Don’t know what to watch? Are you overwhelmed by how many movies there are nowadays? Gordon Briggs’ Reel Talk is here for you. Every month, this column will highlight three films from movie history that are worth your time.
There are so many horror movies that are just clones of one another. However, the films spawned by “28 Days Later” (2002) are something different. Famous for its fast zombie-like “infected,” memorable characters and post-apocalyptic visuals, this franchise hasn’t just repeated itself, but turned its zombie stories into intricate explorations of what it means to be “civilized.”
“28 Days Later” (2002)
Thankfully, “28 Days Later” still holds up as a fast-paced, post-apocalyptic monster movie. There’s plenty to praise here: Visually, in telling the story of a plague that overtakes the United Kingdom, the film employs a grainy, realistic aesthetic achieved through the use of digital video cameras, giving it a raw, almost documentary-like quality. (I love that scene where survivors must quickly change a flat tire in a zombie-infested tunnel).
Acting-wise, the cast of survivors is strong. I particularly like Naomie Harris as a machete-wielding survivor who will hack you up in a heartbeat if you’re infected.
However, I must compliment the script written by Alex Garland, which effectively captures the growing sense of paranoia at the time. I like the second half of the movie, which is set in a mansion filled with a group of soldiers. I like how we sense something is wrong there even before the threat declares itself. It all culminates in a nightmarish finale set in that mansion, complete with zombies, drugs, a thunderstorm and a pulsating soundtrack. ★★★★
“28 Weeks Later” (2007)
Arguably, it’s the weakest of the series, but I still enjoy “28 Weeks Later” (2007). Set in the aftermath of the original outbreak of the rage virus, we follow the attempts of one refugee family (whose father is plagued with guilt over the loss of their mother) to reunite and resettle in a city overseen by the U.S. Army.
You could enjoy the film as a post-apocalyptic horror flick. However, given the turbulent times the film was created in, I appreciate the film as an echo of the United States’ War in Iraq.
Watching it back in 2007, the U.S. military characters’ insistence that the mission was accomplished and that problem was under control, even while the city burns around them, became an eerie reflection of real-world events.
If there’s a standout scene, it’s a disturbing sequence in which the military opens fire on, then sets ablaze an entire city filled with civilians in order to try and stop the spread of the infection. ★★★
“28 Years Later” (2025)
In a media landscape saturated with zombies and other post-apocalyptic content, the real achievement is creating a sequel to a popular movie that looks and feels like its own entity.
Taking the form of a coming-of-age story, we follow the journey of Spike, a 12-year-old boy who joins his father, Jamie, to venture onto the infected mainland to find a doctor for his ailing mother.
On a technical level, the movie looks quite attractive. Example: The nighttime zombie chase that occurs while the Northern Lights illuminate the night sky is both tense and visually striking.
Furthermore, I admire how the filmmakers use the landscape. Rather than returning us to the urban streets of London, where the action of the first two films take place, the filmmakers decided to shift locations to Northumberland to show us how the survivors have built a new isolationist community.
However, beneath the blood and bones, there is a lucid tale about a young boy isolated from the world, who is being taught he must kill in order to survive. Gradually, the story begins to echo “Heart of Darkness,” as Spike learns the value of life is just as important as knowing how to deal out death.
If there’s a gripe, it’s the wonky last 5 minutes, which I won’t spoil, but it is clearly setting up the coming of the Nia DaCosta-helmed sequel, “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple.” That’s a minor gripe in an otherwise solid entry into an engaging zombie franchise. ★★★½
“28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” (2026)
If you want a successful film trilogy, make sure that the second film is a banger. In the case of “Bone Temple,” we get a memorable and macabre monster movie that also works as a thoughtful morality tale.
Picking up where the last movie ended, we follow the survivors of the zombie apocalypse, which includes a hulking zombie who starts to show glimpses of humanity, a murderous gang of track-suited thugs led by Jack O’ Connell, and the peculiar plague doctor played memorably by Ralph Fiennes.
What I dig about these movies is how I never know where they’re going next. Yes, Nia DaCosta’s spin on this story sports plenty of gore and grisly deaths. However, rather than just running from the infected, the movie uses its setting to explore how evil can spread like an infection, and the only cure is empathy.
Specifically, Alex Garland’s script has taken elements of British pop culture like Teletubbies, Duran Duran, and TV-host-turned-predator Jimmy Savile, and twists them into a dark morality play, where many acts of violence perpetrated by O’Connell’s gang are juxtaposed with an act of empathy by Fiennes’ doctor (the quieter scenes between him and a docile zombie are my favorite).
It all culminates in a wild climax in the titular “Bone Temple,” where religion, zombies and the music of Iron Maiden gave me my first genuine movie theater thrill of 2026. ★★★½
Let us know what's happening in your neck of the woods!
Get in touch and share a story!
