REVIEW: ’28 Years Later’ is an exhausting follow-up

What does this film have in common with its predecessor and 2013’s “The Purge?” Read on to find out!

After directing 2002’s “28 Days Later” and sitting out of its 2007 sequel, Danny Boyle has returned to helm the third movie in the series, “28 Years Later.” As the name implies, this takes place nearly three decades after the rage virus spread throughout the British Isles. Fortunately for the rest of the world, it has been contained to the islands.

Communities still exist on those islands, though, with enclosed towns on smaller islands loosely connected to the mainland. Only a few venture onto the mainland to scout and scavenge, such as Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). On his most recent trip, he brings his son, Spike (Alfie Williams), who’s come of age to participate.

This film had what will probably be one of the best trailers for 2025. Sadly, it does not live up to the hype. Not even close. It’s unfortunate, because 10 years ago, this creative team-up would have meant something surefire. In 2015, Boyle helmed “Steve Jobs, while Alex Garland was behind “Ex Machina,” both making my top 10 list for that year.

But their latest endeavor, which Garland wrote, leaves so much to be desired. It’s a film that plays a bait and switch with its audience, leading to a severely underwhelming second half full of pretentious drivel and a collection of characters who aren’t at all likeable.

This will require getting into slight spoilers here so turn back now if you’re not interested in that. Basically, Spike becomes angry with his father and does something incredibly rash, irresponsible, dangerous and even downright stupid. 

Not only is it frustrating to watch, but it makes a viewer lose all sympathy for the kid. On top of that, it’s the same damn story beat that was rolled out in “28 Weeks Later.” Boyle of course wasn’t involved in the writing or direction of that movie, but come on.

Isn’t there a better plot device than kid does something reckless out of anger for a parent, which was also one of the issues, as mentioned, with “The Purge.” This movie becoming a coming-of-age flick isn’t a problem, but couldn’t have it been done in a way that doesn’t turn the audience on its main protagonist? On top of that, one of the core conflicts isn’t even resolved by the end.

That’s not even the worst of it, though. See, the skull tower in the promotional material was actually constructed by a man who is trying to honor the memory of the living and infected alike.

That man is a doctor, played by Ralph Fiennes, and the movie actually wants a viewer to empathize and view him as the more moralistic side, rather than the villagers of the community. Why? Because the townsfolk drink, still stick to old customs and have their youth go out and do dangerous similar to soldiers.

Honestly, it comes across as insufferable. God forbid in an apocalypse young people have to contribute in dangerous ways and people celebrate life’s small wins here and there. No, it’s the Mr. Bonecollecter, oh excuse me, DR. Bonecollector, who really has it right. See he treats the infected (which literally attack anything that moves) with some compassion. Give me a break.

See, something like this can work if “the other” is more like, say, the aliens in “District 9,” which are portrayed as sympathetic and just trying to live their lives. That’s not the case with infected. I’m sorry, but trying to paint the villagers as savage for taking some pride in taking down an infected is just dumb.

At the very least, the film does have some suspenseful moments. The film manages to get the heart rate going in a few set pieces featuring intense danger. There’s also some creative editing involved to really drive home the thrills happening on screen.

The cast is also fine. BAFTA TV Award winner Jodie Comer and Oscar nominee Ralph Fiennes are both quite good on screen, despite the creative decisions with their characters being largely miss more than hit. Also, unfortunately, Golden Globe nominee Taylor-Johnson is woefully underutilized.

Ultimately, “28 Years Later” is a total disappointment. It drops off hard in the second half because of poor narrative choices, a pompous theme and exasperating characters. The result is an unenjoyable experience with more eyerolls than scares. Though there is a touch of suspense and craftsmanship saving it from being a total disaster. 2 out of 5.