28 Years Later's Slyest Easter Egg Pulls A Fast One On Horror Fans

This article contains spoilers for "28 Years Later."

When the first trailer for "28 Years Later" dropped — you know, the one with the haunting rendition of Rudyard Kipling's poem "Boots" by Taylor Holmes — there was much speculation regarding the trailer's evocative imagery and what it might mean for the film itself. Given the fact that "28 Years Later" is a film arriving 23 years after the original movie in the series, "28 Days Later," and 18 years after the first sequel, "28 Weeks Later," in 2007, there was already plenty to theorize about. Perhaps the biggest rumors surrounded a particularly gaunt-looking Infected creature glimpsed in the trailer, one who bears a passing resemblance (as much as a clearly zombie-like thing can) to actor Cillian Murphy, who played the heroic survivor Jim in "28 Days Later." Worried fans gossiped over the possibility, so much so that the actor who actually does portray the creature, Angus Neill, took to the press to dispel the rumor.

The "Infected Jim" theory seems to be a simple byproduct of fans coming down with a case of franchise brain and seeing connections that were never intended to be there. And yet, after viewing the actual full film, it feels like director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland are indeed playing a knowing game of spot the Easter egg with regards to this sequel, especially where the character of Jim is concerned. Threaded throughout "28 Years Later," there are little bits and pieces that obliquely recall Murphy's Jim, and Neill's Infected man could be considered a part of this thread. It all culminates in a reveal during the movie's cliffhanger ending, which not only pulls a fast one on horror fans but seems to indicate that Boyle and Garland may be using Jim as a fascinating aspect of the series' growing mythology.

The opening sequence of "28 Years Later" takes place in the Scottish Highlands during the initial days of the outbreak of the rage virus in 2002. A young boy named Jimmy (Rocco Haynes) is forced to fend for survival on his own as his mother and preacher father succumb to the Infected. We're not initially told where that boy has ended up when the film jumps forward in time, 28 years later, but there's a sense that Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), the father of the movie's protagonist, Spike (Alfie Williams), might be the same boy. After all, the names are similar enough, and it's possible that he might have grown up and simply wished to be called a variation on his old name. The isolated island community that he lives in seems to have a strong religious bent to it as well, so that acts as further evidence.

Things get more muddled once Jamie and Spike make their way to the mainland for hunting practice. A location or two that the father and son pass by appears to have the name "Jimmy" scribbled on it, and the pair come across an abandoned house with an infected man tied up and hanging upside down with the name "Jim" carved onto his chest. Even though it's clear from the opening sequence that the boy named Jimmy is not the same person as Murphy's Jim from the first film and that his adult counterpart will appear at some point, these clues seem to hint that perhaps Murphy's Jim might still be out there somewhere raising a ruckus.

All of that is dispelled in the final moments of "28 Years Later," which introduces the adult version of Jimmy (Jack O'Connell), as he and his cult-like gang of Infected hunters save Spike from certain death. It's a bait and switch for several reasons: it makes plain that Taylor-Johnson's Jamie is not the same person as the boy in the opening sequence and that O'Connell's character is, as well as gooses fans of the series who were expecting (or just hoping) that Murphy's Jim might reappear.

Despite the ending of "28 Years Later" establishing this new Jimmy character (whom we're going to see more of in director Nia DaCosta's follow-up movie "28 Years Later: The Bone Temple," due in theaters next January), the film doesn't necessarily dispel the idea of Murphy's Jim making a comeback at some point. On the contrary, it may be doing the opposite; if we're including Jamie, that means that we've got at least three JImmys in the mix within this alternate Infected universe. This recurrence might simply be Garland and Boyle having a laugh, throwing a bunch of similarly-named men into similar plights and seeing the differences between each.

Then again, there might be something potentially deeper thematically at work here. St. James the Great, according to the New Testament, was the first of the Apostles to be martyred, and given the heavy religious themes to the "28" saga, I wouldn't put it past the filmmakers to make such a reference lightly. In "28 Days Later," Jim turns from a mere bicycle courier into a sort of avenging angel, a transformation that's literally commented upon by Selena (Naomie Harris), thinking he might have become infected when he hasn't. This notion of the rage virus apocalypse (which is only relegated to the UK and not the rest of the world, it should be pointed out) being a catalyst for turning ordinary folks into mythic figures can be seen throughout "28 Years Later," from the way that Dr. Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) is spoken about as a Colonel Kurtz-like maniac only to be revealed as a tender mystic, to how Jimmy has fashioned his cult of tracksuit wearing zombie hunters after both the Teletubbies (the program he was watching before the outbreak) and presenter Jimmy Savile, who was revealed to be a serial sex offender posthumously in 2012.

In this environment, it's entirely possible that Murphy's Jim has also elevated (on his own or through his impact) to the level of a mythical figure, being the man who nearly single-handedly took out an entire regiment of rogue soldiers, as well as infected. Though Murphy is only a producer on "28 Years Later" and does not appear, it seems that plans are in the works for he and Jim to make some sort of comeback in the future. If and when that happens, I wouldn't be surprised if we get a Battle of the Jimmys or something. Whatever happens, I don't think Boyle, Garland, DaCosta, and the other filmmakers will be denying us our Jim for too much longer.