Looking Back on the Years

Hollywood has plenty of sequels and franchises, and seems constantly on the prowl for any older films that can be rebooted. Still, I can't really think of many examples where, after two decades have passed, a writer and director both reunite to make sequel. Yet that's what happened with 28 Years Later.

In the decades after a "rage virus" has swept the United Kingdom, the world has responded by cutting off the islands from the rest of the world. But humans still live in isolation, raising new generations to survive. Jamie is taking his 12-year-old son Spike on a hunt for the first time, during which the boy learns of a long-shot possibility to aid his ailing mother. Defying his father, Spike takes his mother to go find a doctor. But has he learned enough from his father's training to keep them both alive? And will they really find what they're looking for at the end of the road?

The original 28 Days Later was a super-low budget movie that put director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland on the map. (Star Cillian Murphy as well, who returns here as an executive producer.) I could not help but be curious about what kind of story the two would tell now. Why look back when most creatives would rather push forward? What could they add to the zombie genre, which has overflowed in the time since the original movie?

The answer, partly, is that they want to bring "art house" sensibilities to zombie movies. While the budget of 28 Years Later is inconceivably higher than that of the original film -- and it was released to theaters in the summer -- it doesn't look like summer blockbuster fare. The movie plays with unusual frame rates, odd lighting choices, moments where the narrative timeline is made deliberately murky, and more. Yet at the same time, it's not like the movie is pushing to be "anti-blockbuster." It's the first of a planned trilogy, and explicitly sets up the next film (due to release early next year).

It's hard not to push away comparisons to The Walking Dead or The Last of Us while watching 28 Years Later. But I also found it unnecessary to do so to enjoy the movie. Where those other zombie tales have focused a lot about what it means to make and live with hard choices, 28 Years Later is much more about learning to live with hard truths -- when you have no choice at all. The young protagonist, Spike, still feels like he's got more growing up to do than, say, Ellie of The Last of Us. He still has more to lose than characters of the countless Walking Dead spin-offs I hear about, who have already bleakly lost everything. To me, these key elements mean that even if 28 Years Later isn't going to be something radically  different, it still has different ground to cover than other zombie tales.

And if you don't buy any of that, then maybe you'll be pulled in by some good performances. Alfie Williams is great as Spike, the kid on whom the whole movie rests. Ralph Fiennes brings a soulful stillness to a role that could have been played far more over-the-top. Jodie Comer and Aaron Taylor-Johnson have very different roles as Spike's parents, but each brings the right tone to their roles. And Edvin Ryding provides some much-appreciated comic relief.

I'm not sure I liked 28 Years Later enough to be clamoring for next year's sequel the moment it arrives. But I did enjoy it. I'd give it a B. I can understand if you're feeling zombie fatigue right now. But if you have room for one more, you might want to check it out.