28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
The Temple of Bones Part 2: Where the Franchise Hits Rock Bottom
summarizeEditor's Summary
I went into The Temple of Bones Part 2 with high hopes, but it's a total letdown. The series rapidly strays from the vibe that made 28 Days Later great, and the atmosphere that once captivated me is all but gone. Spike's new plot is a mess, and the Satanic cult he's led into is straight out of a bad cosplay convention. The once-promising world has been replaced by a bunch of kooky characters and a convoluted storyline. The film's attempts at social commentary fall flat, and the pacing is slow and plodding, making it hard to stay engaged. The cinematography captures the post-apocalyptic world's desolation, but it's not enough to save the film. The visuals are occasionally stunning, like in the ruins of cities scene. Overall, The Temple of Bones Part 2 is a disappointing sequel that's lost its way.
settingsSpecifications
live_helpFeatured FAQ
Is The Temple of Bones Part 2 a worthy sequel to 28 Days Later?
Unfortunately, no. The series has taken a wrong turn and lost its way. The new storyline is convoluted and the atmosphere that once captivated me is gone.
What's the deal with the Satanic cult in The Temple of Bones Part 2?
The cult is a bunch of kooky cosplayers who respond to the name Jimmy. They're more like a bad joke than a believable threat.
Is Alfie Williams good in The Temple of Bones Part 2?
Yes, Alfie Williams shines as Spike, bringing a sense of energy to the role. He's one of the few bright spots in an otherwise disappointing film.
What's the problem with the world-building in The Temple of Bones Part 2?
The world-building is inconsistent and often nonsensical. The once-promising world has been replaced by a bunch of kooky characters and a convoluted storyline.
Is The Temple of Bones Part 2 worth watching?
No, it's not. The film's attempts at social commentary fall flat and the storyline is a jumbled mess. Unless you're a die-hard fan of the series, there's no reason to watch this.
What's the deal with the cinematography in The Temple of Bones Part 2?
The cinematography captures the post-apocalyptic world's desolation, but it's not enough to save the film. The visuals are occasionally stunning, like in the ruins of cities scene.
Is The Temple of Bones Part 2 a good example of post-apocalyptic storytelling?
No, it's not. The film's attempts at social commentary fall flat and the storyline is a jumbled mess. The once-promising world has been replaced by a bunch of kooky characters and a convoluted storyline.
What's the problem with the pacing in The Temple of Bones Part 2?
The pacing is slow and plodding, making it hard to stay engaged. The film's attempts at social commentary fall flat and the storyline is a jumbled mess.
Is The Temple of Bones Part 2 a good example of character development?
No, it's not. Spike's character development is non-existent, and the supporting cast is underutilized.
What's the deal with the Satanic cult's name?
The cult responds to the name Jimmy.
check_circlePros
- •Alfie Williams shines as Spike, bringing a sense of energy to the role
- •The production design is still top-notch, with some impressive sets
- •The cinematography captures the post-apocalyptic world's desolation
- •The score is haunting and fitting for the mood
- •Some of the supporting cast, like Jack O'Connell, deliver solid performances
- •The film's visuals are occasionally stunning, like in the ruins of cities scene
- •The film still has some great visuals
- •The production design is still impressive
cancelCons
- •The storyline is a jumbled mess, with too many plot threads
- •The Satanic cult is more like a bad joke than a believable threat
- •Spike's character development is non-existent
- •The pacing is slow and plodding, making it hard to stay engaged
- •The film's attempts at social commentary fall flat
- •The world-building is inconsistent and often nonsensical
- •The film's plot is convoluted
- •The supporting cast is underutilized
