‘28 Years Later' Audience Reactions Are WTF! Readers Thoughts?

UPDATE: Share your thoughts on the film.

It’s a visually treat, borderline ridiculous, and at times compelling. The tonal shifts don’t always work. Yes, it comes apart. Defiantly so. Then again, the film doesn’t seem to care about narrative precision. It’s about dread, decay, and the unavoidable march of time. I’m not sure it entirely works, but kudos to Boyle/Garland for having the balls to make such a film,

Boyle’s always been good at chaos — he thrives in kinetic environments. You can feel the director’s pulse quicken during the more frenetic sequences, where the camera jolts, zigzags, and flirts with incoherence just enough to stay thrilling. There’s a foot chase with an “Alpha” infected that’s as good as anything in the original film — faster, meaner, and somehow still grounded in character stakes.

Shout out to Anthony Dod Mantle’s digital cinematography, which is, as expected, strong work — cutting between expressionist horror and wartime propaganda, flipping between handheld grit and surrealist abstraction. Ralph Fiennes as a mad medic living among towers of skulls, channels Brando by way of British restraint. He’s either deranged or the only one who truly understands what’s coming next.

EARLIER: This is the place where readers can lay down their thoughts on Danny Boyle’s “28 Years Later,” and I expect reactions to be all over the place. This film is quite the thing.

I haven’t posted my thoughts about “28 Years Later,” which is polarizing audiences nationwide. I’m not even kidding you, the emails I’ve received from some readers is that of outright hatred for the film. I bet the CinemaScore will be mediocre.

Now, does that make it a bad film? Of course not. Boyle takes RISKS here. Does he ever. This is not a mainstream film, and it will not necessarily adhere to the tastes of the token horror movie fan. That in itself is a cause for celebration — narrative invention is always welcome in these necks of the woods.

However, it does make sense now why Sony decided to wait until the very last minute to lift the embargo on ‘28 Years,’ what I don’t think they expected were strong reviews — it currently sits at 77 on Metacritic and 92% on Rotten Tomatoes. This is an art horror film disguised as mainstream.

With that said, previews for the film began on Thursday, unusually early, starting at 1 p.m., which means it’s had a full day’s worth of screenings and better explains why it earned a strong $5M yesterday. Current tracking has it opening at around $25M, and truth be told, as word spreads among moviegoers, I don’t think this one will have much legs in the coming weeks. As previously stated, the overall consensus from audiences is total bewilderment.

This begs me to ask the question: Will Boyle and Alex Garland be able to get the green light from Sony to make the third film? Will there be enough audience interest? Where does this leave Nia DaCosta’s sequel? Her “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple,” which is due out in January 2026, is now a major make-or-break moment for the franchise. If I were a betting man, I’d say Boyle/Garland don’t get a green light on the third film.