JM: In a truly shocking turn of events, the 28 Days Later franchise has doubled from two to four entries in the space of less than a year. At this rate of infection, we’ll be dealing with tens of thousands of these movies by the year 2040. Our only recourse will be a complete quarantine of that nice part of Scotland they use for filming.

In all seriousness, though, 2025’s 28 Years Later was a very welcome return to the zombie genre by director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland. You can read ReelGood’s official thoughts on the movie here, but I think we are both in agreement that it’s a very good film – one that meets all the genre requirements of a zombie film whilst also having its own unique quality of postmodern despair. I liked it to the degree that I was fairly excited to see another instalment in such a short timeframe – shot simultaneously, and providing a resolution to 28 Years‘ cliffhanger ending. Although it’s another Garland script, 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is directed by Nia DaCosta rather than the inimitable Boyle. I only knew DaCosta from the extremely disappointing Candyman remake, so I was not without some trepidation.

How about you, Sascha? How did you feel about entering the Bone Temple?

SK: I assume you mean the film, and not Derek’s shed where he occasionally hosts the Reelgood Christmas party.

Look, DaCosta had a real challenge following up the wonderfully weird 28 Years – and I think that’s because the idea of these sequels is misconceived. The period of time between instalments (and revealed in each title) is a key ingredient of the 28 formula. Each film revealed, gradually, suspensefully, all the ways that civilization and humanity had crumbled. Most recently, in 28 Years, we learn the rest of the world has defeated the virus but that Britain is quarantined, patrolled by UN frigates. We learn the rage virus has mutated, producing infected that are more sentient, muscly and, ahem, well-endowed. We learn that we should never, ever consult Dr. Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) for medical advice. These are revelations. But Bone Temple picks up exactly where Years left off. We have Spike (Alfie Williams), now in the clutches of Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal (Jack O’Connell) and his gang of unlikely chavs styled off the late Jimmy Saville. And we have Dr. Kelson continuing to work on his effigy of human skulls. But we already had all that stuff! So this could have been called 28 Minutes Later instead of Bone Temple!

To me, this felt like a two-hour postscript. It didn’t take it anywhere. Was this a problem for you?

JM: Yep, I completely agree. This film is not just a companion piece to 28 Years – it’s, as you say, basically an extended epilogue. I don’t think it was an accident that the critic who introduced the film at the premiere gave a little pocket recap of the events of the last film, because Bone Temple very much opens in medias res and gives no introduction whatsoever to the characters or the plot. Sure, most people who are seeing this will have already seen 28 Years. But the whole film has the unmistakable vibe of having been handed off by Boyle to another director for the purpose of wrapping up loose ends.

The focus of the film is ultimately on the meeting and confrontation of Kelson and Jimmy Crystal, each of whom is deranged in their own way. Crystal is a murderous Satanist who is convinced his father is the Devil himself. Kelson is a much more benign figure, but he’s still a little too eager to dispense euthanasia in the name of giving people “peace” (as we saw at the end of 28 Years). I thought that O’Connell was great as Crystal; he plays the role with all the requisite panache, and has some genuinely funny moments. He comes across much more as an overgrown child with untreated mental illness than as a Manson-esque Antichrist figure. Likewise, Fiennes as Kelson gets some good opportunities to show off his talent for deadpan comedy. But neither character is quite substantial enough to shoulder the whole narrative, and a sub-plot about Kelson’s attempts to civilise one of the infected using morphine and meditation felt a bit perfunctory. Last year’s film had so much more dramatic weight to it.

With that being said, I don’t want to give the impression I didn’t enjoy Bone Temple. I thought the extended sequence in the farmhouse, where Crystal’s gang sacrifice a group of poor survivors in the name of Satan, was generally very gripping. In fact, I wouldn’t really find fault with any aspect of the film’s execution – I liked the performances and dialogue, and DaCosta did a good job of carrying on the visual style of the Boyle entries. The problems with the film felt more conceptual than anything. What about you? Did you enjoy elements of the Bone Temple?

SK: You’ve given a pretty adroit description of the film’s plot, characters and execution. I’ll take a different approach and just say: where the hell are the infected in this movie? They’re barely in it and at times the characters seem to navigate the Scottish terrain with near impunity to their surroundings. Well, bad news, the impunity rubbed off on me. This was an eye-wateringly unscary picture. There is no sense that the characters are under threat. The Jimmy Crystal character, which I assumed was basically a joke at the end of the last film, lacks the charisma or power we expect of a cult leader. He’s practically winking at the camera. And even the torture scenes seem tacked on, like the filmmakers had an MA15+ rating and had to use it.

Jimmy’s gang feels very Gen-Z; not like children who have grown up in this nightmarish reality or have never used an smartphone. So, I just don’t believe this gang could exist. I think they would be fucking destroyed by any other group on the island. Even Kelson is too relatable. He’s listening to New Romantic pop from the 80s and chatting with infected. He seems perfectly reasonable and not like someone building a Bone Tower. So, tonally, this one is all off. And tone is important in horror. It’s the filmmaking trick that helps us suspend our disbelief. But there ain’t much tone in this Temple.

Is this a killjoy opinion? I suspect that certain people, you know, barrackers, will pretend to really like this. Are you one of them? Is this our first actual disagreement? I’m pumped.

JM: It was bound to happen someday! But no, I think Bone Temple has some pretty serious problems, most importantly the fact that it doesn’t even really feel like a film in its own right. But, with that being said, I was engaged with the story up until the climax, when it all started to feel a bit predictable. What the best zombie films have, and Bone Temple lacks, is a sense of overpowering dread and futility. It’s pretty common for a zombie movie to emphasise the human danger, but when the undead are barely even part of the scenery, you’ve got problems. The fact that Bone Temple seems to be getting a more unambiguously positive reception than 28 Years Later is genuinely quite strange to me.

Without spoiling anything, did that last scene leave you salivating for another instalment? Or has this franchise entered the Bone Temple and kicked the bucket?

SK: Look, I wanted to stay in the Bone Condo as much as anyone, I really did. But this is far too workmanlike and forgettable compared to Boyle’s predecessor. So, no, not salivating for another instalment, but we’ll get one anyway.

DaCosta clearly has talent – particularly visually. There’s an assuredness to the composition of the frame that makes the overall watered-down product even more frustrating. But we’re seeing too many directors taking on franchise reheats. It’s especially galling when it’s revered horror IP. DaCosta’s filmography includes the shitty Candyman sequel, The Marvels and now this. To take another example, Fede Álvarez’s growing list of titles includes the Evil Dead remake, The Girl in the Spider’s Web, and Alien: Romulus. Remember Alien: Romulus. Everyone was saying “this is the second best Alien” and other such nonsense. No one will talk about Romulus in 10 years. No one will talk about Bone Temple either. Once the nostalgic itch is scratched, we go back to our lives. But they’re good at the box office, because brand recognition means they get seen. Seen, and then forgotten. Memento mori. 5/10

JM: The way things are going, we’ll all be buying shares in the Bone Condo soon enough. 7/10

 

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is currently playing in cinemas, and averages out to