Jubilee (1978) User Reviews

Left As A Problem For The Audience

[boblipton · 5/10 · 30 April 2022]

This Derek Jarman film is split between Queen Elizabeth I and John Dee talking about.... well, I'm not sure what, and modern nihilistic young people living a slovenly life. At first I thought it was going to be a contrasting of the high-flown aspirations of the Enlightenment and an ironic view that "yes, this is what we fought Hitler for"

Well, that's present, but Jenny Runacre as the Virgin Queen doesn't offer much in the way of commentary. I suspect Jarman expected his audience to compare and contrast and reach the correct conclusion, with a strong hint from the director. As such it lacks passion and subtlety, and I'm still wondering why Jarman's policeman wears a helmet which doesn't seem to protect his head.

Why don't you take up embroidery

[jay4stein79-1 · 7/10 · 21 May 2006]

An utterly bizarre film to be sure, Jubilee is an anarchic take on history and science fiction that tells, simultaneously, of Queen Elizabeth I's reign and a dystopian England in 1977 where gangs of women roam the countryside.

Punk-SciFi would reach its apogee with Repo Man, but here's where it more or less starts: With Adam Ant and a host of nameless actors gallivanting about London in outrageous garb. It's an amateur production, I think, that lacks in acting and cinematography. Even the dystopian vision of the then-present, though squalid, lacks snap. Derek Jarman, the director, would go on to do greater, and more adventurous, work that this, most notably Blue.

So why an 7 out of 10? Because polish and anything more than a DIY sensibility would have ruined this film. What it lacks in technical ability (and it pretty much lacks entirely of technical ability), it makes up for in energy and spirit and ideas. In many ways, it reminds me of Night of the Living Dead--a rather amateur production that, despite technical faults, rises above its limitations and is entirely effective. It's not a great film, but it's an incredibly interesting one.

Jubilee is a cinematic experience unlike very few others. It's about as far from mainstream as one can get in non-avant garde English language film (no concessions are made to the middle of the road), so I cannot recommend this to everyone. If you want to see something different (are you a fan of Repo Man, for instance) and something rather unique, check the movie out.

PS You can also snobbishly remark that Sofia Coppola's upcoming Marie Antoinette is nothing but a rehash of most of the ideas put forth here, when it comes out later this year.

Liz of Yesterday, Liz of Tomorrow

[nycritic · 5/10 · 19 April 2006]

Derek Jarman is not a film director one can easily digest. His films were made with the intention to shock, to produce some form of catharsis -- positive or negative -- but something so strong that there would be no other way to regard his work as moving, or deeply unsettling.

JUBILEE is his second feature film coming on the heels of SEBASTIANE and tells the story of Queen Elizabeth I, who summons John Dee and has him reveal unto her the England of the future -- to see how far her influence has reached. He does so, and Ariel appears, showing her a country gone to hell, ruled under anarchy, the police, and the media. Here she time travels to this desolate future, becoming Bod and becoming a leader of a female gang of punks, among them Mad, ViV, and Crabs. Several of them have aspirations to transcend their present, dire situation and make it in the pop world -- bringing forth their own punk sensibilities to it -- while moments of extreme violence, mainly against men, ensues, until one of their own is murdered and they take action against those in power.

JUBILEE is pure Jarman. Not an easy film to come into nor to watch for its entire duration because despite having done films of stronger cinematic value, it seems to me that this one is left hanging in its own time of release (1977) when Punk as a movement was screaming its way into the media and trying to assert itself. True, Punk has come and gone -- assimilated into the Modern Rock movement of the 1980s and subsequently, the Alternative Rock scene of the 1990s and the present decade, but then again, I could be speaking too soon. Every time I watch commercials on television advertising the most vicious computer games in which people destroy people and live under a system of chaos, I can see where JUBILEE was ahead of its time and it certainly is by all accounts.

However, there is something vaguely repellent about this movie. I can't place it, and I went into it with a mind as open as the sea. Maybe it's Toyah Willcox's extreme performance as the butch Mad which oozes rage and draws close to insanity. It could also be the nihilism of the scenes in which two men -- one straight, one gay -- get killed at the hands of women who seduce them, among them Bod/Queen Elizabeth I, played by Jenny Runacre. Whatever it is, JUBILEE has set its goal to shock, to generate strong gut reactions to it. On that basis alone it's worth the watch, but from a distance and with a watchful ear so as to pay close attention to the sayings of Borgia Ginz who predict a dire future for human kind.

History, theology and science fiction backed by screaming polemic and ferocious intent

[ThreeSadTigers · 8 April 2008]

Derek Jarman's Jubilee (1977) is a bleak work of ferocious vision and bold satirical intent, far removed from the director's more intellectual or painterly works, such as Caravaggio (1986), War Requiem (1989), Edward II (1991) and Wittgenstein (1993). It could also be seen as something of a precursor to the visceral aggression and cultural desolation presented in his later project, The Last of England (1987), which presented a similar sense of outrage and impressionist image-weaving, albeit, without the broader strokes of character. With this film, Jarman mixes his own social and political ideologies with the ideas at the forefront of punk; taking both the sense of liberation and the dangerous sense of apathy and aggression presented in both the style and the attitude of that particular era, and applying it to a story that involves elements of history, theology and science fiction.

With the juxtaposition of ideas, Jarman presents us with the alarming vision of England in decline; seeing the present by way of the past, and further depicting a dystopian future very much reminiscent of our own. The story is given a further ironic twist by presenting the image of Queen Elisabeth I as she journeys to the future of late 70's Britain on the eve of the Silver Jubilee, and finds a world in which punk terrorists have taken over the streets, rampaging through shopping centres, looting houses and generally giving a grubby two-fingered salute to anyone courageous enough to represents the mindless masses or the ultra chic bourgeoisie. Certainly, with these factors in mind, Jubilee is not an easy film to appreciate on any level, with the brutality of the imagery and the shocking vulgarity of the world as it is presented being incredibly bleak and incredibly prescient; whilst the visualisation of the film is brash, jarring, clearly exploitative and generally rough around the edges.

The film wallows in sordidness for the first half-hour, as we watch characters wandering through a sadistic wasteland engaging in sex, violence and murder. However, this limited description might lead certain audiences to expect a gritty action film that presents violence as entertainment and coolly ironic characters akin to Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (1971) and Walter Hill's The Warriors (1979), in which street violence and dystopia are presented as chin-scratching entertainment. Jubilee makes no attempt to entertain the audience on a conventional level, instead offering a serious statement of intent. If you want to enjoy Jubilee, or any of Jarman's work, you must do so on his terms, not on your own. To call it a punk film is misleading too. Here, the appropriation of the punk ethos seems satirical, rather than genuine. Obviously Jarman wasn't a punk and wasn't even of the generation, but he clearly saw something within the scene, again, be it in the liberating freedom that punk could offer, or in the apathy and aggression that came as a direct result of the political climate of the time.

In fact, the film seems purposely stylised to conform to the fashion of the punk rock-status quo in an almost ironic manner that stresses the director's cynical, satirical intent. The cast for example reads like the veritable who's who of seventies cult, with characters Lindsay Kemp, Jenny Runacre, Little Nell, Wayne Country, Richard O'Brien, Jordan, Toyah and Adam Ant all popping up to deliver disarming performances; part pantomime/part existential theatre. The second half of the film wanders slightly; there are examinations on sexuality, a prolonged attack on the music industry and brutal violence between the punks and police which causes both sides to question the immoral decadence being flaunted in the name of rebellion. There are also musical numbers, political manifestos, agitprop, and screaming polemic as well as an extraordinarily vivid sequences shot on fuzzy 8mm film, featuring Jordan dressed as a ballerina dancing in a junkyard.

It's one of the most grimly beautiful and evocative images that Jarman ever created; that sense of true tranquil beauty against a vicious, decaying urban wasteland. A moment of quiet reflection within a film of ferocious energy and aggression and yet tinged with a great sense of sadness and theatrical melancholia. It somehow puts the entire film into context, uniting all facets of the film beyond the past present and future and yet still retaining a great sense of nostalgia and reflection. This one seemingly abstract sequences manages to go beyond the merely aesthetic to offer the ultimate visual metaphor of the punk spirit, England in the 70's and Jubilee itself.

Lacks narrative and focus, but is undoubtedly memorable

[tomgillespie2002 · 7/10 · 16 March 2013]

Queen Elizabeth I (Jenny Runacre), guided by John Dee (Richard O'Brien) and spirit guide Ariel (David Brandon), travels forward in time to the eve of the Silver Jubilee to witness Britain in a state of moral and physical decay. The Queen is dead, and the streets are now seemingly ran by groups of punks wearing outlandish clothes and face-paint. One particular group, consisting of, amongst others, Amyl Nitrate (Jordan), Mad (Toyah Willcox), Bod (Runacre in a dual role), Crabs (Nell Campbell) and Chaos (Hermine Demoriane), tend to spend their time smashing cars, having sex, participating in the odd murder, and generally giving the two-finger salute to anything resembling conformity. Crabs picks up a young punk named Kid (Adam Ant), who has aspirations to be a rock star, and finds himself being swept up by the system.

Derek Jarman certainly wasn't a punk - he was at least one generation too late and his art was generally more focused on themes of homosexuality and homoerotica - but Jubilee seems to aspire to be a film that defines punk. As well as the many punk acts that appears in the film (Siouxsie and the Banshees, Wayne County and The Stilts all appear as well as the aforementioned Jordan, Wilcox and Adam Ant), Jubilee adopts a punk aesthetic. The Britain of the 'future' is a dystopian wasteland, filmed in the poorer areas of London that are still marked by the Blitz, visualised through a grey-blue tinted lens. The outfits are a ragged mixture of fashions and social decadence from years and centuries past, combined to make a mockery of social conformity and mass consumerism.

Yet the film is a lot more than a representation of a movement that caught the director's eye. Jarman combines themes of sci-fi, social commentary, the idea of 'Britishness', and satire, in what is ultimately a bit of a mess, but an intriguing and often fascinating mess nonetheless. In fact, this roughness works in favour of it's nihilistic outlook, and the episodic structure offers some bizarre and outlandish vignettes (my personal favourites being Jordan's rendition of Rule Britannia in an Union Jack dress and the murder of a transvestite). But the film wanders on for a bit too long, lessening its impact, and shifting focus to Kid's dull plight in the music business (although it does introduce the phenomenal Jack Birkett).

This is certainly Jarman like I've never seen him before, possibly the most complex and 'cinematic' of his filmography, but the film sometimes overreach itself. Often the film becomes confusing, shifting it's tone from dramatic to satirical, causing the message that Jarman is trying to communicate to blur to the point where I didn't know whether to laugh or to ponder. Is this a film celebrating punk and rebellion? Or is it satirising punk? I've read various writings about this film that claim both. As a film, it lacks lacks narrative and focus, but as an experience, it is certainly memorable. It also has a great cast of actors and musicians that are still remembered in cult circles from old Britain, including Ian Charleson, Karl Johnson, Claire Davenport and Lindsay Kemp, for those, like me, who enjoy looking back in time at Britain, which is ironically the opposite to what Queen Elizabeth I does in Jubilee.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

Disappointing Jarman

[kennetharthurfrench · 3/10 · 2 March 2020]

Let me start off by saying I love Derek Jarman's work. Caravaggio and Edward II are among my favorite films. But he, like a lot of filmmakers, just didn't get punk. I realize that this movie is about more than punk and what it has to say about society and class is important. But dressing people up in torn clothes and playing any generic loud/fast music does not equal punk. Having so many non-actors in important roles doesn't help either. If you want a film that gets what punk rock is about, has something to say about society, and has great music, try Rude Boy.

Good enough for what it is.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 5 August 2011]

Clearly this is not a movie for just everybody. It's an artistic movie, without a real story in it and lots of odd moments and characters in it. However once you get into the movie and understand its 'world' you get somewhat taken by it, no matter how weird things get.

This is the sort of production you normally will only see in some obscure and small theater. It's also probably where it belongs, since it's not really the type of thing that translates itself well to the silver screen. The artistic approach to its world, characters and the acting and the whole idea behind this movie seems to be all more suitable for a theater production than a movie really.

But having said that, I obviously didn't hated watching this movie. I could really appreciate it for what it was and what it was trying to do and tell. It's a kind of pretest movie and social commentary, that seems to fit really well within its time period and captures its time period really well too. The movie has a rebellious flair to it and it's kicking against numerous things, which all made me remind this movie somewhat of "A Clockwork Orange" (which this movie also tries to impersonate, I believe), also with all of its characters, settings and dialog.

Surprisingly enough the movie also has some good musical numbers in it. After all, the movie is still a punk rock movie as well, which all also really adds to the movie its overall style of film-making and its atmosphere that goes along with it.

This movie is simply good enough for what it is, once you get into it.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

A real chore to sit through.

[torrascotia · 1/10 · 14 August 2018]

I would struggle to class this as an actual movie. It appears to something more like an art-school project gone wrong, made by a bunch of friends who had lots of ideas about what they felt might be cool to see, but no way of turning this into a coherent plot. These scenes include girls boxing(badly), punks killing policemen, punks trying to pull the doors off a car (and failing), random murders, a bingo hall being shot up, some of the worst sex scenes since The Room and lots of bizarre poetical ramblings while someone dressed as a Queen tries to look interesting. The blurb suggests this about a Queen travelling into the future to see what has became of England. Although on viewing, there is very little of the Queen throughout the movie and she seems to have zero interaction with the main protagonists. The problem with this seems to be that she is superfluous to the story and really should have been edited out, as this film is far too long for what it contains. The main reason people may have an interest in this movie is the fact it has a few faces from the punk scene like Adam Ant and a harder to recognise Toyah Wilcox. Neither put in a good performance however they are very young in this movie and cant really pull off a convincing performance. Overall, the acting is this movie is terrible. It seems to consist of actors (unsure how many were actually actors?) either being overly aggressive or bursting into hysterical laughter for unknowable reasons. The musical scenes are instantly forgettable and do not seem to have any relevance to the plot. The only part of the movie which has anything like a plot comes towards the the end when the punks seek retribution on the police for a wrong doing. The violence and gore in the movie is mainly pointless and not convincing. The movie tries to shock but fails miserably. There really isn't much to recommend this, its not even in the so bad its good category. Its long, boring and pretentious and very surprising it has such a high rating.

See it on the new Criterion disc

[zetes · 9/10 · 17 August 2003]

Difficult to describe, but amazing as hell. Derek Jarman examines the punk aesthetic, with a framing device that Queen Elizabeth I has asked her court magician to show her England's future. And I doubt she likes what she sees, a post-apocalyptic wasteland. The prophecy follows a group of punks who rebel and murder pretty much randomly. The film's likely to disgust many; it lives in much the same world as Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, and, just like that film, we are expected both to revile and have fun with the horrors that are perpetrated on screen. Criticism has been all over on this film, but it's mostly been negative, with a few cultists embracing it. This is the kind of film that I can really love, as I am a kind of pseudo-revolutionary myself. I enjoy observing rebellion in all of its forms, anyway, and I like to think I would like to somehow take part in it. Yes, that could be considered pretentious, but that especially fits in with this film. Jarman was never of like mind with the movement he was depicting, and he himself is emulating what he perceives as punk. And he's partly horrified at what he's observing. I loved watching this movie, in all its simultaneous beauty and ugliness. The documentary included on the Criterion disc, Jubilee: A Time Less Golden, convinced me that the film wasn't only impressive on a primal level. It's one of the best of this kind of documentaries, in that it doesn't at all slavishly tell us how great Jarman or Jubilee is. Instead, it clearly outlines all the contradictions of the artist and the film. Strangely enough, it helps solidify the importance and greatness of the film, while pretty much quashing the many criticisms that have been leveled at it throughout the years. The review of the film at DVD Verdict (www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/jubilee.shtml) was also a big help. Jubilee is definitely a must-see, an outrageous and remarkable cinematic experience. 9/10.

Made by a director who probably didn't like punk and clearly misunderstood it...

[keenanchris · 6/10 · 11 June 2022]

This film has artistic merit and some of the vignettes are entertaining. It's interesting to see the likes of Adam Ant and Toyah in their formative years and it captures the nihilism and shock value of the early punk days, but it has no heart and soul and doesn't capture the hope and sincerity of the times, and lowers the movement to the levels that it was negatively sensationalised in the stuffy, right-wing, British media of the time.

If you really want a feeling of what punk was like in 77/78, just watch videos of the Clash, Sex Pistols, the Buzzcocks, or Siouxsie instead, cos I remember it as a positive, uplifting time when we felt we could change the world and not really how it's portrayed in this film...

A Waste Of Time

[Frog-Legs · 1/10 · 31 May 2018]

Unfortunately our time on earth is limited and the amount of it that you might spend watching this pointless drivel will never be returned to you. I gave it a half hour of my life-span and decided it was quite enough.

Take it from me, I've seen my share of art-house films or grade-Z exploitation flicks. This was just complete garbage

Simplicity is underrated

[squelcho · 9/10 · 9 September 2005]

Effortlessly annoying nitpicky artsnobs 28 years on, this film is still achieving its primary aim. It's no more than a fairly precise picture of the sleazy portion of the punk scene in 1977, glued into a sparkly scrapbook for posterity. It's not an attempt to make a great artistic statement about the mythical punk movement so beloved of merchandising vampires. It's an exposition of the low expectations and "up yours" attitude that brought forth the grotty music and trashy DIY fashions in the first place. Dump intellectual baggage, remove head from posterior, and watch it as the fine trashy low budget comedy it is. And be grateful for small mercies. Toyah Wilcox didn't get to sing.

What could have been

[happycarrot68 · 6/10 · 3 December 2017]

One of those films that promises so much with a great cast but sadly ruined by Derek Jarman and his ability to turn a good story into a dull attempt to shock with his usual boring overtones.

Great performances from Toyah and Adam Ant but I watched this feeling that say an Alex Cox could have turned this into a bit of a cult masterpiece rather than remembering much about the finished article on show.

👎

[ianjustfloors · 1/10 · 3 July 2021]

I first watched this on a dodgy vhs tape in 1979 as a 12 year old.

Trying to be both rebellious & Adrian Mole at the same time, I subsequently raved to my friends that this was punk ( which was already over ) and simply an awesome film that I got from the opening scene to closing titles.

My one warning to friends was that Toyah's character was really really really annoying.

Fast forward 42 years and I decided to watch it again & to my utter horror I realised that it was in fact a steaming pile of pompous art school crap, and not the towering masterpiece of youth culture art house film making I had told all my equally impressionable mates about 😳

What was I thinking when I was 12 ?

Thankfully since then my taste has improved greatly & I can now fully appreciate art house & independent cinema as well as marvel movies.

But I got one thing right back then , Toyah's character is still really really really annoying.

mixed responses

[didi-5 · 9 May 2003]

Jubilee, being a Derek Jarman film, obviously sets out to shock. An assorted set of punks and deviants live together in a garish open plan hell festooned with pictures of Hitler. Mad, an orange haired punkette (Toyah Wilcox, these days much more toned down and almost normal) and Amyl Nitrate (played by the unusual Jordan), a very weird lady who dreams of being a ballerina and talks about Myra Hindley, fight with each other. The regal Bod (Jenny Runacre, very good in this in both roles) doubles as Queen Elizabeth, wandering with her soothsayer John Dee (Richard O'Brien) and emotionless angel Arial, through a Britain tottering on the brink of revolution as the Silver Jubilee hits. Other dotty characters include Viv, an artist, and Angel and Sphinx (Linda Spurrier, Ian Charleson and Karl Johnson, who all went more mainstream than this later in their careers), who seem to do very little. Little Nell plays little whore Crabs, and Adam Ant plays slow-witted Kid, who is adopted by the freaks into their little gang. Cue a lot of raucous music, satirical comment on the media and the establishment, and a fair amount of unpleasant murder. And some plastic petunias. It does have its moments, but as a whole it is a bit of a mess. For visual style and flair it scores highly, but on everything else maybe the jury is still out.

The world's your oyster, so swallow it

[Ali_John_Catterall · 7/10 · 19 November 2009]

If you can see ball gowns and bovver boots picking their way over rubble beside the Thames set to a classical music score, you're probably watching a Derek Jarman picture.

England's first punk film was mostly shot around Butlers Wharf and Shad Thames in Southwark, south-east London; in the late 1970s a hive of mouldering warehouses and docks - ideal for the director's vision of a run-down capital besieged by murderous punks. (Two decades later, in the same spot, Hugh Grant and Colin Firth would inflict less lasting damage on one another in Bridget Jones's Diary.)

A preposterous film in many ways, and particularly memorable for punk icon Jordan's burlesque strut to a reggae-fied 'Rule Britannia' while wearing a Union Flag skirt. The Spice Girls didn't know they were born. (Although, in all fairness, Baby Spice did precede the film by a year.)

Post-Apocalyptic Pretension, anyone?

[wrath-of-ghengis · 1/10 · 2 February 2005]

This movie was, quite frankly, crap. Artsy, pretentious crap, to be fair, but crap nevertheless. Only see it if you're into post-apocalyptic films of the worst kind/are a die-hard Rocky Horror fan/ have very low standards. There wasn't much of a plot, and what was there was entirely too hard to follow amidst the seizure-inducing color scheme of the movie and it's poor acting.

If you still wish to see this movie, however, just fast forward to the Brittania dance-sequence. It's totally worth the $3.50 you'll pay renting it from anywhere, and has more poignant acting and plot than any other section of the entire film. And be sure to turn off the movie during the Little Nell smothering sex-scene.

Punk and Art and Pessimistic Jarman

[kiwisago · 7/10 · 22 January 2011]

Not a commercial film, much more interesting than that. Raw, eccentric. It doesn't look like a lot of money was spent on it, but that a lot of genuinely creative collaboration was. Some moments are visually striking or disturbing - characters occupying a decaying urban world, with sex, rage and an emphasis on female-generated violence.

As a record of a particular time and place (underground Britain, mid seventies), it's fascinating. As a picture of the British punk scene at the time, I understand it's problematic (some of the leads had no connection to the punk scene at all), but I'm not British, so my understanding of that part of it is thin at best.

I came away with an impression of Derek Jarman's sensibility. It seemed deeply pessimistic and surprisingly traditional-minded, despite all the way-out, on-the-edge characters. I was impressed by The Last of England some years ago, and he seemed to be circling the same ground from the start, if this older film is anything to go by.

Awful, until the last 1/5 when it becomes somewhat bearable

[Martina_Helene · 2/10 · 15 April 2008]

One word to sum up Jubilee would be awful. It was so incredibly flawed. It was a huge waste of time for anyone looking for anything intelligent. The writing was terrible, the acting was even worse, and Jarman's directing was ridiculous. Jack Birkett who played the media mogul was definitely the WORST actor in the entire film and maybe gave one of the worse film acting jobs of all time. He had absolutely no idea what he was doing. The three main girls (Jordan, Nell Campbell, and Jenny whatever) were absolutely atrocious actors, I have NO idea why they were chosen. And they were ugly too (except maybe Jenny). Not enjoyable to watch any of them in the least. Adam Ant was okay at best, but ended up being the best actor in this 'movie'.

Jubilee was trying to make some political/social statement making it, but in the end it just ended up as film rubbish. It was so ridiculously stupid it was laughable. There was stupid violence and killing that made no sense within any context.

Also the film had a rather sexist view of women. I felt that it was trying to show what would happen if women end up taking over the world (especially having Elizabeth I (a powerful queen) go forward in time that was 'futuristic' when the movie was made right after the women's rights movement of the 60s). Basically, it would be a terrible world where no one would be able to 'control' the women so therefore they would end up going crazy, killing men, murdering police officers, getting naked at anytime, having sex with anyone, etc etc. Which was not a nice message and I did not appreciate it at all.

I'm annoyed because I am in a 'New European Cinema' Class where we watch movies from 1970s on from Europe, and two of the kids in my class recommended it and my teacher let us watch it without even watching it herself. What a waste of class time, especially because there are so many better English movies, it's atrocious that she wasted our time.

For a reason that I do now know, the last 1/5 of the movie got slightly better, but it was still way below mediocre film making. Basically 'better' means almost bearable. However, the last fifth (the last 20 minutes) and they isn't even good enough to bear watching this awful film.

The premise was an interesting one (Queen of England goes ahead in time to see futuristic times) but Jarman completely failed at making a movie worth anyones time. And there was some listenable music.

Really, it should never have been made, it is a waste of film.

interesting and entertaining

[RHPSvegas · 10/10 · 18 June 2002]

I was introduced to this film by a person with limited intelligence who

only liked it because it had Little Nell and Richard O'Brien. I have to

admit, that's the reason why I sat through it the first time - that was

over a year ago. I recently purchased the film on DVD (European PAL

format that I can only watch on my computer) and I have to say, upon

screening this film again, I now realize just what a work of art it is.

As with all independent films that actually hide a deeper meaning,

mainstream audiences will not get this. It's about Queen Elizabeth

asking her court magician to summon an angel to show her the future of

Britain. She is shocked when she sees England taken over by vicious

punks and Buckingham Palace turned into a recording studio. What can be

said other than Rule Britainia!!!!!!!!!

A fine period piece

[soundchaser010 · 7/10 · 21 February 2016]

This movie is very much of its time, and very British, so some subtleties might be lost on foreigners (as me). A few things may seem dated or naive now, but in 1977 they must have been quite relevant. Just take a newspaper from that time and it looked as if punk might bring down the establishment single-handedly. The amateurish aspects of the movie go well with the punk aesthetic, and the performances of the more trained actors make up for the others. Jordan was quite a revelation if you think she was in charge of a clothes shop and had no acting experience apart from being on stage with the Sex Pistols. The character of Borgia Ginz is quite amusing. Jenny Runacre is in my opinion excellent all along (she plays two roles). The acting and dialog in the final scene, when she talks with Dee as Queen Elizabeth I and set to Brian Eno's music, is really nice. What I find puzzling about this is, why would a punk movie portray royalty in such a likable way ? Maybe the message is, "we're not against royalty per se, we're against the way royalty is and behaves today". But this is just my guess.

waste of time and potential

[pudman · 2/10 · 21 July 1999]

JUBILEE was the first film to come from the true British punk rock scene, and has a fascinating cast, but unfortunately this is one of the most boring, pretentious, and ultimately pointless movies I've ever seen. I defy anyone to stay awake through it.

Best Derek Jarman movie

[h_wilson92 · 10/10 · 5 January 2010]

I have seen all of Derek Jarman's movies and this one is by far his best.This is the first British punk film and probably the best one that has ever been done.It was very difficult to describe this movie as it has many strange images from beginning to end.It is one of the most amazing movies.

If you know Derek Jarman's style of directing then you will know he doesn't follow other director's ways of directing.This movie has a fantastic score from Adam and the Ants and many others.If you don't like nudity,sex,drugs and violence then do not watch this movie.This movie is very underrated.Watching this movie is a very rare experience that will come very few times in your life.I would recommend this movie to all punk fans rating: 10/10

Strangely Compelling

[JasonLeeSmith · 6/10 · 15 January 2010]

This movie had a shoestring budget, the acting wasn't very good, and the plot didn't make much sense; nevertheless, I liked it.

The plot: At the request of Queen Elizabeth I, John Dee, her magician, summons an angel to show the Queen what life if like in the future. Flash-forward to a punk-rock future version of England. The world economy has completely collapsed, roving street gangs (and the police) randomly kill or terrorize people, and Top of the Pops is played constantly on Television.

The story centers around a gang of female punks (an Historian, a Pyromaniac, a Nymphomaniac, their leader, and their au pair), who more or less aimlessly travel through London killing people.

Like I've said, the plot is not very substantial, but the characters are very vivid and seem very real. Likewise, the writing is well done, and does a good job of highlighting the frustration and alienation of the era.

There are some funny bits, there are some scary bits, and there are some boring bits. I thought I was going to be completely bored with the movie, but I wound up finding it very interesting.

Derek Jarman deserves a beating for wasting so many people's time

[retail-music · 1/10 · 28 September 2006]

If any other director had as many figures of the time, and the budget to make this, they wouldn't have squandered it quite as effectively as Jarman does here.

The concept sounds excellent. But the execution is appalling. "Acting" of the most embarrassing kind - think grown adults with the skills of 7 year olds. Bad. That's what we're talking about.

This is a shameful film, one that would be forgotten about and rightly dustbinned in favour of thousands more worthy films that I'm unable to find on DVD. It's certainly put me off seeing anything else that Derek Jarman has had a hand in.

I repeat, the apocalyptic concept sounds great, but if it appeals, go and see something better, like Alan Clarke's Stars of the Roller State Disco, or even Logan's Run...