Skip to main content

28 Years Later – A Drama Disguised in Horror Clothing

I really liked 28 Days Later. It’s one of those rare horror films that truly redefined the genre. 28 Weeks Later was...fine. So, when 28 Years Later was announced, I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect. Would it recapture the bleak tension of the original? Would it go full action like its predecessor? What we got instead was something very different—a dramatic adventure story with zombies in the background, and I’m honestly torn about it.

Image by Rotten Tomatoes

Great Performances, Strong Characters

Let’s start with the good: the acting is solid across the board. The cast really brings a sense of humanity to the story. The characters are fleshed out, and their motivations make sense. The story, which focuses on a father-son relationship, has some genuine emotional weight behind it and serves as a metaphor for growing up and confronting harsh realities. It’s well done and honestly refreshing to see male characters that are actually useful in a post-apocalyptic world for once. They play pivotal roles instead of just screaming or dying early.

Image by People.com

The Horror Takes a Backseat

Now the issue: this is a movie in the 28 Days Later universe, and with that comes certain expectations. You want dread. You want intensity. You want rage-fueled zombies tearing across the screen like rabid monsters. Instead, what we get is a slower-paced, more introspective adventure. Yes, there are infected scenes, but they’re sporadic and surprisingly tame. The outbreak feels minimized—almost like an afterthought. The world feels small. The threat never really looms large. And that, in this universe, feels like a misstep.
Image by Reddit

Zombie Evolution – A Double-Edged Sword

I’ll give the movie credit for addressing one major issue: how have these zombies survived for 28 years? They offer an explanation that’s decent enough, and the evolving infected concept is interesting on paper. But here’s the problem—when your monsters start becoming too intelligent or mutated, they stop feeling like zombies and start feeling like something else entirely. It’s the same issue Land of the Dead had. The more they evolve, the less threatening they become in that chaotic, uncontrollable way we associate with zombies.
Image by Screen Rant

Plot Holes and Pacing Woes

The pacing is okay overall, but there are scenes that feel jagged and oddly placed. A key plot thread revolves around getting to “the only doctor left” who can help the family. And let’s talk about that—why is there only one doctor? And why does the movie build him up so much, only for him to appear in a small 15-minute window before being shuffled off-stage? It feels like buildup with no real payoff. It’s a letdown in a story that otherwise tries to be thoughtful.
Image by Metro

The Ending That Shouldn’t Have Been

And then there’s the ending. Oh boy. It reeks of studio interference and the desperate desire to keep the franchise alive. The final scene—clearly meant to leave things open for a sequel—falls completely flat. It undercuts everything that came before it and left me asking, “Wait, what was the point of all this?” If they had just cut that ending entirely, the film would’ve landed so much stronger. Instead, it limps across the finish line trying to tease more story that, frankly, doesn’t need to be told.
Image by Daily Express

Final Score: 5/10

There are bones here. Some decent ideas. A solid emotional core. But this isn’t the 28 Days Later sequel most fans were probably hoping for. It’s a genre shift that doesn’t quite stick the landing. Not horrible. Not amazing. Just... meh. If you’re looking for more of the rage-infused horror the franchise is known for, this isn’t it.

Pros:

✅ Strong acting, especially the father/son dynamic
✅ Thoughtful character development
✅ Attempts to evolve the universe and infected lore
✅ Decent emotional depth

Cons:

❌ Horror elements feel muted and secondary
❌ Evolving zombies feel less threatening
❌ Pacing issues and underwhelming doctor subplot
❌ Terrible “sequel-bait” ending that cheapens the experience

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Bagman (2024): A Surprising Slow Burn That Defies Expectations

Going into The Bagman , I was fully prepared to sit through a low-budget gorefest, packed with cheap jump scares and predictable plotlines. But to my surprise, what I got was something much more refined—a slow-burn suspense thriller that outshines many bigger-budget projects. The film uses its time wisely, building tension and setting up a compelling atmosphere, while steering clear of the typical pitfalls that drag many horror flicks down. Image by IMDb Slow and Steady Wins the Race This movie doesn’t rush. It takes its time to develop the story, but does so in a way that keeps you mildly hooked. It’s one of those rare films where the slower pacing actually benefits the narrative, allowing each element to breathe and come into focus. You won’t find rapid-fire scares here, but rather a creeping sense of unease that makes you wonder what’s lurking in the shadows. The way The Bagman sets up its "rules"—through a twisted fairy tale—was pure brilliance. By tapping into something...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Monkey (2025): Don't March to This Drum

I had no idea what I was getting into with The Monkey. I went in more or less blind, but given that it was based on a Stephen King story, I had some hope. With the success of It and even the more mediocre Pet Sematary remake, I figured this could be another solid King adaptation. Man, was I ever misguided. Image by IMDb Aesthetic Confusion: What Year Is It? Right away, something felt off. The film starts in 1999—or at least that’s what it claims—but absolutely nothing in the children’s room or the general set design reflects that era. No Blockbuster VHS tapes, no Nirvana posters, no era-appropriate TV shows, not even the right music. Instead, it all feels straight out of the 80s. Then we meet the boys’ Aunt and Uncle, and we’re suddenly in That 70’s Show . The uncle even has the classic 70’s sideburns. The entire aesthetic is a bizarre mishmash of decades, making it feel like the filmmakers didn’t actually care about immersing the audience in the supposed time period. Image by Th...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fantastic Four: First Steps – A Cautious Beginning That Barely Walks

Going into Fantastic Four: First Steps , I’ll be honest—I was hesitantly optimistic. Marvel's recent track record hasn’t exactly been confidence-inspiring, and I didn’t know whether this film would add to the pile of forgettables or manage to pull something worthwhile from the rubble. The short version? It’s better than what came before it... but that’s a low bar to clear. Image by Disney Better... But That’s Not Saying Much Yes, this is the best Fantastic Four film so far—but let’s not throw a parade just yet. That’s like saying a sprained ankle is better than a broken leg. It’s still not a good time. This isn’t Infinity War or No Way Home . It’s more like a cautiously made, safe middle-ground that never dares to do anything bold or game-changing. Image by Consequence.net Retro Aesthetic Done Right On the positive side, I liked the unexpected characters that popped in here and there, and I thought the alternative 60s timeline worked surprisingly well. The aesthetic was actually ...
Post a Comment
Read more