28 YEARS EARLIER: Has “28 Days Later” Stood the Test of Time?

Danny Boyle and Alex Garland have once again joined forces as director and screenwriter, and in the second half of June, the long-awaited continuation of their 2002 collaboration—28 Years Later—will hit theaters. But has the original, 28 Days Later, the story of a virus outbreak in London, stood the test of time? And how did 2024 Academy Award winner Cillian Murphy fare in it? Rewatching films from the past always comes with a risk: the loss of a movie that, back when we had seen far fewer films and had far less life experience, left a major impression on us. That impression might turn out to be less about the film itself and more about a nostalgic return to a time when, as the saying goes, “things were better.

” Something that justifiably amazed us 20 years ago might now evoke a completely different reaction—also justifiably so. So what makes a film age well, so that even years later we’re still drawn into the story, still empathize with the characters, and simply enjoy the ride? When Danny Boyle directed 28 Days Later in 2002, he already had several films under his belt, including the cult classic Trainspotting, whose style of shooting and editing clearly echoes here.

Using a regular digital video camera was controversial at the time—cinema was expected to keep pushing image quality up, not down. A quick scan of online commentary reveals that this choice had both supporters and detractors; count me among the former. The grainy, surveillance-style visuals actually boost authenticity—it feels as if we’re secretly watching something real unfold, especially during scenes set in the city or indoors. And this approach also allows for sharp, dynamic, tightly framed shots that really kick in when the action accelerates.

Visually, there are some striking moments: buckets on rooftops, the stark contrast of weapons and soldiers against a palace and ballgowns, or the unforgettable, haunting scene in the church. The world portrayed isn’t so much drenched in blood and guts as it is steeped in mud, decay, and dread. Jim (yes, that Cillian Murphy) wakes up alone in a hospital, in a deserted London. As he wanders the empty streets, he meets Selena (Naomie Harris) and Mark (Noah Huntley), who explain that the country has been plunged into chaos by a viral outbreak—and that the world he once knew is gone. Sure, it sounds like the setup to many a zombie/disaster/virus film. Even Rick Grimes in The Walking Dead (which came eight years later, in 2010) starts out similarly, stumbling through a ravaged world in a hospital gown. What makes 28 Days Later feel so refreshing—without overusing the word “unconventional”—is that the virus hits London, sparing us yet another vision of the U.S. laid waste by cinematic catastrophe. This less expected location is not only a visual plus, but also lets the storytellers subvert expectations and expand the narrative scope in creative ways.

The first half of the film has some weaknesses, particularly in its characters. They’re surface-level at best, and so are their relationships. Perhaps the film’s two-hour runtime didn’t allow for deeper development, or maybe audiences in 2002 didn’t expect more. One highlight, though, is the genre blending: we go from horror, to road movie, back to horror. Fortunately, the film doesn’t get bogged down in philosophical reflections on survival (something The Walking Dead fell victim to). A few well-placed ideas—like “you’ll never watch a movie that was never made”—are more than enough to deliver emotional gut punches. We also learn very little about the infected, or the virus itself. All we know from the opening scene is that it’s described as rage—and these aren’t your standard zombies. These ones are fast and furious, like zombies on speed. Unfortunately, they show up pretty conveniently for the script, without much consistency: do they respond to noise, light, smell? It’s unclear.

One positive, though: like all living things, they appear to be mortal. Watching this film in 2025 adds a fascinating new layer. After all, just five years ago the world experienced an actual pandemic. It wasn’t as bloodthirsty, obviously, but the eerie photos of empty cities were real. Seeing Jim walk through a quiet, still-intact London could have been recreated in 2020. That’s why the line “there is no virus!” hits differently now—it lands with bitter irony and reflection. 28 Days Later isn’t without its dated elements. In 2002, there was already a trend toward strong, independent female characters—but they still needed saving by a man. Hanna (Megan Burns) rarely speaks, and when she does, she sounds like a preachy little girl.

The cab the survivors use is borderline comical, and the blood-in-the-eye moment is pure script contrivance. And no way, in 2025, would it fly to have Private Mailer (Marvin Campbell) chained up like an animal; today, the blame for the outbreak would almost certainly fall on politicians. But despite all that, I’m impressed that after 23 years, this film still holds up. Maybe that’s the essence of all post-apocalyptic fiction—it’s a wry metaphor for life itself: sneaking into supermarkets and walking out with whatever you want, and chasing goals that may not even exist.

In 2002, killing infected to the brilliantly unexpected score by John Murphy was totally cool—in 2025, it’s totally slay. And 28 Days Later might just be the only post-apocalyptic universe where people pop valium to cope. So what’s the answer to the question I posed at the start? It’s simple, maybe even clichéd: films age well when their stories are universal. At their core, the best zombie/disaster/alien films are about people pushed to their limits. And that’s why we keep coming back to them. And into that world walks Jim—sometimes completely naked—played by Cillian Murphy, who in retrospect proves just how talented he really is. In Jim, the meek bike courier, we see a man gradually awakening deeply human—even violent—instincts.

The rescue scene at the mansion would make Rick Grimes or Joel from The Last of Us proud. And during the military base sequences, it’s hard not to think of Jesse Plemons in pink sunglasses and fatigues in Civil War, the 2024 film by 28 Days Later screenwriter Alex Garland. It’s at that point that the soldier’s words to Jim—“There is no virus. I only see people killing people.”—hit especially hard. Particularly in 2025.