yet, I doubt I’ll ever forget it.

In his review for Indiewire, David Ehrlich expresses that “28 Years Later” exceeds other films in portraying zombies with a sincere compassion. He explains that the movie subtly suggests that the distinction between us and them is largely dependent on one’s point of view. At first, he felt skeptical about the film’s exploration of how the infected have evolved (finding it dull and detached from the original’s raw essence), but Garland’s script develops this idea in such innovative and unforeseen ways that I found myself drawn into its promise.

Germain Lussier of I09 observes that the world-building in 28 Years Later intriguingly addresses questions he hadn’t considered regarding a zombie-infested world: “How would a 28-year absence of humans impact an ecosystem? What longstanding human errors might still linger? Which, if any, human characteristics do the zombies retain? Does a hierarchy among zombies exist? The film is already engaging, but it also introduces a moment or idea that significantly elevates the story, making you almost wish there was a standalone movie about that unique aspect.

In his review for The Associated Press, Jake Coyle criticized a visual style he found “often jarringly disconnected,” but ultimately acknowledged that beneath this style lie some poignant contemplations on mortality and misplaced exceptionalism. He went on to say that these thoughtful ideas elevate the film “28 Years Later” above the average fare at the cinema during this season, despite its graphic depictions of bodily harm. This movie is remarkably introspective for a coming-of-age story, given the number of spinal cords that are brutally severed in it.

Richard Lawson of Vanity Fair observes that around three-quarters into the movie “28 Years Later,” the horror element transitions into a contemplation on the certainty of death and life’s persistence amidst disaster. This reflection is peculiar within the context of what appears to be a conventional horror film. However, Boyle’s film transcends the genre, offering more an exploration of post-apocalyptic anthropology than anything else. It serves as an intriguing glimpse into a future that is precarious for humanity, standing at a critical juncture. Yet, it’s important to note that despite this intellectual aspect, the film remains unsettling. It abounds with numerous scenes that are intensely tense and disturbing, immersed in the unbearable fear of being stranded somewhere unsafe, surrounded by unknown threats lurking in the darkness.

Read More

2025-06-19 01:54