Horror Movie Review: 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple (2026)

I think it’s fair to say, polarising final scene aside, that most people came away impressed by 28 Years Later. A sequel to a beloved set of films that had no right to exist, really, but came with low expectations and blew all of them out of the water. It wasn’t another tiresome legacy sequel. It was so much more than just a lazy rethread of what was done before and so much more than just another attempt to tap into nostalgia. In fact, I thought it was great and said as much here in this review.

Now, with this sequel, the pressure is on. Expectations are sky high, the hype has gone into overdrive, and just about everyone wants answers to THAT final scene from the previous film. Does 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple manage to live up to expectations and give audiences what they want?

Directed by Nia DaCosta and written by Alex Garland, 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple continues the story set out in 28 Years Later, with focus shifting to Ralph Fiennes’ Dr. Ian Kelson and Jack O’Connell’s Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal.

The former, who played an important role in the previous film, has continued to study the infected, in particular, the Alpha who he has nicknamed ‘Samson’. While maintaining the Bone Temple, Kelson has started to wonder about the nature of infection and if it is treatable. Choosing to test some of his theories on Samson, which reveals some startling truths.

The latter, who made his first appearance (sort of) at the end of the previous film, is a psychotic gang leader who styles himself on Jimmy Saville (the reasons behind this have been explained over and over again – go read up) and uses his underlings, who he refers to as his fingers and who have all been given variations on the name Jimmy, to torture, maim, and murder almost anyone they come across in the name of Old Nick aka Satan, who Jimmy claims is his father. This is where Alfie Williams’ Spike comes in, having been accosted by gang at the end of the last film, he is forced into a death match with a finger. Win, and he will take the place of that Jimmy. Lose, and he will suffer ‘charity’. Which is not a good thing.

This is how Spike ends up as a finger, forced to be part of a group of sadistic youngsters led by a charismatic, but insane person who thinks he is the son of Satan.

These two stories, side by side, are incredibly compelling. One, focusing on loneliness, change, empathy, love, and hope. The other, focusing on fear, cruelty, manipulation, hate, and despair. Inevitably, two stories that meet, leading to a final third that is breath-taking,

I’m writing this as spoiler-free as I can, but goodness, is it tough to talk about this film without wanting to talk about specifics. All because the specifics of the film are so important. Not only delivering a satisfying continuation of the previous film but delivering a satisfying conclusion to several story threads and characters. This isn’t the end of the franchise, far from it, but Garland’s story delivers the fulfilment most crave, even if it’s sometimes at the expense of actual horror.

Here, we return to an aspect that 28 Days Later focused on in its final third, and that is the horror that humanity can cause. Although calling Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal human is a bit of a stretch (Jack O’Connell is really making a name for himself as these villain characters). The infected can’t help themselves, what’s humanity’s excuse? The exploits of Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal and his fingers would almost be too much to watch if it was all the film focused on (the barn sequence is particularly harrowing), but that is where the other side of story comes in and, for me, it’s what makes the film truly great.

It should come as no surprise that Ralph Fiennes delivers a masterclass performance here, but what truly makes his Dr. Ian Kelson character special is how it connects to Chi Lewis-Parry’s Samson (who is also brilliant). The most unlikely of friendships. For me, giving us more insight into the rage virus (such as showing us what the infected see) was much needed and really gives the film forward-momentum. There’s no undoing what has happened, the country is far too gone, but it’s probably the first time in the franchise that there has been a modicum of hope. Albeit hope that comes slick with blood.

Nia DaCosta is an excellent director, capable of putting her own stamp on the film while not making it feel too different to how Boyle did 28 Years Later. Her use of soft focus when characters are in a heightened emotional state makes things even more immersive and whereas Boyle make the isolation and silence oppressive, she does a great job of adding warmth and beauty to a cold and dead landscape. This is her best film to date, especially as she is also a deft hand when it comes to capturing the savagery of this world.

Its a tough film to find fault with especially as it delivered everything I wanted as sequel to 28 Years Later and the continuation of the franchise. I have no interest in seeing the same thing as before, and this film deftly and cleverly moves the story, world, and characters forward in creative and compelling fashion. I was hooked and I can’t wait to see what Boyle and Garland are able to cook up with the final entry in this trilogy.