The Gathering Storm

 "He promised to cut down to three bottles of champagne in the evening."

It's good to see this again, twenty-three years after I saw it first being broadcast. This TV film is an exemplar of something that exists, yes, as a nice little historical drama, but primarily as the vehicle for an actor to show us a real, incredible tour de force in a truly seminal role. For here, Albert Finney simply is Winston Churchill, in all the nuances of that very complicated human being. We often speak, when actors play real historical figures of whom footage exists, of the distinction between acting and impression. But here... well, the distinction simply doesn't exist. It's a truly extraordinary performance from a first rate actor.

The script, of course, deserves credit too, for this is Churchill- blinkered, irascible, deeply emotional, loving, exasperating. His views are nicely shown- of course, history remembers him for being very, very right about the most important thing- the urgent necessity of utterly crushing Nazism without mercy. But the script doesn't shy away from other things, such as his strong support of British rule over India, often using problematic language. Nuance, again. Yet, despite his flaws... he can't help but inspire loyalty and affection, something shown very well here.

The narrative is nicely done, beginning with Winston's career in the doldrums and ending with him being First Lord again, although much of this is due to Ralph and his deep sacrifice. But there's more- how he was so problematic yet loving as a husband and father. As a salutary reminder that one can, and bloody well should, have absolutely no truck with any of this "fourteen units of alcohol a week" nonsense.

And with that... I'm posting this and uncorking the wine. Happy Friday.

The Importance of Being Earnest (2002)

 "Thirty-five is a very attractive age. London society is full of women of the very highest birth who have, of their own free choice, remained thirty-five for years."

Oscar Wilde is awesome. I've read everything he ever published at one time or another. And, of all his plays, The Importance of Being Earnest is the most fun, just edging out An Ideal Husband. So I should enjoy this film, right?

Well... obviously the script is faultless, as it's Wilde with only minor, functional changes. And the cast is broadly excellent- especially Reese Witherspoon, Colin Firth and Rupert Everett. There are some creative visual touches behind the basic dialogue and scenes- Cecily's fantasies, the revelation that Aunt Augusta was a chorus girl before meeting Lord Bracknell, and that Jack, at the end, is telling a bit ofa porky about being called Ernest. I can see why these were done.

But... well, there's a rather brilliant 1952 film of this play, one that looms over this version like an intimidating mountain. It's quite plausible that I'd have enjoyed this version more if I hadn't seen and enjoyed its magnificent predecessor. We'll never know. But... it just isn't as good, and isn't really different enough or quirky enough to make upfor that.

Plus, although I can understand the desire to expand the settings and locations and to try and make this film not look like a static,filmed stage play... that's what the play is. It's people standing in rooms talking. Pretending otherwise doesn't work.

And finally... a production of The Importance of Being Earnest always stands or falls on its Lady Bracknell. And Edith Evan's languidly witty version of the character is quite definitive. Judi Dench is very good here, but her inevitably sterner interpretation simply cannot compare with her truly great predecessor.

Still, taking this film on its own terms, there are things to like here. it's good to see a more modern cast speaking these lines. But, if it's not too late, I'd recommend watching this first and the 1952 version second.

Die Another Day (2002)

 "What are you? CIA?

"NSA..."

I was spoilt for choice for quotes. This may not be the best Bond film ever, but it's one of the very best for double entendres.

Yes, I know, it's reputation isn't great. And yes, it's flawed. I sisliked it back in 2002. And yet, on today's second viewing... is it really that bad?

Yes, we have the invisible car and really quite out there sci-fi elements. But I wasn't as bothered about that this time for some reason. And yes, the plot doesn't quite make sense. And it's a bit harsh for Bond to be in the doghouse for supposedly cracking under torture!!!

But I was entertained. Even the universally panned theme song... well, the production is truly horrible, and it's a waste of Madonna to use her in a song like this, but if you look past the horrible autotune and production issues, the song itself is fundamentally good.

Yet we have a good villain, however preposterous his backstory. Halle Berry is... well, adequate as a Bond girl, and gets a nice little scene involving a laser beam that's a nice little homage to Goldfinger. There are some nice locations in Cuba, although by the time we get to Iceland there's far too much CGI. That becomes a problem during the car chase action sequences, too.

And it's all very, very early 2000s, all waterboarding torture and conflict diamonds and smoking at work.

But fundamentally, this film is far from terrible. Perhaps the bad reception was because of everyone now having seen Austin Powers, meaning the format needed to become more serious to survive, and this film is gloriously silly?

The Tuxedo (2002)

 "The name's Tong, James Tong."

So I know I'm not blogging much this past fortnight while I'm in full on dad mode and focussing fully on Little Miss Llamastrangler- back to normal sort of schedule from Monday or thereabouts. But last night I happened to see this Jackie Chan film, pleasingly undemanding to my mind which this week is perhaps less prone to being a pretentious git than usual.

This is basically a comedy-cum-action thing where Jackie Chan does his comedy thing of playing an ostensibly hapless protagonist but having a pretext- in this case, basically a magic tuxedo that confers awrsome martial arts abilities on its subject by means of fancy CGI nanobots- and there's basically an action story riffing loosely off James Bond tropes, with a bit of sparks with Jennifer Love Hewitt's Del Blaine which inevitably ends in them getting together.

In short, this is a by-the-book action film of its time, entertaining enough with its CGI insects and James Brown cameo. I enjoyed it... but, well, as action films of the period go, it's fairly anonymous. Interestring, though, to see Chan for the first time in his later, Hollywood iteration.

But what's more interesting, perhaps, is that this film was made just two decades ago... and these sorts of generic, original action films marketed via a star rather than being a sequel or using existing IP are sort of, well, dead.

Men in Black II (2002)

"Anyone could take over the place with the right set of mammary glands..."

I was lukewarm about the first film. This is MUCH better, and a rare example of a sequel that's better, despite the cameo from that disgusting paedo Michael Jackson.The critics are wrong- this film sizzles in a way the first didn't. It's also one of the last Hollywood sequels to use Roman numerals. Grr.

It's the same director. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones (in that order this time) are just as superb, and Rosario Dawson no less so. It looks much the same, although with much more CGI. Admittedly it benefits from a world already built.

Yet the comedy is much better written. Smith and Jones get to actually be the splendid comedy double act that they are. There's a sense of peril. The plot is much more coherent, and links hilariously to a simulated 1970s documentary with retro special effects.

The concepts are delicious- a locker containing an entire culture. A CGI Venus flytrap princess. A post office in rural Massachusetts staffed entirely by aliens just to provide a sinecure... and yes, it is indeed joyous to see Kay get his memory back.

This film is so very underrated. It deserves so much more love. It's just that you have to watch the first film first.

Blade II (2002)

 "Lock up your daughters, boys and girls. The dark knight returns."

This film is bloody good, possibly better than the first. Partly it's the direction- Guillermo del Toro in Hollywood superhero blockbuster mode, as in Hellboy as well as here, is almost a sub-genre within his own oevre, given the very strong sense of visual and narraive style between the Blade and Hellboy films.Partly it's the strong cast. And partly it's the strong script by David S. Goyer.

What's odd here, perhaps, is that the large gang of rather cool characters as compared to the previous film may make one assume the film takes a lot from the comics- yet the only Marvel character here is Blade himself, although I understand the original plan was to use Morbius, who would have to wait a decade or two. Everyone else is a new character, and even the vampire mythology (a virus rather than mystical) seems to owe very little to my possibly dated understanding of Marvel lore.

What can't be doubted is that Wesley Snipes is again charismatic and effective, if not necessarily subtle, while Kris Kristofferson is extraordinary and Norman Reedus is fun. It's particularly good, though, as a Red Dwarf fan, for me to see Danny John Jules in a fairly meaty serious role.

The film is shot superbly, as you'd expect, and is essentially a series of extremely well-done set pieces in the "house" style. Yet the plot, with its series of double crosses and opaque agendas, is also strong. A quietly impressive Marvel blockbuster.

Star Wars: Attack of the Clones (2002)

“I’m programmed for etiquette, not destruction.”

I tried to like The Phantom Menace but, while I found a good concept at its core, I didn’t entirely succeed. This time around, despite a couple of uncharismatic leads, I was surprised to find a film that was pretty damn good.

Ewan McGregor, though a good actor, is far too hopelessly miscast and awkwardly stiff as Obi Wan, a problem which remains. I didn't find Hayden Christensen t all bad as Anakin, despite his reputation, and his acting is sound- but he just doesn't have the charisma. These two aside, though, we have an engaging cast led by Natalie Portman, a superb baddie in Christopher Lee, and a bigger role for the Jedi council. We also have an exciting and well structured film that both cleverly moves the plot arc forward and convincingly develops the characters.

The main arc- the beginning of the clone wars and Palpatine assuming more power, chipping away at democracy in the beleaguered Republic as he ostensibly increases its security with a clone army-hints at an old tension between liberty and security, and it's clear that Anakin, influenced as much by Palpatine as his actual mentor Obi Wan, is on the side of the authoritarians. Yet I'm surprised more is not made of the Roman parallels- a Republic with an overstretched web of territory becoming more and more swayed by the necessity of a strong military, and even a popular politician manipulating himself into the position of Dictator, like Caesar. The political skulduggery is very well handled indeed.

Yet so is the gradually and convincingly developing romance between Padme and Anakin, which is entirely believable. And Anakin begins as likeable and not really a bad bloke- what's wrong with reasonably questioning authority, having a sexuality, being idealistic? And his only sins here are the urge to protect his mother and the woman he loves. It's only when he slaughters the Tusken Raiders as revenge for his mother, including the children, and when he lets slip his authoritarian leanings, that hints of darkness begin to appear in him as they do with the Republic itself.

But there's also plenty of action throughout, some good comedy with C-3PO and R2-D2, and some actual wit and humour in the dialogue, a joy to behold. We even get to see a cool, Kiwi origin for Boba Fett (not named here as a Mandalorian!), a lightsabre contest between Count Dooku and the awesome Yoda, and a confrontation scene between legends Christopher Lee and Samuel L. Jackson.

I think I'll come out and say it; there are a couple of flaws, yes, but the second of the prequels is a bloody good film.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

“I’ll have no pointy earer outscoring me!”

This is probably my least favourite of the trilogy but only because it’s the middle one and therefore the least dramatic. It’s still awesome and features the extraordinary Battle of Helm’s Deep. Never mind that Mrs Llamastrangler asked halfway through if they’d walked far and had to be told that it featured scenes of brisk walking, jogging and even a bit of horse riding..

The main problem with LOTR after this point is, of course, that all the exciting adventures of Gandalf, Aragorn etc are contrasted with the crushing fullness of Frodo and Sam walking very slowly towards Mordor in hundreds of pages of never-ending prose where very little happens. Peter Jackson, quite sensibly, cuts all this down rather a lot while expanding on the good stuff. It all looks superb, of course, and makes you want to go to New Zealand, and it’s all brilliant for the same reasons as the first film. The same cast continues to be magnificent for the same reasons, with the honourable additions of our newly introduced Rohirrim characters- Bernard Hill as Theoden, Miranda Otto as Eowyn, Karl Urban as Elmer and of course Chucky himself, Brad Dourif as Wormtongue. Rohan looks magnificent, the return of Gandalf is perfectly shot and the rejuvenation of Theoden is a joy to behold. And the Ents look extraordinary.

As for the Battle of Helm’s Deep, I’m not usually good with extended battle scenes, with their visual nature and lack of dialogue, but this kept me gripped with its twists and its turns. It’s an awesome finale to an awesome film. Is it just me, though, that finds it a little odd and jarring that Frodo is treated as a “master” by Gollum and as a boss by Sam essentially because he’s the country squire, something which may have been unthinkingly normal to Tolkien’s generation but looks decidedly odd now. But the class politics of LOTR are perhaps for another day...

Bend It Like Beckham (2002)

"Even these mosquito bites will look like juicy, juicy mangoes..”

I used to follow football a bit. At least international. Then the 2010 World Cup happened and I stopped watching football in disgust at England’s shameful display. The only football match I’ve watched since 2010 was the recent World Cup semi-final, and even that was only because it happened to be on. And I Never was anything more than a casual follower.

So the nice little fourth wall breaking bit at the start, for me, was a nice but if nostalgia for the days when I recognised the days of players and pundits- whatever happened to Alan Hansen? It’s a strong, fun start to a fun little film.

Yes, the film is formulaic to a large extent. A girl from a traditional Punjabi family struggles to get her traditional Sikh parents to accept what she wants to do with her life, football; it’s all a melodrama, albeit at the more restrained end; and there are lots of little references to culture clashes, racism, and sexism within the Indian and gora communities. It’s all done so well though, and the cast is superb, even if you do wish that Keira Knightley would just bloody have something to eat. All this to a soundtrack of Basement Jaxx and Mel C; you can certainly tell this is 2002. Such innocent days, long before Brexit, and when we all thought US presidents couldn’t get any worse than Bush. Hah.

Also, it’s about  fathers and daughters, which I like. This film may not be my usual fare but Mrs Llamastrangler and I very much enjoyed it.

The Grudge (2002)

"They're coming for me!"

This isn't the Hollywood remake with Sarah Michelle Gellar- it's the Japanese original, the one Sam Raimi raved about. So is it any good? Well, yes, but it's a good film, not a great one, where some fantastic horror set pieces and very good direction save what is an over-convoluted narrative with too many characters.

Films in multiple acts based on different characters can work, and work well; see the entire career of Quentin Tarantino, the master of making a non-linear narrative comprehensible to the average person. But a narrative horror film, based on the ramping up of tension and ever-increasing shocks, in which the supernatural horror is held back but shown in terrifying glimpses? Here, where such a narrative is technically done very well indeed, the chosen narrative style serves to destroy the overall effect of what are truly superb individual horror set pieces.

That doesn't take away from the effectiveness of those set pieces, though, and it's the direction that truly makes this film shine. A very modern horror, eschewing all sense of the Gothic for modern white interiors and brutalist exteriors has a very different and very effective look. Worth a go but perhaps, in spite of some technical excellence, not quite as good as its reputation.

Spider-Man (2002)

"You're not Superman."

I'll be generous; this film is well-made, well-acted, looks good, has a decent plot and it was amazing at the time (unbelievably the first ever Spider-Man film was released as late as 2002) to see Spidey on-screen. Tobey Maguire is a good Peter Parker and the film faithfully translates the comics well, particularly visually. But... even at the time it was a little disappointing that the film was so serious and totally lacking in Spidey's signature quips.

Now? Well, several years of witty, cool Marvel Cinematic Universe films make this film seem stuff and awkward. It's quite good, but forgettable, and feels like a relic of a different era. The most interesting thing about it in 2016, sadly, is that Cliff Robertson, who plays Uncle Ben, also played Shame in the 1960's Batman series.

Still, there are lots of things to praise, from the costume to the realisation of Spidey's web swinging to the casting of J.L. Simmons as a perfect J. Jonah Jameson. Doing an origin story for a superhero film is generally not a good idea but they get away with it; nice to see the radioactive spider being updated to a genetically engineered one. And Willem Dafoe makes a splendid Green Goblin.

It's just that, well, these days we expect our superhero films to be a bit less serious. Not a bad film, but surprisingly dated..

Scooby-Doo (2002)

"I'm so over this damsel in distress nonsense."

Let's admit it: a live action Scooby-Doo film was never on my peoples' wish list, especially not one starring Sarah Michelle Gellar, an actress who has loads of natural talent but, sadly, is rather prone to phoning in her performance, as she has done ever since halfway through Buffy. This is no exception but, annoyingly, she has just enough natural talent to pull it off. Just. Still, we have the consolation that this film is rather excellent, mainly due to a splendid script from James Gunn, now famous for helming Guardians of the Galaxy.

This film is great because it's funny, and it's funny because it nods and winks,in a delightfully metatextual way, at all those drunken/stoned conversations about Scooby-Doo that we all had as students. You know, the ones about how Shaggy was a massive stoner who always has the munchies. I mean, he's so stoned he thinks his dog can talk. And that's the only reason why this film gives us a little snippet of Pass the Dutchie. 

There is also, of course, the spectacle of seeing cartoonish running in live action an thus incredibly expensive. And the deconstruction of the gang's personalities- Fred is vain, Daphne superficial and Velma the only clever one and, bizarrely, not gay. And Rowan Atkinson. Rowan Atkinson is always a good thing.  

Best of all, though, is the twist with Scrappy. This is a witty and enjoyable bit of metatextual fun and a cut above most similar films.

Red Dragon (2002)

"Any rational society would either kill me or put me to some use."

I ought to confess, before anything else, that I haven't seen Manhunter. But this is a different adaptation of the novel, not a remake, so it doesn't break my "no remakes before I've done the original" rule. Besides, the film is deeply entwined with the two predecessors to which it is a sequel, dovetailing very nicely into The Silence of the Lambs.

It's also bloody good, and even manages to pull of the trick of Anthony Hopkins, eleven years older than we first saw him, playing the intellectual, civilised Hannibal Lecter of 1980. Well, aside from the small point that he's feeding his guests human flesh, but it's fascinating to watch a Lecter whose proclivities are as yet unknown. Even more interestingly he's a psychiatric expert in psychopathic killers, and regularly consulted by FBI agent Will Graham, but we quickly move, over the opening titles, to Graham catching him, his trial, and his nine consecutive life sentences, followed by Graham's retirement, although we just know that the cliche of his coming out of retirement is upcoming. 

Interestingly, Lecter is again not the main villain here. The Buffalo Bill this time, the Tooth Fairy, is left mysterious for a bit, and eventually Graham is forced to consult the esteemed Mr Lecter, the approach to the cell echoing The Silence of the Lambs. The twist is, rather nicely, that the Tooth Fairy is a big fan of Hannibal's. The plot is, perhaps, predictable, but it is sufficiently well-realised and well-acted to get away with it. 

The killer's final tragic end eventually comes after a few twists and turns, revelations of a life of abuse and a twist in which we find that he is not, as we had thought, dead. There are lots of jolts and moments of excitement amongst the violence and yet the film still seems to maintain a certain sense of quality, of being more than just a violent thriller. This is yet another sequel which is in fact more than decent.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

"Not to be rude or anything, but this isn't a great time for me to have a house elf in my bedroom!"

Aw, isn't Dobby cute? it's an ominous beginning, though; someone or something is trying to stop Harry going to Hogwarts this year because it's all dangerous and that. And once he gets there he has to deal with notorious Malfoys and racism allegories. This isn't quite as good as the first film, as there are fewer ideas which evoke wonder, but it's also more serious. Perhaps the franchise grows up with its audience. I'm not sure what I think of that.

There's a plot against Harry. But fear not: here are the Weasleys in their flying car to take him to Hogwarts. They're a little odd, Ron's parents. Julie Walters and Mark Williams are firmly working class, Brummie actors and shown to be a little hard up. Yet Arthur seems to be a senior civil servant, and they send their four children to a posh-looking public school. Perhaps it's best not to think on such matters.

Our friends are eventually, after much botheration including a nasty moving tree called a Whomping Willow (!), back at school, and there is, in what will become a tradition, a new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, played by Kenneth Branagh, who is something of a smarmy git, and simply must be a baddie, right? Richard Harris, as Dumbledore, looks decidedly ill, as indeed he must have been. Attention is paid to Ginny, Ron's younger sister, which means she's going to be important later. Miriam Margolyes has a delightful part as Professor Sprout, conjuring up a screaming plant creature, as you do.

As with the previous film, once we get past the ominous opening bit, there are some amusing and wondrous scenes showing us the sheer otherness and wonder at Hogwarts before the plot gets properly under way.There's a mysterious and eponymous chamber of secrets under Hogwarts. The Malfoys are obviously baddies. Hermione has (shock horror) Muggle blood.The founder of Slytherin, it seems, was a racist, and it's nice to see that racism and evil are thus shown to be virtually synonymous.

There's another issue dealt with here, in the person of Dobby; slavery. Harry refuses to treat Dobby as a slave, in marked contrast to the Malfoys and their own house elf. This is appropriately simplistic for children, I suppose, but the issue of how House Elf slavery arises in magical society generally is not really addressed.

There's a ghost in the girls' bog, Moaning Myrtle, played by Shirley Henderson, who surely is too old to be playing a schoolgirl. There's also a book in the girls' bog, written, unbeknownst to Harry, by a young Voldemort. But "Mudbloods" in the school are under attack, meaning that it may be closed. Worse, one of the victims is Hermione, who has been turned to stone. Officialdom is, like the law, an ass, and Dumbledore is suspended. Our heroes, recreating Sam and Frodo in Lord of the Rings, have to go into the forest and brave loads of giant spiders. Things unwind; Kenneth Branagh (Lockhart) is the red herring, Harry faces a basilisk, Ginny is saved from dying, and everything is ok, after much drama. There's a feelgood ending as Dobby is freed.

This is still a good film, but rather less fun than the first. Is this a trend that is to continue?

The Eye (2002)

“The world is beautiful!”

              

Probably the best thing about being partially deaf is that, unlike most people, I have absolutely no problem with watching subtitled foreign films. My girlfriend falls into the category of “most people” however, so I’m watching this while she does other stuff. Thing is, though, I don’t really get scared by the supernatural in horror films; I don’t believe in it, and that’s that. But it’s deeper than that, really; I never “suspend my disbelief” when watching screen drama, always seeing as something that has been written, designed and shot. I just don’t get scared by anything in fiction, and that is that. Odd, I suppose, that I can still be moved emotionally by it, but let us not go off on too many tangents.

The Eye, being Hong Kong horror, is not from a genre of which I am hugely familiar. It’s good stuff- pacey, strong on character, and stylishly shot, however. The central conceit- a blind woman has her sight restored, but the eyes are donated by a deeply troubled woman cursed by second sight who had committed suicide- is ingeniously horrifying on a very basic level, and the main twist (I won’t spoil, but it involves a photograph) is brilliant. This film does more than just scares, though; the scenes with Ying Ying, a little girl undergoing chemotherapy, are heartbreaking. There are some nice dramatic moments (the early scenes evoke Bill Masen’s bandages being removed in Day of the Triffids), and the conclusion is extremely neat and satisfying.

One little side observation: we native English speakers are lucky to have such a lingua franca as our tongue. This film includes scenes in which two Cantonese speakers talk to a Thai nurse in English, the language of a small island halfway round the world.

This is an excellent film- scary, affecting, superbly shot and with some highly satisfying plot developments. The early part of the film is a little slow, perhaps, but the payoff is worth it. One word of caution, though: beware of a huge spoiler in the film’s tag line

24 Hour Party People (2002)

"It's a shame that you didn't sign the Smiths, but you were right about Mick Hucknall. His music's rubbish, and he's a ginger."

I haven't really touched on music that much in this blog which is odd, as I'm rather obsessed by it and have been ever since I first heard Nevermind. I was a late starter; I didn't really bother with music at all until I was sixteen, but Nirvana and the whole Grunge thing meant a whole lot to me as a teenager. That sort of naturally led to Metal bands like Metallica, Pantera and Sepultura, American indie bands such as Sonic Youth, the Butthole Surfers and the Pixies, classic rock, '70s punk, post-punk, and eventually '70s reggae, blues and 20^th century composers like Penderecki, Glass and Xenakis. Basically, I likes me music. I'm sort of centred on the point where rock meets indie, and I'm a long-haired man who wears band t-shirts, but I'm more omnivorous than that might imply, although I'm not one for the late '80s baggy scene, and I've never been to a rave although I've dabbled in a bit of hardcore and gabber.

So I find myself identifying more with the first half of this film musically than the second. Joy Division and New Order are right up my street but I never really much bothered with the whole Madchester thing. I own both albums by the Stone Roses, and they're very good, but I don't know the Happy Mondays beyond the singles. But the whole story is such a fantastic ride, as rock n' roll always is. We see the great times, the sex and the drugs, but also the darkness as Ian Curtis quietly hangs himself after watching a Werner Herzog film. And hanging yourself is a painful, lingering, horrible way to die. The film also doesn't flinch from the awkward fact that the Hacienda, being awash with ecstasy, was funding gangs and guns and death, and Tony Wilson's flippant attitude to this (from real life, I assume, as his cameo appearance seems to imply a level of creative approval) doesn't exactly paint him in a good light. That's precisely why I don't take illegal drugs. Prohibition may be bloody stupid, but that doesn't mean that bootlegging is ok.

That aside, though, and noting his confessed neglect of his second family, the man is pure punk rock. The whole ethos of Factory Records- of total creative freedom for the bands- is wonderful, and economic reality can go to Hell. I'm just about old enough to remember when selling out was something that simply wasn't done, and signing to a major label was always something to be sheepishly apologised for although, in hindsight, that world came to an end when Sonic Youth signed to Geffen. Also wonderful is the way that he talks, and his unashamed refusal to downplay his education. As a fellow English graduate (although Nottingham, not Cambridge!) I love the speech about the "free play of signs and signifiers" in response to Rob Brydon's journalist accusing him (not unreasonably) of fascism because of Joy Division's rather dodgy name. The point here, of course, is that actually he does need to point out the irony of the Durutti Column's name, because these cultural references zoom straight over most people's heads. We see this sort of thing throughout the film; Ian Curtis doesn't even get the W.B. Yeats reference. I like this, though. There's too much inverted snobbery about. Why shouldn't we live in a world where tramps and game show hosts can quote Boethius if they want to?

There are so many stand-out performances here (I'll come to Steve Coogan in a bit), but Andy Serkis was particularly great as Martin Hannett. This is more or less a who's who of British comedy and drama performers, though, from Peter Kay to Simon Pegg. And the cameos, from Mark E. Smith (I spotted him!) to Howard Devoto (if you haven't heard Magazine's Real Life, get the album now) are a nice little extra bit of metatextual fun in a film where there's rather a lot of it, courtesy of screenwriter Frank Cottrell Boyce.

Rob Brydon has only a minor role but this is, I suppose, pretty much one of those Michael Winterbottom films with him and Coogan, all of which are rather good. The style is certainly very much in line with The Trip et al, with a lot of damage being done to the Fourth Wall. It's so very fitting that Coogan as Tony Wilson not only addresses the camera but does so as an unreliable narrator. Coogan has not only the talent but also the charisma to do this superbly. He also plays the moments of real feeling behind the façade; the scene where he's alone with Ian Curtis' laid-out corpse is genuinely moving.

The moment of nemesis is a magnificent conclusion as the Hacienda finally closes and Tony Wilson invites the punters to loot the place. The place certainly had its dark side, very much so, but this film is a joyous celebration of what now seem to be old-fashioned values of independent record labels, creative freedom and vibrant, changing music, unlike the stagnant scene of today with its landfill indie and chart music strangled by the dead hand of svengalis and talent shows. Er, said the old fart. But I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the bad old days of svengalis and staid musical conservatism, which came to an end when the Beatles came up with the radical practice of writing their own songs, thereby slaying that dragon. But it never really went away. I've always thought that the rock n' roll revolution of the '50s and '60s was a one-off, an injection of African rhythms into the mainstream of Western popular music, which had already been heralded by jazz and blues which now took over completely and gave rise to so much that was new and alive and wonderful. There will always be new music worth listening to, but those days now seem to be more or less over as a dominant part of mainstream culture. Musically, it's 1955 again. This film is a reminder of better times.