Unfortunately, the film did not receive the audience turnout it deserved, with DaCosta’s latest directorial effort (following successes like “Little Woods” and “Hedda”) opening to a mere $12.52 million at the box office. This disappointing figure is about 60% less than the $30 million debut of “28 Years Later” just seven months prior. Released in January, it even lagged behind titles like “The Bye Bye Man” in the horror genre. This begs the question: what led to such an underwhelming performance? A variety of factors, including its release timing, the film’s dark tone, and the general struggle of zombie films at the box office, all contributed to this outcome.

The artistic triumphs of “The Bone Temple” are undeniable, yet the financial realities of launching films with serious themes in 2026 cannot be overlooked. Zombies have become a staple of popular culture, captivating audiences across age groups through TV shows and horror films alike. Despite this fascination, zombie movies often face challenges at the box office, with few surpassing significant financial milestones like $75 million domestically. The gritty nature of zombies, which typically demands an R-rating, might deter a broader audience from theaters, unlike the more sanitized PG-13 approach of “World War Z,” which remains a rare commercial success.

“28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” seemed to encounter these issues during its theatrical run. Although the franchise refers to its creatures as “the infected,” the zombie element is undeniable, potentially restricting its financial potential. With numerous zombie-themed projects saturating the market, some viewers may have perceived little distinction in this film, opting instead for the plethora of “Walking Dead” spin-offs available.

Zombies are everywhere in our culture. From kid-skewing TV shows to horror films, the undead fascinate audiences of all ages. Despite that reality, the box office numbers for zombie movies are surprisingly rough. Few of these titles have ever cracked $100 million or even $75 million domestically. Perhaps these gnarly creatures (that require an R-rating to be properly realized) are just too unsavory and nasty to attract hordes of theatrical moviegoers. That would explain why the sanitized PG-13 “World War Z” zombies are the biggest exception to this trend.

That’s a problem “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” apparently ran into in its theatrical existence. Though the in-universe characters and the franchise’s key creative members call them “the infected,” there’s no getting around that these movies focus on zombies. Given how often zombie films falter at the box office, that reality may have innately limited the financial possibilities of “The Bone Temple.” Plus, some prospective audiences may have seen commercials for this title and seen little to differentiate it from the deluge of other zombie projects out there. With so many “Walking Dead” spin-offs out there, why go to the theater for a “Bone Temple” visit?

There’s no stopping the dominance zombies hold over the broader culture’s imagination. “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” reaffirmed, though, that the undead aren’t box office powerhouses, even with the aid of a familiar brand name.

In 2003, “The Matrix Reloaded” launched to massive box office numbers. People had been waiting four years for more “Matrix” stories and that prolonged wait meant there was a box office explosion when “Reloaded” landed. The only problem, though, was that it diluted the specialness of “The Matrix Revolutions,” which opened just six months after “Reloaded.” This third “Matrix” installment came off like a rehash of something audiences had just seen rather than a long-anticipated sequel. Thus, its domestic box office haul was less than half of what “Reloaded” made.

The lesson here was clear: Room to breathe between sequels is crucial. Only the biggest “Avengers” and “Lord of the Rings” adventures can get away with cranking out new titles annually. It now looks clear “The Bone Temple” got hurt by this same phenomenon. “28 Years Later” in June 2025 was the first entry in the “28 Days Later” saga in 18 years. There was novelty in seeing this brand name on the big screen once more. Just seven months later, though, “The Bone Temple” arrived and couldn’t quite feel like a unique must-see event. 

Instead, audiences might’ve been more confused why this brand name was back so quickly, while so many characters and settings being repurposed across both films didn’t help “The Bone Temple” stand out. Pushing too many “28 Years Later” movies into theaters in just seven months delivered an outcome very familiar to “Matrix” fans everywhere.

January’s often been a great place to launch new horror films, as seen by the enormous success of “The Devil Inside,” “Escape Room,” and “Insidious: The Last Key.” That track record undoubtedly gave Sony/Columbia Pictures some confidence in dropping “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” during this historical dead zone at the cinemas. However, other major studios were also keen on getting their horror properties launched in 2026’s first month. Just one week before “The Bone Temple,” Paramount Pictures had “Primate” delivering gnarly monkey business that had audiences screaming. In January 2026’s final two weeks, meanwhile, “Return to Silent Hill” and “Send Help” were also courting horror aficionados.

With this month crammed full of new entries in this genre, not all of them could become a smash hit. “The Bone Temple,” despite belonging to a known brand name, undoubtedly got hurt by so many January 2026 horror films targeting similar audiences. There wasn’t something inherently special about a frightening film opening in this release corridor with “Primate” already in the marketplace. To boot, original projects like “Primate” likely seemed more accessible to casual horror fans than “The Bone Temple,” which followed up on mythology from three different features.

Granted, “The Bone Temple” had enough factors working against it that it’s not like the mere presence of “Primate” chimpanzee Ben took this sequel down financially. Still, having to compete in such a crowded horror cinema landscape did this beleaguered project no extra favors.

A remarkable “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” element is how writer Alex Garland and director Nia DaCosta fully commit to a bleak vision of a post-apocalyptic Britain. With lead character Spike now fully detached from the island home he grew up on, he’s now entrenched in the brutality Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal dishes out to strangers and allies alike. The result is a movie that unflinchingly portrays how a lust for violence-soaked power drives so many tormented people’s psyches. The blood-soaked dehumanization of other souls plaguing the modern world frightfully endures into a zombie-ridden hellscape. 

That weighty idea (intertwined with the larger exploration of Britain’s complicated legacy in the “28 Years Later” films) makes for compelling cinema. It doesn’t, though, make for an easily marketable movie, nor one that screams “big screen escapism” for general audiences. Many successful January horror movies, like “M3gan” or “Escape Room,” involve cartoonishly unrealistic foes or environments. Audiences still jump at their frights, but their immense removal from reality makes them digestible. “The Bone Temple,” meanwhile, implores audiences to recognize how its story mirrors real-world atrocities.

Given all the bleak headlines filling up the news every day in 2026, such reminders of grim reality may not be what people want to see in theaters right now. A more escapist fright-fest like “Primate” might seem more appealing. “The Bone Temple’s” bold narrative impulses ended up dooming it in the 2026 box office landscape.

Sometimes, the process of producing “surefire” sequels can be a messy one. For instance, one massive flop can ensure a major movie franchise never recovers. But what about the sagas that were never really franchises to begin with? That’s the problem “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” and the wider “28 Days Later” franchise have struggled with. Every “28 Days Later” movie has its share of fans, but none of them have become explosive, record-shattering hits at the box office. Even back in 2007, when the original “28 Days Later” was still fresh in people’s minds, “28 Weeks Later” couldn’t reach $30+ million domestically.

“28 Years Later,” meanwhile, despite decades of anticipation, topped out at $70.44 million in North America. These aren’t inherently bad grosses, but they also don’t suggest a brand name people show up for in droves every time it hits their local multiplex. Unlike the “Saw” or “Halloween” films, general moviegoers haven’t embraced “28 Days Later” as a horror brand that can sustain endless follow-ups. That left “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” in a major bind. Its familiar title, once meant to help it stand out in the marketplace, just tied it to a world that’s never broke out into the mainstream.

In this regard, “The Bone Temple’s” box office failings are also the failings of “28 Weeks Later.” A big “28 Days Later” sequel wasn’t a smash in 2007. Why would it be lucrative in 2026?

As the most profitable horror movie of all time can attest, the horror genre is known for producing cheap titles generating immense profits. The likes of “The Blair Witch Project” or “Paranormal Activity” were made for under $1 million, yet ended up making $100+ million in North America alone. For these kinds of films, a grand scope or costly famous actors aren’t required to draw in audiences. You just need a good hook and some memorable scares, which can be procured even if you have only nickels in your pocket. In contrast, “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” hit theaters with a hefty budget that allegedly reached $63 million. “28 Days Later” now qualifies as one of those low-budget movies that got massive budgets for their sequels.

For comparison’s sake, “Bone Temple” had three times the budget of “Primate.” It’s somewhat understandable “Bone Temple” would cost that much, given its sprawling practical sets, hordes of undead figures, and use of actors like Ralph Fiennes. Unfortunately, that also made profitability a tremendous hurdle right from the start. To break even theatrically, “Bone Temple” would’ve needed to hit $160+ million worldwide, a figure only two R-rated horror movies (“Us” and “It: Chapter Two”) reached in 2019. 

In other words, this would’ve had to defy all the box office odds to turn a profit. From the very beginning, “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple’s” stubbornly ignored the reality that horror thrives at the box office when kept cheap.

Excluding anime releases like new “Demon Slayer” and “Chainsaw Man” movies, Sony released only four new theatrical films across its Columbia, TriStar, and Screen Gems pictures labels in the final four months of 2025. That’s a meager slate of titles, a problem only compounded by how badly features like “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” and “Soul on Fire” did at the box office. For comparison’s sake, the much smaller studio A24 had four new theatrical releases across just 2025’s final three months, including solid performer “Eternity” and breakout hit “Marty Supreme.” The lackluster size of Sony’s late 2025 film slate provided many problems for movie theaters and moviegoers alike, but it also hindered the January 2026 Columbia Pictures release “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple.”

Without a deluge of new late 2025 Sony movies that could house previews for “The Bone Temple,” a significant marketing opportunity for this film was lost. Compare this to the 2025 Warner Bros. film slate, where a steady stream of new releases (“Sinners,” “F1,” “Superman,” “Weapons,” etc.) could drop trailers for the next imminent Warner Bros. release, including original films that needed an extra marketing push. That positive symbiotic relationship between features couldn’t happen with Sony’s sparse 2025 line-up.

With Sony phoning in its late 2025 cinematic exploits, that lethargy seeped over into its first 2026 title. A rising tide of multiple, lucrative 2025 Sony films could’ve lifted “The Bone Temple” a bit at the box office.

In 2025, Gen Z moviegoers became the most reliable demographic for theatrical moviegoing. They’re the ones who love going to see things on the silver screen and getting a breather from the deluge of technology consuming everyday lives. Unfortunately, Hollywood’s default tendency to embrace nostalgia aimed at older audiences has kept the American box office from constantly exploiting this demographic. That problem was once again apparent with “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple,” which skewed far above college-aged audiences in its domestic opening weekend.

A whopping 75% of the initial audience for “The Bone Temple” was over the age of 25, with the film apparently attracting more older viewers than the first “28 Years Later.” Compare that to when “The Conjuring: Last Rites” blew everyone away at the box office by heavily leaning on younger moviegoers. The biggest problem with “The Bone Temple’s” reliance on older viewers, though, was that it signaled this franchise isn’t growing beyond folks who saw the original “28 Days Later” in theaters in the early 2000s. Right now, there’s a limited audience for this brand name, which doesn’t provide much hope for its long-term existence.

Wherever the “28 Years Later” saga goes next, it’s clear younger moviegoers won’t be a major part of the equation. After all, they didn’t show up for “The Bone Temple.” In this day and age, making a movie that doesn’t resonate with younger audiences is more dangerous than romping with a zombie.

Nobody in their right mind would ever say that Ralph Fiennes isn’t a great actor. He’s been constantly cranking out amazing performances for decades across a variety of genres. However, a movie star who can automatically get people into a theater, he is not. In his career, Fiennes has only appeared in one live-action movie (“Clash of the Titans”) that didn’t belong to the Harry Potter or James Bond franchises that cracked $150+ million domestically. He’s a sturdy ensemble player who can lend an extra air of prestige to films, but not quite a headliner.

He certainly isn’t a bankable movie star in the 2020s, when he was called upon to be the central focus of the “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” marketing campaign. With “28 Years Later” actors Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Jodie Comer sitting this installment out, Fiennes was the only major name in this project beyond Jack O’Connell. This fact meant there wasn’t a massively lucrative star plastered on the “Bone Temple” posters that could’ve helped bolster the movie’s box office.

Of course, Fiennes is outstanding as Dr. Kelson in both “28 Years Later” movies and he truly comes alive in the music-driven “Bone Temple” finale. However, he wasn’t a big enough draw to save “The Bone Temple” from a grisly financial fate.

In the final weeks of the “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” marketing, some very specific and limiting promotional materials began to appear on TV and the web. These were commercials that relied on imagery and footage from “28 Days Later” and “28 Weeks Later,” while emphasizing that the whole saga had been leading to this installment that “changes everything.” On paper,  it’s easy to see why Sony/Columbia Pictures would’ve seen this approach as helping make “Bone Temple” a theatrical event. Tying it directly into its predecessors and reinforcing the narrative significance of this project could’ve helped separate it from 2025’s “28 Years Later.”

In execution, though, this approach just didn’t work. For one thing, devoting precious time in commercials to images of Cillian Murphy from “28 Days Later” didn’t offer audiences a glimpse at new “Bone Temple” footage that sold why this fresh installment would be worth watching. To boot, these ads also made “Bone Temple” look like it was solely for “28 Days Later” fanatics. Unless you have a pre-existing fanbase as big as the “Five Nights at Freddy’s” following, a hit franchise title has to appeal to newcomers, not just the already converted.

Leaning so hard on the past didn’t make “Bone Temple” look super accessible. Even the promise of a franchise shake-up with an ending that “changes everything” reaffirmed this problem. With marketing materials that only suggested a certain crowd would enjoy this title, “The Bone Temple’s” box office suffered.