For fans of post-apocalyptic horror, September 2025 brought a new wave of excitement—and, for some, a fair amount of frustration. The much-anticipated film 28 Years Later, the third installment in the cult-classic zombie franchise, stormed to the top of Netflix’s US streaming charts just months after its theatrical debut. Yet, while American audiences devoured the latest chapter in Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s saga, millions elsewhere found themselves locked out, sparking a heated debate about streaming access, licensing, and the evolving landscape of digital entertainment.
According to FlixPatrol and corroborated by HuffPost, 28 Years Later became Netflix’s number one movie in the US as of September 22, 2025. This new entry, set nearly three decades after the original 2002 film, follows a group of survivors on a remote island. When one ventures back to the mainland, he discovers a mutated form of the infamous Rage virus has spread even further among the remaining population. The film’s cast boasts the likes of Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ralph Fiennes, Alfie Williams, Jodie Comer, Christopher Fulford, Edvin Ryding, Stella Gonet, and Jack O’Connell—an ensemble that helped the movie become a major horror hit over the summer.
The numbers back up the buzz. 28 Years Later wrapped its theatrical run with $150 million at the worldwide box office, doubling its reported $60 million budget. Critics, too, responded favorably: the film holds an impressive 88% score on Rotten Tomatoes, with Robert Daniels of RogerEbert.com describing it as “a deeply earnest film, a picture whose sincerity is initially off-putting until it’s endearing.” Despite this critical acclaim, some audience members had expected more relentless zombie action, resulting in a slightly less enthusiastic reception among die-hard genre fans.
Yet, the film’s streaming success was not without controversy. As reported by LADbible, millions of Netflix subscribers outside the US were unable to watch 28 Years Later due to regional licensing restrictions and Netflix’s evolving subscription model. In the UK, for instance, the film is only available for rental or purchase, not as part of the standard Netflix package. This has left many international fans feeling left out—and, in some cases, furious.
One frustrated user took to Reddit’s r/Netflix forum, writing, “They are joking right? This sh*t made me cancel. How many more subscribers do you think they are going to lose because of this? I’m officially done with this disgrace of a streaming app.” Another lamented, “Streaming platforms started out cheaper and were a way to get away from ads that you dealt with on satellite, and allowed you to choose what to play. Streaming platforms are turning in to the new satellite and before long people will return to satellite I imagine.”
What’s fueling this frustration? As LADbible details, Netflix’s ad-supported tier—costing $7.99 per month in the US and £5.99 in the UK—doesn’t include access to certain titles, 28 Years Later among them. To watch the film, American subscribers must pay for the ad-free tier, which starts at $17.99 per month. Netflix has explained that “While the vast majority of TV shows and movies are available with an ad-supported experience, a small number are not due to licensing restrictions. These titles will appear with a lock icon when you search or browse Netflix.” For many, this feels like a bait-and-switch, especially when high-profile content is locked behind a pricier paywall or unavailable altogether due to regional deals.
Despite the backlash, the movie’s streaming triumph marked a changing of the guard atop Netflix’s charts. 28 Years Later dethroned Ice Road: Vengeance, the Liam Neeson action sequel that had enjoyed an impressive run after its June 27, 2025 release. Neeson’s film, directed and written by Jonathan Hensleigh, had itself been something of a surprise. Despite a dismal 14% Rotten Tomatoes score, Ice Road: Vengeance grossed over $100 million globally on a $40 million budget and became a streaming hit, lingering atop the domestic rankings before being knocked off by Boyle and Garland’s zombie epic.
The success of 28 Years Later isn’t just a win for Netflix; it’s a testament to the enduring appeal of the franchise. The original 28 Days Later (2002) and its sequel, 28 Weeks Later, redefined the modern zombie movie with their blend of gritty realism and relentless pacing. Now, more than two decades on, the latest entry has proven the brand still has bite. And the story isn’t over yet. A direct sequel, 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, is already in the pipeline, with a theatrical release set for January 16, 2026. Directed by Nia DaCosta and featuring returning stars Fiennes, Williams, and O’Connell, the film aims to keep the franchise’s momentum rolling. A third installment, penned by Garland and possibly to be directed by Boyle, is also waiting in the wings, contingent on the financial performance of the next film.
Meanwhile, the streaming wars rage on. As HuffPost notes, other platforms are also vying for attention: Hulu’s top movie is Swiped, a biopic inspired by Bumble founder Whitney Wolfe Herd, while Disney+ is riding high with Pixar’s Elio. But it’s the drama around 28 Years Later—its blockbuster box office, critical acclaim, streaming restrictions, and fan uproar—that has captured the zeitgeist.
For now, American Netflix subscribers can enjoy the latest horror hit from the comfort of their couches—assuming they’re willing to pay for the privilege. For millions of others hungry for a taste of the Rage virus, the wait continues, with only rental or purchase options available and no clear timeline for broader streaming release. The debate over access, value, and the future of digital entertainment is far from settled, but one thing’s certain: the appetite for post-apocalyptic thrills remains as strong as ever.
As the franchise lurches toward its next chapter, the saga of 28 Years Later is proving just as unpredictable—and, for some, as maddening—as the world it depicts on screen.
