His Red Right Hand

Danny Boyle’s plans for the continuation of the 28 Days Later franchise are pretty wild, when you think about them. The first film was a solid success back in 2002 and sequel 28 Weeks Later proved there was still life in the series when it came out in 2007. But after that, barring some comics (that I’m sure most people didn’t even realize existed), the franchise lay dormant. No other movies, TV shows, web toons, whatever. It was two movies and then fans were left waiting to see if the next film, the presumed 28 Months Later (just following the basic progression) would ever come out.

Instead it took nearly two decades for Boyle to return to his series, and it wasn’t just for one film but a planned trilogy of stories. Think about that for a second. Boyle, along with writer Alex Garland, were so sure of their ideas for this series that no one had even seen in twenty years, that they came up with a full trilogy of films, and even filmed the first two movies – 28 Years Later and direct sequel 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple – back-to-back. They figured all the fans would come out, along with new fans that hadn’t even been alive when the first two movies arrived, and somehow they could support a whole trilogy.

And they were sort of right but also sort of wrong. 28 Years Later was a decent success, making $151.3 Mil against its $60 Mil budget (which means it was in the black per Hollywood math), but then 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple came along and failed to live up to expectations. The sequel only pulled $58.5 Mil against its even larger $63 Mil budget, failing to meet expectations and putting into question if a third film would even get made. That’s a lot riding on a franchise that maybe couldn’t support all of this story, and now we have to question if this decision was even the right one to make.

The thing is, 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is exactly the kind of sequel you’d expect for 28 Years Later, which I think is the very reason why it failed to garner fan attention at theaters. 28 Years Later wasn’t another propulsive, rage-pocalypse thriller in the vein of the first two films. It had moments of action, but it was slower paced and more contemplative. It was less concerned with the apocalypse and more invested in the story of a family going through tragedy. It’s a great movie, don’t get me wrong, but I doubt it’s the movie all the 28 Days Later fans were expecting. And then when 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple came along and promised even more of the same… well, that wasn’t enough for the fans who wanted their infected murder sprees played out on the big screen. That kind of action wasn’t to be found here.

But, like its predecessor, 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is a really good movie. I’d actually consider it more harrowing, and scarier, than 28 Years Later, but not because the infected are more prevalent this time around. Hell, I think the infected have an even smaller role in the film than in the previous movie. This is a story less about the infected running around and more about the humans terrorizing the landscape simply because they can. In any apocalypse it’s not the monsters you have to worry about, it’s the other humans, and 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple lays that out perfectly.

The film is a direct continuation of the previous movie, with Spike (Alfie Williams) having just been picked up by Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal (Jack O'Connell) and his gang of Fingers. These ruffians go around the countryside, causing carnage. They don’t just kill the infected; they also kill other humans, giving them “charity” and making them into sacrifices for Jimmy’s dad, old Nick, aka Satan. As it turns out, Jimmy is a Satan worshipper and he thinks torturing and killing other survivors somehow puts him in touch with his god.

This works out well enough for Sir Lord Jimmy until one of his fingers, Jimmy Ink (Erin Kellyman), spots Dr. Ian Kelson (Ralph Fiennes), painted red with iodine and working in his ossuary, his bone temple, and mistakes the good doctor for Satan himself. Now Sir Lord Jimmy had to take his gang of other Jimmies down to see Satan, and hope that, someone, Kelson plays along with his stories and lies so that he can maintain power and keep his cult active. Because if not… well, what have they all been doing out here in the wasteland this whole time?

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is an odd narrative diversion for the series, especially considering the other plotline going on in the movie. While Sir Lord Jimmy has his gang going around, slaughtering innocents, Kelson makes contact with the alpha in his territory, a hulking infected man he dubs “Samson” (Chi Lewis-Parry), and slowly (via the use of drugs) domesticates and befriends the infected man. It’s all done in the hopes that somehow he can cure Samson, and if he could do that maybe he could help cure the rest of society. So you have, on one side, a gang acting as a kind of plague, further tearing the world down and, on the other side, you have a doctor trying to spread good out into the world. The two halves work well together… but they feel very odd coming along in the 28 Days Later franchise.

The key thing that makes this so strange is that the infected in the film really aren’t the source of horror. We have Samson but he’s not the big bad. He’s not even really a villain at all. The villain is Jimmy, the Satan-worshipping, power-mad, cult leader, and all the action in the film comes from Jimmy and his gang. It’s really strange to watch a rage-poc film and realize that all the horror in the movie comes from those that aren’t touched by the rage virus. It’s like Boyle and Garland wanted to go out of their way to make this series about the infected into anything else. It’s bold, for sure, but I can’t imagine most fans were coming into this series expecting any of this.

With that said, I really liked this movie for what it was. It’s a solid exploration of the apocalypse, told through the eyes to its good and evil leads. Ralph Fiennes is fantastic as Kelson, imbuing his character with soulfulness and caring. Jack O’Connell, meanwhile, gives a very charismatic turn as Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal, taking his mad cult leader and making him into someone that you expect we’ll see over and over again through the decades to come (spoilers: no). Between these two halves we have the good and the bad, the devil and the angel, except the good ends up pretending to be Satan while the bad thinks he’s talking to god. That’s not exactly a subtle subtext on the place of religion in the apocalypse, but it does make for an interesting dichotomy.

Together, with their actions, and the couple of solid scenes of horror in this film, we get a really good exploration of the rage-pocalypse. It’s contemplative, but with a hard edge lying underneath. It’s both shocking and subdued, a strange combination that gives the film a slow, meandering pace as director Nia DaCosta (taking over the director’s chair for this film while Boyle produced) explores the threads of the story with an analytical eye. It’s not a fast-paced movie, but then this isn’t a fast-paced story, so the function suits the tone.

Honestly, I liked DaCoasta’s directing here. Her eye for cinematography is great, giving her film a lush, less gritty, feel. We can explore the rolling hills and feel the majesty of Kelson’s temple of bones, getting swept away by the beauty of it all… right before the Fingers show up and cause carnage to whatever they touch. DaCoasta has a great handle on the material, and she does fine work with this movie, bringing the back-to-back story to a conclusion in a fairly satisfying way.

But this isn’t the end of the story, as a late-film tease makes clear, and that does give me pause. It’s hard to recommend this film wholeheartedly when we aren’t sure when or if the story teased by the end of the movie will actually get told. Sony has supposedly green-lit the final film, but with it only in pre-production anything could happen. Movies have been cancelled for less, and with this second film not making as much money as Sony probably would have liked, it still feels like we’re walking on eggshells. Honestly, these two films done back-to-back could have easily ended on their own without a tease of a third movie and, long run, I think they would have been stronger for it. They fit together well and tell a full tale that really didn’t need continuing.

And that brings us back to the basic question of why, after two decades away, did Boyle and Garland feel the need to do a trilogy. It was a bold plan, for sure, but also one fraught with the danger of wearing audiences out, dying off before the full story could be told. A legacy sequel is already a dodgy thing in Hollywood’s current landscape, where audiences are worn out by constant sequels and franchise extensions. Coming back and making one film would have made sense. Making two and hoping for three feels like the whole team bit off a lot. So far they’ve been narratively successful, but audiences are already worn out and there’s a good chance that even if the third film does get a release it’s not going to be the massive success everyone involved wanted.

In other words, if you liked 28 Years Later I think you’re going to find plenty to love in 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple. Just go in knowing the story isn’t done, and might not ever get done. If you can accept that, you’ll likely leave this film fairly satisfied.