28 Years Later Review and Thoughts on Upcoming Trilogy

28 Years Later

Image used under fair use for review purposes only. All rights belong to Sony Pictures.

They had me in the first half ngl…

28 Years Later marks the long-awaited return to the bleak, adrenaline-charged universe first unleashed by Danny Boyle in 28 Days Later. The film picks up nearly three decades after the original outbreak of the Rage virus turned Britain into an infected wasteland. With a fresh cast, new storylines, and a world forever changed, 28 Years Later isn’t just a sequel—it’s the start of a new trilogy with a lot of questions to answer.

The film features a strong cast led by Jodie Comer as Isla, Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Jamie, and newcomer Alfie Williams as Spike. Supporting roles include Ralph Fiennes as Dr. Ian Kelson, and Jack O’Connell (from Sinners) makes a surprise entrance that left me speechless. (We’ll get into it later.)

This one has a lot to unpack. To start, the prologue opens in the most gruesome, messed-up way possible—definitely a tone-setter for the rest of the film. It had me hyped for what was about to come. After that, we’re introduced to Jamie and Spike as father and son. Both of them killed it. Great performances all around.

Now let’s talk about that opening sequence after the prologue. The first 20 minutes? Unreal. The scene where they leave their safe haven is hands down one of the coolest, most intense setups I’ve ever seen in a movie like this. The tension, the chaos, the way it was shot—just insane. It had that gritty, boots-on-the-ground feel, but also felt like you were inside a video game (in the best way possible). Every move, every kill, every decision felt high-stakes and in-your-face. I was locked in immediately.

From there, the movie keeps its foot on the gas for a good stretch. The setup is so strong that I genuinely didn’t know where it was heading next, and that’s what had me on the edge of my seat. This was shaping up to be one of those survival films—the kind that sticks with you.

But then… the second half.

Without getting into spoilers, the back half doesn’t quite live up to the insane momentum of the first. The pace slows way down, and the story starts to meander a bit. Some choices felt kind of off—like they were trying to lay groundwork for the next films (oh yeah, it’s a trilogy I guess?)—but they lost some of what made the first hour so electric.

It wasn’t bad, still better than a lot of stuff out right now, but it missed the mark on being truly great. This had the potential to be an all-time survival thriller. And while it’s still worth watching, it didn’t totally stick the landing.

Outside of a great performance from Alfie Williams and a few incredible action sequences, the second half just didn’t hit the same. The energy dips, the story shifts gears in a weird way, and it starts to feel more like setup than payoff. Still solid. Still worth watching if you're a fan of the series. But it leaves you wishing it kept the same bite all the way through.

I’ll get into the ending in the spoiler section. But for now…

28 Years Later Sucked 3 Balls out of 10.

SPOILERS AHEAD

I’m going to keep this part short and sweet and just talk about the acid trip of an ending.

Jack O’Connell (Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal) coming to the rescue with his gang of Teletubby ninjas (Jimmies?) doing triple backflips was not on my bingo card. Danny Boyle might have something up his sleeve for the rest of the trilogy—but switching the tone this much before the second movie is a bold move.

I was so impressed with the first hour of this film that if we get comedy movies to finish this franchise out, I’ll be seriously disappointed.

Let me know what you thought of the movie and how it stacks up against 28 Days and 28 Weeks.

View All Movie Reviews →