28 Years Later is a Disappointing Bag of Missed Opportunities
Quality performances and premise sunk by insipid plot
2/5 stars
In 2002, Danny Boyle injected some much-needed energy into the zombie subgenre with 28 Days Later, whose rapid-fire editing and almost experimental use of nascent digital cinematography made it look unlike any other movie at the time. Could his much-anticipated sequel 28 Years Later give modern audiences that same jolt of energy?
I'm sad to answer in the negative as the film is a mess of ideas in search of a coherent theme. It is ultimately a fascinating premise that is in service of nothing but setting us up for future sequels.
Nearly three decades after the "Rage Virus" ravaged the countryside, the British Islands have been quarantined from the rest of the world with its inhabitants forced to deal with the infected on their own. On a small island connected to the mainland by a thin strip of land, a group of people have set up a remnant of civilization. But when a young boy (Alfie Williams) heads into the mainland with his mother (Jodie Comer) to find a potential cure for her illness, he encounters infected, survivors, and a world he was not prepared for.
The idea of a post-electric agrarian Britain cut off from a modern world that has moved on without them is endlessly fascinating and it seemed the film would emphasize the boredom and monotony that would come with such a society (as hinted with the use of Rudyard Kipling's Boots in the absolutely brilliant trailer). But it is just a setup to an uninteresting extended chase film that contains a twist so jaw-droppingly stupid, it undermines the rest of the film. The movie is well-acted and well-shot, but it is all for naught with such an abysmal story.
Directed by Danny Boyle // Written by Alex Garland // Starring Alfie Williams, Jodie Comer, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Edvin Ryding, Christopher Fulford, Stella Gonet, Jack O'Connell, Chi Lewis-Perry, and Ralph Fiennes // 115 minutes // Sony Pictures // Rated R
