Weapons currently dominates 28 Years Later 71–29
The new voice leads the genre pioneer. Cregger's instincts edge Boyle's.
The Verdict Class of 2025
This matchup has 14 votes. The picture may shift as more people weigh in.
Cregger arrived with one film — Barbarian — and the spatial-horror instincts it demonstrated: architecture as threat, the dread of descending into spaces the film hasn't prepared you for. Boyle returns to the franchise he created when 28 Days Later reinvented zombie cinema with handheld DV and sprinting infected. The narrow lead for the newer director is notable given the recognition gap — Boyle's name and franchise should be a significant advantage in a format where familiarity matters. That Cregger's sophomore effort is competing without that safety net, and winning, suggests the spatial approach is connecting with something immediate. Early signal, but a real one.
The Numbers
| Weapons | 28 Years Later | |
|---|---|---|
| Head-to-Head | 71% | 29% |
| Overall Win Rate | 64% | 58% |
| Championships | 25 | 11 |
| Budget | $38M | $60M |
| Box Office | $270M | $151M |
Where This Matchup Sits
BingeBracket has 38 Horror films. Weapons sits at #3 and 28 Years Later at #9.
When facing other films, The Ugly Stepsister loses to both of them on the platform. Whatever separates these two, they're both a clear step above that opponent.
The championship record tells the same story: Weapons has 25 tournament wins to 28 Years Later's 11. The pedigree gap matches the head-to-head gap.
Weapons returned 7.1x its budget; 28 Years Later managed 2.5x. The film that overperformed commercially also takes the bracket matchup.
Think 28 Years Later deserves better?
You're in the 29%.
Play the bracket these votes came from. Your pick shifts the result.
Where to Watch
Availability may vary by region.
Want to pit Weapons against something else?
Build your own bracket with any films you want.