28 Years Later: The Bone Temple Review: Improves On Predecessor, But Still Struggles To Find Footing
- Alex Schlerf
- Jan 20
- 5 min read
Director Nia DaCosta (The Marvels, Hedda) helms 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, a sequel to the prior film in the franchise that released 28 weeks prior.
Synopsis:
Dr. Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) finds himself in a shocking new relationship with consequences that could change the world as he knows it, while Spike's (Alfie Williams) encounter with Jimmy Crystal (Jack O'Connell) becomes a nightmare he can't escape.
Cast:
Ralph Fiennes, Jack O'Connell, Alfie Williams, Erin Kellyman, Chi Lewis-Parry
Release Date:
In Theaters Now
DaCosta's Direction Brings A Major Improvement
If you know me, you know I've been very critical with the filmmaking of the past iterations in this franchise. I know they write it off as a distinct style for the world they've set up, but it's just never worked for me at all. That's why it was so incredibly refreshing to see a director as talented as Nia DaCosta take the reigns for this film. This installment feels very different compared to the previous three due to Nia putting her own spin on the world. I've never really found this franchise to be overly scary outside a few jump scares, but Nia's experience in the horror genre definitely helped this installment be the scariest one yet. That's partly due to the darker material brought in the script from Alex Garland, but I'm more talking about the especially tense and creepy scenes. We'll discuss the menacing O'Connell later on, but there's many scenes with him that are elevated because of DaCosta's placement and framing. Even the opening scene, which didn't totally have me pulled in because of how much I disliked the prior installment, placed me right into this horrifying scenario and really helped establish a tone.
Past those slower, more dialogue heavy sequences, she also does a great job in the few zombie-focused action scenes. This franchise feels like it's gone as far away from standard zombie tropes as possible, for better or worse, but there are a few chase scenes in this one that are genuinely scary. There's no shaky camerawork, something that has been made the norm in the franchise to this point. With the tension actually being elevated to a high level, it keeps you on your toes for the majority of the runtime.
O'Connell and Fiennes are Powerhouses
The only two names that play before the title drop are Ralph Fiennes and Jack O'Connell, for good reason. These two are the clear co-leads of the movie and once they intersect, it's a really fun combination. But talking about them individually, we have to start with Fiennes' Dr. Kelson and his relationship with Sampson (Chi Lewis-Parry). Out of everything in this film, this storyline absolutely grabbed me the most. I think one of the more important themes that needs to be established in a world like this is humanity, wether someone who is attempting to grasp it or how far humanity has fallen. Dr. Kelson represents both sides of that with his developing relationship with the Alpha Zombie in Sampson. Seeing their relationship develop and escalate was really interesting, providing Fiennes the route to do some really deep emotional work. He gets to go nuts later in the film, but the early scenes of him were probably my favorite part of his performance.
As noted earlier, our opening for this film sees us fully introduced to Jack O'Connell as a cult leader that has taken in Spike (Alfie Williams) after his journey in the prior installment. I've already become completely bought into the O'Connell stock after Sinners and this film continued to make me feel really good about that. His Jimmy is creepy, unsettling and menacing when he needs to be. I think his performance and the screenplay really helps establish that this world can bring the absolute worst people into power. The film's climax sees both Fiennes and O'Connell finally cross paths. They are phenomenal scene partners and it easily had me engaged, even with the issues I had with how they got there. It's really generally a bonkers final act and it's due to these two incredibly talented actors.
First Half Is Disconnected
My main problem with this film boils down to a lack of understanding on what it was going for thematically, but before I talk about that I also did take issue with the first half of this film. Although I think both Fiennes' and O'Connell's storylines are interesting by themselves, they did tend to feel incredibly disconnected. It takes a while for us to really realize how they interconnect and even that isn't done in the smoothest way possible. Fiennes' relationship with Sampson doesn't factor into the final act much at all, with his character really becoming an entirely different entity all together. The two storylines never really parallel each other at all, so the jumps from one scene to another tended to throw me off a lot. Most of the plot in that first half is really just setup. It's establishing O'Connell as a character, showing what Fiennes is up to and eventually explaining how they are going to intersect. It wasn't necessarily bad content, but just nothing that completely pulled me in. Especially compared to that insane final act, I wish they would've made the connections clearer earlier in the film.
What's The Point?
I think generally, I don't really understand what this film is trying to get across. First off, it can't really be classified as a classic zombie movie. Zombies are a very small part of the world and don't factor into the conflict much at all, especially after Sampson's arc throughout the runtime. So I guess they are attempting to tell certain tales with the world they've established, but I can't tell exactly what theme they are trying to tackle. The assumption would obviously be humanity due to the Sampson/Kelson stuff, but there's points where that becomes more goofy than serious. I didn't really get the humorous tone and moments they fell back on multiple times in this script. There's times where this film can be really sweet and beautiful, but then it's ruined by the weird tonal shift. I'm not sure why we need to see Fiennes dancing to old music instead of creating a more natural relationship with Sampson.
I guess at this point, I'm not totally clear on what this franchise wants to be. I actually was going to go a .5 star higher on my rating before the final scene. No spoilers, but essentially they bring back a character from earlier in the franchise and attempt to plant seeds for a sequel. This is exactly the problem I had with 28 Years Later, putting a scene at the end that had nothing to do with anything we'd seen before besides from some of the characters. There's a certain storyline that is established in this film that feels like it'll finally elevate this franchise past telling random stories within the world, but by the end anyone that has knowledge of it is gone. Where are we meant go from here? Continue putting random characters together to tell the same stories over and over? If that's what it's meant to be, why establish this as a humanity vs. zombies franchise in every single film? These movies have become entertaining installments that never really lead to anything and don't have any overall throughline when it comes to a theme. I tried my very hardest to like this as much as everyone else, but I'm just not sure I'll ever get there.
Final Thoughts
Hopefully people don't take my drawbacks or rating too harshly, because I did enjoy this film on the whole. I liked the style DaCosta brought and the cast is very enjoyable. I just don't think I'll ever really be bought into the franchise as a whole, as much as I try. If you liked the previous three films, you'll like this one a lot!
Rating: 3/5 Stars
2026 Ranked:
Comments