In 28 Days Later (2002), Danny Boyle and Alex Garland didn’t just kick the zombie genre into overdrive—they reanimated it. With rage-fueled infected, urgent digital grit, and a raw emotional core, it felt like the end of the world captured in real time. The sequel, 28 Weeks Later, traded intimacy for scale and kept the horror grounded in family trauma and moral collapse. Now, 28 Years Later arrives with all the right ingredients—Boyle and Garland reunited, a new angle on the infected, and a haunting performance from Jodie Comer—yet somehow the dish feels tepid, left too long to simmer in its own legacy.

Set nearly three decades after the initial outbreak, the film offers an evolved world, where quarantine zones remain ruthlessly enforced and life persists in liminal spaces. Comer plays Isla, a survivor embedded in a tight-knit community on a remote island connected to the mainland by a single, heavily guarded causeway. It’s a solid setting, rife with dread and potential—one that echoes the tension and bleak solitude of the original. But where 28 Days Later propelled itself with primal urgency, this entry often feels subdued, wandering through plot points instead of sprinting toward them.

The heart of the story follows a lone expedition back into the mainland’s infected heartland, where the infected have not only continued to mutate, but so too have the remnants of human society. The central theme once again revolves around family dynamics, something that has served as a connective tissue across all three films: Brendan Gleeson’s tragic turn in Days, the fractured Carlyle-McCormack family in Weeks, and now a newly-formed surrogate bond at the centre of Years. But here, it feels overemphasised to the point of distraction—particularly in scenes involving Ralph Fiennes, whose ponderous monologues often stall the film’s pulse when it should be quickening.

Comer, however, is the standout. Her portrayal of Isla brings grit, empathy, and conviction to a role that could’ve easily fallen into genre archetypes. She’s the emotional engine of the film, grounding it in human stakes even as the narrative wobbles into philosophical excess. The supporting cast handles their parts well, but none leave quite the same mark.

Visually, Boyle still knows how to stage devastation. His direction remains bold, capturing dereliction and dread with poetic framing. Garland’s script toys with paranoia, substance use, and psychological collapse—recurring themes for the duo—but here they feel more like recycled motifs than fresh meditations. There’s also an odd tonal shift in the final act, when the film suddenly veers into kung fu-style combat and hallucinatory spectacle, abandoning its grounded realism for a jarring dose of genre whiplash. The effect is disorienting and not entirely earned.

Fans looking for the visceral shock and bleak urgency of 28 Days Later may be disappointed. This is not that film. The infected still rage, the world still crumbles, but the pulse has slowed. The film’s strongest moments are its quietest – glimpses of survival, the cost of trust, the strange rituals that have replaced society. But in its desire to evolve, 28 Years Later sometimes forgets what made the original bite so hard in the first place.

The Prognosis:

28 Years Later is a fascinating, if flawed, return to a world that reshaped horror cinema. It’s packed with emotional resonance and striking visuals but often stumbles under the weight of its own ambitions. The virus has changed. Maybe the filmmakers have too.

• Saul Muerte