उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

Great first half, full of tension, beautiful cinematography, although those zombie kill shots where scene pauses and camera angle rotates was annoying and looked like a video game scene.

Super boring second half where movie switches tone to comedy drama and predictable scenes were dragged too much.

Completely stupid ending, nothing like what you would expect from this movie series.

28 days later was such an amazing movie with constant tension throughout, great ending and awesome camera work showing aggressiveness of zombies that you felt through screen. This movie however is disappointing. Alphas just look like Jason Mamoa with makeup. Would have been nice if they kept rest of the movie similar to the first half with focus on horror and intense tension to keep viewers edge of their seat instead of making viewers fall asleep.

The film is truly a tale of two halves. The first act was definitely entertaining. The world design looked amazing. Sprawling scenery and some genuinely scary moments involving the infected. This part of the film was by far the closest to the previous instalments. The direction here stands out - with grainy close-ups, fast jump cuts, and jarring transitions reminiscent of the original film, it pulls you right into the chaos.

Unfortunately, the momentum doesn't last. As the film transitions into its second half, it shifts gears into a more melodramatic human drama. The focus moves away from the infected threat and toward a lackluster subplot involving a mother and a doctor. The characters at this point make some questionable decisions which really doesn't help the film's validity.

The final act unfortunately teetered on lacklustre and borderline comedic, completely changing the tone of the first act.

I stand by saying the directing, camera work, editing and cinematography were the highlight. The landscapes and post apocalyptic setting was beautiful to look at. These elements made the film worth watching. There were some plot elements that were interesting enough but were never explored to the full potential.

However a weak plot, even weaker characters and a lacklustre ending prevent this instalment from being memorable.

I strongly feel like we were punked, and this was not the real film because I was expecting so much more than what I watched. However, I will say that the beginning started off great, but not with the intensity of the first two films. Then the follow up gave the film high hopes, but instantly came crashing down. Do not enter the theater thinking that you are about to watch a 28 days later trilogy because I don't know what the overarching message was behind what I just watched.

Nevertheless, fans of this genre will find some way to appreciate a different direction in which this film tries to take, but I sincerely think he should have stuck with the formula that made the prior two films cult classics.

I went into 28 Years Later genuinely looking forward to it, especially after hearing some of the glowing reviews. There were certainly flashes of what made the original films so memorable - a few tense, edge-of-your-seat moments and some solid action sequences. But as a whole, I found the story disappointingly uneven. The narrative felt clunky and at times weighed down by overly sentimental scenes that didn't quite land emotionally. It seemed unsure of what it wanted to be, and by the final act, it became clear that the film was less about telling a complete story and more about setting up whatever comes next. That left me feeling a bit short-changed. It's not without its strengths, but for a film I had high hopes for, it just didn't deliver.

Danny Boyle's return to the world of the rage virus, proves to be a welcome one. Once more in collaboration with Alex Garland, like 28 days before it, 28 years later is yet another expansion in this unique vision for a "zombie" flick.

The filmmaking on display is Boyle at his best. Filming on digital is often frowned upon by film purists. Leave it to Danny Boyle to showcase the strengths of digital cinematography. The frantic editing, the unnerving camera movements and zooms, the contrast rich lighting... All make for an unsettling experience. The night vision scenes, drenched in red lighting are particularly eerie.

Thankfully, the infamous "boots" poem which helped turn the teaser for 28 years later, into one of the single greatest trailers of all-time (no hyperbole), is incorporated in the film. It's the best scene in the film.

28 years later fits right as rain, into the world of the "Rage Virus". It tells a surprisingly touching story about survival, anger, fear and love. Nothing turns out as you'd expect and nobody is as they seem. I truly love this film. All the more reason, the last scene of the film legitimately baffled me... It features an event and characters that are at such odds with the rest of the film. Surely, on purpose. But the contrast was annoyingly jarring. What a weird film... But it's fantastic!

I truly don't think this is the story the writers wanted to tell. Something interfered or tampered, perhaps the studio executives forcing it to be a trilogy. I think this was originally intended to be one story but the writer and director were forced to change it. While the first act was strong, the second and third act just felt odd, both rushed and stretched out at the same time. The characters just make weird, fruitless decisions. A plot device happens in the third act that is completely pointless and adds nothing to the depth of the story, and for what the previous installments were there isn't really a climax. At some points I felt like I was watching the Walking Dead where the infected are secondary to the plot. Idk, I just hope Cillian can redeem the series in the next entry.

I have to admit, after the opening scene of the film, my expectations went far below what it would for this series. After the explosive intro to 28 Weeks Later, which ended up being a middling film at the end, I expected much more of a bang at the beginning. I guess that is what they wanted though, to subvert your expectations and subvert them they did.

As a horror junkie, I thought I had seen almost everything this genre has to offer, particularly within the zombie genre. However, as the film progressed, Danny Boyle and Alex Garland did things that surprised even me. To my delight, this film ended up being a breath of fresh air.

Just when I thought the film was going in a certain macabre and disturbing, but familiar way, it finds a beating heart and shows that humanity is present even in the face of death. It touched me in a way that few films of this nature have and for that I applaud the creators.

I refuse to elaborate on the story or anything of that sort, because I feel it just needs to be experienced fresh and new in the mind. I will say the cast and crew do an amazing job, the acting is phenomenonal and the cinematography felt inventive and raw. It helps drive home the story the creator's intended to tell.

Overall, a fantastic sequel. Far above what it could've been had they just stuck to the formula. As I said previous, I applaud Danny Boyle and Alex Garland for doing something daring and for keeping it original and authentic. This one will probably go down as the best horror film of the year. I will definitely be in the theater for the next installments to see where they can take this disturbing, but hopeful story.

4.5 skulls out of 5.

Some cool moments, a lot of random choices. I would guess they were going for the experimental alternative factor buuut not quite successfully.

My biggest "why" is this movie being attached to the 28 series. Completely unnecessary and misleading. It was probably done to attract a wider audience; otherwise, it would have fallen into the unpopular indie horror film category with little financial success.

As a 28 fan, I was disappointed, however, in the first 15 minutes I realised I should forget I'm watching a 28 movie to have a chance of enjoying it.

The cinematography and art direction were out of the box in a good way. The cast and acting were good.

This one will really divide the audience. Some will relish the stress inducing horror of the trip to the mainland, others will wonder if Alex Garland suffered a brain hemorrhage while he was writing the screenplay.

It looks pretty fantastic (strangely the colouring reminded me of Garland's Men) and, contrary to what a lot of reviews claim, the acting is solid, particularly from Jodie Comer and Alfie Williams. The mixing in of archive clips isn't a particularly groundbreaking move, but it's effective.

It's hard to define exactly what subgengre this film belongs to, but there are strong folk horror vibes throughout, and that plays well with the satirical edge to the film (what is it about zombie movies and satire?). As a political statement about 21st century British decline it isn't as over egged as I feared it might be- it's subtle to the point where I wonder whether it can be fully appreciated viewers who aren't familiar with our strange little island.

It's easily as tense and bloody as the other two films (although this one is rated 15 which shows you how times have changed). There are some genuinely tense moments throughout.

The ending. All I'll say is that however you imagine the last 5 minutes will go, you're wrong. If this is to be the first part of a trilogy, it's going to get batshit crazy (although again, anyone not familiar with British pop culture will not appreciate quite how bizarre the ending is).

28 Years Later" doesn't pick up where the story left off it detonates the formula and builds something eerier in its place. Alfie Williams delivers a breakout performance, with Jodie Comer grounding the emotional core. Boyle and Garland trade jump scares for existential dread, choosing ideas over spectacle.

They're not revisiting the past they're rewriting the rules, clearly playing the long game. Seeds are planted for a trilogy that promises to grow darker, stranger, and far more provocative.

This isn't for fans of cheap zombie thrills. It's horror laced with thought, art, and existential rot. Some may find the pace or abstraction off-putting, but as a cinematic experience, it doesn't just mark a return it fires a warning flare, signaling where modern horror is headed.

"28 Years Later" isn't a return-it's a reckoning.

Those entering the cinema expecting a nostalgic sprint through blood-slicked alleyways and anarchic survival horror may find themselves wrong-footed.

This is not a film of closure or simple thrills-it's a disturbing, mythic meditation on survival, trauma, and the virus of humanity itself.

Set in a post-pandemic Britain still reeling from the psychological aftershocks of lockdowns and the national isolationism that followed Brexit, "28 Years Later" isn't interested in being just another zombie flick.

It's richer and more elusive, threading political commentary, religious symbolism, and ecological anxiety into a story that never quite settles-on purpose.

What begins as disorientation slowly transforms into awe. The infected are back, but they are not the same.

Some crawl like insects. Some move in packs, led by terrifying Alphas. There is evolution here-not just among the infected, but within the society that's adapted to coexist with them.

As England's borders have closed, a new mythos has grown in their place: Viking-like clans, cultish settlements, temples built from bones.

The England flag and ghostly portraits of the late Queen Elizabeth linger in the background like relics from a long-gone era. Boyle is not being subtle-nor should he be.

This is an England both preserved and rotten.

Boyle's direction is bold, if occasionally uneven. The first act wobbles with a few disjointed sequences and jarring shifts in tone. Some are reminiscent of the frenetic "Trainspotting" editing-it's no accident. Others feel forced, such as a CGI-heavy scene involving crows that borders on cartoonish.

But Boyle finds his stride in the second half, where the cinematography and tone become more cohesive. His camera becomes feral-tracking, circling, obsessing-dragging us through wild landscapes that are reclaiming the country.

Nature and infection blend until they're nearly indistinguishable. Humanity, it seems, is no longer at the top of the food chain.

Our central figure, 12-year-old Spike (Alfie Williams), is used with deft purpose. As Boyle notes, "horror loves innocence," and here, the protagonist becomes a cipher for something more universal: the lies adults tell children to survive, and the truths they bury.

Around him orbit enigmatic figures-a grief-haunted grandfather, an ill mother, a doctor with unclear loyalties, a macho father, monstrous and smart zombies, and a literal giant named Samson.

Their mysteries are not answered-and that's the point. Look closer, and you'll find Boyle and co-writer Alex Garland constructing a portrait of a regressing species.

Despite our evolution, we seem to be reverting-back to the primal, the tribal, the monstrous.

This film is the first movement of a symphony, not a complete song. Its unanswered questions will surely drive the next two installments in this long-awaited trilogy.

There are moments of brilliance that recall '70s cannibal cinema-most notably "Cannibal Holocaust"-and echoes of modern human dramas like "The Last of Us."

The violence and gore are not shied away from-they're served up with grisly flair.

There's also an off-kilter comic absurdity that Boyle sneaks in just enough to unnerve.

It can, at times, slip into near-parody, but it's a calculated risk that mostly pays off, keeping the film buoyant amid its darker currents.

"28 Years Later" is less about terror and more about transformation. It shows us a world that has not just survived catastrophe, but redefined itself through it-for better or worse.

Frustrating, fascinating, and frequently mesmerising, it refuses to offer comfort or clarity.

Instead, Boyle gifts us with something rarer: horror with ambition, and a story that dares to wait for its own conclusion.

The rage hasn't faded. It has evolved. And this is only the beginning.

As a huge fan of the first 2 films, it's pains me to say it but I found this really disappointing.

Should have guessed from the 15 certificate that it would lack the horror and the edge of the earlier films. I don't want to spoil the plot but there are 2 or 3 plot lines that really don't make sense. The ending I felt was particularly bad.

I get that the story is a very blunt metaphor for Brexit and the theme of rebirth (literally in one case) is very clear but just didn't gel or work as a story for me.

If you are looking for a continuance of the earlier, darker, scarier films I fear you may also leave the cinema disappointed.

In the lead up to the release of his long-gestating return to the "zombie" franchise that reignited his career with 2002's 28 Days Later, director Danny Boyle has been quoted multiple times as saying that 28 Years Later is "not what you'll expect at all" and having now unleashed his newest venture with screenwriting partner Alex Garland into the wild, it's safe to say he wasn't lying.

Without delving into spoiler territory, with Later's distributor Sony doing a fine job at keeping much of the films content and structure hidden before release with some carefully curated trailers and very late critic screenings, Later is easily going to become the most divisive of the series so far with general cinemagoers in particular likely to be both passionate fans and disappointed naysayers in equal measure upon viewing the final product.

Centred around what appears to be a relatively predictable set-up of a small family living on a remote island community years after the initial aftermath of the rage virus's ravenous destruction of England and its neighbours, the tale that Boyle and Garland weave around Aaron Taylor-Johnson's committed father Jamie, Jodie Comer's under duress mother/wife Isla and Alfie Williams as their young boy Spike who is coming of age in a world that demands he be older and wiser than his years, is a tale that's anything but a stereotypical one and it's something I would say in confidence when I claim that you've never seen a zombie film quite like Later.

Filmed largely via iPhone's , Boyle alongside frequent D. O. P collaborator Anthony Dod Mantle ensure that from a visual point of view also Later looks and feels different to anything we've consumed from a content aspect and when combined with an unapologetically weird undertone and story beats, there's an off-kilter nature to Later that will enthral some and annoy others with audiences being asked on more than one occasion to go along for the ride that Boyle and Garland have designed for us.

Managing to keep the same amount of energy and frenzied nature of the classic original entry and its fun if unsubstantial sequel, those seeking an endless barrage of zombie attacks and set pieces may find themselves underwhelmed by Later, as while they're to be found here, an early segment involving a causeway crossing is one of the years most thrilling segments, there's equal amounts of quiet and contemplative elements to this new series addition that includes a sure to be divisive final act that continues to prove both Boyle and Garland are never content to take the easy routes.

Front and centre throughout Boyle's unapologetically unhinged big budget experiment are some notable performances with the proven commodities of Comer and Taylor-Johnson doing the type of work you'd expect with the small but significant role of Dr. Kelson that falls to Ralph Fiennes allowing the beloved screen veteran to once more flex his acting muscles with a scene-stealing turn that creates some of Later's most memorable moments.

What's perhaps most surprising about the film and the ensemble as a whole is how much weight of the film is put on William's Spike throughout with Later putting him in the thick of it from start to finish with the young performer impressing in a major way with his first lead role, launching what should be a noteworthy career in the industry should he continue to ply his trade.

Full of more zombie appendage's, archery carnage, Mortal Kombat like finishes, haunting reciting's of Rudyard Kipling poems and Power Ranger inspired zombie kill squads than one might expect, there's a lot going on within Later's runtime and not every idea and element feels fully thought out or explored but one can't accuse Boyle and Garland of taking the easy route with their high-profile return as far from cookie-cutter as you'll get from a Hollywood release this year.

Ending on what's likely to be one of the most talked about footnotes of the 2025 period, one suspects a lot more of the concepts and elements of Later will be delved into further with next January's Bone Temple, the second part to this planned trilogy that has started out with a wild and almost indescribable first entry.

Final Say -

28 Years Later is going to spark feelings of equal amounts of outrage and love from audiences around the globe with no one likely to be adequately prepared for just what type of film this long in the making follow-on has ended up being.

In an age where many known properties are accused of taking the easy option, Boyle and Garland have ensured they can't be placed into that overarching statement.

4 fiancée photos out of 5.

When the movie tries to be layered it will either work for you or it won't. I get why Danny Boyle and Alex Garland chose this route.

This is my personal speculation, but I think Danny Boyle and Alex Garland thought that perhaps after the release of 28 DAYS LATER, there have been many zombie films since (some of which are good and innovative), so they just didn't want to be straight forward or play it safe with 28 YEARS LATER. In doing so, I don't think the film completely delivers on what it looked to promise in both incredible trailers.

In truth I did kind of know that going in because after watching other movies from Boyle and Garland, a seasoned movie buff knows they love to subvert so it really shouldn't be surprising. This is also the first in a new trilogy of films. I had to keep that in mind as I walked out because I don't have the big picture just yet.

I feel as though Alex Garland had like three ideas, presented them to Danny Boyle and they both decided to mash them up together. A story about coming of age/rite of passage, a bond between a mother and son, and the philosophical idea of death and what it means, almost nihilistic. All in the back drop of survival horror.

So that basically made my experience all over the place because it can get jarring. It's ambitious for sure and Boyle and Garland swing big, but I can see it being not cohesive for some people.

I'm in the center, but I do lean a bit towards a more favorable outlook and that's mainly because of the actors. I thought Alfie Williams who plays Spike, shouldered this film very well. He is the emotional anchor in the film and he carried it with striking maturity and nuance. There's a slow erosion of childhood innocence and it was very subtle, but also very powerful. The erosion of childhood innocence is also something I think Boyle and Garland has in play for a particular character in the next sequel - a boy named Jimmy who watched Teletubbies as shown in the trailer.

Ralph Fiennes is just always good in everything and he's a stand out as Doctor Ian Kelson. I hope we see more of him down the line. Jodie Comer is Isla, Spike's mother who is suffering from an illness seeking out Kelson with Spike. She is also fantastic and anchors all the emotional elements of the film with Alfie Williams. Aaron Taylor-Johnson's Jamie, Spike's father I think will have more to do in the sequel, and his character is used in good effect in the beginning of the film. Edvin Ryding's Erik a Swedish NATO soldier is memorable too. Everyone brought their A-game.

There are new concepts explored with the infected and the rage virus. While I have a lot of questions about it, they were all fascinating ideas. I'm curious to see those layers get peeled. Good action and some decent scares from the infected too, not to mention also very naked.

Boyle loves to experiment with editing and the sped up scenes are here just like in the first film, but there are moments of some awkward cuts in-between. I think people will either like or hate that.

The ending is the epitome of weird and jarring, but again, keep in mind that there will be a sequel and hopefully a concluding threequel where Cillian Murphy can come dominate his role as Jim. Speaking of Jim, I don't know if it was deliberate, but the name Jim seems to be a common thing and I am curious if it will have any kind of connection or none at all.

So bottom line, yes I enjoyed it. I enjoyed what Boyle and Garland were trying to say and the great performances help alleviate the jarring tonal shifts. However, I understand some of the disappointment, as I am a massive fan of the first, who also really enjoyed the comics in what I think are not canon anymore and mildly enjoyed the sequel 28 WEEKS LATER.

This film basically skipped straight to being a thesis film with horror elements. This isn't a one-off indie film, but Boyle and Garland sort of treat it like that. It's part of a franchise with a 20+ year fanbase. Fans want to be re-invited into the world they remember. Give some sense of continuity, not just in lore but also in tone. Then gradually show the new direction.

Boyle and Garland made the exact opposite of a nostalgic legacy sequel. They could have played it safe, but if they had and if it failed they risked creating another STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS situation, where nostalgia drives the hype, but the film ultimately lacks a real identity of its own and sets up a trilogy with shaky creative footing failing to evolve.

Instead, they forced a fresh, cerebral narrative at the risk of alienating the fans. That's the paradox. It's that classic art vs. Expectation battle and Boyle and Garland chose art, knowing full well the trade-off.

28 YEARS LATER is bold and new. I do tip my hat off for Danny Boyle, who thrives in visual and tonal whiplash and Alex Garland who is allergic to clean resolutions or simple narratives. Together they create artful chaos which is this film, but for a film that took over a decade to arrive, a bit of familiar footing first might have allowed the fans and the audience to follow them more willingly into the deeper waters they clearly want to explore.

7/10.

I can't believe how bad the movie was and I have been a massive fan of Danny Boyle since the 90s. I absolutely loved 28 days and 28 weeks later so I was really looking forward to this sequel.

It's my first time writing a review but I was so disappointed after waiting so long for this movie to come out, that I had to.

The story is boring and there are too many plot holes, so many things that I was trying to figure out that were never addressed later in the film. And don't get me started on the super weird ending!!?!!

You'd think the storyline would be better after waiting all these years but no.. The only positive I guess you could say the acting was good.

I rarely go to the cinema anymore, there are not many new movies I am interested in lately so I was really excited about this one. They don't do movies like they used to I guess...

I was excited to see this long awaited anticipated sequel I was hyped. And the movie was I finished I thought that I would not ever say this but it was a disappointment how is this even apart of this world?. The movie felt really weird it didn't have the same feel as the other two films the editing was off I was not a fan of that. And a lot of the characters were through away characters you don't really care about them. If there is anybody I like Spike was that person and Dr. Kelson was cool. There are some cool things in here but really I think it's forgettable unfortunately. I will give this another rewatch to see if my thoughts have changed if I'am recommending any of the 3 watch the first two.