Overhyped Disappointment: A Review of 28 Years Later
A Litany of Absurdities and Betrayal of the Original Plague This Flawed Film
Author’s Note: this review has been split into two sections, with the second second containing spoilers. Those who decide to see the film, despite recommendations against it, or who see it months later when released on streaming platforms and Blu Ray, are invited to read the first section then read the second section after viewing.
Please also note this review is published in the Books and Film section. There readers will find reviews and analysis of other films, including Election, Big Fan, and a comparison review of Can’t Buy Me Love and I am Charlotte Simmons.
Among other tell-tale signs that a sequel or any film based on a prior work will be a disappointment, two indicia are always particularly disconcerting. First, any narrative which abandons or disregards past precedent established in a prior, foundational work is always a bad sign. A prime example of this is the third Terminator film, which pretty much disregarded the excellent Terminator 2: Judgment Day for a money grab. Beyond that, any release that is announced with a subsequent sequel announced, already in post-film production almost never leads to good things. Having taken note of grumblings and complaints interspersed in reviews that are largely effusive in their praise of 28 Years Later, I was originally reticent to see it. The mostly positive reviews as well as my fondness of the original (despite its overt messages of multiculturalism, race-mixing, and deconstruction of British identity), lured me away from my better judgment. This of course was bolstered by the prospect of a review for this publication, which admittedly should have been written closer to the film’s release. 28 Years Later might be recommended upon release through streaming or Blu-Ray, or above all by other means which allow the viewers not to feed the machine. It however does not deserve the premium viewers pay to see it at a theater.
That most reviews suggest otherwise is somewhat baffling. In recent years, the credibility of professional reviewers has been all but discredited, as seen in the glowing praise for such cinematic abominations as Ghostbusters (2016), The Force Awakens and the Last Jedi, or even the appalling Indiana Jones travesty Kathleen Kennedy foisted unto the public. Even Cruella received fairly positive reviews despite being absolutely dreadful. These and other bad films that receive positive reviews can be explained by a number of factors, including ideological and political agendas, fear of disparaging the House of Mouse, and even bribes by way of money, cocaine and hookers, or both. While 28 Years Later does indulge in subtle deconstruction of British identity and society (some see the movie as a loose allegory about Brexit), it is doubtful that this praise stems from ideological agenda or other explanations mentioned above. Rather, the film does have many positive attributes interspersed with the bad, and these positive attributes have likely seduced most into praising the film, blinding far too many to its many faults. It is of note that while Critical Drinker praised the film in his spoiler-free review, he admitted he likes the film less and less the more his panel discusses it many flaws. This is reminiscent of my own reaction, which at the outset was highly ambivalent, wrestling with the film’s positive attributes as well as its many flaws.
It should be noted that a defining characteristic of all of the cinematic travesties mentioned above is that they are all retreads, rehashing and exploiting successful intellectual properties of the past. 28 Years Later is really no different, although it is distinguished by a number of positive attributes lacking in much of the creative and cultural necrophilia that has plagued Hollywood and mainstream cultural institutions for a decade or more.
What does this film do well? Much of it is contained in the first half of the film, although that strong first half is rendered irretrievably defective as the narrative contradicts what was established in the first film, namely that infected cannot survive long. The viewers of 28 Days Later see that as they waste away while Jim, Selena, and Hannah hunker down in the cottage before being spotted by that fighter jet at the end. The film dispenses with all of this and, as will be explained in the spoiler section, creates three variants of infected that somehow persist nearly three decades after the breakout.
The island community of survivors that the beginning is set in is quite intriguing. The location is Holy Island of Lindisfarne. Some have observed this community has regressed to the past, with explicit allusions to England’s history of the long bowmen and Sir Lawrence Olivier as King Henry V. The community is also depicted as embracing traditional “gender roles,” doubtlessly because they work and because neither society nor the individual has the luxury to consider otherwise in such exigent circumstances.
Much although not all of the film is well done in terms of cinematography and filming. The film is also largely well-acted, although many scenes in third act defy credulity, as explained in the spoiler section below.
In consideration of the many faults and complaints set forth in the spoiler section, a critical flaw with the movie is that the creators felt compelled to set the film 28 years in the future, even though 2002 was 23 years ago. There was of course no film set “28 months later.” Depicting an outpost of survivors a little over two years after the outbreak would have allowed for a more compelling scenario, and one that did not oblige the creators to disregard what had been established in the original. In the following section, there will be discussion with some “spoilers,” recounting details in plot and narrative that those who wish to see the film may wish to avoid. Readers are recommended not to see the film in the theater, and wait until streaming is available, or preferably by way of other means. Two and a half stars out of five, six and out of ten stars.
Discussion of Plot Points (Spoilers Below)
The film starts with opening segment during the outbreak, in Scotland, ostensibly a few days after its outbreak in Cambridge. The scene is admirable, gripping the audience, but sadly dips into worn-out cliches about religious nuttery and fanaticism. The movie then fast forwards 28 years later in the future, showing an island community of survivors. That island, Holy Island, in Northumberland, is an ancient medieval settlement only reachable during the low-tide. The viewers are introduced to Spike and his father Jamie. Isla, the wife and mother is bed-ridden with a mysterious illness. Subject to sudden bouts of rage, the viewer is left with the impression she has some diluted strain of the rage virus.
As the island community has adapted over the decades, young men have a rite of passage during adolescence to venture into the mainland to get a first “kill of the infected.” It is on this rite of passage that Spike and Jamie take on in the first half of the film. This part of the film is compelling, but is greatly detracted from how the film disregards and rewrites what hat been set forth in the original. Not only are infected roaming the British mainland, they have mutated into three distinct subsets. One is a sort of crawler. These are bloated humanoids who subsist off of worms and other things. Then there are regular infected, although it seems they now eat wild life and other food to survive longer than a few months. Then, and this part of where the film becomes ridiculous, they are the “alphas.” Alphas are “roided out” with super human strength, and are able to summon and lead regular infected as their minions. The last, most formidable alpha encountered in the film has drawn much criticism by being so conspicuously well endowed as to be comical.
Indeed, plot points get much dumber in the “third act” when, after learning of a doctor surviving on his own in the mainland, Spike absconds with his sick mother to try and get her help. After getting in quite a pinch with a barrage of infected, they meet up with a stranded Nato soldier (sailor, really), “Erik,” from Sweden. That storyline is quite contrived as he is the lone survivor from a naval quarantine patrol that conveniently sank off the coast. How a naval patrol boat would sink or why the survivors are in full tactical gear beggars belief. The story becomes flat out stupid when Isla hears screaming in an abandoned train, goes in alone (suicidal given the state of things) and finds a pregnant infected woman giving birth. It defies credulity that anyone, even someone subject to a mysterious malady would stick around let alone head towards the sound of screams. Far more absurd is the notion that an infected could get pregnant and be able to nourish and sustain a fetus through to birth. Pregnancy requires an astonishing level of nourishment, to say nothing of a need for rest and shelter that is antithetical to the existence of a infected “zombie.” Isla holds hands with the infected who overrides the rage long enough to give birth, then is again susceptible to the rage virus and tries to kill Isla before Erik saves her life by dispatching the infected.
They suddenly encounter an “alpha,” who kills Erik “mortal combat” style by ripping his head and umbilical cord clean off. Running for their lives they encounter Dr. Kelson, played by Ralph Fiennes, who sedates the alpha with a blow dart and morphine. They do not then kill this mortal danger while he incapacitated because that would make too much sense. The viewers then behold a bone temple. Kelson offers a moving dialogue about memento mori, before then diagnosing Isla with brain cancer. While initially well done, this act then falls apart when Isla, spur off the moment, decides to be euthanized, gives a nod to Kelson who sedates Spike with a blow dart. He wakes up to learn that Kelson euthanized his mother, and immolated her body. With no reaction or remorse, he then takes her skull, climbs the pyre of skulls and places the skull of his mother on the top like a star on a Christmas Tree. This is an interesting idea but one that was rushed in a way that, once again, defines all credulity. It is noteworthy that Britain recently legalized euthanasia, so this part is acting as a somewhat subtle, at least for modern Hollywood, political statement.
Also defying credulity is that the baby given birth by the infected is somehow healthy. This is for a virus that will infect anyone and everyone with just a single drop of infected blood. This was established in the sudden and jarring demise of Frank, Hannah’s father in the original film. After his mother’s death, Spike returns to his settlement, but leaves the baby with a note before going back into the mainland for really no reason at all. The film does not even explain that he is afraid of retribution for leaving the community with Isla without authorization and for setting a fire as a distraction. He gets in a pinch and meets Jimmy, who viewers will discern is the lone survivor from the opening scene. The film ends with an out-of-character, disjointed action montage where Jimmy’s minions dispatch a horde of infected like The Power Rangers.
This plot summary of the second half may seem unnecessary, but it is really a litany of absurd contrivances that should not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny. As stated, the film does have some admirable attributes, particularly its portrayal of Holy Island as a holdout of survivors. Much of the cinematography is beautiful, although the 90s gimmick of showing the dispatch of infected from one angle then again in the opposite angle is annoying. The film is very well acted, until Spike nonchalantly, almost cheerfully takes the skull of his mother and places it on the top. Just as the film is a sort of disjointed narrative, it suffers from both good and bad, but the absurdity of what is bad must take precedence.
So many of these problems could have been avoided if the creators did not feel compelled to set the film 28 years later. As stated, a story of the survivors of Lindisfarne 28 months later would have been compelling, and would not require so many contrivances to explain how the infected endure nearly three decades after the fact.
It has been oft observed that we live in a moment devoid of culture, of creativity, that everything seems derivative, a retread of what has been said and done before. 28 Years Later does exhibit some fresh, exciting innovations, but this is eclipsed by its many faults, many of which stem from the fact that it is a derivative retread. The largely positive reviews notwithstanding, this is a mediocre film. As the months and years go by, the consensus will surely shift to this realization after the initial seduction wears off.
PLEASE NOTE: readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription. Readers who enjoy this essay are asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor and share with anyone who would find this insightful, interesting, or provocative.
Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.