28 Years Later review: zombie franchise returns with a groggy start

Just about any list of the greatest zombie movies of all time is sure to include Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s 28 Days Later. So naturally there was a lot of excitement around the two returning for the latest sequel in the series, 28 Years Later. But does the 2025 new movie live up to its predecessor?

Meh. 28 Years Later is an up and down experience. It features some of the gruesome zombie action that many fans likely desire, as well as a handful of sincerely beautiful moments. However the movie's highs don’t quite reach the same level of the original movie, while some of the lows are either a bit boring or outright baffling (the ending being the biggest evidence of the latter).

28 Years Later takes place nearly three decades after the outbreak depicted in the first movie, focusing on an entirely new set of characters (rumors that Cillian Murphy would appear in this one were shot down, though he is reportedly set to appear in 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, coming out in 2026). In this one, 12-year-old Spike (Alfie Williams), who has spent his entire life on an island protected from the infected, makes his first trip to the UK mainland with his dad (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). When Spike learns that a mysterious doctor (Ralph Fiennes) is close, he decides to take his ailing mother (Jodie Comer) to see if he can help; if they can survive the infected first.

Williams’ Hollywood debut is a memorable one, as the young actor steals the movie as Spike. It’s an effective choice to reintroduce this world through the eyes of a child, with Williams’ effectively portraying Spike’s growth as he comes to understand real horrors and hard truths.

Fiennes also gives a good, supporting performance, bringing the emotional heart of the movie. Comer has a few touching moments, but I wouldn’t rank this among her best.

In terms of the movie’s action, those who want to see gore will get a good bit of it in 28 Years Later, both humans killing zombies and zombies killing humans. Boyle and his editors also kept some of that gritty, hectic style for the action that the first movie had. Though in some instances, they may have taken it too far.

Mostly relevant in the movie’s first half, there are editing choices (both visually and audially) that don’t make a whole lot of sense. They add a creepy, unsettling element to the movie, sure, but they don’t fit naturally with the story that we are seeing unfold, or are unnecessary, jarring jumps that take you somewhat out of the moment.

And if we’re talking about being taken out of the moment, the ending is the chief culprit. I won’t get into the details, but the movie feels like it is settling on a natural and generally satisfying conclusion before it introduces something completely off the wall that is wholly inconsistent with what we’ve just watched. It left me scratching my head as I was leaving the theater.

28 Years Later has the basis of a solid story and characters, with a few standouts in Williams and Fiennes. But the movie only reaches its highest potential in a few moments, while a number of the stylistic choices from Boyle are more curious oddities than compelling features. All in all, 28 Years Later opens the door for a potentially interesting story to be continued with its set follow-up and a potential third movie, but judging just on its own, it’s a middling start.

28 Years Later opens exclusively in movie theaters on June 20.