Jimmy Savile: ’28 Days Later’ Explained
- [Editor'snote:Thefollowingcontainsspoilersfor[Editor'snote:Thefollowingcontainsspoilersfor[Editor'snote:Thefollowingcontainsspoilersfor[Editor'snote:Thefollowingcontainsspoilersfor"28 Days Later: The Bone Temple."]
- Even decades removed from their heyday, you'd be hard-pressed to find a moviegoer who's never heard of the Teletubbies.
- The answer is Jimmy Savile, a name that even dead as 2011 still carries the weight of national trauma across the U.K.
[Editor’snote:Thefollowingcontainsspoilersfor[Editor’snote:Thefollowingcontainsspoilersfor[Editor’snote:Thefollowingcontainsspoilersfor[Editor’snote:Thefollowingcontainsspoilersfor“28 Days Later: The Bone Temple.”]
Even decades removed from their heyday, you’d be hard-pressed to find a moviegoer who’s never heard of the Teletubbies. The other, darker pop culture inspiration behind the queasily charismatic villain at the center of “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” – Sir Jimmy Crystal (35-year-old British actor Jack O’Connell) – is what’s left many american viewers asking not “How-zat?” but “Who-zat?” “
The answer is Jimmy Savile, a name that even dead as 2011 still carries the weight of national trauma across the U.K. and broader true crime world. Director Nia DaCosta, screenwriter Alex Garland, and “28 Days” franchise co-creator Danny Boyle may not have intended “The bone Temple” to function as an on-ramp for a kind of perverse English history lesson, involving hundreds of real victims. But the reference is key to understanding why Crystal’s cult is not just unsettling but palpably provocative in the film.
class=”wp-block-image size-large”>
The comedian and TV presenter was indeed knighted for his widespread charitable work by Prince Charles in 1990. Rumors that Sir Jimmy Savile (eventually stripped of the title) was a sociopathic sexual abuser already persisted back then,but it wasn’t until his death in 2011,that the British celebrity’s empire completely collapsed. What followed was one of the largest posthumous criminal scandals in modern history. Investigators revealed that Savile had spent more than half a century sexually abusing victims — many of them children, as well as elderly and disabled patients — across NHS hospitals, BBC studios, schools, and even his fans’ homes.
Hundreds of allegations emerged, and the revelations that followed didn’t just expose Savile as a prolific predator. Like Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby in the U.S., the tidal wave of accusations exposed how British institutions protected Savile by conflating celebrity and wealth with moral authority. That collision is essential to understanding why Savile looms so large over “The Bone Temple,” and why evoking his essence through social media cosplay and on the red carpet has caused some controversy.
In rip-roaring zombie sequel, Sir Jimmy Crystal leads a gang of murderous zealots known as the Jimmies. Clad in cheap tracksuits and blood-splattered wigs, they’re a screamingly obvious cult of personality that explicitly worships the devil but indirectly elevates Savile to near-mythic status through their appearance and rituals. For audiences unfamiliar with Savile, the Jimmies’ strange look and sadistic practice of dolling out “charity” (what Crystal calls skinning their victims alive) may register as little more than grotesque absurdity in a film that also includes an Iron Maiden musical number.
But as DaCosta, Boyle, and Garland have all explained, the Jimmies exist because “The Bone Temple” is about the intentional corruption and distortion of social meaning. The original film sees an outbreak of the Rage virus hit London in 2001 — crucially before Savile’s crimes became official public knowledge but were nevertheless widely known. In that timeline, Savile remains a smiling presence whose ability to get away with abuse would be even more appealing for someone like Crystal to model.
The cinematic landscape of 2026 is proving to be a rich tapestry of diverse storytelling. From the resurgence of practical effects to the continued evolution of virtual production, filmmakers are pushing boundaries in exciting new ways. This year promises a compelling mix of established auteurs and emerging voices, each contributing to a dynamic and evolving art form.
It’s vital to note the increasing influence of international cinema. Co-productions are becoming more common, fostering a cross-pollination of ideas and talent. This trend is resulting in films that feel both globally relevant and deeply personal.
2026 is shaping up to be a pivotal year for film. The convergence of technological innovation, artistic ambition, and a growing demand for diverse narratives suggests a future brimming with possibilities.