Jan. 19, 2026
I can’t stay silent any longer. I’ve always been a huge 28 Days Later fan. From the indie budget manner in which the first film was made, to the genre-defying dynamics (fast zombies!) the film franchise brought to the genre, it’s one of my favorite science fiction worlds. So when 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple arrived, I was hopeful that it would at least match Danny Boyle’s Part One from 2025, and hopefully exceed it. Although I’ve seen film-site ratings ranking Part One lower than Bone Temple, I disagree. In Part One, Boyle’s indie film energy was back, aided by the use of iPhones as cameras versus the relatively cheap Canon XL1 digital cameras used to shoot 2002’s 28 Days Later.
I suspect that some of the arthouse, dreamy sequences in Part One of 28 Years Later didn’t land with some viewers, but now that I’ve seen Part Two, Bone Temple, it’s clear that Boyle was leaning into the more artistic themes of Part Two that were present in Alex Garland’s script (he wrote both films). The problem is, Nia DaCosta’s Bone Temple does not harness the imaginative set pieces in the script. SPOILERS AHEAD.
The parkour zombie killers of Boyle’s Part One, acrobatically killing zombies and embodying chaos in Part One, in Bone Temple, just look like a ragtag group of sadists with no particular energy or mischievous enthusiasm present in Part One. These are just a bunch of thugs in tracksuits and blonde wigs, not a group of devout, secretly terrified satanists on a mission to fulfill the dark dictates of Old Nick, aka the Devil. Instead, the film is shot and directed as pedestrian as possible and adheres to the script more as a rigid guidebook, rather than a launchpad from which to pull the viewer into a phantasmagoria of violent post-apocalyptic frenzy. The only hint of Boyle’s Part One in Bone Temple is the superficial aesthetic of color grade and visual texture mimicry, visual connective tissue that helps, but does little to truly evoke the familiar fear of Boyle’s films. Beyond that, these two films are from two different worlds, and not in a good way.
This lack of artistry is most present in the amazingly written scene in which Ralph Fiennes (Skyfall, No Time To Die, Harry Potter) poses as satan, dancing amid a forest of skulls, flames shooting up behind him, as Iron Maiden plays in the background. If, before seeing the film, you told me that the previous sentence was a scene in Bone Temple, my excitement would be irrepressible. It’s the perfect scene for a post-zombie-ravaged country mired in hell on earth realities, possibly being made literal. But the way DaCosta handles the brilliantly written tableau lands more like a season 10 episode of The Walking Dead: serviceable, but falling far short of the potential of such a visual feast.
DaCosta’s previous films, like Candyman (a crime against the amazing 1992 original), and The Marvels (one of the final nails in the MCU’s recent coffin that Avengers: Doomsday hopes to escape from), did not lead me to assume perfunctorily that Bone Temple would be bad. And, honestly, it’s not “bad.” It’s just very disappointing to see such an incredible script handled with such by-the-numbers, mechanical delivery, skipping the art it deserved.
The opening weekend box office for Bone Temple backs up my reaction to the film. Bone Temple’s opening weekend drew less than half that of 2025’s 28 Years Later, Part One. So, I had to know, how does Bone Temple’s box office stack up against the other three films? It turns out that Bone Temple had the lowest opening box office of the entire franchise when adjusted for inflation. b
This isn’t an indictment of the franchise. This isn’t somehow the fault of Boyle doing Part One and perhaps not hitting a big enough win to entice audiences to want more. This isn’t bad writing, Garland (28 Days Later, Ex Machina) is an acknowledged elite science fiction screenwriter. This isn’t bad timing, as Bone Temple had little competition in a mostly empty release landscape in January 2026. No, this one has to be laid at the feet of the director, DaCosta.
I’ll avoid suggesting what next steps DaCosta could or should take, other than saying, no, pleading: after such a consistent string of box office bombs from this director, please stop giving this person beloved IP to hone their budding craft in hopes of scoring a win. Bone Temple deserved either the hand of Boyle or another, more seasoned director who could deliver on Garland’s fantastic script.
I’m seeing a lot of goodwill and support directed toward DaCosta, and that’s good. We should support newer voices in Hollywood. But in this case, it’s coming at the expense of one great franchise after another. In a time when great IP that audiences are loyal to is hard to come by, maybe go for the steady, proven hand. For newer voices, it might be best to seed theaters with newer voices through other, less consequential film projects that won’t turn fans off from certain franchises for years.
Cover via Sony Pictures
