’28 Years Later: The Bone Temple’ Isn’t a Bad Movie – It’s Just Empty

by

Last year saw the return of the 28 Days Later series with 28 Years Later, reuniting original creators Danny Boyle and Alex Garland after they’d both worked on other projects. This year, Nia DaCosta directs the sequel, 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple. DaCosta’s recent adaptation of Ibsen’s Hedda was a strong contrast to her previous work on studio films like Candyman and The Marvels.

I’ve always been a fan of DaCosta’s work, and it’s been interesting to see how audiences react so differently to her films. While people seemed to really enjoy her bigger projects, I was surprised to see her earlier, more intimate films, like Hedda and Little Woods, struggling with audience scores. Honestly, her studio movies haven’t felt as personal or impactful as I’d hoped. The Bone Temple is getting good reviews, much like a film from last year, and that feels strange to me. It just felt…empty. It’s a very ‘safe’ movie, and doesn’t really push you to think or feel anything beyond what the script is telling you. It lacks that spark of inspired filmmaking, which is disappointing.

‘The Bone Temple’ Is an Unspired ’28 Years Later’ Sequel


Sony Pictures Releasing

The Bone Temple falls into a strange middle ground. It lacks the creative spark of Boyle’s filmmaking, avoids the intriguing strangeness of Garland’s ideas, and doesn’t benefit from DaCosta’s skill with character-driven stories – her earlier films like Little Woods and Hedda were much stronger than this project. Ultimately, DaCosta’s direction feels unoriginal and relies too heavily on current horror movie trends.

The introduction of the Jimmys – a disturbing cult based on the personality of Jimmy Savile – was initially shocking, but their storyline quickly becomes pointless. The film dwells on the group’s violence without giving us anyone to care about, except for Spike, who is sidelined and doesn’t actively participate in the events. The story avoids exploring the ethics of the violence, simply acknowledging it’s unpleasant. Had it continued much longer, it would have felt exploitative. While the first film thoughtfully examined how these young men were trained to be violent, using footage of war to highlight the connection, this sequel seems to dismiss it all with a shrug.

Whenever the film returns to the Jimmy brothers or any zombie action, The Bone Temple feels like a weak attempt to shock audiences with typical horror tropes. While the cinematography tries interesting things – like mounting a camera on a zombie – it doesn’t reach the visual sophistication of Anthony Dod Mantle’s work on 28 Years Later (and the original 28 Days Later). The script, by Garland, is largely the problem. Even his attempts to delve into Jack O’Connell’s character feel underdeveloped, and his explanation of zombification as psychosis feels simplistic. The audience’s reaction – cheering during torture scenes but losing interest in the quieter, more thoughtful moments between Dr. Ian Kelson and Samson – really highlighted how disconnected the film felt.

The strongest part of The Bone Temple is definitely the relationship between Ian and Samson, and director DaCosta handles it beautifully with a subtle and gentle touch. While the writing sometimes tries too hard to explain things – like a questionable cure for zombification involving medication, and an overeagerness to tie up every loose end – DaCosta clearly understands that the heart of this story lies in the unusual connection these two characters forge amidst constant violence. The film is at its best when it slows down and focuses on the quiet moments of Ian’s life, accompanied by a fantastic soundtrack that really works – I especially loved the use of Duran Duran, and wish the whole movie had leaned into that vibe before unexpectedly switching to Iron Maiden.

Subscribe to our newsletter for sharper film criticism

Crave sharper takes on sequels and auteur choices? Subscribe to our newsletter for in-depth film analysis, thoughtful director and writer context, and critiques that unpack what works, what fails, and why – ideal for readers who value rigorous movie coverage.

By subscribing, you agree to receive newsletter and marketing emails, and accept Valnet’s
Terms of Use
and
Privacy Policy
. You can unsubscribe anytime.

The dynamic between the characters, and their strange thoughts about the world and whether things can ever get back to normal, is the most compelling part of this film – a real highlight for the director. However, both the director and co-writer struggle to fully explore the interesting ideas they bring up, a common issue with their work. The film doesn’t offer a satisfying resolution, ultimately just returning to the same situation as the first movie. The attempt at a dramatic musical moment feels forced and falls flat. Ultimately, the film relies too heavily on ideas and imagery already present in the previous installment, feeling superficial and underdeveloped.

As a movie fan, I think the biggest issue with this film is that it feels like it’s only there to connect other movies – and now it’s bridging four! That means it spends most of its time reinforcing what we already know and painstakingly setting up what’s coming next. I don’t think the director, DaCosta, is at fault for having to weave in Cillian Murphy’s character, but the decision to have him make obvious references to World War II history felt unnecessary and honestly, a little insulting. It’s as if they didn’t trust us to pick up on the themes already present. The Bone Temple isn’t bad, exactly, it’s just…hollow. It feels like more of the same, and any attempt to introduce something fresh feels like an afterthought that should have been cut.

Read More

2026-01-20 00:37