28 Years Later: A New Frontier for the Zombie Genre?

As a fan of zombie media, I discuss "28 Years Later" which I watched last week at a preview with a Danny Boyle Q&A. More than a traditional review I would say - my own deep dive and interpretation :)

SPOILER WARNING FOR 28 YEARS LATER!! OBVIIII

The zombie genre has been a little bit predictable as of late. It’s also been quite invisible. “The Last of Us”’s recent TV show adaptation does not count, as it adapts a video game franchise that started in 2013, closely following a largely faithful but less subtle version of the plot. Season 2 sucked famously. It also completely de-centres zombies - which I guess is understandable due to the lack of gameplay. As time goes on, I also realise that what made the first game so great is perhaps not because of Neil Druckmann, but more because of those around him at the time at Naughty Dog, and The Last of Us Part II is maybe proof of my point (but that’s a whole another essay for another day).

There isn’t really a wealth of content in the zombie genre, even though I genuinely do think it’s an important type of horror film. It’s a type of device that’s used in a film to metaphorically allude to a cultural anxiety. As is typical for horror films. Around the release of 28 Days Later (2002), there was indeed a shift. A more “humans are just as evil as the undead” or “humans can even be worse than the undead.” shift. It’s a strong motif, and it does resonate. It makes for a strong thematic comparison. It was refreshing, but now - largely samey. I feel like (and I hope I don’t jinx it), 28 Years Later (2025), the soft reboot of 28 Days Later and the first in a trilogy, may very well attempt to change this significantly. Or has already attempted to.

I was extremely lucky to get to watch the film before it’s wide release and with a Q&A with Danny Boyle following afterwards. I had no expectations. Was just really darn excited to see a zombie flick again, as a fan of 28 Days Later as well. I’m not a big fan of Alex Garland, but I do have to admit - 28 Days Later (2002) is a beloved film of mine. Pleased to say, I got a film that was really interesting. In many ways, like “The Last of Us”’s TV adaptation, it felt post-pandemic, and also did utilise this “humans can be just as bad” rhetoric - albeit in a different way. But it does something completely different.

The film follows a young boy as he tries to find a doctor for his ill mom on the quarantined mainland where the infected still roam around. It uniquely positions itself as a blockbuster type post-apocalyptic film and also a coming of age film - an intersection I love very much.

What I was impressed with was, that in a sea of boring reboots and sequels nobody asked for, 28 Years Later (2025) feels like a reboot that feels justified. It brings something completely new to the table, and detaches itself completely from “Days” that you would honestly be surprised you were watching a movie with a similar title (Boyle also reaffirmed that this is what he intended). The only thing that felt similar were easter eggs, by virtue of the story taking place in the same world (e.g. extremely fast zombies!!!). And even then, the world is expanded on as well as the infected.

It’s a solid film, as someone who’s interested in the zombie genre - and an exciting addition to the series and genre. It does however often have strange structure, and tries to do a lot at the same time to it’s detriment. Lots of solid ideas but oftentimes lacks proper fleshing out - it sometimes feels like a first of three films in that way which as you know is something I do not like. A film - if excellent - should stand on it’s own. But, due to this genre being a post-apocalyptic type of coming of age story and so refreshing - it’s impossible not to rank it highly.

1. Parallels between the Infected and the Unwell

The film follows Spike (excellently played by Alfie Williams - child actor of the year!!) as he lives in an isolated community in the Holy Island. His mother from the beginning of the film is unwell. It is not clear what her illness is, and it seems to be that her family (Spike and Jamie played by Aaron-Taylor Johnson) are also unaware of what her illness is. She often becomes confused, enraged, and feverish.

My first guess was - alright - she has the Rage virus and it’s somehow mutated, or that she’s immune in some way. I also believe the film tries to allude to this (as a misdirect). I thought that maybe Jamie and/or Spike knew this and were hiding her in the house to try to avoid speculation or genuinely did not know what was going on. But as the film progresses, it becomes clear that this is not the case. Although, there are moments of confusion. To me, it felt like the parallels between being ill and being infected are drawn already at this point.

My favourite scene in the film and one that I think is game-changing in its depiction of zombies is the scene where a infected gives birth on a train with the assistance of Isla (played by Jodie Comer). It’s possibly the most humanising depiction I’ve seen of a zombie in recent memory. The infected grasps onto Isla’s hands as she gives birth - accepting her help. The baby is not infected.

This stirs up many questions (Boyle also noted this in the Q&A). Did the infected woman get infected while pregnant? Or did she get pregnant as an infected? Are there family structures now? We see an infected child at the beginning of the film, too. This question becomes even more prescient as after the infected woman dies after childbirth (because she starts to attack the characters and gets shot by Erik). Another infected (Samson) appears to be connected to this woman, as he picks up her lifeless body, then starts going after Isla and Spike. I assume this may be fleshed out in the second movie. But, genuinely - this is an astoundingly refreshing development in this genre. Are the Infected capable of love? Of empathy? Do they - still have souls? This makes everything way more complex.

Later on, we meet Ralph Fiennes’ character Doctor Kelson. Despite other character’s discussions of him being “crazy”, it is revealed he is far from that. He is just a previous GP, who has medicalised the infected. The medicalisation of the infected does come from the word “infected” itself - it does make sense. He douses himself with iodine to keep the infected away, and has a tower of skulls called the Bone Temple. He stays away and is non-violent towards them. This is where our theme solidifies: he incinerates both infected and non-infected (Isla is one of these but then due to her illness would she be considered infected?) and puts their skull in a tower; thereby humanising the infected. It seems to be that he perceives them as people who are ill; and that we all look the same underneath it all. He even explicitly says so. As it is revealed that Isla has cancer, this parallel rears it’s head. It’s the most fleshed out theme of the film, and it works brilliantly.

I guess the only thing that felt strange is, despite this theme it did feel like the film’s style itself was dehumanising the infected as they get killed in droves in extremely stylistic fashion (these shots are quite cool though and I did enjoy those scenes which had this unique flair due to them being filmed on iPhones!!). I guess perhaps halfway through this killing of the infected becomes less stylised - perhaps signalling a shift in perspective. It also did feel like the second half did have less scenes of the infected attacking our mains.

I am very excited to see the theme of the medicalisation of the infected being fleshed out. I remember the last time I saw it portrayed was in Telltale’s “The Walking Dead” and while it did address it, it did not really engage with it in any meaningful fashion than with throwaway lines and a largely strangely written side character. Zombies in media oftentimes tend to act as a metaphor indirectly for “the unwanted” or those society rejects. So, the closer we get to engaging with that discourse of medicalisation - the more prescient and relevant it feels. Still long way to go… but very excited to see where this goes!!

I’m also interested to see how the infected have evolved. It’s implied that they have evolved into not needing human flesh as much anymore and living underground - looking forward to see this new side of infected!

2. Cultism, Brexit, COVID, and Nostalgia

It’s made pretty clear that the surviving community in the Holy Island have become some sort of medieval agrarian society. However, there is a through-line of animosity and sinister tones throughout. The initiation of the young going into the mainland as some sort of test is unethical, and the way in which an us vs them mentality has been sustained feels extreme. It feels like a preparation for war - perhaps not so subtly alluded to with archive imagery this film uses and a recitation of a poem called “Boots” by Rudyard Kipling.

So, this is also a metaphor for Brexit, then. The idea that this society is better than theirs, built on xenophobic ideas of exceptionalism. The hatred of the infected as well as the way they have isolated themselves feels cultish in nature, and metaphorical to real-life contexts of again “keeping out x”. It’s rarely rational too. However, it also primarily seems to go the other way, in 28 Years, it seems that Europe has fended off the virus, and it has just sectioned off the UK mainland away and quarantined it. Again, could be a metaphor for Brexit or even the pandemic (As Boyle suggested also afterwards). The rationing the Holy Island does as well as its agrarian tendencies could also be reflecting cultural post-Brexit anxieties of inflation, the cost of living crisis, and actual food shortages.

Residents are praised for their ability to commit violence towards the infected, and celebrated for proving that they are “better”, in that way. To the point of actual deception. It is ingrained within school systems and within children that they must fight - this is not fleshed out nearly as much as I’d wanted it to be but I would hope the latter films would expand.

Perhaps there is also a COVID context there with Spike’s interest in visiting the mainland (albeit not to kill) as a sort of craving for “normal life” again. When he arrives, he talks about the vastness of the mainland, and it is clear there is an interest on Spike’s end in exploring this area. Isla’s memories there also feel reminiscent of lockdown brain fog, or that urge we all felt to return to things as they were when things were “normal.” And in a way, this film does love the mainland. It showcases it beautifully - it is also expressing that same nostalgia for pre-pandemic times.

Nostalgia is a through-line here. Members of the community are stuck in time, holding onto a past that does not exist, Isla’s moments of confusion on the mainland in some way also reflect this idea of illusory remembrance, and the reintroduction of the Jimmys at the end perhaps hints at how it can also be utilised for nefarious purposes - to go back instead or to go forward. It is of note that Jimmy is dressed like Jimmy Saville - who is himself a horrific entertainer-discovered-to-be-predator - perhaps also showcasing misguided nostalgia and the way culture stopped in this film’s universe.

3. Masculinity Regresses Further

When Spike does his initiation when he comes of age (at this point of the film I was intrigued that it almost had a The Hunger Games-like tone as it had already hugely departed from the source material), he is accompanied by his father. His father at first feels more rational and someone who seems to be looking out for his son, until this is kind of revealed to be deceptive when they return from the initiation. Jamie shows physical abuse towards his son and cheats on his wife Isla.

While Jamie finds great pleasure in killing the infected and dehumanises them to the highest degree, Spike finds great difficulty in doing the same and inflicting violence to the same level at all. It is of course revealed later that Jamie is untrustworthy and abusive, and well; I guess it does add up. However, when they return from the initiation, Jamie lies to the community about Spike’s conquests and brags about the amount of infected he killed (when he had only killed one effectively).

Not necessarily a huge thematic through-line (and it doesn’t have to be), but a nice thematic addition. How does the patriarchy deal with social collapse? When the infected do not have such concept? Have the Holy Island has regressed so much that it has dialled it to a 100? Maybe this will be explored further with the Jimmys - the group of men at the end of the film who also seemed to enjoy killing the infected.

—

Little point about euthanasia - unsure what I feel about its depiction here. While Isla chooses to undergo this, I do not really agree with its portrayal which does not pose the subtlety and ambiguity that comes with such an endeavour. This comes during an environment where the assisted dying bill has just been passed in the UK. And to me, it rather seems something pretty ambiguous. What are the lines of consent? Is this for patient concern or for budget concerns? There’s a lot there - and I am quite unsure what to feel about all of it.

This movie is far from perfect, but it is ambitious. While tonal inconsistencies are present, dissonance, and strange structural decisions are present - it was a really good darn time. It’s a leap in the zombie genre, stylistically very interesting, and shows that this genre is here to stay. In fact, it shows that it can grow and transform into something else. Can’t wait for the next one!!!