The anticipation was palpable as audiences filed into theaters for the release of 28 Years Later, the long-awaited sequel to the chilling 28 Weeks Later. Almost two decades have passed since the world was last gripped by the apocalyptic terror introduced by Danny Boyle and Alex Garland in 2002’s groundbreaking 28 Days Later. Now, they return with a narrative that reflects the complex socio-political landscape of post-Brexit and post-COVID Britain.
Fans of the franchise were quick to question the absence of 28 Months Later, which was once a topic of passionate discussion among enthusiasts. Given that nearly 23 years have flown by since the original’s release, Boyle’s decision to leap forward in time makes a compelling narrative choice. However, it also raises eyebrows with its overt political commentary. While 28 Weeks Later showcased paranoia following the 7/7 attacks, this new installment delves into the darker corners of English nostalgia amidst a backdrop of political upheaval.
It’s interesting to note that the roadmap for 28 Months Later was once sketched out. Boyle had envisioned this sequel exploring a worldwide zombie apocalypse after the Rage virus spread beyond the UK’s shores. The original conclusion of 28 Weeks Later left open the possibility for a larger narrative, hinting at a potential unraveling of civilization beyond Britain. Boyle once teased, “I did have this other idea [for 28 Months Later]. I don’t know whether it’ll happen or not… the third idea has more to do with Russia, but that’s all I can say.†His musings offered a tantalizing glimpse into what could have been.
However, in an unexpected twist, Garland pivoted, allowing the narrative to retreat back to Great Britain for 28 Years Later. This choice, while controversial, appears to be a deliberate act of storytelling finesse that aligns closely with current themes of isolationism in the UK. The shift to a localized crisis brings the horror into sharper focus, reminding audiences that global interconnectivity isn’t always a boon. In a post-Brexit, post-pandemic world, Garland’s narrative choices feel eerily timely.
In 2015, Garland expressed that 28 Months Later was caught in development hell, but his perspective has since evolved. The trilogy of 28 Years Later explores narratives rooted in contemporary tensions, making it an exciting endeavor for both creators and audiences. With the release of the first film today and the next installment, The Bone Temple, slated for January, there’s a palpable sense of urgency surrounding the upcoming tales. These films could rekindle interest in 28 Months Later, potentially framing it as a prequel that elucidates how Europe grappled with the Rage virus, a scenario ripe for exploration.
As audiences embark on the emotional journey that 28 Years Later promises, one can only ponder the rich tapestry of implications that could arise from further installments. Whether or not 28 Months Later finds its way to the screen, the cultural relevance of this franchise remains undiminished, evolving alongside the fears and hopes of contemporary society.