Judge Dredd (1995)

“I never broke the law. I AM THE LAW!!!”

This isn’t my first viewing, of course, but the last time I saw this film was on VHS and when John Major was prime minister. It’s probably one of those much-maligned films that benefit from being seen some time later.

There’s no doubt that the film has its flaws. A phoning-it-in Sylvester Stallone is woefully miscast, and the film spends most of its running time breaking the sacred commandment that is Thou Shalt Not Remove Dredd’s Helmet. The Angel family are also shovelled pointlessly into the film with no real development, and it’s very obvious that the Mega City One Street scenes, in spite of the rather good design and use of CGI, are shot on a small set shot to look bigger than it is. You’re also made painfully aware of the flat studio floor.

Still, if you look past these flaws,  and the first two in particular, we actually have a bloody good script here and, while clearly straining against the budget, things generally look pretty impressive. Dredd’s characterisation is perfect (with lots of “I knew you’d say that”) and the world of Mega City One and the Cursed Earth is both faithfully and clearly presented in a way which gives us a world true to the 2000 A.D. strip and a film which works pretty damn well for those who, like myself, are not necessarily huge Dredd fans. A complex plot is made admirably easy to follow, there’s lots of humour, and we have the clever including of Fergie as a much-needed Everyman  for us to identify with

The whole thing, inevitably, looks very ‘90s now, and nothing dates the film as much as the stunt casting of Stallone just because he’s a big name. But this is certainly a cut above most ‘90s sci-fi B movies and manages to overcome its flaws. I enjoyed it.

Never Say Never Again (1983)

"Now you're on this, I hope we're going to have some gratuitous sex and violence."

And so we come to the second Bond film of 1983, and a very unofficial one. It has a sparkling Sean Connery who, though 53, is still younger than Roger Moore, and it also has the sole rights to Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Unfortunately it lacks the rights to an awful lot of things, including the rights to do anything other than a remake of Thunderball, the only Bond film up to this point that ice actively not enjoyed. So is it any good?

Well, actually, yes. It's certainly more humorous than any other Bond film but not, I think, to an excessive degree; it's a proper Bond film, not a spoof. Connery is on particularly fine form and the script has a lot of witty fun with what turns out to be a very loose remake.

The film takes advantage of having to recast roles, with Edward Fox giving us a grumpy new M while the new Q, "Algy", is a chirpy cockney whose department is much reduced. No fancy gadgets here. Kim Basinger makes a splendid Bond girl and it would have been quite, quite wrong if Max Von Sydow had never got to play Blofeld.

It's a very different Bond film and yes, the computer game sequence is dated and weird, but this is a perfectly fine Bond film.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)

"Is there a garbage chute? A trash compactor?"

Well, that was a little bit awesome. First point: this is going to be a very positive review. Second point :SPOILERS. This is going to be one very spoilerific blog post. If you don't want to see the scores, look away now.

We see lots of Han and Chewie, a fair bit of Leia, some of Threepio, less of Artoo and only a final glimpse of Luke. And, unlike the prequels with its forgettable characters, here we have the very likeable and interesting Finn and Rey, and it is the success of these two new characters, above all, that makes J J Abram's sequel such a triumph. He's also realised what good Star Wars should be: not so much science fiction but the feel of myth with the trappings of science fiction.

It's brave to hold off the appearance of any familiar characters for the first part of the film while we get to know Rey and Finn, but it works. Rey is a deliberate parallel of Luke on Tattooine, poor but noble and waiting for a family that will never come- but the Force is strong in her. Finn is a stormtrooper with a conscience, already a rich and powerful background for a character. It helps that both of them are played so well.

And then Han and Chewie appear. It's so good to se them, and Harrison Ford is so amazing you forget how old he is. He gets a huge role and gets to be really heroic- and at the endowed see why, narratively, it had to happen: killed by his own evil son. Whose mother, Leia, now leads the Resistance and is as cool as ever.

The First Order, who have taken over from the Empire, are superb baddies and... well, they're Nazis, aren't they? There were so many punch the air moments with the reveal of various old faces- Admiral Ackbar! Nien Nunb! Yes, lots of the plot beats feel familiar, but so they should. The plot feels completely Star Wars. Everything looks good, with a proper, finely balanced Star Wars aesthetic for all the aliens and all the decor. J J Abrams has done an amazing job.

The Tudors: Season Three, Episode 5

"I miss her, Will."

This episode features a game of chess involving Max Von Sydow. Metatextual or what?

It`s 1538. The King is depressed, distracted, and for much of the episode will only speak to someone later revealed to be his fool, Will Somers. It's hard not to see a King Lear reference here, which tells us something about how we're supposed to see Henry's state of mind.

Politics is turbulent, with factions and even assassinations, and the central figure is an increasingly disliked Cromwell. There is a veritable whodunit underway, and court becomes an increasingly violent place while the King remains indisposed. Cromwell, controversially, summons the King's Counsel, which could be (and is) seen as an usurpation of royal authority. If so, it is a failed attempt; all the members storm out, led by the Duke of Suffolk, leaving only Cromwell's creature Richard Rich. Power is slipping away.

The king, still distracted, casually agrees with Cromwell that he should seek a new wife. But he's in mourning, getting fat. 

This doesn't last, though, and when the King returns to action it's a harsh realisation for Cromwell as Henry demands that the church adopt six acts of faith, some of which are a bit Catholic; confession, no married priests, etc. It suddenly dawns on Cromwell that the King only supported reform so he could get his divorce and his heir; he never was a Protestant true believer. And now that the King has what he wanted from reform  there will be no more; Lutherans and "heretics" are to face a traitor's death. The articles are read out over the King, symbolically renewed, shagging Ursula Missenden. Cromwell is distraught.

In other news, Prince Edward is the most cosseted child in history; Sir Francis Bryan continues to pursue Pole; Brandon is still awkward with his pregnant wife after his part in the massacre; and Edward Seymour is plotting against Bryan. But all eyes are on Cromwell, whose fall we know is coming.

The Exorcist (1973)

"You`re telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor? Is that it?'

I can`t quite believe that I`m nearly thirty-seven and I hadn`t seen this superlative film until now. I suppose we all have a list of seminal cinematic masterpieces that we`ve never quite got round to seeing, but I really had no excuses; I like my horror, and this is one of that select group of auteur-led films made in the early Seventies that pretty much constitute a Hollywood golden age. It`s interesting to watch in the light of its influence on popular culture; this is where we establish the trope of words recorded backwards being Satanic, hence that stupid court case for Judas Priest the following decade. And it`s weird, in the light of The Omen being three years later, that the flawed, doubting priest should be called Damien.

The film is gorgeously shot throughout, as we would expect, and we spend some time establishing that Regan is a nice, normal girl before anything happened,the daughter of a film star, rich, living in a large house with staff. We also establish Father Damien as a troubled man, losing his faith ad having to make difficult decisions about his mother. It`s also fascinating to get some footage of northern Iraq, six years before Saddam Hussein.

I`ve no idea how this relates to the original novel, but the storytelling is elegantly done and the characters, even minor ones such as William Kindeman, the detective, are multi-dimensional. The ending, quick though it is, is nicely foreshadowed; Merrin arrogantly refuses to hear about the history of the case from Damien, and this hubris leads to the old man`s nemesis. Damien is established early on as losing his faith, feels guilt about his treatment of his elderly mother and (as the demon later mentions) fails to stop and help a beggar. His death is ambiguous; is it martyrdom or suicide? Does he die unshriven.

A quick note; this film, while controversial with many, is famously approved of by the Vatican, for obvious reasons; its portrayal of the Roman Catholic hierarchy is extremely positive. But it never, for me, crosses the line into proselytising. The purpose of the film is to entertain and frighten, nothing more.

The film`s justified selling point is the depiction of the possessed Regan; the voice, make-up and special effects are indeed extraordinary, but it is the direction that truly elevates these scenes. The very quick glimpse of the demon early on, just a few frames, is enormously powerful. These scenes are rationed until the end of the film; each individual glimpse of the superlative make-up, the head turning 360 degrees, and the moving bed are allowed to have maximum impact.

I can`t praise this film enough. There are many imitations but this is the real deal, through sheer film-making ability. Undoubtedly one of the greatest horror films ever.

The Tudors: Season Three, Episode 1

"With God's help we'll all be happy now.

A new season, then, and a largely new cast to join Henry, Brandon and Cromwell; even Jane Seymour has been recast. The nationality of the new actors reminds us once again that this is an Irish/Canadian co-production, giving us a good look at some actors from those two countries. And Max Von Sydow.

It's still 1536, that interminable year, and Anne Boleyn's ghost still lingers, but the show must go on. The King has since wedded Jane in a genuinely happy occasion, and there is the feeling of a new start. We are introduced to new characters at court, such as Lady Ursula Missenden, the new lady in waiting, and eyepatch sporting old spy and seafog Sir Francis Bryan. But all is not well; discontent festers in Yorkshire, captioned "Yorkshire, Northern England" in an egregious bit of dumbing down. It seems most ordinary people like monasteries, the proto-welfare state they provided, and the colour and spectacle of the old faith. Cromwell, to put it mildly, is not popular. Yes indeed; first there was Wolsey, then Anne Boleyn: this season it is for Cronwell to get his comeuppance.

The King is pleased; not only is he happily married, but his income has doubled following his raid on the monasteries. And he is in with Charles V again. Sir Edward Seymour is also pleased with his new titles and influence. Less pleased is Mary, exiled from court unless she disowns her mother, but she has not only Chapuys but also Jane on her side. But Sir Francis, chillingly, explains to her that, unless she disowns both her mother and her faith, "Mr Cromwell cannot guarantee your safety."

Jane continues to be kind and gracious, appointing Lady Rochford, former beard to Sir George Boleyn, as her principal lady in waiting. In the run up to her coronation she tries to plead Mary's case to the King, but Henry warns her flatly not to worry her pretty little head about such things. 

Chapuys urges Mary to sign to preserve her life, with Papal dispensation. In this new world, Catholicism and dissembling must go hand in hand. But the Pope is up to other things; Cardinal Van Waldenburg, who looks uncannily like Ming the Merciless, is speaking at Castle Gandolfo with one Reginald Pole, a devout Catholic who is of considerably bluer blood than any Tudor.

Jane, now queen, is kind to both Mary and Elizabeth, looking after the sisterhood through genuine kindness. Meanwhile Cromwell, he if humble birth, is now a peer of the realm, and the most unpopular man in England, not least Yorkshire.the rebellion grows, and Henry is reminded of the rebellion of the Cornish against his skinflint father back in 1497; the awful power of the mob is a true fear of his. Brandon is sent to dip his hands in blood, brutally suppressing the rebellion. Cromwell, meanwhile, finds his star waning a little with the sign that his policies are not exactly popular. He has risen high, and has far to fall...

Conan the Barbarian (1982)

"Conan, what is best in life?"

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!"

I'm a bit OCD when it comes to consuming popular culture. If I miss an episode of a television drama, I can't watch the next one until I've seen the one I missed. I can never watch a film from part way through; I absolutely have to see the start. I wasn't always such an extreme case, though, which means that in my late teens I actually did read some of Robert E. Howards's Conan stories. I'm not sure I could do that now, for those very OCD reasons. What order are the books supposed to be in? Does it matter? Does the stuff written by L. Sprague De Camp count as "canonical"? Is there some sort of overlap with the stories of H.P. Lovecraft whose stories, I believe, were published by the same pulp magazine? Also, incidentally, why are there so very few films based on Lovecraft's stories?

I remember enjoying what I read, but very little about it because, I suspect, it was extremely disjointed. I liked the book covers, though; that I do remember. And this film faithfully recreates that aesthetic of scantily clad, sexy individuals of both sexes, sorcerers in horned headgear, loads of snakes, and really cool armour with even cooler helmets. It's a shame about all the mullets (not Arnie, fortunately), but I believe they were still legal in the early '80s. Still, the whole look of the film is bloody good. I'm now rather interested in reading about this whole world, and when I've finished this article I'll be off for a spot of Wikipeding.

But… it's really rather easy to pick holes in the whole idea of the Hyborean age, isn't it? This made-up epoch between the fall of Atlantis and the beginning of recorded history is pretty much an invitation to look for anachronisms- and here we get concepts such as Valhalla, Vanir and a character called "Thorgrim" with a massive warhammer. The technology level is very much Iron Age or later; the first thing we see is steel being worked, we see corn being ground with a quern early on, and I'm trying to recall if the horses had stirrups. I suppose you can explain some of these things as being lost in some later cataclysm, but it's rather hard to explain the sight of horses being ridden. I believe that horses were fairly light-weight until at least the Iron Age, which is why their use in warfare was pretty much limited to chariots for all but the lightest of uses.

Still, let's not pick holes, fun though it is. A fictional "lost" age is probably the only way you can do this kind of hard-edged, rough and ready sort of sword and sorcery stuff. These characters are neither stupid nor uncultured (they have poetry and philosophy), but there's a roughness to them. Speech is extremely direct. There are absolutely no pleases, thank yous or any other kind of verbal politeness. Characters mean what they say and hat they mean, which doesn't make them in any way shallow, unintelligent or incapable of irony or humour. Their society may be very harsh indeed, but there's an innocent lack of guile to them, and they're perfectly capable of warmth, love and even a kind of articulacy.

Not Arnold Schwarzenegger, though. Of course not. Aside from an ill-advised semi-soliloquy just before the big set-piece fight towards the end he's a man of few words, as befits his command of English at the time. Still, the future Governator was obviously hired for his rippling muscles and required to be more of a presence than an actor, and this is a role he fulfils admirably. And it's quite an achievement to display so much charisma, and to be the undisputed star of the film, while saying so little.

Of course, James Earl Jones is much, much more charismatic, and he does this entirely through actually acting. He has possibly the finest voice in all of cinema; Thulsa Doom is an utterly delicious baddie, but he has pretty much nothing at all in common with Darth Vader in his vocal stylings. He's pretty bad-ass, demanding that his underlings be prepared to face death and "emptiness" on his whim. Presumably this means that they sacrifice themselves for him without question, knowing that their deaths are pointless and they will be utterly forgotten, and in every expectation that there will be no afterlife. Chilling.

The film manages the wonderful feat of playing everything straight while slipping in a bit of metatextual silly subtext on the sly. Conan's crucifixion is such overblown and pretentious Christ symbolism that it can only be intentional. My eyebrow was also raised during the sex scene between Conan and the prophetess. As soon as she reaches orgasm she turns into a horrible screeching demon. Hmm. Perhaps just a slight hint of male fear of female sexuality there then. There are also lots of scenes of semi-naked women chained up and on public display, meaning that I couldn't help thinking about the male gaze and all that. But I think the scene where Conan, as a slave in his cage, is allowed to have sex with (well, rape) a female slave in his cage while others watch pretty much has to be taken as evidence that it's being done knowingly. It's still being done, of course. Doing things ironically doesn't actually stop things being misogynistic.

Oh yes, and then there's the scene with the semi-clad woman jumping into a pit to sacrifice herself to a snake, which one can't help noticing is a somewhat phallic creature. Do you reckon there might be a bit of symbolism there? Of course, the snake turns out to be dead. There might be a bit of symbolism there, too. No wonder Thulsa Doom is so humiliated and angry about this later on. And I can't help noticing that the only characters at whom he aims those snake-arrow things are female. What an amazing coincidence…

It's also rather noticeable that Conan's girlfriend, a rather major character, doesn't even have a name, in marked contrast to Subotai, whom I like a lot. A also like Akiro; he's such a fun character. I love the way he narrates the film and then appears halfway through, too. It's a very well-structured script, co-written, I notice, by none other than Oliver Stone.

I enjoyed this far more than I expected. It may not be very deep but it's solidly written, and a lot more fun than it might appear to be at first glance.

The Seventh Seal (1957)

“Perhaps there isn’t anyone?”

“Then life is a meaningless horror!”

I must admit I’ve been taking refuge in more light-hearted films, usually Hammer or Universal horror, or sci-fi, etc, up to now. I’ve been a little afraid to tackle the many films in my DVD collection which tend to be more gushed over by critics; would my reviews pass muster? Would I fail to mention something which is generally considered to belong to the category of the bleeding obvious? Well, I’ve finally bitten the bullet with this film and, if anything, it’s actually easier to write about as the themes are handed to you on a plate.

This is essentially a fairly straightforward and transparent meditation on existentialism, pretty much wearing its themes on its metaphorical sleeves and covering much the same ground as loads of stuff by people like Sartre and Camus. God is dead, life is therefore meaningless, it’s up to us to assign meaning, we are therefore terrifyingly free to make all sorts of stupid decisions, yadda yadda yadda. This sort of thing was everywhere in the ‘50s.

It’s the squire, Jöns, who is the voice for this philosophy, and he spends much of the film trying to push it on to the other characters. I’m not sure we’re quite supposed to approve of him, however; he’s quite pointedly amoral. There’s a particularly unpleasant moment where he casually declines to rape the mute girl, having just forcibly kissed her, because it’s “dry in the long run.” This is a rather nasty pun, and hints that he has done otherwise in the past. His misogyny pops up everywhere, too.

The knight, Antonius Block, is a thoroughly decent chap, played superbly by Max Von Sydow, but paralysed by existential angst in its purest form. He spends the entire film with the certain knowledge of imminent death and wrestling with his lack of faith versus his desire to believe in a God. He soliloquises a lot. But he finds a brief moment of happiness in a simple picnic with Jof, Mia and their baby son. They are simple, poor, but happy people who love each other without complications and, of course, they end up being the only survivors. The ending would have been a bit of a downer otherwise. But then, they are the only characters who truly represent Life, as we shall discuss.

Block and Jöns have wasted the last ten years in a pointless crusade and are now returning home, like Odysseus, although I’m not sure that comparisons to the Odyssey would really hold up. But death, in the form of plague, stalks the land. And the Black Death, in Scandinavia and the British Isles in particular, was truly genocidal, killing perhaps 50% of the population, although perhaps we should be wary of taking the historical setting too literally. Existentialist thought was not widespread in the 1350s.

The film contrasts death with life throughout. Death predominates; the early scene in the tavern makes it clear that people do not expect to live and that many believe they are living in the End Times, hence the prominence of quotes from the Book of Revelation. This morbidity reaches a disgusting peak with the arrival of the flagellants, with their gloatingly sadistic leader, who are met with reverence by the kneeling townsfolk. This contrasts sharply with the sneering attitude towards the actors, and their lovely, witty, bawdy song. The contrast makes it clear that Jof and Mia, fertile and happy in spite of life’s travails, represent Life, which for some reason I am writing in capitals They’re lovely, aren’t they? But it’s because of Block, if indirectly, that they are saved. He does in fact achieve something with the extra time he’s given.

The most upsetting part of the film is the treatment of the “witch”, so very young, who is burned to death, and what seems even worse is the fact that her final hours are spent in the stocks, surrounded by people who hate her. Block is able to ease her suffering at the end, which has definite echoes of Christ being offered a drink at the Crucifixion.

Oh yes, and I suppose I’d better mention the chess game between Block and Death, one of the most iconic things in the history of ever. Obviously, it’s pretty much compulsory to mention Wayne’s World 2 here, but I’m sure I’ve seen some stuff from popular culture which references Death chopping down that tree. Anybody know where it might have been from? And the ending, with Death interrupting breakfast just minutes after Block has been reunited with his lovely wife, has got to be an inspiration for Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life.

That was fairly painless. I’ll be a bit less afraid to tackle such critically adored films in future.

Flash Gordon (1980)

“And use your fingers too, this time. Careful, darling! It’s very sensitive.”

I can’t believe I managed to get to the age of 34 without seeing this film. It’s… unique. The whole look and style is basically the 1960’s TV Batman ethos as applied to pulp magazine / 1930’s movie serial sci-fi (Lorenzo Semple Jr even does the scripting duties!), but this is a film which definitely feels as though it was made just post-Star Wars.

I don’t know much about Flash Gordon, really, aside from a half-remembered cartoon I saw as a very young kid and, of course Defenders of the Earth. But I understand this is a very faithful adaptation of the original comic strip, in all but tone. Certainly, it has a very 1930’s serial feel, with constant peril and non-stop action. I suspect the heavy erotic element may be new, though; about half the cast list at the end of the film is for scantily clad concubines of one kind or another, and there’s quite a lot of scenes in the movie which are pretty much soft porn. These are generally the scenes featuring Aura, who is constantly kissing, carousing, being whipped (and enjoying it, according to Klytus!) and coming out with some delightful double entendres. I’m not good with heights myself, but she can teach me to fly any time.

Sam J. Jones is perfect as Flash, in an Adam West sort of way. There’s a touch of plywood to his performance, of course, but this is deliberate and appropriate. The whole thing looks and feels very garish, glittery, camp and over the top, and the excellent soundtrack from Queen, the campest band in all of rock n’ roll, is just the icing on the cake. The alien landscapes and spacescapes are very stylised, and in no way realistic, but the sense of scale is definitely cinematic.

There’s one thing that makes me feel just a little uncomfortable, though. There’s some rather dodgy orientalism going on; the baddies are effeminate, sensuous and despotic, thus embodying all the tropes of the East as seen by the West. I suspect this may not have been Edward Said’s favourite film. And as for Ming the Merciless himself- well, he’s a great moustache-twirling villain, and delightfully played by Max Von Sydow, but, well, he’s a rather arse-clenchingly embarrassing Chinese stereotype, isn’t he? The clothes, the moustache, even the make-up imply a sort of Fu Manchu in space. And all of this stuff is too prominent and foregrounded to be dismissed. It’s a genuine problem. I mean, the very name “Mongo” has certain ethnic connotations.

Still, Max Von Sydow is fantastic, as are many in the cast. Although (yes, I know where this was filmed), I couldn’t help noticing how many of them are British. I say this as a Brit, but do Americans not mind when so many films based on characters from their popular culture are stuffed to the gunwales with British actors? The recent Batman films by Christopher Nolan show the very same syndrome.

Oh, and there’s one of these British actors who most definitely deserves a paragraph to himself: Brian Blessed, of course. I recall reviewing his appearance in Blake’s 7, which seemed to be a sort of transitional phase from Brian Blessed, the versatile actor to BRIAN BLESSED THE BARBARIAN KING, WHO GOES “RAAAAARGH!!!” Although I was surprised that “Gordon’s alive?” doesn’t even make it into his top twenty shoutiest lines in the film. It’s a good performance, which is a very good thing as he’ll be using it non-stop for the next thirty years…

The plot is pretty relentless, and works on the same two levels as the 1960’s Batman TV series. Personally, I found it hilarious that weddings on Mongo use the same Wedding March as we do on Earth. Perhaps Richard Wagner was from Mongo?

The last scene, though, with a gloved hand taking Ming’s ring from his charred finger… Russell T. Davies has seen this film, hasn’t he?