octomancer Reviews

Last Night in Soho (2021)

I really enjoyed this, it was chilling and psychedelic and more besides

[8/10 · 2 May 2023]

I found this hard to get into at the start. There was an air of uneasiness and menace that unsettled me. But once the 60s started I got more into it and by an hour in I was very into it.

As others have said, the central performances by Taylor-Joy and MacKenzie are very good. I liked Matt Smith a lot too, the whole supporting cast was good. The 60s was brought wonderfully to life.

As the film goes on it becomes more and more surreal and psychedelic in style as the, er, period problem starts to assert itself. The mystery is unfolding at the same time and the ride is a bit breathless at times. I loved the visual style, but I can see how it's not everyone's cup of tea.

The soundtrack has some 60s bangers, as you'd expect for the period stuff, but I enjoyed the clever way it was worked in to the other scenes.

Tonally, the film unsettled me, but on reflection, I'm having less of a problem with that. I didn't really know it had horror elements going in, but now the tension in the opening makes more sense.

I gave it 8 stars. It's a rare film that gets 10 from me, and this gets minus one for not grabbing me right from the start. What can I say, it's a tough world.

Dual (2022)

Much better than some reviews led me to believe

[7/10 · 12 June 2022]

But it still has its flaws. Overall though, I enjoyed it and I'm glad I watched. It's a long way away from being a waste of my time, of which other reviewers accuse it.

This isn't exactly a comedy, although it does put its characters in some inherently comedic situations and it did make me laugh in places, at least in the first half of the film.

Karen Gillan is right at the centre of this film, even more so because she played two characters. I thought she was good. Her muted performance was appropriate to the tone of the film. Those reviewers who criticise her performance might perhaps think about the director of the film, who as the writer too must have known exactly what he wanted and would surely have directed her differently if he were unhappy. At lot was resting on her performance and I found it hard to take my eyes off her. Job done.

Something that I found oddly jarring was KG's American accent. If it had been filmed in the US with Americans cast in all the smaller parts, then this would have been fine. But, given that a lot of the smaller parts were filled by European actors who didn't even attempt an American accent. Maybe Karen's Inverness accent would have been a step too far. I kinda think that if they decided that she couldn't speak in her native accent then an American accent was probably a better choice than her doing an English accent. But it's a shame that she couldn't be Scottish.

So, that ending ... hehe. I'm still not sure who I think the survivor is. And I've watched it twice. I've read arguments for both. First thing to say ... if the director had wanted it to be more clear, he could have done that. But instead we have some clues and some abiguity. I admit I felt a bit cheated by the ending the first time I watched it, but after a second watch I'm OK with it. I do have an opinion on which the survivor was, but I'll keep you in suspense a little longer ;-)

Sarah's water was poisoned. That's undeniable I think. The big "S" and "D" on the two water bottles, the fact that the double just sipped and watched Sarah drink to make sure she had enough. Peter and Sarah's mother were in on this plan. When the survivor turned up at the football field for the duel, they were sat where they could hear the survivor say she was Sarah. They smiled back at her. We know they wanted the double to survive. So the only way they would be happy was if they knew that it was the plan for the double to say she was Sarah.

So from that point on, it's either the double pretending to be Sarah or it's Sarah pretending to be the double pretending to be Sarah.

I think the key is the poisoning. Poison was mentioned in Sarah's training. Her reaction at the time was "I should have thought of that." But she was not at all suspicious when her double encouraged her to drink the poisoned water. I can read this two ways: First, maybe it's just a bit of foreshadowing for the audience ... the poison photo being in the training and Sarah's reaction is supposed to establish that it's a blind spot of hers, so that it's no surprise that she falls for it at the end. But then I can also think that it's supposed to show that Sarah is well aware that she is drinking poisoned water at the end and has some plan to thwart being poisoned. Other reviewers have said this is what they think. I want to believe it too, but, there is absolutely nothing in the rest of the film to support it so I don't. So, I think the double survived.

Ultimately though, I'm not sure it matters. Whichever of them it was that breaks down and cries on the roundabout at the end, it's tragic. Trapped in a life you don't like, pretending to be someone else. That's true for both of them. If it's Sarah, she's pretending to be the double to her husband and mother. And if it's the double, she's pretending to be Sarah to everyone other than her husband and mother. Pretty bleak whichever it is.

Something else to consider is Sarah's cracked phone, which the survivor has at the end. And the fact that Sarah's mother calls it. But that can be explained if the double takes Sarah's phone after Sarah drops dead from the poison and puts her SIM in it. It's just not conclusive one way or the other.

Anything else I might bring up is even more tenuous.

If you made it this far, thank you and congratulations!

Seraphim Falls (2006)

I like it more and more every time I see it. I just watched it for the fourth or fith time and ths is what I have to say ...

[9/10 · 2 March 2022]

People who watch this fall into two camps ... those who get drawn into the allegorical storytelling and those who don't. Myself, I'm firmly in the former category, although I'll admit it took me a few years to get here heh. I needed to watch Natural Born Killers 3 times before I liked it, and so it was with this :-P

Right now, on the last viewing, the revenge and potential redemption themes are what I found most compelling. I'm a sucker for a redemption story and this one was most satisfying :-) Anjelica Huston's character has been torn to shreds by other reviewers, but in my understanding she's just a plot device. She offers them both what they think they want and takes what they each need in exchange.

No reviewer before me (that I've read) has tried to explain the denouement and nor will I, but I *will* say that it makes sense to me, the peaceful ending.

First dig two graves before you start on a path of vengeance.

Nobody (I) (2021)

Totally engaging actioner with tons of heart and some sharp comedy

[9/10 · 5 February 2022]

This starts slowly, but I really enjoyed the days of the week exposition at the start. It really set the scene well and left a lot of time for the spectacular action to follow. Once the action starts it doesn't let up.

I found the visual aspects of the film really held my attention too. It looks gorgeous, the colours are very vivid and the night city scenes in particular look great.

I've never seen Bob Odenkirk in anything before, didn't know who he was until this film came on my radar. He nails it. One thing that marks this film out is now much pathos it has. There are a lot of quiet moments early on where Odenkirk and Connie Nielsen both show a lot without speaking. It really made me care about the characters, I was fully invested in the story.

The way Odenkirk's character's back story is revealed is well done too. There are a fair few twists along the way and the way the whole story unfolds is very well paced. There is just enough ambiguity in the performances to keep you guessing and once the story starts to come together I found the way the pieces fitted together very satisfying.

Odenkirk is no spring chicken, but looks convincing in the action scenes. Even Christopher Lloyd looked like he belonged there. All the main characters were well cast and the film really benefits from the assured perfomances of the Hollywood veterans.

I've never heard of this director before, but I shall look out for his work in the future. There are a lot of stylish touches in this film to enjoy, some inventive cinematography.

And last but not least ... the music! It's a great soundtrack with some class tunes.

This gripped me from start to finish and I was cheering out loud by the end. If you like action films with lots of heart and the odd comedy moment, don't delay and check out Nobody!

Breaking News in Yuba County (2021)

Had me from the first five minutes

[8/10 · 30 October 2021]

This story has been done before, a mousey individual who craves attention spins a web of lies, starting with one or two small ones and eventually being overtaken by the story that they have lost control of. It was pretty obvious right from the start that this was the story that was going to be told, what grabbed my attention was the very black humour and what I thought was a funny script.

Allison Janney is one of America's finest character actors, I've been a fan of her since The West Wing and Drop Dead Gorgeous, on through Juno and I, Tonya, in which she was just amazing. She delivers again here in a less flashy, but still quite meaty role.

She is well supported by the rest of the cast, a good script and good direction.

This reminded me of old English farces, but it's much darker. I mean, nobody gets shot in those! But the genuine situational comedy was great. Farces need to be played straight by the actors and it seems everyone here knew what they were doing.

I don't get the low ratings for this, what on earth do people want from a film?

Hanna (2011)

A perennial favourite

[8/10 · 24 October 2021]

I've watched this film half a dozen times or more and I'll watch it again. For me it's up there with "Fight Club", "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly", "The Bourne Identity" and some others that just never get old.

I'm not saying that it's one of the best films ever made, but for my taste, it is certainly one of the most watchable.

Saoirse Ronan and Eric Bana deliver and give the film real heart and soul. The supporting cast is full of star turns too. Tom Hollander's pervy assassin is a hugely enjoyable caricature, and Jessica Barden, in one of her first roles, shows exactly why her star is now rising.

And that soundtrack ... it's a compelling, atmospheric, psychedelic masterpiece. I have a huge soft spot for the Chemical Brothers anyway, having cut my dancing teeth in 1990's Britain and I'm one of the few who still remember the Dust Brothers, but even so, the soundtrack just works for the film. For me, it's one of the major reasons that this film has so much rewatch value.

This film has a huge amount of style and it hits the spot as far as I am concerned.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)

Beautifully constructed art

[10/10 · 18 July 2020]

I gave this 10 stars. It might not deserve it, when compared to the pantheon of 10 star fillums out there. But for what it is ... what it sets out to do ... it's amazeballs. I've just finished watching it for the third time and I'm still in awe at how well executed it is. And I laughed out loud again at the stuff that made me laugh out loud the first time.

The negative reviews point out things that are utterly irrelevant to the aims of this fiilm. For example ... it wasn't filmed in Missouri ... Mildred wouldn't have got away with burning down the cop shop ... the airhead girl wouldn't have got with Mildred's ex ... Dixon was *too* racist even for the deep south ... WTAF? You people should stick to watching documentaries. Eish.

I'm a sucker for redemption stories and both Mildred and Dixon had very satisfying redemption arcs. What 3 Billboards did exceptionally well was set up deeply poignant character beats ... some of them left me open mouthed. Much of the time they were mixed in with black comedy (my favourite kind of comedy) but the comedy was just people being people ... it was all true to character ... I hope I could be as witty under such pressure ... and I would really try, because being funny is one of my main goals in life, and the more bleak things get, the more important it is to maintain a sense of humour. But the pathos was always there. I was emotionally involved in these characters.

I can't say any more without giving away spoilers. So I won't. I'll just say ... this was written by the same guy who wrote In Bruges ... I would say the two are similar in many ways, however IMO 3 Billboards is much more polished.

Devs (2020)

Beautiful to look at, haunting to listen to. Substance? I think so.

[10/10 · 18 April 2020]

From the first few seconds the haunting music grabbed me. Throughout I thought the sound design was mesmerising and really added a lot to the mix. The DEVS installation itself is a wonderful artistic creation with its square fractal design. The whole thing beautifully photographed.

So the real question is, does it have anything to say? I have to admit, my opinion of this existed in a superposition of states (sorry) most of the way through. I flip-flopped from "It's genius" to "It's pretentious rubbish" many times. Ultimately though, the science is authentic. I have tried to absorb as much about quantum physics as I can, short of actually trying to learn the mathematics, and it seems to me that all the science in this is spot on.

I thought the human side of the story was very good too. The characterisation was very good and all the characters made reasonable, human type decisions, not plot-driven decisions as is too often the case in any fiction. Determinism and free will were explored. I loved the messianic themes too.

There's no denying that it is slow and ponderous at times, but I found that the artistic photography and haunting sound design was more than enough to carry me through. The pacing and sparsity of this reminded me of Sharp Objects, which I also loved, although I'll admit the central acting performances in SO were of much higher quality.

I absolutely loved this from start to finish. After I watched S1E2 on a Thursday night, I had binged the rest of the episodes before noon on Saturday.

You might love it, you might hate it. I suggest you give it a chance :-)

The Hunt for Red October (1990)

One of the most watchable films ever

[9/10 · 22 January 2020]

And re-watchable! I've seen this film maybe 15 times. It never gets old. Some of the scenes are perfect. The scene where Jones presents his 10x recording to his Captain is one of my favourite scenes in all of film. Ditto the briefing to the NSA guy and the chiefs of staff. 30 years after I saw this at the cinema those scenes and others still make my hair stand on end. I've always thought that the last half hour drags slightly compared with the scintillating 90 minutes that precede it, but only very slightly. This is a fantastic adaptation, brilliantly acted and tautly directed. I don't understand its rating here, should be 9 point something.

Josie (2018)

I liked it more than most of the other reviewers here

[8/10 · 18 March 2019]

I gave it an 8, which is more than it deserves, but I wanted to balance out the low scores a bit. It should settle at about 7 IMO.

The two leads were good, maybe even very good. I haven't seen Dylan McDermott in anything in a long time. He was in some stuff I watched back in the 80s and I never thought much of him. I thought he did well with this role where he had to convey a lot without words.

This is the first thing I've seen Sophie Turner in since GoT. I bought it. She shook off the ghost of Sansa. It can be difficult for actors coming out of really long running roles, especially something as huge as GoT *and* she wasn't known for anything else before that. People get typecast really easily and it's pretty common for actors to take roles that are radical departures from what they're known for. Not always successfully. But I'm glad to say she's showing some acting chops here.

The whole film is pretty sparse, from the scenery to the music to the dialogue. The atmosphere is developed nicely. It's slowly done, with music that's as slow and drawn out as the accents. Lingering shots of the desert surroundings. You can just chill and get drawn into the languid pace of the story.

I didn't see the twist coming till near the end. But I don't think it matters if you do see it coming. It's all well done and still nice to watch.

Alien 3 (1992)

Underrated

[8/10 · 8 March 2019]

First off, I agree with the consensus that this isn't as good as the first two.

Alien was sci-fi horror. Ground breaking and much-imitated since. Ridley Scott, say no more.

Aliens was a war film (elite unit dropped behind enemy lines). Nothing we hadn't seen before but brilliantly written, acted, directed. James Cameron, say no more.

Alien³ is a character study, and a damned good one. David Fincher, say what?

This is a stylish debut from Fincher, who had yet to make his name with such classics as Se7en and Fight Club. He had been directing music videos up till this point but clearly had bigger ideas.

The tone of the film *is* pretty dark and despairing but I always liked that too. The claustrophobic atmosphere created by the story and setting, the set design and photography builds to a tense climax. The story itself is quite simple, but for me it's enough. The quality of the acting is all the more prominent for not being obscured by a convoluted story. It also benefits from going back to its roots and only having the one alien on the prowl, as opposed to the hordes in Aliens.

I'm English and one of the things I've always loved about this film is the roll call of English character actors in it ... Charles Dance, Brian Glover, Ralph Brown, Pete Postlethwaite and some others. Charles Dance in particular lends a lot of class to proceedings and I can't imagine anyone else in the role.

I watched this in the cinema on its release and have always had a higher opinion of it than most. I've watched it many times since then and still enjoy it.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

The plot is the main problem - big holes, silly reasons and cheap, cheesy tricks

[6/10 · 27 December 2018]

I'm no fanboy, but I'm not a hater either. I've watched 15 or so of the MCU films and I've loved a few of them (Iron Man, Winter Soldier, Avengers Assemble, Civil War, Ragnarok) and at least enjoyed most of the rest.

The plot really is the problem here. The characters do stupid or out of character things just to move the film forward.

My biggest problem is the scene on Titan where Iron Man, Dr Strange, Spiderman, Star Lord, Drax & Mantis try to take the gauntlet from Thanos. Once Mantis has Thanos' mind subdued there was any number of ways in which they could have won the fight right there. In fact, they *were* winning the fight. They nearly had the gauntlet off (in the slowest, most difficult way possible ... why didn't they hack Thanos' arm off?) Instead, they bicker like children and Starlord slaps Thanos, breaking the mind control allowing Thanos to win and escape. This was so unsatisfying as to spoil the whole film for me.

I totally didn't buy Thanos' love for Gamora. That came out of nowhere and was just a cheesy plot device to elicit an emotional reaction from the audience. It also provided a framework to hang the recovery of the soul stone on, otherwise it would have been as exciting as a UPS delivery.

On the subject of Thanos, his motive for assembling the stones is lame. To snap his fingers and destory half of the beings in existence. For "balance". Wut? Ok, it makes a terrifying objective, but is very shallow.

Another recurring problem was the complete lack of logic in some of the fights. There's a basic problem of combining ordinary humans, albeit highly skilled and trained, with superhumans, be they gods, titans, aliens or whatever. Characters that were utterly outclassed inexplicably lasted more than a few seconds.

Black Widow against any of the Black Order should have only one outcome, very quicly. The Black Order wiped the floor with Scarlet Witch and Vision (who is powered by an Infinity Stone!) yet Black Widow doesn't die against them. Twice. BW is cool and all, but is just an un-augmented, highly skilled human. Sorry, nah. Also, that Black Order dude who wrapped Thor up in metal at the start gets killed cheesily by Iron Man blowing a hole in his spaceship. Nah, not buying that either. Thanos' power was theoretically increasing hand over fist (sorry) with every Infinity Stone he gained, but he won or lost fights throughout the film not based on how powerful he is but by whether or not the plot need a win or loss to move forward. Many other encounters in this logicless vein.

Cheesy deaths. You just know that most of the characters who died will come back. Therefore there is no gravitas to any of it. Cheap tricks.

It *was* visually spectacular and I thought the script was pretty good, where it wasn't labouring under ridiculous plotting. The action scenes were spectacularly good as usual, if wildly illogical at times.

Overall, not as satisfying as I wanted it to be. Like I say, i'm no fanboy but I was ready to love this film.

The Big Short (2015)

A fascinating, exhilirating look at the GFC

[9/10 · 15 December 2018]

I really enjoyed this. It's a great story, and they told it well. I liked the straight to camera stuff, the celebrity expositions of some of the financial details like CDOs were good, the analogies were insightful. I have a little understanding of the subject matter due to reading around the subject since the GFC (I've not read the book though), and I didn't have any trouble following the ins and outs of the story

I don't know if any of the real life characters would object to their portrayals, but I liked all the performances. This story has a bit of an epic sweep to it and many more characters in it than you'd usually find in a film, they did well to bring them to life and differentiate them.

Steve Carrell continues to impress in dramatic roles and there weren't any bad performances. It's paced well, the story moves along briskly. In fact, I could have stood for a bit more time being spent on some of the financial details, but I think that I'm in a minority there ;-)

9/10 I'll watch this again.

Homefront (I) (2013)

Solid action fillum

[7/10 · 26 November 2018]

There is nothing wrong with this film. I thought JS's acting was pretty good. Compares favourably to other action stars' attempts over the years. I really enjoyed seeing Kate Bosworth, Winona Ryder and James Franco playing against type. Franco can be a bit hit and miss, he shines in the right roles, but others he struggles with (Annapolis for example). Definitely a hit here, his bad guy had more nuance than was strictly written into the part. Deserves a bit more than the 6.5 it's got as I write this.

Time Commanders (2003–2016)

Alia iacta est ...

[7/10 · 24 November 2007]

... but it's loaded against the competitors in this game. Four contestants are designated as 2 generals and 2 lieutenants and given an army to command in a computer simulacrum of a historical battle. On the technical side everything is perfect. The computers doing the simulation are running the engine written by The Creative Assembly, which is behind the Total War series of computer games (Shogun, Medieval and Rome). I can only dream about the hardware it must be running on, even 4 years later my quite modern PC doesn't make it look half as good! So far so good.

My main issue with this program is that they set the contestants up to fall. The one criticism from the reprehensibly smug military experts which was made every week (except on the rare occasions that the team doesn't fall into the carefully laid trap) is that no-one took overall command of the four man team. In which case, WHY DID YOU CALL 2 OF THEM GENERALS?? Surely it would have been more appropriate to call them General, Colonel and Lieutenants if you expected one to take overall control. The other common criticism is that the generals tended to micro-manage the action on the battle field rather than giving high level instructions and letting the lieuts decide the details of implementation. In other words, the generals spent too much time dictating tactics at the expense of enforcing an overall strategy. I feel this *is* something the contestants should have figured out for themselves.

It's probably obvious that I have played the Total War games ad nauseam. There are a few things that I learned very quickly from battles which would have stood these people in good stead. First and foremost is the eternal triangle of the battlefield: Cavalry kill archers, archers nail spearmen and spearmen are death to cavalry. There are exceptions, but 9 times out of 10 it plays out that way. I feel that they should have been told this before battles, I was not entertained by the humiliating routs caused quite often by tactical blunders which that maxim teaches against.

All in all, the part of the program I found most interesting was the computer playing out how the battle actually happened and the information given about the character and genius of old military commanders, snippets about how the different troop types, armies, weapons etc. functioned. And it is completely obvious that Aryeh has enormous respect for the Roman army and the way it went about its business, he repeatedly refers to it as a "meat grinder"!

The Core (2003)

Utterly preposterous plot, terrible script slightly redeemed by good performances and occasional humour

[4/10 · 18 December 2006]

People often defend wildly impossible sci-fi by pointing out that the bounds of reality and scientific fact are stretched in most films. Fair enough. But there is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. Consistency is the key point. Get all your impossibilities out of the way quickly and then don't break the rules that you have set for yourself. The best sci-fi works because it extends or transforms a small amount of modern science and then explores the consequences. It entertains and carries us along because it reveals the details of it's assumptions in a way which makes us think we could have figured it out if we'd had more time, or were cleverer. Inherent in this process is that the revelations make sense within the parameters of the fictional world. That's the right way to do sci-fi.

In "The Core", we have a pretty much perfect exposition of the wrong way to do it. Not much of what happens is connected to anything else, from a scientific point of view. There is just an interleaved sequence of shoddy science and hackneyed plot devices. There is no coherence or consistency to any of it. That's why it's a bad film. That the writing and editing are terrible too just adds to the misery. As I've read elsewhere, it's not a disaster movie, it's just a disaster!

So why the 4 rating? It has a good cast, who play it completely straight. That helps. Hilary Swank adds a touch of class, Delroy Lindo is good, Alfre Woodward is never less than great. Stanley Tucci is a bit over the top, but is funny. The special effects are pretty good, even very good at times. The lava torrent in the geode is great, pity it didn't get more screen time. And finally, there is a little genuine comedy in the mainly dire script.

Overall, it entertained me, and I might pause for a few minutes while channel surfing through it in the future. But not if there are repeats of Scrubs on.

Improper Conduct (1994)

So bad it burst through what I was doing while it was on to scream its awfulness into my awareness

[1/10 · 2 December 2005]

I was playing cricket on my computer. This had been on for about 20-30 minutes in the background. If it had been less execrable I might have been able to ignore it for the full 90, however after a short time I could no longer fail to register that this is one of the worst films I've ever "seen". It beats "The Omega Man" into a cocked hat. It's noteworthy just for that!! Avoid at all costs. If you're reading this wondering whether to watch it or not, I'm sure there is a jar of screws somewhere in your garage which needs sorting into sizes. Or perhaps you would like to beat your head against a wall for 90 minutes. Although that might not feel quite as good when it stops.

Hill Street Blues (1981–1987)

Oh the humanity!

[8 November 2005]

God I love this show. I'm watching the episode "Hearts and Minds" right now, I think it's quite early on in the series.

I'm being reminded of the superb interplay between the characters that drew me to it in the first place, particularly the chemistry between Joyce and Frank (Veronica Hamel and Daniel J Travanti). Surely the hottest couple on TV at the time! The sparkling dialogue between the 2 of them, the arch looks, the professional conflict which embodied their passion for each other, the respect ... just fantastic. All the best dramas rise above the situations in which they place their characters and ultimately depend on the accuracy and consistency with which they reveal the characters of the principals through their interactions. In the whole of Hill Street Blues there is rarely, if ever, a false note, these people are as real to us as our friends IRL.

Something went out of my life all those years ago when I watched the very last episode and I'm so happy to be reminded of it now. Nearly 20 years after, I find myself being gripped again, against my expectations.

Tingle, tingle, tingle. Even now, this should be required viewing for any aspiring program makers out there.

Hysterical Blindness (2002 TV Movie)

Great performances, difficult message

[7/10 · 13 August 2005]

I rate this highly 'cos of the performances of Thurman and Lewis. They were absolutely outstanding. I take on board the comments about the dodgy accents, music, anachronistic details, but they don't matter to 99% of the people who watch. The characterisations were great! Even if they didn't leave you precisely where intended, they were consistent and you could buy into them.

I really like the comment here to the effect that the film would have some merit if the characters achieved even a hint of self-awareness by the end of the film. This is an important point, and I would agree whole-heartedly if the film had a different title. The title is all that's needed to give this film perspective, to place it specifically and allow it to be what it is without reference to the frame that gives it meaning.

Contact (1997)

Flawed but truthful and thought provoking

[9/10 · 31 March 2005]

I rate this 9 out of 10. Matthew McConaughey is the minus 1. In time I may assess his performance differently. I like Parker as a character, but it could have been cast better.

There is so much to see and enjoy in this film. Ellie was traumatised by her father's death, he was a loving father, they were very close. An only child, she was deprived from an early age of close human CONTACT. Ellie's obsession with SETI is easily understood.

I love the juxtaposition of science and religion, oops, sorry, SPIRITUALITY in the film, as played out in the characters of Ellie and Joss (Foster and McConaughey). There is always some antagonism throughout the film between the two, sometimes between the principals, sometimes between ancillary characters, but there is sympathy too. Kent (Fichtner) is present when Ellie travels because of "a higher power" McConaughey). When she, the hardened empiricist, has a deeply spiritual experience, he is the only one to accept what she says at face value. But then again, Joss is the reason why she wasn't chosen first. Which leads me to ...

Drumlin (Skerrit) and the religious nutter (Busey) both die. Why, in terms of the morality play subtext, isn't definite, at least not to me, but a first guess would be: Drumlin is too glib, he tells the selection panel "exactly what they want to hear", he is too political. Busey is too narrow minded, he cannot see beyond what he has always known, he refuses to grow, to evolve beyond our current condition, a major theme of the film. Both, in their own distinct ways, are off track.

All through the film the contest between the scientific and the spiritual is played out. It is quite skillful in that it manages to pose questions without giving easy answers, we are left to ponder for ourselves.

And then, on top of everything else, John Hurt as Drummond is a delight :-) "The first rule of government spending: Why have one when you can have two at twice the price?" A bit hammy, perhaps, but very enjoyable.

On a final note, I'd like to say that I've only just watched this film for the third time, having seen it at the cinema the first time, eagerly anticipated. The first two times, I was extremely irritated by it, by McConaughey principally, but also by what I saw at the time to be the lame nature of the tension between science and spirituality. I'm a lot more sympathetic to the spiritual these days, and hence enjoyed Contact a lot more.

I'm not surprised that the story is from a Carl Sagan book, rather than being formulaic Hollywood fare.

The French Lieutenant's Woman (1981)

With hindsight, a good film

[20 May 2004]

I have only seen this film once, about 20 years ago, when I was in my mid teens. It intrigued me then, but went completely over my head. I could dimly perceive grand themes in it, but couldn't bring them into focus. A few years ago a friend gave me a John Fowles book to read, "The Magus" and this caused me to re-evaluate this film entirely. For me, the story's strength does not lie in anything definite. It's main themes are suggestion and allegory. The creative role of the mind in human perception is very clearly depicted in "The Magus" and this is central to TFLW too. The 2 central characters, in their modern guises are caught up in this, as the audience is expected to be. Perhaps there is no central message to be understood ... maybe a viewer should just be delighted by the parallels which are revealed by telling these 2 stories in this way ...