With 28 Years Later officially on the way and director Danny Boyle returning to the franchise that helped redefine modern horror, anticipation is running high. But with two decades separating this new chapter from the original film, one question has everyone intrigued: Do you really need to watch the previous movies to get into 28 Years Later?
Let¡¯s unpack what we know and why watching the earlier films might give you more than just context¡ªit might give you chills in all the right places.
If you¡¯re the type who likes to dive into a movie fresh, you¡¯ll probably be fine. Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland have a reputation for storytelling that¡¯s self-contained, so 28 Years Later is likely to stand on its own. That said, if you want to understand the emotional weight of the franchise, the evolution of the virus, and the deep sense of loss that defines this universe, the first two films are worth your time.
Released in 2002, 28 Days Later is where it all began. This was the film that gave us the rage virus¡ªnot quite zombies, but infected humans driven by uncontrollable aggression. It also gave us Cillian Murphy¡¯s breakout performance as Jim, a man who wakes up from a coma to find London completely abandoned.
But this wasn¡¯t just a post-apocalyptic survival story. It was raw, emotional, and eerily quiet, shot in a way that made everything feel uncomfortably real. You got glimpses of the virus¡¯s origin, the speed of its spread, and how fragile civilisation truly is. Even now, it holds up as a masterclass in minimalist horror. Watching this one gives you a strong foundation in what kind of nightmare world 28 Years Later is building on.
Five years later came 28 Weeks Later, a sequel that explored the aftermath of the initial outbreak. Directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, this installment zoomed out to show how military forces tried to reintroduce civilians into a quarantined zone. Predictably, the virus wasn¡¯t finished yet, and what follows is a harrowing collapse of a false sense of safety.
While it¡¯s more action-heavy than Days, the sequel still captures the same emotional bleakness. It introduces ideas about how the virus might return, mutate, or survive in hosts that don¡¯t show symptoms. It also raises moral questions about sacrifice, trust, and institutional failure¡ªideas that could easily carry into 28 Years Later.
Very little plot information has been officially confirmed, but we do know 28 Years Later will be the first in a new trilogy. Cillian Murphy is back, this time as an executive producer, though there are strong rumours that he might appear on screen. The involvement of both Boyle and Garland is a major signal that this won¡¯t be just a nostalgia-fuelled reboot but a return to the gritty, thoughtful horror of the original.
Whether the story continues any specific character arcs or not, the time jump of nearly three decades suggests we¡¯ll see either the long-term aftermath of societal collapse or the dangers of trying to rebuild.
?28 Years Later is set to release in theatres on June 20, 2025, and brings a fresh but familiar cast into the apocalyptic world. Jodie Comer stars as Isla, a mother navigating the chaos, alongside Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Jamie, her partner. Ralph Fiennes joins the cast as Dr. Ian Kelson, a mysterious figure tied to the infected, while Jack O¡¯Connell plays a cult-like leader named Sir Jimmy Crystal. Young newcomer Alfie Williams plays Spike, a 12-year-old centre character of the story.
While watching the first two films will give you a deeper feel for the 28 world, you don¡¯t have to binge them to keep up with the new one. But if you do, every scream in an empty street, every split-second decision, and every flicker of hope will hit a little harder.
For more news and updates from the world of?OTT, and?celebrities?from?Bollywood?and?Hollywood, keep reading?Indiatimes Entertainment.