More than two decades since the rage virus first infected the big screen, '28 Years Later' marks a visceral return to the apocalyptic world that Danny Boyle and Alex Garland so memorably unleashed with '28 Days Later' (2002) and its follow-up '28 Weeks Later' (2007).
This third instalment not only revisits the dystopian wasteland of Britain but also reframes it with a chilling sense of generational trauma, evolution of the virus, and historical echoes.
What sets this franchise apart is that it is less interested in blood and gore, than in what being in extreme situations does to people. The scene with the two female characters in the army barracks at the end of the first film still haunts memories. This time, the question is how has almost three decades of infection and isolation changed the few British villages that are left? What happens without modern technology, or doctors?
They have focused on the humanity: the mundane things that keep families together, or drive them apart. The main story is of the loving bonds that bind a mother and child, and what ends they will go to to care for one another. This is echoed in another plot point, but it would be a spoiler to reveal more.
The filmmakers have used several devices to wind up the tension: the main narrative is interspersed with fragments of historical footage, mainly from medieval times where similar weapons were being used, emphasising that the people left behind have been reduced to a more backward reality. This is amplified when characters haven’t seen other technology, or fashion trends, when they encounter someone from the other side of the quarantine line. It’s little moments like this that reinforce how much they’ve missed out on, and how the story is unfolding in our current timeline.
The acting is wonderful – Jodie Comer is brilliant as always, and Ralph Fiennes’ character is kind and magnetic. While the film has many things to recommend it, they have tried to tell too many stories, and the film would have been more effective if they had left a few on the cutting room floor. They are definitely teeing the audience up for another sequel though – although it’s unclear what they can call it without moving into space-age territory ('28 Decades Later'?).
