Horror Hypothetical: Where Would You Try To Survive?

A Star Trek-themed spoiler warning.

Spoiler Warning: Beware of spoilers for the films, games, and TV shows discussed below.

With Halloween rapidly approaching, I thought we could have a bit of fun by playing one of those “hypothetical question” games that you often see doing the rounds on social media. I’m going to choose one with a seasonally-appropriate horror theme, and try to go through a few possible answers, weighing up the pros and cons of each.

So what is this horror hypothetical, you rightly ask?

If you had to spend 72 hours (that’s three days) in one fictional universe from a horror property, which one would you choose? And, perhaps more pertinently: which horror franchise/universe presents the highest chance of survival?

Stock photo of two Jack-o-lanterns.
Happy Halloween!

Let’s lay down some ground rules – because rules are always fun, right?

In this scenario, I’ll have to spend 72 hours in one fictional universe of choice – and it has to come from a recognised horror film, TV series, or video game. Scary episodes or levels of non-horror properties don’t count – so there’s no trying to wriggle out of it by picking something like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine’s Empok Nor. We’re talking full-blown horror only!

Most stories take place in a larger fictional world – but it wouldn’t be *any* fun at all to pick, say, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and say that I’d avoid it by catching the first bus out of town, or to say that I’d survive in the Alien universe by just never going into outer space. So we’re assuming, for the purposes of the hypothetical, that I’m dropped in the middle of the danger zone. Running away is possible – but only using the equipment and technology that we’ve seen depicted on screen, *and* that I’m reasonably confident I’d be able to use. So… no hijacking a nuclear bomb or anything like that!

Still frame from Star Trek: Strange New Worlds showing Hemmer as a zombie.
Argh!

I’m also going to assume that I’m in reasonably good health in these hypotheticals – which is categorically *not* the case in real life, unfortunately! But, again, it doesn’t seem like it’d be a lot of fun to have to take into account my limited mobility in every scenario. So, if you’ll indulge me, I’m going to assume I’m in better health than I actually am!

Finally, as I always like to say, everything we’re going to talk about is subjective, not objective. If you hate the horror franchises I’ve chosen, think I’ve totally messed up my survival, or just feel I’ve got the wrong end of the stick somehow… that’s okay! All of this is just a bit of Halloween-themed fun, at the end of the day. And since neither of us are ever going to be actually dropped into a horror franchise (well, fingers crossed), none of this really matters! It’s just for fun – and I share it with the interweb in that spirit.

I’ll talk a little bit about each scenario, then give it a survival chance at the end using a simple 1-10 scale, with one being the lowest chance of survival, and ten being the highest.

So with all of that out of the way, let’s get started.

Option #1:
28 Days Later

Still frame from 28 Weeks Later showing a zombie breaking in through a window.
A zombie.

28 Days Later redefined the zombie genre, and it was genuinely one of the most terrifying depictions of zombies I’d ever seen. Fast “sprinters,” able to infect people with a single drop of blood, and blinded by rage… this is gonna be a tough one!

For the purposes of our 72-hour survival challenge, the best thing to do would be to shelter in place, using whatever resources are available in the immediate surroundings. Venturing outside, especially in a large city the size of London, seems like it would be immediately fatal, so as long as I have some kind of shelter and hopefully some water or something else to drink, I’d try to hunker down, keep quiet, and stay away from any windows!

Still frame from 28 Days Later showing two zombies dying.
Dying zombies.

That being said, we’ve seen how aggressive 28 Days Later’s zombies can be, and how a small flicker of light or a seemingly innocuous sound can attract an entire horde. Assuming we’re in London or a similarly-sized urban area, and all we have for defence is the contents of the average house… I don’t think this is going to end well, to be blunt about it. One loud snore, one step too close to a window, or one candle at night would be all it’d take to send the zombies crashing through the windows and doors.

I deliberately chose 28 Days Later ahead of something like The Walking Dead because of how much more intense and powerful its zombies appear. But that could be what screws us over! If we get lucky and the hordes pass us by, I think sheltering in place for 72 hours is plausible. But if we run out of water and have to venture out, if our base is compromised, or if we make one small mistake… that’s all it’d take.

Survival Chance: 3/10

Option #2:
A Nightmare on Elm Street

Promo photo for A Nightmare On Elm Street showing Freddy Krueger.
Freddy Krueger.

Freddy Krueger has one major weakness: he can only hurt me in my dreams. If this was a “survive indefinitely” challenge, that would be a problem! But if I have to make it 72 hours… I reckon I could manage to stay awake. A combination of caffeine pills, energy drinks, and coffee should keep the spooky lil’ guy at bay!

But okay, that’s getting dangerously close to cheating territory, I suppose. There have been more Nightmare on Elm Street films and spin-offs than I thought, and it seems as if Krueger’s backstory and the source of his powers have changed since the original. But if we assume that Krueger is fuelled by his victims’ fear, as the first film depicted, then trying to stay calm will be the biggest obstacle. And all that caffeine we just chugged? That probably won’t help with keeping calm!

Still frame from A Nightmare On Elm Street 3 showing Freddy and Nancy.
Krueger and Nancy in one of the sequels.

I don’t think I’d be able to figure out all of the other stuff depicted in the sequels: things like purifying Freddy’s bones or staging a group hypnotherapy session in order to enter his world and take the fight to him! So my plan, to be honest, would really be to try to stay awake for as long as possible. 72 hours seems like a stretch – that’s three full days – but if the alternative is a violent and painful death… well, that’s a pretty good motivator.

If possible, I’d try to meet up with anyone else who might be one of Freddy’s targets. Perhaps by working together, we could develop a more solid strategy!

Survival Chance: 6/10

Option #3:
The Last Of Us
(Video game version)

Promo screenshot for The Last Of Us showing Joel fighting a clicker.
Fighting a clicker.

In this scenario, we survived the main event (or we were born after it) and we’re now a couple of decades into the post-apocalypse, as depicted in the main part of the story. For a 72-hour survival challenge, I’m torn between seeking out a safe zone, like Boston, where the first game starts, or simply finding an abandoned property and taking shelter.

In either case, I don’t want to spend much time on the road or travelling, as that seems like the time for the mushroom-zombies to strike! Finding a truly safe space outside of one of the established settlements or safe zones seems like it would be challenging, but trying to enter one of these places would also have its drawbacks. Some guards seem especially trigger-happy, so one wrong move (or sarcastic quip) could lead to a premature demise!

Promo screenshot for The Last Of Us showing a clicker on a red background.
We don’t want to run into any of these…

The video game version of The Last Of Us also showed how deadly fungal spores could be. Without proper protection, spores would quickly infect me and bring my run to an end – and I can’t rely on having access to a proper hazmat suit or gas mask! And knowing me, I’d struggle to get the damn things on in time even if I was lucky enough to have them. This side of things makes venturing anywhere pretty dangerous, not least derelict buildings which could hold clouds of cordyceps spores.

Perhaps the least-bad option would be to just… pitch a tent in a field somewhere and hope that you’re far enough away from the zombies to survive for three days? There are also scavengers and gangs to worry about, though. Being alone in this post-apocalyptic world wouldn’t be a lot of fun, that’s for sure.

Survival Chance: 4/10

Option #4:
The Thing

Still frame from The Thing showing a character holding a lit flare.
The Thing.

In The Thing, you’re trapped at an isolated outpost, unable to tell your friends from the creature, and… I think it’s gonna be a bad time! Unlike in other scenarios, going off alone and trying to hunker down won’t work; the Antarctic base is relatively small, and the creature seems to have a pretty good method of navigating it. Leaving the base, even if well-equipped, means facing Antarctica in the dark in the middle of winter… so I’m not making it 72 hours that way!

If possible, I’d try to organise the survivors into one group, occupying a “safe” room with resources, like the cafeteria. Taking shifts, so at least two or three people are awake at a time, I’d try to keep the creature at bay for as long as possible. But I have no doubt that the shape-shifting abilities would be a waking nightmare; not feeling 100% confident in trusting anyone would take a toll.

Still frame from The Thing showing a character using a flamethrower.
Kill it with fire!

With nowhere to run, the best way to survive 72 hours in this world would seem to be by befriending everyone at the facility and trying to stick together in one group. That means if there’s something to attend to outside of our safe room, the whole group goes. No one uses the bathroom alone, sleeps alone, or does anything alone. For someone who struggles with human interaction… that might not be the most fun I’ve ever had! But, as above, the fear of a violent death is a pretty good way to keep me motivated!

With all that being said, facing off against an intelligent and efficient predator like this, one with such a perfect ability to mimic animals and people… I don’t think the odds are especially high!

Survival Chance: 2/10

Option #5:
Alien

Still frame from Alien: Earth showing someone trying to hide from a Xenomorph.
Hiding from a Xenomorph.

In space, no one can hear you scream… so let’s *try* not to have to scream! I think our survival chances in the world of Alien improve significantly if we’re on the ground – a colony or settlement – rather than aboard a spaceship or space station. But either way, the Xenomorph is coming for us, driven by little more than a desire to feed and breed.

If we have enough room, I’d try to put as much distance between us and the infection site as possible. We could try to commandeer a vehicle – like one of the ground transports seen in Aliens. Or, if trapped aboard a ship, sneakily trying to use an escape pod might be a viable option. Remember, we just have to survive for 72 hours – so getting as far away from the Xenomorph as possible should be top priority!

Promo screenshot for Alien: Isolation showing the Xenomorph.
Alien: Isolation.

If escape isn’t an option, though, and we’re in a worst-case scenario aboard a cramped slow-moving spaceship, then I think – as the films and series have repeatedly shown – we’re pretty much screwed! If we catch the infection really early, and can kill the facehugger or infant Xenomorph, maybe things would look a lot brighter. But by the time we’ve passed the chest-burster stage and the little bugger has disappeared, our best bet is honestly to run to the escape pods.

I’ve recently been playing Alien: Isolation, and it’s genuinely one of the scariest games I’ve ever played – and perhaps second only to the original Alien film in terms of how terrifying the Xenomorph feels. Playing it was part of the inspiration behind this piece, as I honestly struggle to survive in the world of Alien – so it made me wonder which other horror properties might be equally as unforgiving!

Survival Chance: 2/10

Option #6:
Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Still frame from Buffy the Vampire Slayer showing two Season 1 vampires.
Vamps!

Gosh, where do we start with this one? There’s a lot more to Buffy than just vampires – so you can expect to be contending with werewolves, witches, ancient demons, and many other supernatural baddies! Honestly, just holding your own against vampires for 72 hours would be a stretch, but if other entities also join the hunt? This could be a very short challenge!

The flip side to all of that is, unlike in every other scenario we’ve examined so far, there’s a gang of people dedicated to hunting down and stopping the vampires and other creatures of the night. We wouldn’t even need to meet or befriend Buffy, Giles, Willow, or anyone else – if supernatural shenanigans are going down in Sunnydale, they’re probably already on the case. It might be too late for us if we’re the first victim of a new monster, but what are the odds of that happening in the first 72 hours?

Still frame from Buffy the Vampire Slayer showing the gang in the library.
The Scooby Gang.

Okay, you’re right – I guess seeking shelter at The Magic Box might not be a terrible idea! If we could make it there in the daylight, and explain we’re in danger… all we gotta do is hang out with the gang and wait! But if there’s no slayer, no Magic Box, and just a plethora of vampires and monsters terrorising Sunnydale… I think we’re in a lot of trouble. Stay inside, lock the door, and maybe try to get some kind of really strong UV lamp!

Because Buffy ran for seven seasons, the show sank its teeth into all kinds of monsters, vampires, and ghouls. Sunnydale is a very dangerous place, it would seem. If Buffy and the gang are there and willing to help, this could be a cakewalk. But if we’re unlucky and Buffy’s gone on vacation, we might’ve accidentally stepped into one of the most dangerous, monster-infested settings out there!

Survival Chance: 4/10
(8/10 with Buffy and co., 2/10 without)

So that’s it… for now!

Stock photo of Halloween-themed food.
Halloween snacks!

I hope this has been a bit of Halloween-y fun! I actually really like this “hypothetical question” idea, and it’s one I’d love to revisit in the future – both in horror and non-horror contexts. I’m already brainstorming more questions and scenarios to write about, so if you enjoyed this idea… watch this space!

But I suppose we should pick one of the six options, shouldn’t we, as the answer to the hypothetical posed at the beginning?

I think I’m still leaning towards A Nightmare on Elm Street. I’m confident that I could go 72 hours without sleep, even if it was 1984 and there were no energy drinks or caffeine pills, and all I had was coffee. I know it’s a bit of a sneaky answer, but the objective was to survive 72 hours in a horror setting – not defeat every demon and monster that inhabits it!

Still frame from A Nightmare on Elm Street showing Freddy and Nancy.
I’m choosing A Nightmare On Elm Street for this hypothetical!

So that’s gonna be my pick. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was tempting, but I think it’s only really survivable if you’re able to team up with the Scooby Gang as soon as you arrive. If you get to nightfall in Sunnydale without support – and without a place to hide – you’re toast. So A Nightmare on Elm Street it is.

As I think I said last time, this year, October has turned out to be a stupidly busy month, so I haven’t had time to write all of the horror and Halloween articles and columns that I’d originally planned. Such is life, I suppose! Some will undoubtedly have to go on the back burner until next Halloween. By the way, is that the first time you’ve heard someone talk about Halloween 2026?

Still frame from The Rise of Skywalker showing Rey and ghost Luke.
A spooky ghost!

As I said above, this piece was partly inspired by the video game Alien: Isolation, which I’ve been slowly working my way through. Trying to survive in that world is genuinely tense and terrifying, and it got me thinking about other horror settings and how long I might last! I think the basic ground rules made for a fun thought experiment, at any rate.

So if I don’t catch you again before the 31st, I hope you have a fun and appropriately spooky Halloween! If you missed it, I wrote up a list of five seasonally-appropriate TV shows that you might want to check out before Spooktober comes to an end – you can find that piece by clicking or tapping here. And if you want a more personal look back at some of my Halloween memories, I wrote about that a couple of years ago – you can find it by clicking or tapping here.

Happy Halloween, everyone!


All films, TV shows, and video games discussed above are the copyrights of their respective studio, broadcaster, distributor, developer, publisher, etc. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

28 Years Later: Film Review

The first part of this review is free from major story spoilers. The end of the spoiler-free section is clearly marked.

I know what you’re thinking: Trekking with Dennis reviewing a horror film?! And it isn’t even October! What’s going on?

Well, I’ll let you in on a secret: 28 Days Later is one of my favourite horror films of all-time, and I enjoyed 28 Weeks Later, too. So when Danny Boyle announced there’d finally be a sequel to this genre-redefining zombie story a few years ago, I was immediately interested. Horror may not be my thing a lot of the time, but every now and then I don’t mind a good scare.

This is also my second zombie story in the span of a week! A few days ago, I watched Star Trek: Strange New Worlds’ zombie episode, so after this I think I’m gonna need a bit of a break from zombies for a while.

Three promo posters for 28 Years Later.
A trio of posters for the film.

28 Years Later was… interesting. But I’ll be honest: it wasn’t really what I expected. Less a horror film than a coming-of-age family drama with a zombie backdrop, 28 Years Later leaned on its post-apocalyptic setting to tell a story focused on a handful of characters. Spike, the main protagonist, got most of the film’s attention, and that was certainly an interesting – and potentially controversial – choice.

There was some fantastically creative cinematography in 28 Years Later. The film cut sequences from its post-apocalyptic present-day with imagery from war films and historical re-enactments, drawing parallels between those situations. The “Boots” refrain, heard in the trailer, surprised me by being an integral part of the film, not just a marketing stunt, and it was suitably haunting to hear that recitation atop imagery of zombies going feral. 28 Years Later was also creative with its use of colour; blood-red scenes were used for emphasis at key points in the story.

Still frame from 28 Years Later (2025) showing Spike.
An example of a blood-red sequence.

If you know me, you’ll know I’m a scaredy-cat. And 28 Days Later is up there as one of the most frightening films I’ve seen; its depiction of sprinting infected redefined what zombies could be and made them genuinely terrifying. For me, 28 Years Later just… wasn’t all that scary. It was gruesome when it wanted to be, sure; blood, guts, and other viscera are almost omnipresent in its world. But its jump-scares felt rather predictable – I could sense that something was coming, even when the film wasn’t trying to signal it. And while these sprinting zombies retain some of their fear factor, I suspect that two-plus decades of other horror films – many of which were inspired, directly or indirectly, by Danny Boyle’s work – have kind of… lessened that, a little.

I put off watching 28 Years Later until I felt I was in a good frame of mind for horror… but I really didn’t need to. There were tense moments, without a doubt. And the film is not bereft of new ideas; special categories of infected, who are bigger and stronger than your “standard” sprinting zombies added a new danger. But when I think back to that first viewing of 28 Days Later, and how I could scarcely bring myself to walk into the kitchen the next morning when it was still dark… nothing in this film really came close to recapturing that level of horror.

Behind-the-scenes photo from the set of 28 Years Later.
Director Danny Boyle (right) with Edvin Ryding and Alfie Williams on the set of 28 Years Later.
Photo Credit: IMDB

I don’t mind that, by the way. In fact, after the intervening years have not been too kind to my own mental health, I think I prefer a film like this! But I do think it’s worth noting that the belated follow-up to one of the most horrifying depictions of zombies ever brought to screen – and a film that had a massive impact on the zombie genre – wasn’t actually as scary as I expected. And if a big old scaredy-cat like me can make it all the way to the end without wetting their pants, then maybe some folks with a greater appetite for horror than I might even find 28 Years Later to be… tame.

All that being said, this is still a film I’d happily recommend. If you enjoyed 28 Days Later and want to know what happened next, or if you just enjoy a good zombie flick, there’s a lot to appreciate and enjoy. Some of it is a bit more artsy and a bit less gory than some of the more mindless films in the zombie genre, but whether that’s offputting or something to celebrate just boils down to personal taste! Speaking for myself, I think 28 Years Later was about right. It struck a good balance without leaning too much into gory horror, and even though some of its character moments could feel a bit clichéd, I still rooted for young Spike and wanted to see him succeed on his adventure.

Still frame from 28 Years Later (2025) showing the infected on a hill beside a tree.
The infected are coming!

It was also interesting to catch a glimpse of post-apocalyptic life many years into the rage virus outbreak. Seeing how new communities formed, how people have to find new roles, and how some people just… seem to lose themselves. That was all interesting stuff.

So even if 28 Years Later wasn’t the scare-fest I’d been expecting, I generally enjoyed it for what it was. Up next, we’ll get into the narrative in a bit more detail – so if you don’t want to see spoilers for the film’s plot, this is your opportunity to jump ship! But I hope you’ll come back after you’ve seen 28 Years Later to get my take on the film’s story.

A spoiler warning graphic (from SpongeBob)

This is the end of the spoiler-free section. There are story spoilers for 28 Years Later (as well as 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later) from here on out.

I really did not expect 28 Years Later to be a coming-of-age story mixed in with family drama. Spike’s quest to help his mother was relatable and sweet, and all credit to young Alfie Williams, who took on a challenging role and rose to the occasion.

What I’d say, though, is that there were some pretty big clichés on this side of the story. Spike catching his dad cheating on his mum, and their subsequent confrontation… it played out like something from a low-budget soap, not the highly-anticipated sequel to a film that redefined a genre. It wasn’t poor, but it wasn’t great… and I don’t even think it was wholly necessary to jump-start Spike’s quest. His mother’s illness, and the knowledge of a doctor on the mainland, was enough.

Still frame from 28 Years Later (2025) showing the confrontation between Spike and Jamie.
There was a fair amount of personal drama on this side of the story.

I also struggled to buy Spike’s rapid acceptance of his mother’s death. We got a bit of protest as Dr Kelson explained that her condition was terminal, but the film went pretty quickly from that moment to Kelson giving Isla her coup de grace, and Spike just kind of… went with it. Yes, he was drugged in the beginning, but after she died – at Dr Kelson’s hand – he didn’t really react. He placed her bleached skull atop the pile and that was that. On to the next quest – to bring the baby back to the village.

This had been Spike’s driving force for basically the entire film – his mum’s ill, he wants to help. He undertakes a very dangerous and deadly quest to help her, and when she can’t be helped he goes from grief and devastation to acceptance in basically an afternoon. Maybe you could read into that, something about the harsh realities of post-apocalyptic life making people more hardy… but it didn’t come across that way for me. It just felt either rushed or underdeveloped.

Still frame from 28 Years Later (2025) showing Spike and Isla with Dr Kelson.
Isla’s death was handled pretty quickly, especially for Spike.

Many great horror films use their supernatural settings to take their characters on this kind of journey of growth, and I don’t think 28 Years Later was wrong to want to tell that kind of story. The apocalypse – zombie-related or otherwise – can make a great backdrop for character arcs, personal conflicts, and drama of all kinds. Spike had an understandable motivation, and Dr Kelson also felt like a real person – someone who’s been living in this world, figuring out how to survive for such a long time that he seems “crazy” to outsiders.

But that’s where the real characterisation seemed to stop. Erik, Jamie, the other villagers, and even Isla all felt pretty flat; less fleshed-out people than archetypes or caricatures, serving a narrative function, yes, but often in a shallow or obvious way. If you know me, you’ll know I’m always an advocate for stories that delve into themes of mental health, and Isla’s story in 28 Years Later definitely touched on that. But how she presented during her “episodes” was pretty tropey, and the way she’d snap out of it when the story demanded it – showing lucidity at key moments to have conversations or advance storylines – was pretty basic.

Still frame from 28 Years Later (2025) showing Isla.
Isla.

Can we nitpick? I like to nitpick. How did Dr Kelson – some 28 years after the collapse of civilisation in the UK – manage to maintain a stockpile of medications like morphine and iodine? I mean, he was practically bathing in the stuff, and he’d need to re-apply his iodine defence any time he ventured beyond his skull island home, so… how much iodine must that be after almost thirty years? I think Kelson was probably the film’s second-most-interesting character after Spike… but as I say, I like to nitpick!

Those questions aside, I really liked 28 Years Later’s take on a post-apocalyptic world. The abandoned train was probably one of my favourite settings – not least because I’m a bit of a train fanatic! But catching glimpses of overgrown towns, the gas-filled petrol station, and decaying buildings and infrastructure was all interesting stuff. It really felt like a world that had been left to decay and collapse for 28 years.

Still frame from 28 Years Later (2025) showing the abandoned train.
The train.

28 Years Later raised several questions that I hope next year’s sequel, The Bone Temple, can answer. How are the infected – which the first two films depicted as dying off en masse after a month or so – still alive in such great numbers this long after the virus broke out? The first two films made it pretty clear that the infected didn’t eat and would just die out, but 28 Years Later establishes that tribes of infected roam around, feeding on wildlife, and apparently breeding with one another, too. It’s a big change from the depiction of the infected in those first films, and it warrants an explanation.

There were echoes of I Am Legend in this presentation of “alpha” infected. The idea that some infected could display greater intelligence, assuming some kind of leadership role in their group, reminded me of that film. It also reminded me of the Resident Evil video games, and how there could be “special” categories of zombies – usually serving as bosses! In that sense, I didn’t feel that the alpha was a particularly original creation, but still – it’s something that should be explained. Assuming, of course, that an explanation has been written.

Still frame from 28 Years Later (2025) showing "Samson," one of the alphas.
“Samson,” one of the alpha infected.

What do we make of the “Jimmy Savile” gang? I can’t help but feel that was done purely for shock value; Jimmy Savile being such a thoroughly vile person whose high-profile crimes shocked the entire country. In the film’s universe I guess it makes sense: Savile’s crimes weren’t uncovered until 2011, whereas in the universe of 28 Years Later, society collapsed in 2002. I remember watching Jim’ll Fix It as a kid in the ’80s, and the scale of what went on at the BBC with Savile is… even all these years later, words fail me.

But in the context of 28 Years Later, I hope – truly hope – that there’ll be more to this than just a cheap stunt to end this half of the story. Jimmy – the child from the beginning of the film – seems to have grown up to lead this gang of Savile impersonators… but why? Is it some attempt to cling to part of the world that they lost? Is it just a cult? Whatever it is, I hope there’s more to it than just an attempt to shock and offend, because otherwise it’s in pretty poor taste. I will reserve judgement, though, until I’ve seen The Bone Temple.

Still frame from 28 Years Later (2025) showing the character Jimmy.
Jimmy.

So I think I’m all zombie-ed out for a while!

I hope this has been interesting. I can’t shake the feeling that a film I’d waited more than twenty years to see wasn’t as impactful as I’d expected, even though it was solid and entertaining in its own way. But I don’t dislike 28 Years Later, and I’d certainly recommend it to fans of the original films, horror fans, and even to folks like myself who aren’t horror aficionados but just want to check out some of 2025’s big releases.

I will await The Bone Temple and the continuation of this story with some trepidation. A good ending could reframe parts of 28 Years Later, making them feel better in hindsight. But equally, a poor ending or a lack of a suitable explanation for some of the film’s narrative beats could make both pictures feel… underwhelming. I guess we’ll see next year.


28 Years Later is available to stream now on Amazon Prime Video, and will be released on DVD, Blu-Ray, and other streaming platforms in the months ahead. 28 Years Later is the copyright of Columbia Pictures and/or Sony Pictures. This review contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.