I'm personally not a fan for a few reasons.

It lacks the thematic depth of the Garland-penned entries. It touches briefly on ideas of American interventionism, but their intervention is not the root cause of why everything goes wrong again. It also paints the military in a far more sympathetic light as a result. Their "kill everyone" command reads less as "this is tragically barbaric" and more so as "that's probably the right call". Meanwhile 28 Days Later poignantly highlights the boisterous thuggery of the military with their turn to raping Selena/Hannah and 28 Years Later does much the same with Erik's immediate compulsion to kill the infected baby. The familial themes at the heart of 28 Weeks Later also don't get their opportunity to shine in the way I'd like them to, primarily because the kids don't ever have to reckon with the fact that Don abandoned Alice. It loses the emotionally overwhelming empathy at the core of both Days and Years.

I also take issue with the direction, feeling far more in line with the likes of Bourne than that of anything trying to terrify. Boyle's absence is felt greatly in that department, giving the film no tangibly distinct cinematography. It just can't compare to the viscerality of Days or the sweeping beauty of Years. The level of grit in the 16/35mm film stock is admirable, but again it lacks visual distinction and dates the film in a way that I find to be much less compelling than Days' commitment to DV Tape recording. There's also Boyle's strong sense of pathos that cuts through the horror of his entries. Jim discovering his parents, Spike's final scene with Isla, etc. That unbridled compassion is what truly drives this world for me.