Almost two decades since the release of the previous installment in its franchise, 28 Years Later arrives in theaters this weekend, and the first reviews are in. Following 2002’s 28 Days Later and 2007’s 28 Weeks Later, this horror sequel welcomes back the original’s writer Alex Garland, director Danny Boyle, and cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle for a new story about secluded survivors of the apocalyptic rage virus. It is more moving than scary, but it’s again as visually inventive as expected and features a standout performance from its young lead.
Here’s what critics are saying about 28 Years Later:
Does it live up to the original?
Danny Boyle’s best film is 2002’s edgy, grimy, frenzied zombie shocker 28 Days Later… Or it was, because 28 Years Later – wilder, weirder, darker, bloodier – is even better.
— Nick Howells, London Evening Standard
Expectations were already high for 28 Years Later… and the film shatters them.
— Julian Roman, MovieWeb
28 Years Later is, put simply, one of the best movies of the year.
— Bill Bria, Discussing Film
The technology may have advanced, but Boyle’s punk-rock spirit is unchanged.
— Trace Sauveur, AwardsWatch
It’s desperately averse to being another straightforward 28 [Insert Time Duration] sequel, yet is missing the rabid intensity witnessed prior.
— Matt Donato, Daily Dead
Some people will probably be annoyed that 28 Years has introduced different types of zombies, but these aren’t zombies; these are sick people.
— Kaitlyn Booth, Bleeding Cool
Is it more than a sequel for sequel’s sake?
One of the chief rewards of 28 Years Later is that it never feels like a cynical attempt to revisit proven material merely for commercial reasons.
— David Rooney, The Hollywood Reporter
In some ways, 28 Years Later doesn’t feel like a 28 Days Later movie after the first act. Perhaps that’s the intention moving into this planned trilogy.
— Jeff Nelson, Guy at the Movies
28 Years Later easily cements itself as one of the greatest legacy sequels ever made.
— Bill Bria, Discussing Film
Does it bring anything new to the genre?
28 Years Later subverts expectations in many ways… Boyle and Garland still have plenty of fresh inspiration for pulse-pounding terror.
— David Rooney, The Hollywood Reporter
Garland’s script seems hellbent on subverting many obvious choices.
— Aaron Neuwirth, We Live Entertainment
Typically, we look to adrenaline-fueled entertainment for catharsis. Boyle’s thrilling reboot offers enlightenment as well.
— Peter Debruge, Variety
The script frustratingly breaks its rules when it comes to the infected this go around.
— Jeff Nelson, Guy at the Movies
Is it scary?
Boyle and Garland push the gore and violence further, leading to fascinating developments.
— Meagan Navarro, Bloody Disgusting
In addition to a few well-placed jumpscares, Danny Boyle and editor Jon Harris keep a tangible sense of dread alive throughout the film, and thanks to Boyle’s mosaic direction, the viewer can never guess what gruesome image could be possibly coming next.
— Bill Bria, Discussing Film
What Boyle does with this story, Garland’s setting being in the Scottish Highlands, is make the landscape so captivating that when the darker parts seep in, you’re shocked by what you’re watching.
— Rachel Leishman, The Mary Sue
Opportunities to elicit jump scares arrive in full force, as this is a horror movie designed to rouse the audience.
— Aaron Neuwirth, We Live Entertainment
In terms of being a horror movie, it’s a bit more up in the air whether or not 28 Years Later really accomplishes that… In terms of scares, it’s a couple of jump scares and some chases.
— Kaitlyn Booth, Bleeding Cool
Does it feel more like a drama?
In the classical sense, this doesn’t feel like a horror movie, but more of a coming-of-age story set during a time that just so happens to include a bunch of infected people who are out of their minds when they’re sick.
— Kaitlyn Booth, Bleeding Cool
Its greatest strength is a more emotional story that runs throughout, emphasizing an introspective commentary that brings depth to the world and the characters.
— Josh Parham, Next Best Picture
I didn’t cry while watching Days and the subsequent 28 Weeks Later films. Yet with Years, I found myself moved by the story.
— Rachel Leishman, The Mary Sue
There are still frantic chase sequences and plenty of bursting water-balloon-like wounds every time arrowheads puncture targets, but Boyle’s vastly more interested in the value of life and death in all earthly creatures, healthy or raged-up.
— Matt Donato, Daily Dead
This riveting blend of horror and heart reminds that death, horror’s favorite equalizer, can be as beautiful as it can be cruel.
— Meagan Navarro, Bloody Disgusting
How does it look?
Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle captures beauty in the face of ugly terrors with a tender touch.
— Courtney Howard, Fresh Fiction
The movie’s visual textures are intoxicating.
— David Rooney, The Hollywood Reporter
Nothing about the film’s look — from unnerving, avant-garde inserts of medieval soldiers to infrared flashes of the oft-misunderstood infected — could be described as conventional.
— Peter Debruge, Variety
The aforementioned rigs (which line up several dozen iPhones) create a disorienting sensation during bursts of intense action. Anytime arrows pierce an Infected’s skin, the frame slides between these various lenses, in what feels a modern descendant to “bullet time” in The Matrix.
— Siddhant Adlakha, Inverse
Sometimes… decisions come across as stylized merely for the sake of being so, but there’s no denying the unique methodology being attempted.
— Josh Parham, Next Best Picture
28 Years Later is an abundantly visual-forward movie that shows rather than tells, but these fast-paced music video interludes distract from the actual storytelling.
— Matt Donato, Daily Dead
Is the editing worth celebrating too?
Editor Jon Harris adds another edge, unpredictably jumping axis and splicing in non-diegetic elements in total defiance of traditional visual logic.
— Peter Debruge, Variety
Boyle and editor Jon Harris flex their muscles, expressing a frenetic, bullet time-esque cinematic language during the kill sequences, pushing the boundaries of iPhones and infrared cameras.
— Courtney Howard, Fresh Fiction
Rapid editing, layering of images on top of each other, the insertion of old movie clips and film stock, as well as some fancy camera rig-based tricks, lend the sort of propulsion one expects from a horror movie made by the director of Trainspotting.
— Aaron Neuwirth, We Live Entertainment
Are there any performances worth mentioning?
While the cast across the board is solid, and Taylor-Johnson conveys the conflicts of a loving father and husband in dark times, Comer is the movie’s standout.
— David Rooney, The Hollywood Reporter
Everyone is excellent, but it’s Williams who is the standout. He’s going toe to toe with some big veterans of the industry, but manages to be just as good as the rest of them.
— Kaitlyn Booth, Bleeding Cool
Williams is remarkable in his feature debut.
— Julian Roman, MovieWeb
28 Years Later belongs to young newcomer Alfie Williams, though, with the entire movie resting on his impressively capable shoulders.
— Bill Bria, Discussing Film
Is the ending satisfying?
The last five minutes essentially play as a cliffhanger to tune into the next episode, which is a jarring finale.
— Josh Parham, Next Best Picture
The filmmakers do the annoying thing of sequel-baiting, leaving us on a cliffhanger.
— Courtney Howard, Fresh Fiction
Not everything receives tidy resolution by film’s end. That’s okay, because Boyle and Garland once again introduce characters we want to spend more time with, even when they break our hearts.
— Meagan Navarro, Bloody Disgusting
Will it leave us excited for the next movie?
The nail-biting tension and heartbreaking climax will leave you thirsting for more.
— Julian Roman, MovieWeb
That ending indeed leaves much to the imagination, and if it’s any indication of what is on the horizon, we’re in for a treat six months from now.
— Kaitlyn Booth, Bleeding Cool
The fact that there are at least two more sequels planned is an exciting promise.
— Siddhant Adlakha, Inverse
Intriguing narrative building blocks put in place for future installments mean they can’t come fast enough.
— David Rooney, The Hollywood Reporter
28 Years Later is back with a vengeance, yet is off to a positive yet rocky start with two more releases on the horizon.
— Matt Donato, Daily Dead
Does it have any major problems?
It often feels like the more interesting personal story clashes with the horror set pieces, leaving the latter to become tedious exercises.
— Josh Parham, Next Best Picture
The movie being split into two different trips to the mainland means that the pacing for 28 Years Later is a bit off.
— Kaitlyn Booth, Bleeding Cool
Unfortunately, the picture suffers from some pacing issues, leading the proceedings to feel longer than the run time.
— Courtney Howard, Fresh Fiction
28 Years Later opens in theaters on June 20, 2025.
