A total of 23 years separate 28 Days Later from 28 Years Later, the newest film in the trilogy about the zombies that dominated and destroyed the United Kingdom. So much time between films, especially with the very weak 28 Weeks Later released in 2007, gives the feeling that the comeback is to tell a great idea that emerged during this period. After all, only that can justify the hiatus time and the desire to continue a story two decades later.
But that’s not what we find in the new feature film, premiering this Thursday, 19th. Directed again by Danny Boyle (Trainspotting) and with a screenplay by Alex Garland (Ex Machina), the duo responsible for the first film, 28 Years Later doesn’t propose to continue the narrative of any previous character. No Cillian Murphy or Jeremy Renner. The story is mainly about Spike (Alfie Williams), a 12-year-old who is trained to hunt zombies with his father (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) in an unsafe world.
His memories during the hunt, however, rest on the figure of his mother (Jodie Comer). Without much explanation, she is quite sick, bedridden and hallucinating nonstop.
28 Years Later presents narrative disconnected
That’s the narrative thread, which doesn’t seem to care about being a sequel where everything is bigger. If it weren’t for the fortification where these characters live, designed over time, it could be a story told a month after the infection. In fact, maybe it would be more interesting if everything happened 28 months later. Remembering that the titles are 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later and, now, 28 Years Later.
- You may be interested in: “The Walking Dead” Cast: Careers and Destinies After the End of the Series
There’s no great impact about this passage of time, nor is there concern from Garland and Boyle to create that sensation where things are more urgent, desperate. Worse: even so much time later, it seems the duo has little to say and dialogue with the world that kept happening. There are even traces of the effects of the pandemic and Brexit, mainly through the social, geographical and political isolation that the United Kingdom appears to have here. But Garland, who had already shown a thirst for staying on the fence in political discussions in Civil War, returns to being afraid to provoke.
28 Years Later prioritizes visual over narrative
And if there’s no narrative boldness to make political metaphors, what’s left in a story about zombies? Fun, maybe. But Boyle, with his choppy style with aesthetic flair and 1980s face, kills quite a bit of the action or horror sequences. There’s no time for things to develop to the point of becoming entertainment that keeps you glued to your chair or wanting to jump out of excitement. Everything is too flat. It’s Boyle committing his characteristic mistake: he cares more about visuals than narrative.
In the end, there’s the feeling of a film that’s out of sync and doesn’t have much to say. Even a bit out of tone — like the final scene, which seems taken from an anime parody. It’s cringe-worthy in your seat. Hard to understand what moved Boyle and Garland to a new film after so much time, especially without big ideas. Was it really a desire to tell a new story? Was there excitement, in fact? I’d venture that the answers to the motivations revolve more around money than creative boldness.
