Cillian Murphy Eyes Return as ’28 Years Later III’ Rises at Sony
’28 Years Later III’ at Sony: Why the Rage Virus Still Matters
A third 28 Years Later film is officially moving forward at Sony Pictures, with original writer Alex Garland back at the keyboard and Cillian Murphy in talks to return. Coming off strong fan buzz from early screenings of the trilogy’s second chapter, this new installment isn’t just another horror sequel—it’s a revival of one of the most influential modern zombie-adjacent franchises at a moment when pandemic stories hit very differently.
From 28 Days to 28 Years: How We Got Here
When 28 Days Later (2002) arrived, Danny Boyle and Alex Garland didn’t just give us fast “zombies”—they gave us a mood: post‑9/11 anxiety, bio‑terror panic, and a London that looked like it had woken up from history with a hangover. Cillian Murphy’s Jim wandering an empty Westminster Bridge is one of horror cinema’s defining images.
2007’s 28 Weeks Later, directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, amped up the scale with NATO occupation, quarantine zones, and a nastier political edge. Garland and Boyle stepped back creatively, but the “rage virus” became a shorthand for viral horror that felt uncomfortably plausible.
“We weren’t really making a zombie film. We were making a film about how quickly civilization can switch off.”
— Alex Garland, on the original 28 Days Later
Fast‑forward two real‑world decades, and the idea of a sequel leaping to 28 Years Later almost feels too on‑the‑nose. We’ve lived through our own global pandemic, watched institutions strain, and seen distrust become its own kind of contagion. That’s exactly why Sony’s decision to lock in a third film now feels culturally loaded, not just nostalgic.
Sony’s Play: Why the Studio Is Betting on 28 Years Later III
According to Variety, Sony pushed the third film ahead after positive fan response to early screenings of the second entry in this new trilogy. That tells us two things: the studio sees this as a proper saga, not just a one‑off revival, and the early creative direction is landing with core horror audiences.
- Brand recognition: The 28 name still carries serious genre clout in an over‑crowded horror landscape.
- Prestige horror wave: With studios backing films like Hereditary, Get Out, and Talk to Me, an Alex Garland‑led sequel fits neatly into the “elevated horror” conversation.
- Franchise gap: Sony lacks its own marquee horror universe on the scale of The Conjuring or Insidious. 28 Years Later could fill that void.
There’s also the simple box‑office math: pandemic‑era horror like A Quiet Place Part II and The Black Phone proved audiences will show up for genre films that mix thrills with social commentary. The rage virus, which always doubled as a metaphor for unprocessed anger and systemic failure, is tailor‑made for that space.
Alex Garland Returns: What His Writing Signals for the Sequel
Having Alex Garland write the new film is the clearest sign that this isn’t meant as a cheap nostalgia tour. This is the filmmaker behind Ex Machina, Annihilation, Men, and Civil War—projects that jab at our anxieties about AI, ecology, gender, and polarization under the skin of sci‑fi and horror.
“Horror is useful when it reflects something genuine we’re afraid of, not just what makes us jump in a seat.”
— Alex Garland, on using genre as social mirror
Garland’s involvement suggests that 28 Years Later III is likely to lean into:
- Societal breakdown over simple monsters: Expect more focus on what people do when systems fail, less on body‑count spectacle.
- Ambiguous politics: 28 Weeks Later was already a tense riff on occupation and military overreach. Garland, post‑Civil War, is unlikely to avoid political texture.
- Psychological fallout: The “years later” framing opens the door to generational trauma—kids who grew up in a world rebuilt on top of a catastrophe.
Cillian Murphy in Talks: What a Jim Comeback Could Mean
The franchise’s emotional core has always been Murphy’s wide‑eyed, soft‑spoken Jim—a character less defined by action‑hero bravado than by shock and fragile decency. With Murphy now an Oscar‑recognized lead off Oppenheimer, bringing him back would instantly elevate this film’s profile beyond genre circles.
If the deal closes, several interesting angles open up:
- Survivor’s guilt and aging: A Jim who’s lived decades after the first outbreak could embody long‑term PTSD and the weight of having seen society fall once already.
- Passing the torch: Using Jim as a bridge to a younger cast lets the film honor its roots without getting stuck in them.
- Star‑driven horror: The Murphy–Garland pairing is catnip for awards‑minded genre fans, the same audience that championed films like Black Swan and Silence of the Lambs.
“That film changed my life. I’d love to revisit that world if the story was right.”
— Cillian Murphy, on 28 Days Later in past interviews
What “28 Years Later” Can Say About Our Current World
Making a rage‑virus movie in a post‑COVID media landscape is a tightrope walk. Go too literal and it feels exploitative; dodge it completely and the film risks irrelevance. The sweet spot is where the 28 franchise has always lived: using infection as metaphor for something more human.
Potential thematic threads that feel almost inevitable now:
- Misinformation as contagion: How do rumors, conspiracies, and propaganda spread compared to a virus?
- Climate and displacement: A world reshaped by extreme weather and migration fits neatly with images of abandoned cities and fortified enclaves.
- Anger fatigue: After years of online outrage and real‑world protest, what does “rage” mean when we’re exhausted by constant crisis?
Strengths, Risks, and What Could Go Wrong
On paper, this project has an enviable foundation: a respected writer, an iconic potential lead, and a franchise that still carries critical goodwill. But long‑gap sequels are notoriously tricky, and horror fans tend to be both devoted and unforgiving.
What’s working in its favor
- Creative continuity: Garland returning makes this feel like a genuine extension, not a brand cash‑in.
- Built‑in audience: Horror fans have been asking for 28 Months Later or 28 Years Later for over a decade.
- Modern relevance: The premise accidentally aged into the zeitgeist.
Where it could stumble
- Franchise bloat: Stretching to a full trilogy under one studio could press the series toward Marvel‑style serialization instead of lean, self‑contained terror.
- Tonality tightrope: Go too bleak and it becomes homework; go too glossy and it feels like it misunderstands its own roots.
- Audience sensitivity: Some viewers simply aren’t ready—or willing—to revisit viral catastrophe on the big screen.
Trailers, Footage, and What to Watch While You Wait
At this stage, no official trailer or teaser for 28 Years Later III has been publicly released. Sony is still in the development and pre‑release excitement phase, fueled by that positive reaction to early screenings of the second film in the planned trilogy.
In the meantime, revisiting the earlier entries is the best way to feel the tonal throughline:
- Original 28 Days Later trailer – grainy DV visuals, raw post‑Britpop dread.
- 28 Weeks Later trailer – more militarized, bigger canvas, still vicious.
When a first teaser for the third film drops, expect it to lean heavily on iconography—a return to empty London streets, the blood‑red hazard typography, and, if Murphy signs on, a shot that rhymes with Jim’s hospital awakening.
Final Take: Hopeful, Cautious, and Very Curious
On balance, 28 Years Later III looks like one of the more intriguing studio‑backed horror projects on the horizon. Sony’s commitment, Garland’s pen, and the possibility of Cillian Murphy’s return give this the DNA of something more ambitious than a typical legacy sequel.
The tightrope will be honoring what made the original film so electric—its scrappy intensity, its moral queasiness, its political bite—while speaking honestly to the post‑pandemic, hyper‑online world we actually live in. If Garland and Sony manage that, the rage virus might become the rare horror conceit that evolves with its audience instead of just feeding on their nostalgia.
Until we see real footage, the only responsible verdict is a cautiously optimistic one. But for a franchise built on the fear that everything can collapse overnight, the idea that it might come back smarter and sharper twenty‑plus years later feels, strangely, like a hopeful sign.
