Latest news with #JimmySavile
Russia Today
2 days ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
How the Epstein saga exposed a system built on silence
In an age where every celebrity meltdown or presidential tantrum is livestreamed, where partisan jabs flood timelines within seconds, and where outrage is algorithmically amplified to viral proportions, one might assume that the most heinous crimes – especially those committed against the most vulnerable – would dominate media discourse. Yet the opposite is true. Global child trafficking, particularly when it implicates oligarchs, elite institutions, humanitarian organizations, and religious authorities, remains one of the most underreported, diluted, and actively suppressed issues across both mainstream and alternative media ecosystems. The selective silence is not accidental as it is designed to shield power from scrutiny while feigning moral concern. Take the decades-long cover-up of Jimmy Savile's crimes in Britain. For years, the BBC and the broader British establishment, including members of the royal family, ignored, enabled, or even protected a prolific predator in their midst. Keir Starmer, now prime minister, has faced longstanding accusations that he obstructed investigations into Savile's network during his tenure as head of the Crown Prosecution Service. Instead of truth and accountability, Britain witnessed institutional inertia and elite protectionism. Across the Atlantic, things are no better. US President Donald Trump – whose populist rise partly hinged on 'draining the swamp' and exposing elite pedophile rings – recently declared that there is 'nothing to see' in the Jeffrey Epstein files. He even dismissed ongoing public concern about the case as 'stupid.' This abrupt reversal betrayed many who viewed Epstein's exposure as a gateway to unraveling deeper systemic rot. Except for hardcore MAGA grifters and the 'compromised cohort', nobody bought Trump's deflections this time around. MIT scholar and activist Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai recently issued a single, scathing tweet – linked here – sharing FBI and DOJ files which contradicted Trump's words. These were not conspiracy breadcrumbs but official documents, offering a damning appetizer for anyone willing to dig deeper. But legacy media will ignore it, and alternative influencers will likely pivot to more 'monetizable' culture-war topics. Curiously, the Democratic Party – always eager to weaponize Trump's prevarications – remained suspiciously muted on the subject. The reason is not hard to fathom. America's political establishment functions as a duopoly. Republican or Democrat, both parties have skeletons in the same basement. When it comes to institutional crimes against children, mutual silence becomes a form of mutual protection. At one point, the hashtag #PedoPete – referring to then-President Joe Biden – trended briefly on Twitter. Today, the trend has flipped: #PedoTrump now circulates with greater, more sustained intensity. These hashtags may sound juvenile, but they reflect the fact that both sides of the political divide are equally compromised. When elite crimes threaten to break through media filters, the duopoly instinctively closes ranks. This is not just a media failure. It is a civilizational failure. The refusal to investigate, question, or even discuss the abuse of children by people in power suggests that, despite all our technological progress, we remain governed by the same feudal reflexes which protect the nobility, silence the peasants, and punish the whistleblowers. That so few journalists, influencers, or institutions dare to speak plainly about this issue is not due to lack of evidence. It is due to a lack of will. The media's silence is not benign; rather, it is complicity by omission. And increasingly, even independent platforms mirror the same herd behavior: Mainstream mimics mainstream; conspiracy mimics conspiracy. Viral outrage loops endlessly, but the hard questions go unasked. In an attention economy driven by clicks and tribal confirmation, there's little incentive to tackle issues that require long attention spans, moral courage, or cross-partisan inquiry. And so, the real stories – the ones involving systemic abuse, elite immunity, and generational trauma – remain locked in the basement of our public consciousness. The question is no longer whether the truth is out there. It is whether we are still capable of seeking it. According to the International Labor Organization, nearly 1.7 million children are victims of commercial sexual exploitation worldwide. (I believe this number to be grossly underreported). The figure does not include forced labor, child marriages, and trafficking under the guise of 'adoption' or 'rescue'. These crimes often occur in the shadows, but the silence surrounding them is deafening, especially considering the alleged involvement of trusted institutions like the UN, NGOs, and faith-based charities. In 2017, leaked internal UN reports and whistleblower testimonies revealed a disturbing pattern of sexual abuse and exploitation by peacekeepers in several African countries, notably the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Victims were children – orphaned, impoverished, and completely powerless. These revelations barely made headlines beyond a few days of fleeting, dissembled horror. There was no sustained investigation, no sweeping reckoning. The UN promised reforms, but follow-up reporting was minimal. And today, those same peacekeeping structures continue to operate with minimal public scrutiny. What happened to the Syrian children who disappeared during the years the West, Israel, Türkiye, and Global Jihad Inc. waged war on Bashar Assad? There were disturbing allegations that US intelligence had recruited children as suicide bombers for its jihadist proxies, some of whom were also accused of harvesting the organs of over 18,000 minors. So is it any wonder that Trump – who once vowed to defeat 'radical Islamic terror' – personally lavished praise on Syria's new president and jihadist war criminal extraordinaire Ahmed al-Sharaa? There is perhaps no greater moral shield for crimes against children than the Trojan Horse of charity. Some of the most egregious trafficking networks operate under the halo of humanitarian work. In Haiti, multiple investigations have revealed how certain orphanages and foreign-run NGOs were fronts for abuse and trafficking. In India and Nepal, similar patterns emerged: Western 'voluntourists' and missionaries gain access to vulnerable children under the pretext of aid, only to become conduits for exploitation. Mother Teresa's charity organization itself was linked to child trafficking networks spanning India to Haiti. Stories like these are often relegated to obscure human rights blogs or independent journalists with limited reach. Beholden to the same donor networks and oligarchic interests, the mainstream press simply looks away. While the AI boom dominates headlines in terms of productivity and existential risk, almost no major outlet has dared to delve into how generative AI tools are being used to create photorealistic child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The dark web is rife with communities exchanging AI-generated images, bypassing existing legal frameworks which often only address real photographic evidence. This raises disturbing questions: What constitutes child abuse imagery in the age of AI? How will law enforcement adapt? And why is no one talking about it? The tech platforms developing these tools are often mum about their misuse. Regulatory agencies are slow, and public debate is nearly non-existent. The media, meanwhile, prefers to debate AI replacing screenwriters rather than protecting children. In fact, AI parodies of Israel's genocidal war on Gaza are more likely to get censored than child sexual abuse material. The Epstein case should have shattered any illusions about elite immunity. A convicted sex offender with connections to presidents, royalty, and top scientists managed to operate a trafficking network for years – even after his initial conviction. His mysterious 'death in custody' convinced no one with two functioning brain cells. His co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted. Yet not a single client has been named in court. Rather than igniting systemic media scrutiny into elite involvement in trafficking, the Epstein saga has been conveniently bracketed as an anomaly or relegated to conspiracy land. But it was never just about Epstein. Similar scandals have emerged in the UK (the VIP child abuse ring), in Hollywood (Dan Schneider and Nickelodeon), and within religious institutions across continents. While the media has been reduced to a recycled echo chamber, the lesson bears repeating: The elite criminal class continues to get away with crimes against children with impunity. The hashtag #ArrestObama is trending before another sensationalist deflection takes over. What next? A few carefully scripted jabs at Benjamin Netanyahu to regain credibility with disillusioned MAGA voters? The decentralization of news via social media was expected to fill in vital gaps in mainstream reports. To some extent, it has. Survivors, whistleblowers, and independent researchers have found platforms to speak out. Hashtags like #SaveTheChildren briefly trended. But these moments are fleeting. The attention span of social media is short, and the billionaire owners of these platforms are inextricably linked to various elite pedophile networks. A 2024 meta-analysis by the University of Edinburgh estimated 302 million children (1 in 8 globally) experienced online sexual abuse annually, with platforms like Facebook serving as vectors for exploitation. Earlier, in 2020, Facebook accounted for around 20 million child sexual abuse material reports, constituting nearly 95% of all incidents submitted through its systems. By comparison, Google logged 500,000, Snapchat 150,000, and Twitter just 65,000. Serious discussions are also often hijacked by fringe accounts, QAnon-style disinformation, or bad-faith actors. As a result, the issue itself becomes tainted via guilt by association. Even legitimate stories and investigations are dismissed because they were shared by someone with suspect affiliations. This is a classic tactic perfected by the likes of the CIA and Mossad. The cost of media complicity in the face of global child trafficking is not just journalistic failure; it is moral collapse. The ongoing crimes against children is a human story of betrayal, of complicity, and of the innocent lives that are shattered while the world scrolls on.
Yahoo
26-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
28 Years Later Viewers Are Still In Shock From That Teletubbies Callback In The Wild Final Scene
This article contains major spoilers for 28 Years Later. 28 Years Later viewers are still reeling from that shocking ending. Much has already been made of the fact that, in the film's final moments, teen protagonist Spike stumbles upon a renegade cult gang who appear to have modelled their appearance on the disgraced TV presenter Jimmy Savile, complete with colourful shellsuits and platinum blond wigs. It's worth pointing out that 28 Years Later is set in an alternate world in which the deadly 'rage virus' begins to spread in 2002, completely disrupting society, meaning it's entirely likely that in the timeline seen on screen, the allegations about Savile were never actually made public. However, there's another wild part of the ending that has also stayed with fans. Before we get into that, though, let's quickly flash back to the very beginning of the film. The first scene of 28 Years Later features a group of youngsters who are huddled together to watch a vintage episode of Teletubbies, before all hell breaks loose, and a member of the 'infected' wreaks havoc on the youngsters (the Teletubbies scene was first teased in a 28 Years Later trailer released earlier this year). We learn at the end of the film that cult leader Sir Jimmy Crystal – played by Jack O'Connell – was one of the survivors of this attack, with some also questioning whether or not those colourful tracksuits were also a nod to the Teletubbies, as well as another group of 90s and 2000s kids' TV icons, the Power Rangers. But that's not the only callback to the Teletubbies, though, with the gang's unpredictable fight scene being accompanied by a rock cover of the show's iconic theme tune (which famously topped the UK singles chart back in 1997 with a bit of help from Simon Cowell). Just got back from 28 Years LaterWhat an unsettling and depressing story the is full circled with the god damn Teletubbies…..great film! — Rion (@Rion_A_Lion) June 21, 2025 28 Years Later… standard depressing post apocalyptic zombie horror until the ending which is abrupt and involves screamo teletubbies theme 🧍♀️ huh. — girl_dm_ 🔪 villainess (definitely evil) (@Girl_Dm_) June 25, 2025 . #28YearsLater was a bloody good time! The music, cinematography and Jack O'Connell's character killing to the metal version of the Teletubbies theme. — Alex (@AlexMitchiex13) June 20, 2025 I am being dead serious when I say that 28 Years Later ends with a fucking Ninja Turtles parody, with the Teletubbies theme playing quickly turning into a rock song. I am saying this completely unironically. — Louis (@Moviefandumb345) June 20, 2025 Anyone know where I can listen to that Teletubbies metal song from the end of 28 Years Later? I want to listen to it again. #teletubbies#28yearslater — Alex-Mae (Rattfink's #1 Fan And Wife) (@Dementcia1) June 21, 2025 28 years later goes from horror, to intense thriller, to Erik, to timeless masterpiece and ends with satanic teletubbies — Tango (@TangoThr3) June 19, 2025 seeing surprisingly little online about the Jimmy Saville/Teletubbies kung fu death cult at the end of 28 Years Laterreally thought that would turn more heads — John (@ju4nathan) June 22, 2025 Still Thinking About # — Cinema Tweets (@CinemaTweets1) June 20, 2025 28 Years Later director Danny Boyle has already teased that the gang Spike encounters at the end of the film will form a major part of the film's sequel, which is due for release early next year. He claimed: 'The role of Jack O'Connell's character and his family, which is a replacement, really, for the family he loses at the beginning of the film, is to reintroduce evil into what has become a compassionate environment. 'I asked Alex [Garland, who wrote both films] right at the beginning to just tell me what's the nature of each of the films, and he said that the nature of the first film is about family. The second film is about the nature of evil. And you're about to meet a lot more of them when it'll be more appropriate to talk about them in the second film.' The Trainspotting director previously said that he hopes 28 Years Later and its sequel, subtitled The Bone Temple, will form the first two instalments of a new trilogy, the third of which is not yet greenlit. 28 Years Later 'Alpha' Chi Lewis-Parry Answers Everyone's 1 Big Question About The Film 28 Years Later Director Danny Boyle Reveals Meaning Behind That Truly Wild Twist Ending 28 Years Later Was Actually Filmed Using iPhones – Danny Boyle Explains Why
Gizmodo
23-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Gizmodo
'28 Years Later' Filmmakers Break Down That Controversial Surprise Ending
The ending of 28 Years Later flips the entire movie on its head. After almost two hours of dread and pain, the film ends on a high-energy, seemingly out-of-left-field action sequence that leaves almost every audience member scratching their head. What the hell was that? What is the point? Well, clearly, you can interpret it however you'd like, but director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland do have some thoughts on the the film, the main character Spike leaves his protected home to fend for himself on the mainland. Quickly, he's almost run over by zombies, only to be saved by a group of jumpsuit-wearing killers led by Jimmy, the grown-up kid from the opening of the movie, played by Jack O'Connell. Jimmy, as you may remember, is a character we first meet watching TV shows like Teletubbies in the early 2000s when the Rage Virus took over the UK. He watched his family die and has had to survive on his own ever since. The timing there is crucial because 28 Years Later Jimmy is a purposeful reference to Jimmy Savile, one of the most notorious pedophiles in British history. Savile was a super popular media personality for decades, working with children on the make-a-wish-esque series Jim'll Fix It. But then, after his death in 2011, it was revealed that he was a horrific sex offender, assaulting hundreds of minors and adults over the course of his career. In the world of 28 Years Later, though, that public revelation never would have happened—28 Years' opening is set in 2002, Savile's crimes were public exposed in 2012—and so the film is commenting on history and perception in a very specific, very British way. 'He's as much to do with pop culture as he is to do with sportswear, to do with cricket, to do with the honors system,' Boyle told Business Insider. 'It's all kind of twisting in this partial remembrance, clinging onto things and then recreating them as an image for followers.' 'He's a kaleidoscope, isn't he, in a funny way,' Garland added. 'A sort of trippy, fucked up kaleidoscope.' So, in the movie, Jimmy of the film is presented as someone who was a fan of Savile, based his entire look on the person, but never learned the truth about him. Which is exactly the twisted point. 'The whole film, and if we ever get to make it, the whole trilogy, is in some ways about looking back and looking forwards,' Garland said. 'And the relationship between looking forward to better worlds or attempting to make better worlds, or trying to construct the world that you're in on the basis of old worlds, so there's sort of contrast or conflict between the two. And the thing about looking back is how selective memory is and that it cherry picks and it has amnesia, and crucially it also misremembers—and we are living in a time right now which is absolutely dominated by a misremembered past. And so it's that.' And so, history in this universe misremembered Jimmy Savile, which sets the stage for what's to come. '[The ending] is about reintroducing evil into what has been a compassionate environment,' Boyle explained to the Independent. 'I asked Alex right at the beginning [of the writing process] to tell me the nature of each of the films. He said that the first film is about the nature of family. The second film is about the nature of evil.' Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what's next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.
Telegraph
23-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
28 Years Later's incendiary Jimmy Savile twist: All your questions, answered
Contains spoilers for 28 Years Later Now then, now then. When I attended a press screening for 28 Years Later the week before release, a note sent with the tickets asked us not to spoil the ending in our reviews. This is a common ploy by publicists seeking to build buzz and intrigue, and often the result is disappointing. (Think a Marvel character you've never heard of appearing for 15 seconds.) However, when Danny Boyle and Alex Garland's excellent zombie epic ends with the introduction of Jack O'Connell's character Sir Jimmy Crystal and his band of murderous desperadoes, all of whom are dressed in colour-coded outfits that come over as a cross between the Power Rangers and the infamous Jimmy Savile, to the accompaniment of the Teletubbies ' 'One, two, three, four!' on the soundtrack, it is a jaw-droppingly provocative and incendiary ending. For once, it really did need to be left for audiences to discover it for themselves, rather than having it spoilt by critics. The film makes great play of (specifically British) audiences' knowledge of the chilling spectacle of Savile, a DJ, presenter of the wish-fulfilment show Jim'll Fix It and, we now know, notorious rapist, paedophile and suspected necrophile. He has become rightly despised as one of the most evil men that Britain has ever seen since his death in 2011. Even during his lifetime, and fame, there was clearly something not right about him. Savile would make black humoured jokes about how he had only evaded detection for his many crimes because of his charity work – jokes that no longer seem very funny – and took an almost perverse pride in how his closeness to the establishment allowed him to groom and assault his victims with impunity. Overseas audiences will inevitably know less about him, and so should probably watch the comprehensive 2022 Netflix documentary Jimmy Savile: A British Horror Story, which explores his crimes in sickening depth. Perhaps surprisingly, he has been largely kept out of fiction. A recent Steve Coogan drama, The Reckoning, explored his grim life and depraved antics, and it was also suggested in series three of Line of Duty that the character was somehow involved with the (fictitious) details of child sexual abuse as depicted in the show. However, film-makers know that accusations of opportunism and bad taste might be made if he was to be included in mainstream drama. These accusations have now indeed been levelled, in some quarters, against 28 Years Later and its makers. To say that the ending has proved divisive, especially in the United States, would be an understatement. (Not that the twist has hurt the film's box office performance; half its $60 million opening weekend haul has come from the US.) Yet Boyle and Garland have never been film-makers who have taken the easy option – think about the various outrageous and shocking scenes in their films, encompassing everything from Trainspotting and Ex Machina to their previous collaborations, Sunshine and 28 Days Later – and so this full-strength conclusion to the picture not only sets up next year's sequel, The Bone Temple, very intriguingly, but also leaves audiences with numerous questions which deserve answering. Who are Sir Jimmy Crystal and his gang? The introduction of the presumably villainous Sir Jimmy in the closing moments of 28 Years Later gives an already unsettling film a horrific jolt. As he and his companions – also all referred to as 'Jimmy' – set about murdering a group of 'infected', as the film terms its zombies, with extreme, gleeful prejudice, it's a grim and shocking moment that brings A Clockwork Orange – a clear Boyle touchstone throughout his career – to mind. Yet the most disturbing aspect of the scene is that Sir Jimmy, and the other Jimmys, are all attired in hideous-coloured tracksuits, lengthy blonde wigs and have their hands festooned with jewellery: a clear homage to Savile. O'Connell – who, with his appearance as a sadistic Irish vampire in Ryan Coogler's Sinners, is surely becoming 2025's go-to villain for horror films – is too big a star to appear for as small a role as this. Audiences are promised that the Jimmys will return in a big way for The Bone Temple. When Sir Jimmy says to Alfie Williams's young protagonist Spike 'Let's be friends', the moment is chilling, not least because it seems quite clear that the Jimmys are not the kind of people anyone would want to be friends with. Yet the film has already teased his introduction with enormous sophistication. It's the young Jimmy who we meet in the terrifying prologue, set, appropriately enough, 28 years before the rest of the film. The boy is the sole survivor of the Teletubbies-inflected infected massacre and the recipient of his fanatical clergyman father's crucifix, which he's seen holding when he's reintroduced. There are lots of hints as to his reappearance, too, which many viewers may only pick up on with a second viewing. When Spike and his father Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) head to the mainland for Spike's first kill of an infected, they find the body of a tortured figure hung up upside-down in an abandoned farmhouse, with the word 'Jimmy' carved onto it; the same word is scrawled all over the outside walls. From these little clues, it's quite clear that the Jimmy gang is a bunch of murderous sadists who are intent on causing as much mayhem and torment as they can. How and why, and how they've managed to survive for so long amidst the infected, will (presumably) be explained in the second film. Why are the Jimmys in thrall to Jimmy Savile? Although the Jimmy characters are not named in the film, the end credits reveal that they all have a suitably grim collection of surnames. We can expect to meet Jimmy Fox, Jimmy Snake, Jimmy Jones, the unimaginatively named Jimmy Jimmy, the more imaginatively named Jimmy S___e and their female equivalent, Jimmina. No doubt all of them are going to play a greater role in the sequel, but the small clues that we are given about their dispositions in 28 Years Later are that they're violent, have hideous taste in clothes and are all followers of O'Connell's Sir Jimmy: a self-bestowed title, unlike the knighthood bestowed upon Savile. It isn't made clear in this picture as to why they should all be fascinated by the ghoulish disc jockey and TV presenter, but Boyle and Garland have suggested in interviews that it all fits with the film's warped sense of England and Englishness. As Boyle told Business Insider: '[Savile is] as much to do with pop culture as he is to do with sportswear, to do with cricket, to do with the honours system. It's all kind of twisting in this partial remembrance, clinging onto things and then recreating them as an image for followers.' (Incidentally, Boyle himself was offered a knighthood after directing the opening ceremony for the 2012 Olympics, and turned it down, saying 'it was insensitive of them to ask me, to be honest.') 🎬 | Bts photo of Erin Kellyman with the Jimmy gang on the set of '28 Years Later'. — Erin Kellyman Updates (@updateskellyman) June 23, 2025 Yet there's another telling detail that has been picked up on by eagle-eyed viewers who have been swift to disseminate it on Reddit forums. The film's prologue takes place around the same time that the first film was released, in the early years of the millennium, when Savile may have been regarded with suspicion (see the 2000 Louis Theroux documentary When Louis Met Jimmy) but was still seen by many (at least publicly) as a noble figure who had given his life, and fortune, to charity. Therefore, in this alternative world, Savile was never unmasked as a predator, but instead continued to be regarded as a hero by many, meaning that the 'Jimmys' are not following in the footsteps of a disgraced and evil man, but instead believe him to be a secular saint of sorts. That the audience knows differently is all part of the intrigue. As one commenter observed, 'I like the theory that they think Jim will fix it as per the TV show and save them from the infected.' What is the point of the Savile allusion? When the Jimmys appear, it's a deliberately shocking moment, both in terms of the violence and then the realisation that there might be worse things out there than the infected. This is something of a homage to the original 28 Days Later, when it becomes clear that Christopher Eccleston's demented army major and his men want to force female survivors of the infected into sexual slavery for their own perverse ends. Yet Boyle and Garland are both careful film-makers who would never include a detail as provocative as this simply to elicit a shocked reaction. Instead, Garland has argued that the ending is of a piece with the rest of the film's themes. He suggested that Savile was a 'trippy, f----- up kaleidoscope', which chimes with the film's similarly phantasmagorical evocation of Englishness, visual throwbacks to Olivier's Henry V and Agincourt included. Yet it's also because the Jimmy character – who has obviously been traumatised from a young age by seeing his friends and family torn to pieces by infected – has created his own version of reality from a mixture of half-remembered pop culture allusions, just as Alex in A Clockwork Orange is inspired in his ultraviolence by everything from Beethoven to Singin' in the Rain. 'The thing about looking back is how selective memory is,' Garland has said. 'It cherry picks and it has amnesia, and crucially, it also misremembers. We are living in a time right now which is absolutely dominated by a misremembered past.' Why is the ending so controversial? In the United States, where Savile is barely known, if at all, the ending has caused significant confusion and even disappointment amongst audiences, who have been mystified as to who these shell-suit wearing, blonde wigged antagonists are supposed to be. As one cinemagoer sighed on X, 'I personally don't appreciate having to do some homework to appreciate a sequence that's otherwise random to end a film.' It is also a (deliberately?) confusing aspect of the picture that the Aaron Taylor-Johnson character's name of 'Jamie' is close enough to 'Jimmy' for many viewers initially to believe that he is the grown-up version of the boy in the opening scene, safely escaped and now living in what seems to be comparative safety. The other argument against the ending, and what it sets up for the next film, is simply that the appropriation of Savile as a pop-cultural feature is inappropriate and tasteless. Certainly, the film's anti-Brexit subtext, suggesting that Britain is an isolated, backwards island that has been cut off from Europe by force, is unlikely to endear it to those who continue to think Brexit was a good and necessary idea. (Boyle and Garland are clearly not Brexiteers.) Hinting that this isolation has led to the creation of Savile cultists is a provocative and deeply controversial way to conclude the film. Finally, the jolt of black humour that comes moments after the deeply affecting conclusion of the storyline involving Spike's dying mother Isla (Jodie Comer) is an incongruous way to conclude the film that will be a true love-hate development. There will be those who believe that its kamikaze insanity ruins an otherwise thoughtful and serious film, and others who applaud its audacity. What does all this mean for the sequel? The choice of Candyman and the Marvels film-maker Nia DaCosta to direct the sequel, The Bone Temple – which has already been filmed and will be released in January – is an intriguing decision, given that DaCosta is a New York-raised American director who is tackling the follow-up to a film about Britain and Britishness. However, the idea that DaCosta will bring an outsider's eye to a film that Boyle has already teased is about 'the nature of evil' can only be a good thing. Just as Boyle brought his own inimitable perspective to the Oscar-winning Slumdog Millionaire (a film that, for understandable but regrettable reasons, he now claims he would not direct if he was offered the opportunity), so DaCosta has a chance to take the Savile-heavy mythology that The Bone Temple will inevitably be imbued with and make it not only comprehensible to American audiences but terrifying. Savile may be a British phenomenon but the traits that he embodied – the manipulation of power and what evil can be unchecked if those in positions of authority look the other way – are truly universal ones, and this brief tease should be a curtain-raiser for something extraordinarily dark and provocative, coming our way in a few months.
Daily Mirror
21-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mirror
28 Years Later viewers left baffled over ‘weird' final scene and sickening nod
Fans of the film were left baffled after watching 28 Years Later as the ending showed a cult dressed in blonde wigs and shell suits as an apparent salute to disgraced Jimmy Savile 28 Years Later has recently come under intense scrutiny by fans as the ending of the film appears to pay homage to peadophile, Jimmy Savile. The latest instalment of the horror franchise, directed by famed director Danny Boyle, shows a 12-year old boy named Spike who has managed to be kept safe from the virus. Played by Alfie Williams, Spike is taken from the small island that he has been safely living on and is now on a mission to head to the mainland. The film also stars acclaimed actors Jodie Comer and Ralph Fiennes, along with Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who was cast as Spike's dad. The highly anticipated movie ends with Spike bumping into a cult on the mainland, whose leader is a man named Jimmy Crystal, played by Jack O'Connell. As the encounter gathers pace, viewers are made aware that the cult are Kung Fu experts and their fashion sense has been inspired by prolific peadophile Jimmy Savile as they donned blonde wigs and shell suits. However, it was initially unclear as to why the director decided to give a nod to the disgraced TV personality as following his death, police at the time concluded that he was a predatory sex offender as the extent of his sickening crimes came to light. At the time of his death in October 2011, a slew of allegations surrounding sexual assault were brought to the public attention, which led to a police investigation. And this may explain why fans of the film were left scratching their heads over the chosen ending and its nod to the monster. Taking to social media, one person wrote: "Watched 28 Years Later last night and I can't believe they had a character called Jimmy who dressed exactly like Jimmy Savile." Another said: "If you have an itch that can only be scratched by watching a film that ends with ninjas who are all dressed like Jimmy Savile, then go and watch 28 Years Later. I'm not even joking." Meanwhile a third added: "Movie was alright, epic cinematography. Not sure why there were 15 Jimmy Saviles at the end though." And a fourth penned: "I went to see 28 Years Later and I thought it was a smart, gripping and unexpected sequel in the series. I even liked the weird Kill Bill Jimmy Savile end!" In a bid to gain clarity over the ending a number of fans came forward with their own theories as to why the ending appeared to feature Jimmy Savile. One person said: "In the world of 28 Years Later, Jimmy Savile was never outed as a pervert and was still a beloved entertainer in the minds of all survivors." Another viewer explained: "Crazy that the Jimmy character in 28 Years Later resembled Jimmy Savile - I guess with the UK pretty much coming to an end in 2002 in that world he was never exposed for his crimes." When speaking to The Independent, Danny Boyle explained: "The role of Jack O'Connell's character and his family, which is a replacement, really, for the family he loses at the beginning of the film, is to reintroduce evil into what has become a compassionate environment." He added: "I asked Alex [Garland, writer] right at the beginning to just tell me what's the nature of each of the films, and he said that the nature of the first film is about family. The second film is about the nature of evil. And you're about to meet a lot more of them when it'll be more appropriate to talk about them in the second film."
