This article will contain minor spoilers, but will avoid revealing major plot points.
28 Days Later
In 2002, Danny Boyle and Alex Garland came together to captivate viewers with an iconic portrait of Britain infected with the Rage Virus, a blood-transmitted infection with nearly instant symptoms that turns humans into ‘zombies’. 28 days after the outbreak, Jim wakes up from a coma. The iconic opening scene draws you in through nervous curiosity. Watching (young and not yet famous Cillian Murphy) Jim wandering through deserted London captures the shock and loneliness that are the result of a nationwide infection, a phenomenon now familiar to viewers since the pandemic shut down the UK.
28 Days Later’s British charm is what really makes it stand out to me. The fact that guns are not at the public’s disposal makes things more interesting, and the characters are naturally kind and funny as well as matter-of-fact about their situation. Despite the wholesome middle of the film, artful tension is maintained through eerie quietness and Dutch tilts. The other side of this coin is the hyperactive editing and camerawork that embodies the chaos of the speedy zombies.
The third act takes a bleak turn, exploring the darker side of humanity in this new world, but the ending is unusually hopeful and open-ended. The second film came five years later, but viewers expecting a return to the characters and storyline of the previous film would be disappointed.
28 Weeks Later
Although set in the same world and under similar circumstances, the second film doesn’t feel much like a sequel. The presence of the US military, its action-heavy feel, and its setting in a contained base make it feel incredibly different from the first film, and far less British in character. It gives the impression of a money-making scheme rather than labour of love, especially as Danny Boyle and Alex Garland were not involved in its production and the cast is stacked with well-known names (Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Jeremy Renner, Harold Perrineau, Idris Elba).
That being said, the themes of the film are quite fascinating. The family at the centre of the story are a microcosm of the infected world. Some of the choices characters make are so stupid as to diminish the narrative’s believability, but these decisions are also undeniably human. People are motivated by sentimentality, guilt, and a determined desire to survive; mistakes may be expected.
The film introduces some complex questions about humanity, control, and whether a cure might be a possibility. Its tone is almost entirely dark, lacking the sparks of hopeful interaction that maintained a sense of hope in 28 Days Later. But ultimately it feels less effective as it’s predecessor, something reflected by both the critical response, as well as the franchise lying dormant for the next 18 years.
28 Years Later
28 Years Later marks the return of Danny Boyle and Alex Garland to the franchise. It is part of a Years trilogy, the third of which is yet to be released. The cast has some big names – Jodie Comer, Aaron-Taylor Johnson, Ralph Fiennes – but gives centre stage to child actor Alfie Williams, who plays Spike.
Spike is young enough to have never known a world without the infected and comes from a small-scale community on Lindisfarne. Family dynamics are central (recalling the themes 28 Weeks Later), and a tender plot makes this film into something of a unique coming-of-age tale. It is also quite aesthetically and tonally consistent with the first film. Focused on only a handful of characters with moments of humour shining through the raw emotion and overall tension, the close-up British feel of the franchise is revived.
Its shifts from bleakness to comedy can, at times, feel a bit like tonal whiplash, and it is perhaps this disjointed feel that led to the lowest popular score of the franchise (63%) despite critics loving it (Rotten Tomatoes grants the film 88%). The horror-heavy trailer might have contributed to this outcome, swaying people’s expectations in a different direction.
The injection of fun does, I think, work. Life and death are tense and heavy themes, but (especially British) human nature allows for humour and joy even in dire straits. Dr. Kelson (Fiennes) embodies the stylistic blend of seriousness, silliness, and existentialism. His bone temple is paradoxically both haunting and beautiful; it is an artist’s work that reflects a kind of appreciative wonder at humanity and its demise.
Although still terrifying, disgusting threats, the infected have had years to evolve. Rather than nondescript, homogenous creatures, we get closer to the zombies and begin to understand the world from their perspective. The film’s ending is clearly set up for a direct continuation into the fourth film and implies the plot will involve more of the bizarre, plenty of gore, and an extension of Spike’s story.
28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
Written by Alex Garland and directed by Nia DaCosta, this latest instalment in the franchise was shot back-to-back with 28 Years Later. It remains as energetic, tense, and periodically funny as the previous film, and it is enjoyable to return to familiar faces as well as explore some briefly introduced ones.
The murderous Jimmy (Jack O’Connell) and his ‘Fingers’, having come face to face with Spike at the end of the previous film, become central to the plot. Jimmy is a fascinating character. He has grown up without adult supervision in his own self-satisfying concept of reality, using abandoned Britain as a playground and recruiting madly like-minded individuals. Although undeniably odd, the group prove themselves as far from out of place. Gore has been a feature of this franchise from the beginning, but these awe-inspiringly horrific individuals amplify it to drastic levels (prepare to feel a little nauseous!).
The beloved character Kelson demonstrates more of his surprisingly positive outlook on the infected world, and new insightful developments to do with the infected (I won’t say any more…) create wholesomeness that counters Spike and Jimmy’s blood-soaked plot. The two sides of the story push a question that we have seen running throughout the franchise: who are the real monsters? The infected, or the survivors?
Whether it is because viewers have come to embrace the tone of the new trilogy or they just love Fiennes’ dancing, 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple has received the greatest critical response of the franchise so far, but has been a bit of a failure at the box office, throwing the future of the franchise into a bit of doubt. The question now posed is whether Danny Boyle can return to deliver equal brilliance for the fifth instalment. The opportunities provided by the ending of The Bone Temple are exciting to say the least, but beyond the trilogy, who knows what will happen?
