When the news first broke that director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland were reuniting for a sequel to 28 Days Later, I went through a range of emotions. As a long-time fan of the lo-fi zombie movie (and both of the filmmakers involved in its creation), I was overjoyed. There was just one catch: 28 Years Later wasn’t just a sequel, it was the start of an entire new trilogy.
If Hollywood’s last few years have proven anything, it’s that we’re all a little tired of franchise filmmaking. Sure, sequels, remakes, and reboots still sell tickets. But there’s a reason Marvel is in a slump while “Barbenheimer” broke box-office records. Audiences want to enjoy a movie on its own terms, not as just one brick in a never-ending road. So I was worried that 28 Years Later might just be more fodder for the franchise machine. But having seen the movie for myself (twice!), I’m happy to say that isn’t the case.
Sony Pictures Entertainment
A Slow Burn
28 Years Later turns that potential weakness into its greatest strength. With the promise of two more sequels to come, there’s less pressure to immediately up the stakes with explosive action and complex world-building. Instead, Boyle and Garland tell a smaller and more personal story about life, death, birth, and family against the backdrop of a post-apocalyptic England.
To be clear, 28 Years Later doesn’t neglect its franchise-building duties either. The movie drops just enough breadcrumbs to make that new trilogy feel necessary, including a jaw-dropping final scene that sets the story in an intriguing new direction. Whether the next entry in the saga manages to live up to that promise remains to be seen. (Boyle notably didn’t direct 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, which arrives in January 2026.) But it may not even matter. We already got one perfect sequel, and that’s more than enough for me.
28 Years Later comes to theaters June 20.
