28 Years Later Review: Contagiously Good, Mostly!

It’s been a hot minute since 28 Days Later first dropped in theaters and turned Cillian Murphy into an icon. That movie rewrote the rules for modern zombie flicks and became the gold standard for the genre. Now, after what feels like an apocalypse of its own in wait time, the franchise is dragging us back into the rage-infected ruins of the British mainland with 28 Years Later. And I won’t lie, expectations were sky-high for this one, thanks to the legacy it’s carrying on its shoulders.

While 28 Years Later does manage to land a few clean hits, visually and emotionally, there’s also a chunk of it that just doesn’t live up to the undead brilliance of its predecessor. So in this review, let’s break down where 28 Years Later rises, where it stumbles, and whether this long-awaited sequel was worth the wait.

Spoiler Warning:

This review contains some mild spoilers for 28 Years Later.

The Musical Score and BGM of 28 Years Later Was Absolute Cinema

First things first, the most impressive aspect of 28 Years Later is, without a doubt, its background score and musical choices. While the story might have its ups and downs, the BGM? Absolute peak cinema. The film doesn’t just rely on jump scares or gore to unsettle you; it lets the music do most of the heavy lifting, and trust me, it does a phenomenal job. From eerie silences to jarring crescendos, the score keeps your nerves hanging by a thread. It’s the kind of soundtrack that sticks with you long after the credits roll. Honestly, you might find yourself hesitating to turn the lights off once you’re home.

One of the standout moments that perfectly captures this is the haunting use of “Boots, Boots, Moving Up and Down Again”, a war poem by Rudyard Kipling, recited in chilling rhythm by actor Taylor Holmes. It starts slow, almost hypnotic, but gradually builds into something deeply unsettling. The cadence, the monotony, and the rising tension all sync up with the onscreen chaos so well that it pulls you into the character’s psyche. You don’t just watch the terror unfold, you feel it. With each repeated line, it grips you harder, making the escape scenes and fight sequences feel claustrophobic, intense, and scarily real.

If there’s one legacy 28 Years Later is bound to leave behind, it’s the sheer brilliance of its sound design. The music doesn’t just complement the narrative; it amplifies it. It makes the dread thicker, the fear more tangible, and the entire experience way more immersive. Even if parts of the movie stumble, the score alone makes sure your attention doesn’t.

The Cinematography Makes up for 28 Years Later’s Flaws

As I’ve mentioned before in this review, 28 Years Later stumbles a bit when it comes to storytelling, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. I’m choosing to look at the bright side first, because why not? One area where the movie truly redeems itself is cinematography. Honestly, 28 Years Later could double as a masterclass in how to visually narrate chaos, emotion, and eerie beauty all at once.

Take the opening sequence, for example. When Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) is seen escorting his son Spike (Alfie Williams) to the mainland, the visuals cleverly blur the line between a zombie outbreak and wartime trauma. You see archers firing arrows intercut with soldiers, and that father-son trek? It’s mirrored with shots of a battalion marching, almost as if they’re heading into the same hell, just on different terms.

Then there are wide shots that pause the tension just enough to soak in the ruins of civilization. The camera lingers on landscapes that feel like twisted poetry, gritty, desolate, yet hauntingly beautiful. It’s almost like the mainland is the forbidden fruit: rotten at the core, but still tempting enough to take a bite. So yeah, if you’re the kind of viewer who prioritizes cinematic depth over narrative and doesn’t mind some intense gore, 28 Years Later might just hit the sweet spot for you.

However, the Story Takes Away a Huge Chunk of Potential

28 Years Later nails its BGM and cinematography, no arguments there. But somewhere along the way, it feels like the creators got so lost in perfecting the aesthetic that they kind of… forgot the story. And I’m not saying that lightly. I’ll avoid diving too deep into spoiler territory for those who haven’t watched the film yet, but let me paint you a rough picture.

We’re taken to an apocalyptic future where our protagonist, Spike, lives with his dad Jamie and his severely ill mom, Isla (Jodie Comer), in a fortified, well-organized community. Sounds intense already, right? Now, in this community, there’s a rather grim tradition: fathers take their kids to the mainland to get their “first kill,”. Jamie takes Spike out for this trip, chaos ensues (as expected), but they manage to crawl back home, and there’s a celebration waiting for them.

But then comes the emotional gut-punch. Spike catches his father cheating on his mom. Betrayed and hurt, he decides to sneak out and take his ailing mother across the mainland in search of a rumored doctor who might help. This is where the story starts to wobble. Isla, who was previously too weak to eat or even sit up, suddenly summons the strength to trek miles through dangerous terrain. I mean… really? And let’s not forget the inconsistency, when Spike first visits the mainland with Jamie, they’re swarmed by the Rage Virus infected almost instantly. But this second time? The path is practically a cakewalk for the first half. Convenient, right?

In short, the plot of 28 Years Later feels like an undercooked and over-seasoned side dish served on an otherwise gourmet platter of sound and visuals. It’s not that the story is entirely bad; it’s just frustratingly underdeveloped. If the creators had poured even half the love they gave to the cinematics into the narrative, this movie could’ve stood tall next to 28 Days Later. But instead, it ends up like an extravagant pie with a golden, buttery crust, one that promises heaven, only to crumble into hollowness when you dig in with your fork.

Should You Watch 28 Years Later?

Now comes the big question: should you watch 28 Years Later? Well, let’s break it down. As I’ve already said (and probably can’t stress enough), this movie leans hard into its aesthetics, and to be fair, it does a phenomenal job there. From the hauntingly beautiful shots to the goosebump-inducing BGM, the film excels in everything that happens around the story. But when it comes to the story itself? That’s where things start to fall apart.

Now, the themes, love, loss, the never-ending cycle of decay and rebirth, are present and do give the movie a bit of emotional weight. But let’s be honest: most people go to the movies to walk out with a story that sticks. And on that front, 28 Years Later just doesn’t deliver. The plot is shaky at best, and if you’re someone who values storytelling above all else, this one might leave you feeling a bit betrayed.

That said, if you’re the kind of moviegoer who appreciates cinematic craftsmanship, mood, and subtle commentary layered under visual poetry, this movie might just be your jam. It’s a visual treat with a somewhat hollow center. So, should you book your tickets? I’d say think twice. Know what you’re signing up for. Because while the story might drop the ball, everything else? That’ll blow you away. And with that, I’ll leave you to make the call.