Reviews

You can tell Dahl didn't write this one, considering the wife character is actually sympathetic.

Its strange to me that the early mention of orchids, the giving them away, and Sian Phillips characters distain for them play no actual part in the story. Considering their prominence in the early bit you'd think it would. I was convinced Sian Phillips would smash her husband over the head with a potted orchid, or he'd bury bits of her dismembered corpse in the potted plants and use her decomposing corpse as fertiliser, so they'd rot away naturally in the soil and never be found as evidence. Oh well.

This is the episode that convinced me, when I first watched it on TV, that the show was not worth watching. After a derth of snooze inducing nothing episodes, this, a battle on, was the one that finally drove me off. The is a battle that has been hyped up for 5 episodes now. And when when it comes its so anti climatic and dissapointing it hurts. The supposed battle of a lifetime, something we are repeatedly told will be a bloodbath from which the Gyptians may not survive, is literally over is less than 5 minutes. There is not a single casualty among the good guys, there us not a single ounch of blood shown. It remains a wholly empty spectacle. Some abjectly generic "battle type music" that sounds as if it was ripped off from a stock music library, and some dull clank-clank battle scenes (most barely seen, only in flashes) then the deux ex machina witch comes along and kills all the bad guys in seconds. Wow. How rubbish is that? The show is a sucession of dull and lifeless scenes, small and narrow in scope, with the limits of the budget straining at the seames to try and make this epic, world spanning fantasy seem as grand as possible, with bombastic and tedious grand speeches hyping something up to absurdity, only for it to be crushingly dissapointed in the result (see the rubbish bear battle in the next episode, which cannot even remotely match the scope of the movie, in both content and looks).

This series sucks.

Speaking from watching the Assembly Cut, I think the film is a masterpiece. Not a "flawed" one either, a straight up one. The characters are amazingly drawn, the dialogue is superb, the acting is incredible (honestly, Possleweight, Dance, McGann, Dutton, Webb, Glover - what a cast! It's a whose who of some of the great British actors), the cinematography bleak and powerful, the directing sharp and dynamic, and my god, is it emotionally impactful. Its the only one, out of the three, to have a central human core to it, a genuine sense of little humans trying to muddle through the universe with all their (decidedly, in this case) flaws. Each character, even those given barely a minute on screen, are instantly memorable. Glover's fussy, absurdly uptight little Captain Mainwring, an overzealous little trumped up burecract who seems to treat the running of essentially a squalid prison/monastery as if he was in charge of a military, played with meticulous perfection by Glover, who seems to be able to spit and squirm every word put of his mouth, like a legal document given a voice. Charles Dance is a beautiful performance, so understated and nuanced it is just agonising to watch, it may be his best. Compare him here to either his great work in Game of Thrones, or even his zanier offerings in that Schwachzenegger film, and its clear his range. He plays it with deft sincerity, while still retaining a sense of real, serious brokenness behind his eyes, its gorgeous. Paul McGann gives a stunning performance, a truly unnerving portrayl of complete and utter psychosis, with a gibbering, sing-song, almost childlike speech pattern containing all manner of dark forebodings, in the end becoming a sort of mad acolyte for the xenomorph. Charles Dutton gives a staggering performance, a badass warrior philosopher monk, who as much as preaches the gospel of this prison spirituality cab spout swear words from the top of his lungs and act as kick ass possible, a brilliant conception, and one of the most memorable characters in the whole franchise. In fact, the entire conceit of the ex-con monks, rapists and murderers and serial killers forming a sort of demented Franscican underworld Church, is brilliant. A particular stroke of genius is in the way it manages to turn the bald heads of prisoners, shaved for lice, into an act of religious denial, much akin to medieval or even more Buddhist monks. It also grounds the plot to believable and concrete goals. A rather obvious issue with a story like this is a) Ripleys a woman in a world of viscous, sex-starved men. This isn't going to end well. And b) if their so viscous and awful, what's their moral rewaon for trying to defeat the xenomorph at all? Making them a caste of warrior-monks solves both issues, as they can't rape Ripley by definition, as it violates their code (not that it stops some of them) a religious vow of total celibacy to avoid going down the path of sin, and also, by giving these bizzare misfits a religious creed, gives them an instigation to kill the beast. In that sense, if Alien was a thriller horror akin to the slasher films of the late 70s/80s, and Aliens are rip roaring action packed spectacular, this is a gothic religious epic. A jacobean tragedy, a descent into hell with the would be atoners defeating a force of unmitigated evil, a religious spiritual quest which turns into a holy war, draped across the bare ruins of a science fiction landscape. What a genius move for Fincher!

Its beautiful. The relationship between Ripley and Clemens is agonisingly beautiful, two lost souls bonding over shared pain, destroyed before it could even get started. And in fact, the agony and heartbreak of the film is precisely what makes it a great Alien film, in fact, its the direct successor to Alien. The bleak cosmic horror, sense of encouraging doom, fatalism, morose, macabre atmosphere and ever increasing desperation is replicated perfectly here, but with an added emotional punch which just isn't in the first.

Cus here's the thing, I don't actually like Aliens as an Alien film. The first film manages to capture a sense of dread, isolation and total and utter helplessness when confronted with something utterly outside our knowledge with pitch perfection. Aliens substitutes the mood of the first, that of a group of terrified apes struggling to stop something evolutionary above them by centuries in its ability to kill, with action packed shoot them up splatter glory. It replaces Ripley's victory in the first film, which is as much luck as it is intuition, a sort of exhausted pyrrhic victory, with a bombastic, almost absurdly melodramatic punch up with the Queen. Its just not a good Alien film. Its undoubtedly a masterpiece in the action genre, but compared to the first, it can barely even stand up. Turning the Aliens from ruthlessly methodical killers that can kill an entire crew in a matter of seconds to just a hoarde of mindless animals robs them off their true power. The real amazing thing about the Alien in Alien is that its just one thing against a whole crew, in the end it leaves only one. They have to destroy the entire ship simply to defeat it, thats how powerful it is. In Alien, the threat is terrifying by just how lethal it is despite its numerical weakness. In Aliens, its never doubted their a threat, cus there's tons of them. So duh, of course they're a threat, but then why is this is any way original or creative? You could replace the xenomorophs in Aliens with any monster and you'd have the same film, you can't do that in the first.

The third then, IMO, manages to recreate the true essence of what the Alien films are all about, isolation, a war of extermination, being hunted, grief, misery and hopelessness, while also providing a genuinely likeable (amazing considering the nature of the characters) bunch of humans, and some moments of humour too.

And the directing, my god, what astounding visuals! Like driving directly into hell itself, red crimson burning red everywhere, a dingy, macabre, subterranean refuge for this group of warrior monks, the offscourings of humanity left to rot and atone for their sins. If nothing else, the visuals that you'll be left with will stun you, the image of the large fan from which one poor Red Shirt is sucked into, the staggering chase sequence around the tunnels, the sight of an xenomoroh Alien breathing and snarling towards Ripley's face; it is a cinematographic triumph, and prefigures Fincer's brand of paradoxical Gothic realism, a simultaneous mix of heightened, aesetic misery and a ruthless griminess which he perfected in Seven.

To me, the whole film is completry vindicated by the end, voluntarily jumping into a pool of molten lava, arms out, crucifix like, saying goodbye to a cruel universe to save it from her own perverted, warped child. In one science, she becomes the Modanna and Christ in a single act, the mother who is destined to produce a seed conceived through foreign impregnation, something reliant on the human to leech off yet above her in abilities and skills, but, crucially also sacrificing herself precisely to defeat said perverted, warped, mutant child. To some, the Xenomorph is the new Christ, something to be worshipped, like Golic, or praised for its aesetic beauty and higher purpose, like the Weyland Corporation. But in one act, the Christian myth is brilliantly warped, an act of anti-childbirth by the chosen mother, who turns her own humanity outwards and allows the christ sacrifice committed to reliquish mankind of its sins to be performed *by* the human mother Mary herself. By not allowing divinity to be produced by humanity, she denies the cruelty of the former and elevates the majesty of the latter. Its a stunning piece of myth making

Its staggeringly heartbreaking, its emotionally devastating. Its such a profound act of humanity, this space trucker gal of no worth or note, with no military background or important status, saves everyone just by her smarts, her resourcefulness, her bravery and her kindness, which in the end is precisely what made her so amazing in the first film any way.

It's a masterful film. I adore it.

Monty Python and The Holy Grail was the Python's second film. The first was And Now For Something Completely Different, which was basically just a "best of" compilation of all their best sketches from the first two series of Monty Python's Flying Circus. Although the Python's were happy to have released their first feature film they didn't find this to be a very satisfactory movie, and so they decided to come up with something a bit more unique and different.

Thus, The Holy Grail was born. The film is essentially another movie full of back-to-back sketches but this time there's an overriding narrative i.e to obtain the holy grail. It's a clever technique which gives the movie a sense of continuity and the feel that this is a story being told rather than just being a random higgledy-piggledy collection of sketches with no connection to them.

And it's damn funny in telling that story too. There are so many memorable and hilarious scenes in this film that are coming with such skill and speed that there will be very few moments in which you're sitting there stony-faced waiting for a laugh. Some of my personal favourites are the French people in the castle (which has me smiling thinking about it), The Black Knight scene (who doesn't love that scene?) and their meeting with the Killer Rabbit.

The production of this film was not without it's troubles. The two directors of this film (Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones) had vastly different directing styles with Gilliam feeling that Jones would undermine the scenes with conventional camera shots and Jones getting annoyed with how much of a perfectionist Gilliam was. Also by this time Graham Chapman alcoholism was in full swing in which on some occasions Chapman couldn't remember his lines. But these behind the scenes problems manage to show no signs in the film, which is a testament to it's success.

The star of the show for me really is Graham Chapman. The rest of the Python's are as good as they always are, but Chapman just nips the post for me. No one does upper-class outrage quite like Chapman did. Leading in the role as King Arthur he performs his classic role as the pompous twit that is repeatedly bamboozled and confused by the insane events surrounding him.

The film also look visually stunning. The northern Scottish moors where the movie was filmed are ideal for Arthurian Britain. From the moment King Arthur arrives on screen to the ending with the fantastic looking boat the whole film's setting and direction is superbly done.

In short, a very silly film full of lots of silly people doing lots of silly things, a bit like our government. Although hat's pretty much the bare essence of all the Python's fantastic work, and thus is perfectly in keeping with the rest of their comedy. The second of their films is as funnier and as clever as it gets.

Well what with the final part of Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight hitting cinemas, I decided to take a look at the previous film The Dark Knight.

I have to admit I haven't actually seen Batman Begins so I can't compare it to the previous film but my god this is a good film.

One of the biggest gripes I've had with the Batman franchise in general is that no matter how much you darken it up and no matter how realistic you try to make it, in the end the premise is always going to be silly. I mean the idea behind Batman, in short, is a guy dresses up as a bat and fights crime. That's a pretty silly premise from the start. But it doesn't really matter in this film as the world and society Batman is in seems believable.

But I guess I should get down to the meat of this movie and say why it rocks hands down. And I can say it only tow words. The Joker. Or if you want a more specific reason - make that 6 words. The Joker played by Heath Ledger.

The hysteria surrounding Ledger's sad death when this movie was being released may have been a little off-putting to most people but I can assure you the praise for Ledger's phenomenal performance is rightly deserved. Ledger had managed to pull of an incredible feat with his performance. It's one of those characters that I just wanted to keep focusing on and felt disappointed when he was gone and it was all over. He looks brilliant as well. The greasy looking green hair, the badly painted on white make-up, the horrific scaring on his mouth and the wonderful hunched, Kubrick stare in his deep-set panda eyes just add to the sheer horror of the character.

And also most importantly he feels realistic and genuine. Whereas previously he's the "clown prince of crime" here he's an anarchic terrorist wreaking havoc on a huge scale. His personality is really explored as well. With the exception of Alan Moore's superb The Killing Joke I can't think of any other Batman story that's given him such a genuine feel to his character and a good motive behind his actions. In particular the Joker's extremely cynical and nihilistic outlook on life. Quotes like: "You see, their morals, their code...it's a bad joke, which will be dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these...these civilized people...they'll eat each other." Lines like that fit the Joker perfectly and makes him feel so real. Also with this Joker there isn't so much of the annoying wacko performances, it's so much more refined and subtle. He rarely laughs as manically as expected which I happen to prefer. He's so much more sinister and menacing when he's done portrayed as a terrorist threat. And in the real world we sadly are more than ever used to the idea of terrorism.

I also like how they gave him no back story to be lumbered with. Normally in the Batman cannon it goes that he was a low-life criminal who in one rather messy heist got dropped in a huge vat of acid which bleached his skin, dyed his hair green and turned his lips bright red thus turning him into the Joker. In this film that back-story is abandoned. The only real hint we get at the Joker's background is the numerous "why so serious?" speeches. Each of them however are different accounts so there hardly the most reliable accounts.

But having the Joker merely pop out off nowhere, cause as much damage and chaos as he can and then go away is in my opinion much more effective at making as a villain. He's not lumbered with some origin story that he has got to go threw with the whole story, he's his own man and he's free to do what he wants. It's a lot more threatening to have an enemy that you know nothing about that one you do.

But I would add some criticisms that he's too invincible in his film. How does he just get everywhere with such ease? How can he be at one time in a mob hideout, then at a hospital, and then back into an abandoned building. He just zooms everywhere, I mean surely someone would notice him walking around? He's hardly the most inconspicuous guy what with the scars. And how does he manage to wire explosions on barges and a hospital without anyone finding out beforehand? When did he have the time to do it? These holes just stick out for me I'm afraid.

But I digress. I order to not make this just a huge Joker bum-licking I'd like to comment on the others in this movie. Christian Bale, Michael Kane, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman and Maggie Gyllenhaal are all their usual brilliant self in this film but I'd like to put a particular shout-out to Aaron Eckhart who plays both Harvey Dent and Two-Face in this movie. He put's on a fantastic performance as the suave, intelligent Dent and then manages to flip it into sympathy and both shock when he's turned into then mad, shrieking monster that is Two- Face. The change is really is really horrific and also tragic to see such a noble guy turned into this abomination.

Christopher Nolan has made an almost perfect Batman film and has easily shown what lengths you can take the Batman franchise when put in the right world. I look forward eagerly to The Dark Knight Rises.