Your browser is: WebKit 537.36. This browser is out of date so some features on this site might break. Try a different browser or update this browser. Learn more.
Critic

28 Years Later Is So Incredibly Weird, It Ends Up Working

Danny Boyle and Alex Garland channel a lot of post-Covid rage into a moving zombie thriller.

An infected in 28 Years Later.

Photographer: Miya Mizuno/Sony Pictures

Takeaways by Bloomberg AI

In the past decade, Hollywood has been bombarded with legacy sequels—delayed franchise entries that typically follow a familiar format, relying on fan service and recognizable characters to attract audiences. You might assume 28 Years Later will follow suit. You’d be wrong. Instead, director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland (Civil War) follow up their 2002 zombie masterpiece, 28 Days Later, with one of the strangest, most exhilarating blockbusters in recent memory. It’s a truly bizarre piece of art that’s somehow both grotesque and extremely moving.

28 Days Later, in many ways, revolutionized the zombie flick. Shot on grainy digital video, it followed a bike messenger played by Cillian Murphy who awakens from a coma to find London decimated by the so-called “rage virus.” Instead of turning people into the classic lumbering undead, this disease transformed them into superfast maniacs who attack in clusters.