The trouble with “The Bone Temple”

The sequel to “28 Years Later” is frustrating and disappointing in equal measure.

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple (Sony Pictures)

WARNING: This article contains plot spoilers

The worst kinds of critics are those who lack humility. Of course, a degree of dogmatism is built into all reviews. It would be absurd for a critic to remind the reader continually that this was ‘just one opinion’ and that others will no doubt take a different view. Even so, the tone of utter infallibility can be grating.

I say all this because this week I saw The Bone Temple, the sequel to 28 Years Later and the latest in Alex Garland’s horror franchise. My expectations were high. I’m a fan of the series – I consider 28 Years Later to be the high point, in spite of its heavy-handed political messaging – but when it came to The Bone Temple I emerged from the cinema feeling that virtually none of it had worked. Given the unanimously glowing reviews, I am clearly in the minority. So in accordance with that principle of humility, I’ll preface this by pointing out that I may well have got this one wrong.

Let’s get the caveats out of the way. All of the ingredients are there: the performances, direction, cinematography, music – it’s all superb. I also like the idea of reducing the ‘zombie’ element of the movie and making the human characters more threatening than the infected. But the fundamental narrative choices are so misjudged that not even the glossiest surface can conceal them.

For me, the problem lies with the film’s antagonists. When I reviewed 28 Years Later back in July, I expressed my dismay at the film’s ending which saw the ‘Jimmys’ – a gang of back-flipping Satanists dressed as Jimmy Savile, complete with tracksuits and jewellery – rescuing our hero Spike from the incoming hordes of the infected through an improbable fight sequence. I said that while I was in favour of bold and surprising artistic choices, this one didn’t land.

The problem was not simply the sudden shift in tone, but the abandonment of verisimilitude. Nobody expects a film to recreate reality; we simply ask that it honours its own internal logic. To shift the entire genre of the film in the final two minutes – introducing characters who are able to fight and move as only comic superheroes can – leaves the audience feeling cheated.

Having invested so much in the poignant story of Spike and his mother, this addition of what amounted to an absurdist sketch at the final moment seemed self-defeating. In my review I compared the effect to what might have happened had the makers of The Shawshank Redemption decided to end with Andy Dufresne magically transforming into a balloon and floating away from the prison to freedom. Bold? Certainly. A good choice? Definitely not.

And so I had hoped that the sequel to the otherwise fantastic 28 Years Later might find a way to rectify this self-imposed problem. It began promisingly; for the purposes of The Bone Temple the Jimmys can no longer perfect superhuman feats of martial arts. They are just very accomplished streetfighters, which at least means that the laws of gravity have been restored. Even with this concession to reality, the Jimmys seem to belong in a different film. We never really believe in them, and so we quickly lose interest.

Had The Bone Temple been an unapologetic farce that completely subverted the genre of its predecessor, it might have worked. When Sam Raimi made Evil Dead 2, it was as a gleefully preposterous slapstick remake of the original. While the first was gruesome and unpleasant, this sequel was laugh-out-loud funny. In some respects, it was a satirical comment on its predecessor. It seemed to say: ‘You enjoyed Evil Dead? Why on earth would you take a film about zombies seriously?’ The audacity was refreshing.

But The Bone Temple expects us to buy into the same world that was crafted in 28 Years Later and at the same time jettison its rules. It wants the ultraviolence of the Jimmys to be demonic and menacing, but the savagery of their torture scenes is closer in tone to something from the Hostel franchise. That is to say, it is gory without being scary. It cannot decide whether it wants to be a horror film, or a film that sends up the horror genre. And the audience is left unmoored between these two destinations.

One moment it seems to be taking itself very seriously, and the next it veers into territory that is, frankly, very silly indeed. We should be pleased that the leader of the Jimmys – played wonderfully by Jack O’Connell – gets his comeuppance by being crucified upside down. But how did Kellie manage to haul him up onto the cross and nail him into place with only a weak boy to assist her? It’s never explained or shown on screen because it’s physically impossible. Again, the filmmakers have decided that verisimilitude simply doesn’t matter.

At the same time, the film asks us to invest emotionally in the strange relationship between Dr Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) and Samson (Chi Lewis-Parry), an infected ‘alpha’ who has been sedated with drugs. There are moments of humour here – Kelson dancing with this brawny giant to the strains of Duran Duran is a neat ploy – and both actors are tremendous. And yet nothing about this plotline comes close to the emotional impact of the last film. All in all, it left me cold.

I am instinctively wary when a creative work receives unanimous critical praise. When everyone agrees, it often suggests that fashion rather than quality has become the deciding factor. On the other hand, perhaps I am missing something about The Bone Temple and am woefully blind to its brilliance. If anyone can enlighten me, I remain open to persuasion.

---