We take a look at how critics have been reacting to the latest in the film series…
The Guardian: “This is an exciting, forthright, energised – though very gruesome – film in which there is real human jeopardy and conflict. Non-zombies are more cinematic.”
Roger Ebert.com: “And while Garland’s themes might arrive with the subtlety of neon in the fog, often through overt dialogue about the film’s religious themes, DaCosta works these pieces into a smooth, nihilistic message that wonders aloud why any God, if they exist, would forsake this world and turn it into a hellscape. (Though one could argue it’s saying that we’re already living in an era where we’re perpetually forced to choose the lesser of two evils in the hopes of surviving to the next day).”
Den of Geek: “The sequences with Fiennes are, in short, deeply compelling and the reason to see the movie. It’s when the film flips back to Jimmy and the boys that the picture runs into trouble.”
Time Out: “This is simultaneously the nastiest and most soulful of the franchise to date – and the most probing.”
IGN.com: “It’s such a wild and unexpected place to take the franchise, and fascinating to watch creators like DaCosta, Garland and Boyle (who with Garland serves as a producer on this installment) pull on interesting threads. There’s a scary amount of freedom sitting down to a blank page with these movies. Anything could’ve happened in 28 years in this world, but they’ve used such a light touch, and at every juncture made very well-reasoned, logical choices.”
Rolling Stone: “this is a film that takes an audacious swing for the fences and comes out as one of the most brilliantly unsettling things you’re likely to see all year. Between Alex Garland’s contemplative script and Nia DaCosta’s constant establishment of pressure-cooker dread, we’re faced with a film where the infected take something of a back seat and are instead afforded a look at the reality of what’s happened to those left behind. The result is something magnificent.”
Empire Online: “Without the need to re-establish the world, Alex Garland’s script is leaner and more playful. There are more opportunities for asides than in Boyle’s film, which had to carry a much greater weight of plot and world-building.”
NME: “With a uniformly impressive cast, spectacular scenes of carnage and the unshakeable feeling that anything could happen, this zombie franchise is as thrilling as it’s ever been. It’s well worth taking a trip to The Bone Temple.”
Variety: “Compared with the earlier films in the series, including the more straightforward outlier “28 Weeks Later,” DaCosta’s contribution feels the most polished. That doesn’t necessarily make it better than Boyle’s films, robbing the experience of some of its renegade energy, as cinematographer Sean Bobbitt breaks from the jagged experimental techniques Anthony Dod Mantle introduced in the previous entry. Where things felt gritty and immersive last time around — the ravenous handheld footage intercut with arcane eye-of-God imagery — everything is confidently if self-consciously being staged for our benefit here.”
The Hollywood Reporter: “Despite its unevenness, The Bone Temple delivers enough carnage and ritual sacrifice to satiate the horror flock. But most of its richest pleasures come down to Fiennes going balls to the wall with a truly memorable character — half lunatic and half visionary. He elevates the movie whenever he’s onscreen.”
The Standard: “On further consideration, taking the same cast and sets and placing them in the hands of another director is a fascinating artistic exercise. DaCosta’s style is completely distinct from Boyle’s, she has very different ideas to explore and fresh perspective as an American looking in to Britain. Yes, it takes the audience in one big circle, but the wiring of the circuitry is brand new.”
The film is out in cinemas now.