Poirot: Four and Twenty Blackbirds

 "Cricket. The English enigma. I know not of any other game where even the players are unsure of the rules."

This is rather good, perhaps the best episode far, and not just for seeing the novelty of Jim Branning from EastEnders as an attendant in the gents. I'm warming more to the little character quirks of Suchet's Poirot- the seriousness with which he takes his food, and his subtle humour.

The story is quite clever too, even if I twigged straight away that the change in Henry Gascoigne's eating habits was explained away by an impostor. There are a pleasing number of twists and turns, and for once there's some nicely judged and amusing character moments. There's a nice little guest spot from Hilary Mason as a stern housekeeper, and nice nods to Japp's embrace of deductive science- no Lestrade he- and the relaxed friendship between the two of them and Hastings.

The period continues to fascinate- the social attitudes, the cars, the clothes, the art, the architecture.

I may be getting into this series a little. May.

Don’t Look Now (1973)

 “The one who’s blind. She’s the one who can see.”

This film has a reputation of one of this country’s famous horror films, despite the fact that it’s largely set in Venice, and one of its two co-stars is Canadian. I am, I’m sure you’ve gathered, blogging this because it’s Halloween weekend. Yet this isn’t the film I was expecting.

The direction is filets and full of nice little tricks and juxtapositions. The whole directorial grammar is that of a horror film. Nicolas Roeg, whose I work I have never previously, to my fault, seen, excels. Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland are excellent. There’s a lot of cleverness here, from the echoes from John’s job being to restore the murky and faded past, which is awfully gothic, to the whole presence of Venice here in this very British yet also very Italian, Giallo film.

Venice is so very present- reminding me of nothing so much as Siouxie and the Banshees with their video for their cover of Dear Prudence- but has never been more dark or creepy.

And yet, good as the film is, it somehow doesn’t particularly impress as a horror film until it’s too late. This film is seen as a classic of the genre, yet beyond the considerable style, I must confess, I find little substance beyond the obvious.

However, the film is very well shot, and Venice is. Wry pressure. I just wish I’d enjoyed this more.

Robot Jox (1990)

“But there’s nothing special about your body.”

“Thanks!”

I hadn’t heard of this delightfully bonkers Stuart Gordon film 24 short hours ago- I was ignorant of this magnificently silly, splendidly stop motion (I miss that) and enormously fun little film with a script by, er, Robert Haldeman.

The whole thing feels like a fight between a serious tone and a deliberate silliness, which for some reason works brilliantly. The very concept has a four in both camps-  a post-nuclear holocaust world, of the type that was all over the zeitgeist around 1990, where war has been outlawed and replaced by single combat with people controlling giant robots. Already we have a sort of cross between serious science fiction concepts and a potential toy advert, where the designers of the robots are Japanese, like Transformers. It’s a future full of casual racism and sexism and with “tubies”- genetically engineered warriors who are made, not born. Then again it’s also a future with rampant pollution and, er, 1990 standard computer graphics coexisting with flying cars. Also, the interior decor is a bit pants. There are also hints of scarcity and an authoritarian society that pushes people to breed.

There are no stars and the acting style throughout is hardly naturalistic, but it works. Even the sort-of romantic subplot between the two leads is incredibly macho and eventually abandoned so we can end the film in a massive fight between stop motion giant robots. It has no stars, no budget, the script is mad... I think it’s bloody brilliant.