Voices from the Clear Lake community

Independent student media at the University of Houston – Clear Lake

Graphic by Sergio Salazar

“28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” Review – All Gore with No Bite

By

This bone temple collapses under it’s own weight

The second film in the 28 Years Later trilogy, “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple”, released earlier last month, and while it has some improvements over the first movie, it overall lacks what made the first one so good.

What works

First of all, what this movie does better than the first is the pacing and the cinematography. The cinematography is the clearest improvement since they used an actual camera to film this one and not an iPhone like the first. It feels like they took what was visually weak and didn’t work in the first movie and refined it.

But there were a few things which worked well in the first movie that they forgot to keep.

What doesn’t

For one, “The Bone Temple” lacks the strong, emotional core that this film so desperately needed to make audiences care about the characters.

It’s clear that the creators wanted to make this a smaller, more character- focused film, but missed the part where compelling arcs are what get us to care about them in the first place. There are none. Events just happen to the characters, with no input from them, and they go along with it all anyway until the movie ends.

Speaking of the ending, it ends in the same way the first one did, leaving no significant change to the status quo for the characters, their story, or their world.

Final thoughts

While improving on some things that were weak in the previous installment, “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” overall lacks the essential elements that make its predecessor a much more compelling watch.

Only got a little money to spend? I’d say not to use it on tickets for this movie, and instead wait for it to come out on a streaming service.

Overall Rating: 2/5

Read More

2 responses to ““28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” Review – All Gore with No Bite”

  1. Morgan Avatar
    Morgan

    I strongly disagree with your assessment of *Bone Temple*. I thought it was a powerful film, and I really appreciate the way director Nia Costa chose to tell and visually shape this story. While there are clear differences between Part 1 and Part 2, that comes down to the distinct creative visions of the two directors rather than a decline in quality.

    I was also hoping you could go into more depth about why you believe the first film is stronger, because that reasoning wasn’t fully clear in your article. Additionally, I’m a bit confused about the comparison being made — are you comparing Bone Temple to 28 Years Later or to 28 Days Later? The mention of filming on an iPhone applies to 28 Days Later, not 28 Years Later, so that point felt misplaced.

    You wrote that “The Bone Temple lacks the strong, emotional core that this film so desperately needed to make audiences care about the characters,” but I had the opposite reaction. The film builds meaningfully on the previous installment through Spike’s story. We watch him endure trauma, adapt, and learn that survival sometimes means staying silent rather than fighting back — a direct contrast to what his father taught him earlier. That character progression felt intentional and emotionally grounded.

    We also see complexity in the dynamic between Spike and Jimmy Ink. While her motives may be mixed, her initial pity gradually shifts into protectiveness toward him — even if that protection is partly driven by her desire to separate him from Jimmy. That moral grayness adds depth rather than taking away from the emotional weight of their relationship.

    Ian (Ralph Fiennes), in particular, brings significant emotional depth to the film. His isolated daily routine highlights his loneliness, and his evolving bond with Samson — especially through his hope of finding a cure — adds a layer of quiet humanity that contrasts with the brutality of the world around them.

    The score also plays a major role in reinforcing the emotional tone. Combined with the restrained but impactful use of gore, the film continues the franchise’s tradition of showing not just physical horror, but the moral decay and difficult choices that emerge when society collapses. At its core, I saw the film’s message as suggesting that even in a broken world, small acts of kindness can begin to restore humanity.

    So while I wouldn’t give the film a full 5 stars because of areas where it lacks or where I wish more was included, the film doesn’t deserve a 2-star rating. Though again, I say rewatch after seeing some interviews with the cast or director, Nia Costa, to gain insight into what they were conveying in the film. For other casual viewers, I would say take into account the world the previous films created and see how these new installments add to it.

    Reply
    1. Andrew Johnson Avatar
      Andrew Johnson

      Follow my Letterboxd
      https://boxd.it/4LFpx

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *