Perfume: The Story of a Murderer by Patrick Suskind

 I read this way back in the '90s and, although I remembered very little, I do recall enjoying it. I also watched (and blogged) the film adaptation about ten years ago. I remember very little of that either, but apparently my past self didn't think too much of it, deeming the novel "unfilmable".

And... well, it is. It heavily leans into the dimensions of the olfactory, a dimension denied to film, a medium that appeals solely to the eyes and ears. And the charm of the novel lies in its depictions of the human side of pre-revolutionary France, described with a deeply enjoyable wit- and that the wit come across despite this being a novel in translation is a credit to both the author and the translator.

The novel was a great favourite of songwriting genius Kurt Cobain, of course, a big reason for me initially reading it back in the day. He was fascinated by Jean-Baptiste himself, and his disdain and hatred for his fellow humans. I wasn't really; Grenouille is interesting for his olfactory abilities but I wasn't drawn to him as a character. But the character of Grenouille isn't what makes this novel enjoyable- it's the wit, the irony, the well-drawn minor characters.

This is a good novel, not a great one, perhaps just a tiny bit over-praised for its literary qualities. But it's a thoroughly readable book and perfect for reading on the train while commuting.

Code of Silence (1985)

 "Just like the cops. Just like the Comachos. Nobody talks. Omerta."

This is, surprisingly, the first time I've ever seen or blogged a film starring Chuck Norris, he of all the jokes about how he;s hard as nails... and also of some extremely dodgy political views: bet he voted for the tiny handed orange fascist. I suppose I was expecting some kind of cheesy B movie... but that's not what I got.

Norris' films, this one very much included, tend to be relatively obscure compared to those of his peers Sly and Arnie. Yet Code of Silence is actually a pretty damn good '80s action film. Yes, Norris plays a hard-as-nails character, but not without nuance. He can certainly act. Andrew Davis gives us a stylishly directed thriller with fights, car chases and set pieces before, showing off the Chicago setting superbly.

Yet the plot, character and themes elevate this a little above that,despite the very '80s incidental music and the silly robot,about which the less said than the better. We have a "war" between the local Mafia family and the local Colombian meth lot, both with their own code of silence. Yet into this mix we also have a mildly corrupt police force who protect one of their own who kills a suspect in cold blood, their own code of silence.

Having Norris play a truly incorruptible cop who refuses to goalong with this, therefore meaning he's on his own and his fellow cops won't back him up, is powerful. The plot is clever, satisfying and generally a cut above what one might expect, while the thrills are very much present. An unexpected gem.

Robots and Empire by Isaac Asimov

I've said before that I used to see Isaac Asimov's 1980s novels as being, while highly enjoyable, essentially as a kind of self-fanfiction in relation to his novels of decades before, with Asimov focusing more on continuity than concepts. That was my original impression, back when I first read these novels thirty (ouch!) years ago. With Second Foundation and The Robots of Dawn, however, in this rereading at least, I haven't found this to be the case at all.

Well... perhaps third time is the charm. Spoler alert: you have been warned... but I find this novel seems to exist in order to fill a continuity gap. It serves to explain how the Settlers would ultimately come to eclipse the Spacers without being destroyed by them. It explains how Earth becomes radioactive, in order to fit the continuity of (if I recall correctly) The Currents of Space. So, for once, Isaac Asimov would appear to be guilty as charged, convicted of self-fanfiction.

And yet... does this make any difference to the actual quality of the book? Well... no. It's full of engaging and original ideas. The philosophical conversations between Daneel and Giskard, in which they come up with the concept of the "Zeroth Law" are fascinating. And the ending, while I predicted it slightly in advance, is clever: the Aurorans' plot to make Earth radioactive, and thus uninhabitable over time, serves not to undermine the Settlers but to spur them on, removing the umbilical cord that was holding them back.

It must also be said that, despite the fact that no one reads the novels of Asimov, all of which are novels of ideas, for his characters, the development of Gladia as a character is highly satisfying here. Beginning the novel as a decadent, long-lived Spacer who is just waiting for death, she finds renewed purpose, meaning and, indeed, love amongst the Settlers.

I'm running out of Asimov novels. That's a truly scary thought.

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985)

 "You can shovel ****, can't you?

The critics are wrong. This film is a masterpiece, and easily the best of the original Mad Max trilogy. Yes, as good as the first two are, especially the second, this film is truly great. 

Firstly, not that the previous film didn't, but this film utterly owns the post-apocalyptic aesthetic. It looks bloody brilliant, with the deserts of Australia being as much a star as any of the cast. This is also a profoundly Australian film, as are its predecessors. A nuclear holocaust would wipe out all of Europe, North America, and the Soviet Union near as dammit. Australia would survive, even if its civilisation wouldn't.

Ah, civilisation. That's the core of the film, and it's done without didactricism. Take Auntie and, incidentally, while one may not necessarily expect a singer to be worthy of such a role, Tina Turner gives an admirably nuanced performance as Auntie.

She's framed as the baddie, and is certainly hostile to Max. But is she really bad? After all, she made Bartertown, a genuine holdout of civilisation. Yes, it runs on pig manure, but, well, nice metaphor. And, much as I tend to be very libera in matters of justice and Auntie isn't, she hasn't the luxury of living in a civilised, industrial society. Even the sublime John Stuart Mill made an exception for such things. If Auntie hadn't provided the level of civilisation she has, wouldn't society, if that's the word, be quite Hobbesian?

It's an interesting contrast in post-apocalyptic political systems- back to basics- in that the antithesis of Auntie and her harshly enforced civilisation isa bunch of kids with great, poetic dialogue but basically a cargo cult.They get their plane ride; they get their city. But, somehow, I suspect it will be the Aunties of this wrld who ultimately rebuild civilisation. But, admirably, none of this is in any way didactic.

Profound, looks sperb, exciting, and overall just a bloody brilliant film.

Ladyhawke (1985)

"Oh God, is it Lent again already?"

I expected this film to be one of those Sword and Sorcery or Tolkien-esque fantasies that abounded in the '80s. Instead I got a rather fun swashbuckler clearly inspired by Abelard and Eloise, bizarre concept though that is.

Here, though, our Abelard is not literally castrated. Instead, we have a family-friendly metaphor. Navarre is cursed, by a jealous, evil, devil-worshipping bishop in mediaeval France, to be a wolf by night, whereas his lover Isabeau is a hawk by day. It's tragic, it's romantic, it's as '80s, somehow, as the ever-present music in this film.

Yet the lovers are not the stars; that would be a very young and very impressive Matthew Broderick, with a sly comic timing and an ability to find chemistry with all ofbthe established stars- Michelle Pfeiffer, Rutger Hauer, Leo McKern- with whom he stars.

It's odd that a film I'd expected to be set on a generic fantasy world should instead prove to be set in a mediaeval France (albeit filmed in Italy) where the inevitable mythology turns out to be Christian and the villain a wayward bishop. This link to real history adds a certain weight, heft and realism, with Philippe introduced as a thief who escapes judicial murder. This helps us to get to know him, via his ever-present monologues with God about his very naughty thievery. Rutger Hauer is also superb, however, as is Rutger Hauer.

A superb film. I'm glad I've seen it at last.

Brazil (1985)

"I won't look at your willy."

This film is, of course, a work of genius from the unique mind of Terry Gilliam- Kafkaesque, nightmarish, surreal, perhaps similar in visual style to his recently directed Crimson Assurance bit of Monty Python’s Meaning of Life, but announcing Gilliam as a true auteur. It’s also a true cinematic classic, managing to present a fundamentally bleak view of civilisation with the darkly humorous approach that is of course the only sane one.

Gilliam may be a native of Minnesota, but this film is full of the influences of his twenty years in Britain. It is, obviously, full of that Orwellian fear of tyranny, and the petty details of that tyranny, that is constantly found in British science fiction. It is set in a deliberately timeless and anachronistic time and place, but there are plenty of visual nods to the Nazi’s, and in particular to the phenomenon, in the words of Hannah Arendt, of the banality of evil.

It’s very Pythonesque, of course, but should certainly not be reduced to that. The casting of Michael Palin against type is a masterstroke, as is the starring role for the excellent Jonathan Pryce. A parade of British character actors play a parade of entertainingly disturbing grotesques, as does Robert De Niro, whose insane casting somehow works.

It is, of course, obstructive to see a film about the reality of, well, fascism, in 2020. The Kafkaesque evils inherent in computers are shown here, as well as the effectiveness of information control by those in power. Where the only news is Fox News, truth no longer exists. And, while the UK is not yet at risk of fascism or anything close, the blatant cronyism and disrespect for constitution norms we see here are particularly chilling.

A superb film from a director who, with this film, has well and truly outgrown Monty Python.

Phenomena (1985)

“People call it the Swiss Transylvania...”

This is, to my shame, the first film by Dario Argento that I’ve seen. This film isn’t perhaps quite as good as the critics say, but it certainly isn’t the last of his films I’ll be Seinfeld. It’s very well shot, stylish and pleasingly weird, if a little slow.

This is a slasher, sort of, in a very ‘80s style yet a cut above visually with a more artistic approach than you might expect from the genre- as well as an interestingly prog and metal soundtrack with a central role for Iron Maiden. In many ways, I suppose, this is a vaguely European Friday the 13th- in terms of plot as well as style- but it’s much, much better made without escaping its genre.

It’s odd to see such a very Italian film in English, and to see its stars- a fifteen year old Jennifer Connelly and a late period performance by the great Donald Pleasance who, it must be said, does not have the most convincing Scottish accent.

It’s all very much of it’s time with the fashion, music, and cars, and visually it’s always made both with an artistic, dreamlike vision and the uneasily creepy grammar of horror film visuals. It is, at times, guilty of a slowness of pace caused by lingering arty camerawork, but the film works narratively and the final twist, although predictable to the genre-savvy, is well done.

This is, I suspect, a fairly average example of Argento’s work, but on the whole I enjoyed it. I’ll certainly be seeing more.

Ewoks: The Battle for Endor (1985)

"Wicket Cindel's family now..."

I had to get this TV movie watched, seeing as I can't watch Caravan of Courage and not this. Fortunately, while it's a mid-budget TV movie for kids and should be judged as such, it's actually a fairly decent watch.

The beginning is well harrowing, though, as the baddies torch the village and kill loads of people including poor Cindel's entire family. Fortunately, the sheer trauma of such an event for poor Cindel is very much downplayed in favour of some child-friendly mourning of her parents.

And it’s straight into another very fairytale adventure, from another story by George Lucas, Cindel and Wicket escapee, courtesy of being ickle, and have an exciting little escapade with a rather cool little stop motion dragon. Then they meet a cheeky alien monkey muppet. And then they meet new father figure Noa, who inevitably turns out to be gruff but kind.

So off they go on a rescue mission to a castle with an acid moat. And much excitement ensues. With Sian Phillips as a witch type character- this is definitely fantasy, but so is all Star Wars. But the days of playing Livia In I Clavdivs must seem so long ago..

No, this isn’t as good as Caravan of Courage. But it’s still good stuff. Give it a go while it’s on Amazon Prime.

The Goonies (1985)

"Nothing exciting ever happens here anyway..."

I was eight in 1985. And this is the first time I've ever seen this film. Yes, I know.

So, what’s it like, seeing this for the first time at the age of forty-two? Well, I rather enjoyed it, and not least because of the bizarreness of seeing Sam from Lord of the Rings and Thanos as brothers. It’s a pirate themed adventure story-cum-comedy, complete with comedy criminal baddies, scripted but not shot by Steven Spielberg and seemingly intended as very much Indiana Jones (a hot property in 1985) for kids- even to the point of casting Ke Huy Quan.

There are lots of booby traps, Heath Robinson style escapades and silly gadgets, mostly from Data, and even the opening of the gate early on is the coolest thing ever. It’s essentially for kids and I’m really probably too old to appreciate it, but there’s also a little bit of subtle romance wiry the teenage Josh Brolin and a splendid comeuppance for some evil property developers.

Maybe there’s an uncomfortable focus on Chunk’s Jewishness but, then again, the part is both written and played by a Jewish person. And the character of Sloth is probably not one we’d see these days.But this is a pretty much faultless ‘80s classic that I really, really should have seen back in the day when I used to constantly see the poster reproduced here in the pages of the UK reprint of Secret Wars II. Lessons learned, I think, and better thirty-four years late than never...

Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (1985)

“You better watch out for the snake that’s going to crawl up that crapper and bite your ass.”

This is the film in the franchise that everyone hates because Jason isn’t in it. You’re not supposed to like it. And, let’s face it, I haven’t much liked the Friday the 13th franchise so far which so far has consisted of a series of increasingly formulaic and by-the-book slashers. So, although it would be heretical to start liking this of all films in the series, chances are slim, right?

Well, sorry. Grab your torches and pitchforks and start laying siege to my castle. I like this film. It’s quite good. Now, let’s not exaggerate: I wouldn’t use a stronger phrase than “quite good”. But quite good it is. It’s well structured, well shot, the deaths may be quite similar and mostly done with knives but they’re well done with lots of suspense. And, even better, with Jason out of the picture there’s a real mystery to the killings. Tommy from the last film is all grown up and ready to be the red herring here, carefully kept away from the murders until revealed not to be the killer at the climax... until he shows himself to have a Jason mask and actually sets out to be the second Jason copycat killer. It’s all quite clever and asks as a rather good origin story for Tommy/Jason which, I’m fairly sure, will never be followed up on.

The identity of the real killer is cleverly done, too; a real surprise but the clues were there, fair and square. As a film about the legacy of Jason rather than Jason himself it, er, actually works better. Sorry. Also, the characters are actually likeable and have personalities, even if one of them does look rather creepily like Michael Jackson, who in 1985 was known as the “King of Pop” rather than as a notorious child molester- that’s one thing that’s dated. But no review of this film would be complete without a mention of the splendidly sweary Ethel, who deserves a film of her own.

So, yeah, I quite liked it. Soz.

Ninja Terminator (1985)

"The ninja empire is evil!"

When I was 11 or 12 I was obsessed with ninja moves, and it's high time that was reflected in this blog. My critical discernment at that age was not great and so, I fear, I must discuss what is not even a particularly well-remembered example of the many ninja movies directed by Mr Godfrey Ho of Hong Kong.

Ninjas in real life are, or were, Japanese assassins and spies who did the dirty work that honourable samurai considered beneath them. Naturally, they cultivated the myth of magical powers, and were more commonly known ax "Shinobi", as we '80s Sega Mega Drive fans naturally know.

Sadly they do not seem to have survived into the modern era properly, despite what many "ninja schools" will tell you. Their modern popularity in the West owes a lot to You Only Live Twice, but really took off with hordes upon hordes of Eighties Ninja film, beginning with the alarmingly titled Enter the Ninja (1981). This is a not-particularly-distinguished example. It's awful, of course; terrible script, terrible acting, formulaic as they come. But when I say awful I don't mean awful. I mean gloriously awful. Plan 9 from Outer Space awful.

Where to begin? That contant silly "crunch" sound during the many martial arts scenes? The unironic evil laughter? The fact that Harry, the ninja hero, spends most of his time conversing with his badass underling Jaguar on his '80s Garfield phone and only gets off his arse in the last five minutes? Even the fact that a very '80s car chase involving, yes, a Ford Cortina, turns out to be Jaguar harassing his ex so he can sleep with her in highly dodgy scenes? Yes, that actually happens. So do death threats via little toy robots, and silly teleporting ninjas.

It's a terrible, terrible film, and I'm so glad to have seen it again.

Back to the Future (1985)

"You space bastard! You killed my pine!"

Two points before I start, ok? One: 1985 is further ago for us than 1955 was when this film was made. Two: look, this is Back to the Future. I realise that reviews are supposed to express an opinion as to the quality of the film or whatever, yes, but can we just cut the crap, acknowledge that this is a bloody great film, and talk about things that are more interesting?

I've seen this film many, many times but, barring the odd snippet, not for twenty years or so. That makes this reviewing an odd experience, with odd memories unexpectedly returning, and I'm finally getting the pop culture references such as Doc's "Devo suit" and Chuck Berry hearing Marty playing "Johnny B. Goode" over the phone, proving that I . The intricacies of the timey-wimey plot are truly to be admired, although, if I were to be churlish, I'd have to question the treatment of the butterfly effect. Marty has inadvertently changed the circumstances of his parents' meeting, and made his dad much more confident. Surely, then, history has changed in all sorts of chaotic and unpredictable ways so that the same sperm would not have fertilised the same egg at the same time  and Marty would not have been born? Still, I'm no churl.

There are so many clever little things to admire- Marty's straitlaced mum being a rather normal teenager, jailbird Joey in the playpen, the little riffs on '50s sci-fi magazines. And then we have the Libyan terrorists in their, er, camper van. And Doc, just prior to being shot, intending to visit the distant future of, er, 2010. And how the film blatantly compares 1955 favourably to the Reaganite 1985, but not in a reactionary way; the first thing we see when Marty returns to 1985 is a homeless man.

The script is brilliant. Michael J. Fox is brilliant. Christopher Lloyd is brilliant. And James Tolkan (Mr. Strickland) is a cinematic legend. This is an awesome film.

Lifeforce (1985)

"Columbia, they're all dead!"

 Well, this certainly isn't the sort of film you'd expect of Tobe Hooper, he of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Poltergeist fame. Oh, it's well-directed and acted, with horror-like touches, but it's an oddly straight piece of very British alien invasion sci-fi, stuffed with British character actors such as Frank Finlay (always the Witchsmeller Pursuivant to me), John Hallam (Forget Light- he'll always be Sir Wilfred Death to me), Patrick Stewart, Aubrey Morris and even John Woodnutt.

The script, to be frank, is British sci-fi by numbers and nothing special, a very well-made film but with an average script. It's like an episode of Doctor Who with a Hollywood budget and more nudity, right down to the suspiciously large influence plot-wise from The Quatermass Experiment, only without any of Nigel Kneale's characteristic pessimism.

Still, the film is acted well and looks good, with some truly magnificent examples of stop-motion animation which seemed to reach a real peak in the immediately pre-CGI era. Steve Railsback and Peter Firth make decent if rather unhinged-looking stars and it's fun to revel in the '80s-ness of the space shuttles, computer screens and obsession with the return of Halley's Comet. It's odd that a contemporary film should feature such suspiciously advanced space tech, but heigh-ho. Arguably beginning to fade into obscurity from its cult status, Lifeforce is definitely worth seeing not only because it's a fun bit of '80s nostalgia but because it's actually quite good, although I wouldn't put it more strongly than that..

Clue (1985)

"Husbands should be like Kleenex; soft, strong and disposable."

"You lure men to their deaths like a spider with flies."

"Flies are where men are most vulnerable..."

Clue: a film so good that even the episode of Family Guy based on the film is one of the finest ones. I remember seeing and liking this film since before I was truly old enough to understand the style of humour but, frankly, as soon as I realised that this was a film by Jonathan Lynn of Yes, Minister fame I knew I was in for a good time.

Is it the first class comedy performances from the likes of Tim Curry (he may be even better here than in Rocky Horror) and Christopher Lloyd? Is it the abundant wit of the film, one of the wittiest ever? No; I think it's the plot, a gloriously meta exploration of how silly the whole country house murder mystery is. The fact that there are three different, equally plausible endings is a perfect deconstruction of the genre; after all, who cares about the arbitrary identity of the killer when we're having this much fun? It's true to say that the structure of this film is as witty as the dialogue.

But as good as the film is Tim Curry, whose performance in the final minutes of the film is exhilarating and extraordinary. One of the great comedy films of all time.

Commando (1985)

"I can't believe this macho bullshit!"

My wife and daughter are away and I'm alone in the house this evening; I'll watch a totally boy film with lots of guns and killing in. Preferably from the '80s, and something Mrs Llamastrangler doesn't like. Preferably something with Arnie in. I'm in a none-too-serious mood but I want something I can laugh at rather than laugh with. So what's available on Netflix tonight? Ah.

This film is increeeeedibly '80s, from the music to the plot to the very, very slight knowing winks that haven't quite developed into irony. You can switch off your brain for the duration of the film, which consists solely of Arnie (the character is Colonel John Matrix, but let's just call him Arnie) being macho and going after the thugs who have kidnapped his daughter while the plot does elaborate somersaults to stop them knowing what he's doing so they don't just kill her. Still, it must be said: Arnie's acting range may be limited but he has charisma, and that charisma carries the film. Along with, obviously, all the guns and killing.

You know the best bit? It's the cliched moment at the end where Arnie tells the General that no, he's not going back into special forces because he's retired, dammit. An entertaining and splendidly brainless ninety minute film that doesn't outstay it's welcome.

A View to a Kill (1985)

"Well my dear, I take it you spend quite a lot of time in the saddle."

"Yes, I love an early morning ride."

"Well, I'm an early riser myself."

Meh. This isn't quite the worst Bond film so far- that would be Thunderball- but it's certainly the very dampest of squibs. Roger Moore, at 57 and suddenly looking it, is by now absurdly too old to be convincing in the part, but ultimately the problem lies with the script. The plot is fine, but the dialogue is functional and lacking in wit, and as a result the film fails to come alive. That's a shame, as an actor like Christopher Walken deserves a much better villain to play. Still, he deserves much praise for triumphing over a crap script to give us a memorable Max Zorin regardless.

The film also suffers from that perennial problem of Bond films set largely in the United States: what is Bond doing there when the Americans have agencies of their own? Still, Duran Duran give us a decent theme tune and it's always good to see Patrick Macnee, even if his character does spend his final few hours alive being ordered about by Bond. Grace Jones is good as May Day but, again, wasted, as indeed area many of the set pieces which seem to be shot rather unimaginatively. Still, I enjoyed the finale with the airship on the Golden Gate Bridge.

Not a good swansong, then, for the suddenly much-aged Roger Moore: he should have left on a high with Octopussy. It's goodbye too, though, for Lois Maxwell, the only cast member who's been there since Dr No.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge (1985)

“You’re all my children now!”

As you know instantly by the very fact that I’m reviewing this, I’m going to be going through all of these films in order, although I’ll only be watching one every now and again, so if you’re not a fan, fear not: there will be plenty of other films reviewed, along with the usual telly stuff.

Glad that’s sorted. Anyway, this film is a bit rubbish, isn’t it? It has all of the low budget, dodgy dialogue and ropey acting of its predecessor, but with none of the genuine scares and, yes, genius of its predecessor. This is largely, I suspect, because of the conspicuous absence of Wes Craven.

The main problem is that what Freddy’s doing just isn’t as scary. He doesn’t want to horribly kill our main protagonist, Jesse, but to use him to exact his “revenge” in an unspecified manner. There’s a big gory bloodbath towards the end, but no scary set pieces. Here’s no suspense. There are no real shocks. Also, the 80s soundtrack is impossible to take seriously in what is supposed to be a scary film. We get lots of dull melodrama (the cartoon authoritarian father is just silly), lots of obvious ketchup and lots of ‘80s suburban décor, but not the scares we were hoping for.

I mentioned this film in the pub about a week after watching it, and I’m told the later films are better than this. I hope so.

Red Sonja (1985)

"Falkon, may I give you a word of advice? Put him over your knee and beat some manners into him!"

I was expecting to enjoy this film no matter what; I'm rather fond of a bit of sword and sorcery hokum, as regular readers will have noticed. I was expecting something rather similar to Conan the Barbarian, except perhaps with more lines for Arnold Schwarzenegger, this having been made after The Terminator. Instead, I found a film which was really rather brilliant.

I love Conan, but it's a cheesy film. This isn't, deep down. The script (co-written by George MacDonald Fraser of Flashman fame, no less) is much more coherent and clever, and uses the tropes of the genre in ways which are quite witty. Yes, the performances are not exactly the sort of thing you'd see at the RSC, but they're what the film needs. None of the characterisations are particularly deep, but they don't need to be.

I don't know much of the original Red Sonja, but she seems to have been a comic book creation of Roy Thomas and Barry-Windsor Smith, loosely based on a similarly named character in a short story by Robert E. Howard, who is credited here. That's interesting; I'm well aware of Roy Thomas through his many runs on many titles for Marvel, and he's always struck me as a good writer, occasionally a very good one, but essentially a writer of high quality fan fiction who prefers to play with other people's worlds and characters rather than create his own. I have no idea whatsoever if any of that applies here; the few Conan short stories by Howard that I've recently started reading are not really reflected by the 1982 film, but it works, I think, as an example of its genre. I'm going to treat this film the same, as an example of 1980s sword and sorcery cinema, without attempting to judge it in relation to the source material.

There's only one moment during the film that I found unintentionally amusing; the bridge of bones. The impressive matte painting in long shot becomes a rather less impressive model in medium shot. But I'm being picky, really. Yes, you can see the joins a bit, but it works, I think, in the terms of its time. And the visuals are often fantastic- I particularly like Tutte Lemkow's wizard with his colourful potions and psychedelic scrying thing. Magic gets presented as something really quite druggy, which works nicely. The fights are all very well choreographed, too. And I really liked the beheadings.

Brigitte Nielson gives a performance which is really rather functional (in fact, Arnie out-acts her, which is saying something!) but she's as good as she needs to be, playing a character who wants to save the world and seek revenge against the dastardly Queen Gedren, who murdered her entire family after Sonja spurned her Sapphic advances. I suppose one might raise an eyebrow at the fact that the baddie is not only gay but that the whole vendetta essentially starts with a bit of Sapphism, but I think that would be a little harsh. After all, Gedren is as camp as a row of tents.

We first meet Sonja being trained as a warrior so she can seek revenge, an obvious parallel with Conan. It's interesting, and ambiguous, how she rejects the advances of men, and seems rather wary of them, swearing only to love a man if he can vanquish her in combat. There's all sort of stuff going on here, if you happen to be both dirty-minded and pretentious like myself. After all, a sword is a phallic symbol, so Sonja has trained herself to gain total mastery over a symbolic penis. Perhaps this indicates a simple desire to be in control. Perhaps it indicates a fear of the penis, and a desire to control that fear. Perhaps it indicates both. People are complicated.

Similarly, Sonja is a fiercely independent woman, very resistant to receiving any help from men. As she very clearly insists to Kalidor. Yet on the other hand she will yield to a man who defeats her in combat, which could be interpreted as a desire for a strong man. One could argue that this is rather misogynistic- after all, the script is by men, as they so often are, and one of those men is the author of Flashman. I don't think we can necessarily assume that, though. Sonja is clearly presented as a strong woman, who takes charge of her own destiny and is clearly the central character. (The main McGuffin can only be destroyed by a woman, after all.) It's just that people are complicated, and being strong doesn't necessarily mean being alone and sexless.

Anyway, I love the swordfight between Sonja and Kalidor, which continues until they're both really exhausted. At first I thought I was watching a metaphor for foreplay, but then, as it went on and on, I realised that it was a metaphor for really, really good sex. With her on top, naturally.

So, getting back to less dirty-minded matters, I liked the film, basically. The film started off threatening to be very silly; what could possibly be more Monty Python than yellow text in a fancy font rolling up the screen to a backdrop of hills? But in the end it was only moderately silly, with a great little comedy double act in the young, arrogant Prince, with his fondness for occasional bullock-kicking, and the humble chubster Falkon. The film has a good script, looks good, and is as well-acted as it needs to be.