Expectations are a fickle thing. Take last year’s 28 Years Later, Danny Boyle’s long-awaited follow-up: expectations, courtesy of years of build-up and its riveting marketing campaign, were running high only for the film to prove somewhat middling, flashes of brilliance muted by a nonclimactic third act and its cringey, divisive cliffhanger.
Compare that to Nia DaCosta’s, 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, a contemplative sequel that picks up nearly immediately after where we left off. My expectations were in the blood-soaked dirt.
And you know what? I liked The Bone Temple, and it made me appreciate its predecessor more.
There’s nothing notably different about them, in terms of tone or atmosphere; it looks more or less the same, and has similar degrees of suspense. It is very much a continuation of the same story.
What is different: expectations.
In fairness, there are a few other things going for The Bone Temple, too. Whereas Boyle seemed beholden to the low-budget grit he brought to the original, DaCosta brings a more modern, polished approach to this sequel; the movies are very similar, but The Bone Temple feels more confidently made. Stronger bones, if you will.
In hindsight, the last 28 Years Later is very much the first act of a three-act play, meant to re-ground the audience in the world envisioned by Boyle. The Bone Temple flexes into new ground, diving deeper into the fascinating character of Dr. Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) and his continued experimentation with the Rage Virus and relationship with Samson, an Alpha Zombie played by Chi Lewis-Parry. The movie also taps back into a core message of 28 Days Later: that despite the dangers in the world, men are always the most dangerous. Jack O’Connell immerses himself into the frightening role of Jimmy, a true villain if there has ever been one. Along with Jimmima, Jimmy Jimmy, Jimmy Ink, Jimmy Jones, Jimmy Fox, and Spike/Jimmy (Alfie Williams), the gang is the scariest thing seen in this franchise to date.
28 Years: The Bone Temple doesn’t reach the highs of its predecessor–the land bridge scene comes to mind–but avoids the low. It not only exceeds expectations but somehow manages to make the last one work better than it did on its own. That’s worth biting into.
Review by Erik Samdahl. Erik is a marketing and technology executive by day, avid movie lover by night. He is a member of the Seattle Film Critics Society.
