- "28 Years Later: The Bone Temple" is entertaining but lacks emotional depth.
- Jack O'Connell's villainous role is unsettling while Ralph Fiennes remains compelling.
- The film feels like a transitional chapter, missing the soul of its predecessor.
When "28 Years Later" hit theaters, I walked out genuinely surprised. After years of mixed feelings about the franchise, Danny Boyle and Alex Garland delivered a film that didn't just revive the series but gave it a soul.
The world-building was rich, the characters were compelling, and at the heart of all the chaos was something rare for a zombie movie: emotional weight.
It was a horror/action movie about survival, yes, but even more than that, it was about family. A child's love for his mother. A mother's willingness to sacrifice everything. It was violent and intense, but there was something deeply human beating at its core.
Which brings us to "28 Years Later: The Bone Temple."
I was entertained. I wasn't bored. I didn't hate it. But walking out, I couldn't shake the feeling that what I had just watched wasn't really the next chapter of the story — it was the bridge between chapters. A necessary connective piece. A side mission. A pause before the real continuation.
Here's what worked, what didn't, and why "The Bone Temple" ultimately feels more like franchise maintenance than meaningful evolution.
Still well-made and often entertaining
From a technical standpoint, "The Bone Temple" is solid, the direction is confident, and the pacing is mostly tight. The environments are grim and effective, and when the movie leans into its brutality, it doesn't pull punches.
There are several sequences that are tense, ugly, and viscerally upsetting, and I don't mean that as a criticism. This is a world that should feel cruel, and "The Bone Temple" makes sure you never forget it.
The violence is harsher here than it was in "28 Years Later." Some of it is genuinely difficult to watch. It's grimy, mean, and uncomfortable, which, for better or worse, is very much the point.
As an experience, the movie works. It keeps you engaged, keeps you uneasy, and keeps moving, but it rarely moved me.
Jack O'Connell is horrifying (in a good-ish way)
Jack O'Connell's character, Jimmy, is one of the most reprehensible antagonists I've seen in a long time. Not fun-bad. Not charming-bad. Just deeply, unsettlingly vile. The kind of villain who makes your skin crawl, not because he's superhuman, but because he feels disturbingly plausible.
There's nothing theatrical about his evil. He brings an unpredictable menace that hangs over every scene he's in, and he becomes the true source of horror in the film rather than the infected.
If you find yourself genuinely uncomfortable when he's on screen, that means the movie succeeded at something very important.
Ralph Fiennes remains the standout
Just like in "28 Years Later," Ralph Fiennes is the most compelling presence in the movie.
We get significantly more of Kelso this time around, and Fiennes uses that space beautifully. He brings gravity, oddness, and emotional texture to a character who could have easily become cartoonish in lesser hands.
There's a sadness to him and a sense of experience that cuts through the chaos. Even when the movie is at its most gruesome, Fiennes grounds it.
He doesn't just feel like someone surviving in this world, but someone shaped by it. Every scene he's in is better because of his presence.
Spike feels like he took a step backward
One of the most disappointing aspects of "The Bone Temple" for me was what it did to Spike.
Alfie Williams was extraordinary in "28 Years Later." Watching Spike grow, adapt, and emotionally mature was one of the most powerful elements of that film. His arc felt earned and painful. "The Bone Temple" seems to undo that growth.
I understand that Spike is put into horrifying circumstances. Trauma reshapes people, and fear breaks people. That part works.
But his decisions and behavior didn't always feel consistent with where we left him. Instead of evolution, it often felt like regression designed to serve the plot rather than the character.
It was hard not to feel like all the emotional progress of the previous film was sacrificed so the story could function. And when a franchise that just found its emotional footing starts backpedaling, it's noticeable.
The movie loses the soul of the series
"28 Years Later" worked because of its heart. The zombies were terrifying, but they weren't the point. The violence was relentless, but it wasn't the foundation.
The foundation was love. Loss. Loyalty. Family. "The Bone Temple" shifts gears.
This is no longer a zombie movie with an emotional core. It's an action-horror movie where the zombies are almost an afterthought. They're here, but they are rarely the primary threat. They're no longer the engine of the story. Jimmy and his gang are.
The horror becomes human depravity rather than viral apocalypse. And while that can absolutely work, it changes the entire feel of the franchise.
The result is a film that is more gruesome, more violent, and more outwardly horrific, but also emptier. The emotional center that made the previous entry feel special is largely absent.
It feels like a filler chapter
There are important elements here. There are important plot threads, character positioning, world expansion, and seeds are clearly being planted for what's coming next. And that's exactly the problem. "The Bone Temple" feels like a movie designed to move pieces into place. It doesn't feel like a destination, but like the hallway between rooms.
There is a story here, but it rarely feels like the story. More like the connective tissue that will make the third film possible.
I didn't walk out excited because this movie was so good. I walked out hoping the next one returns us to what made "28 Years Later" so effective.
What parents should know
"28 Years Later: The Bone Temple" is rated R, and it may be even more disturbing than its predecessor.
There is graphic, prolonged violence, brutal killings and physical cruelty, strong gore, and disturbing imagery. There is a large amount of thematic horror involving human depravity.
Like its predecessor, there is also nonsexual nudity from the infected and quite a bit of strong language.
This is not just a zombie movie. It is an ugly movie. Intentionally so. Parents should be very cautious. This is not for kids or for a lot of audiences, regardless of age.
Conclusion
"28 Years Later: The Bone Temple" is not a bad movie.
It's well-made, often gripping, and at times genuinely horrifying. Jack O'Connell is terrifying. Ralph Fiennes is excellent. But compared to "28 Years Later," it is a noticeable step down.
Where the previous film gave us action with a soul and made its horror meaningful, this gives us action with brutality and leans into spectacle and cruelty.
My anticipation now rests not on what "The Bone Temple" accomplished, but on the hope that the final chapter remembers what made this revival feel special in the first place.
