In the 1951 movie "Distant Drums" starring Gary Cooper, a small band of soldiers were crossing a swamp in pursuit of Seminole Indians. While wading through the Everglades one unnamed soldier was attacked and dragged underwater by an alligator. His last sound is an agonised, startled scream. Two years later in "The Charge at Feather River", a soldier named Private Wilhelm screamed as he was struck by an arrow in his leg. So began the cinematic "legend" that is the "Wilhelm Scream". A sound that has punctuated a multitude of films over six decades.

Most studios will add sound effects for a film during post-production, and of course it's not unusual for them to recycle sound effects from their archives. In the case of "Distant Drums", six short screams were recorded in a studio and creatively titled "man getting bit by an alligator, and he screams". The fifth take was used for the alligator attack, and the others were used during miscellaneous action scenes in the rest of the film. Following the movie's release, the distinctive scream was placed in the Warner Brothers sound effects library and used regularly in that studio's films. Among many others, it was heard in "Them!" in 1954, "Swiss Family Robinson" in 1960 and "The Green Berets" in 1968.

Ground breaking sound engineer Ben Burtt noticed the same scream and its repeat use duing the course of his work. When he made the "The Scarlet Blade" in 1974, he decided to use the scream, so he cunningly copied it from another film's soundtrack. Two years later, he was hired to create the sound effects for "Star Wars", and he managed to track down the original source recording from the Warner Brothers archive. Burtt subsequently began to regularly insert the sound effect into the projects he worked on, including "Star Wars" and all it's sequals. He dubbed it the "Wilhelm scream" in honour of the first named character to use it. Through word of mouth (and ear) the use of the scream started to become an injoke for those in the post production business and from there it has spread.

The scream has been featured in over two hundred movies, TV programs, commercials and video games. Notable filmmakers have also specifically requested the "Wilhelm scream" for their movies after learning of its history, including directors Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Tobe Hooper, Joe Dante and Peter Jackson. It has been used as recently as ITV's second series of "Primeval", which has just finished showing in the UK.

The source of the of the "Wilhelm Scream" remains a mystery, but many believe it to be the voice of Sheb Wooley. Wooley is most famous for his song "Purple People Eater, which was a number-one hit for six weeks in 1958. He had a small part in "Distant Drums"; in fact, he was one of only a few actors who were called back after filming for some additional dialogue recording. He died in 2003, but his wife Linda believes it was his scream. She recalls that Sheb was very gifted at performing screams, laughs, and other vocals for the movies.

The "Wilhelm Scream" has joined a library of sound clips frequently used by sound editors. Other include a thunder clap created for the James Whale Frankenstein movie. Also a particular recording of the red-tailed hawk's distinctive cry, a sound which is heard almost any time a mountain or cliff appears on-screen. You can also include the universal telephone ring, which has been used on hundreds of films. Furthermore, the entire field of stock audio effects seems to filled with re-occuring material. Next time you watch a "Bond" film you'll notice standard sounds for automated doors, explosion, electronic devices, jet engines and death screams. A lot of these sound effects seem to have migrated from the back catalogue of Gerry Anderson's productions.

XoD.

“Rambo” is a character heavily associated with the politics of the 1980’s. His name has entered the popular sub culture and means different things to different people. It is used as a pejorative term by the pro-censorship lobby. It is also sadly linked to the Hungerford Massacre in the UK by Michael Ryan in 1987. It was alleged, particularly by tabloid newspapers, that Ryan was inspired by the film “First Blood”, with some claiming he wore armed-forces style clothing. It was cited as an example of negative media effects, particularly relevant in the wake of the controversy over “video nasties”. It is now claimed that Ryan had never seen the film, but the allegations provided sensationalist headlines and imagery. US President Ronald Reagan made reference to the character on several occasions. Upon the release of 39 American hostages in June 1985 said, "After seeing 'Rambo' last night, I know what to do next time this happens." Several months later, pleading for tax reform, Reagan said, "Let me tell you, in the spirit of Rambo, we're going to win this thing." These extraordinary references by an American president attest to the power and ubiquity of the Rambo phenomenon. It’s a name that gets a reaction.

Twenty years on, Stallone has decided to revisit the character, having done this successfully last year with “Rocky Balboa”. A film that was both financially and critically well received. We now find John Rambo living quietly in Thailand, fishing and catching snakes for a living. He has still not put to rest the ghosts of his past. A group of US Christian missionaries ask for his help in taking medical supplies up river into Burma. He initially declines arguing that they will achieve nothing, but it is persuaded by Julie Benz who plays on the lack of meaning to his life. Before long the group of missionaries are captured by the local Burmese Army commander and we are clearly shown the atrocities that occur against anyone thought to oppose the totalitarian regime. Rambo is then asked by a senior church elder to escort in a group of mercenaries to attempt a rescue. As you can imagine, the mayhem begins.

The story is simple as you would expect from the genre and a vehicle for the title character. The production is professional and the action scenes very intense. The style that was set by “Saving Private Ryan” is utilised to great effect. However, this is where the controversy begins. It is the old chestnut about context. “Rambo” presents us with the age old dilemma about the use of violence against violence. The Burmese Army brutally shoot, blow up, bayonet, burn, mutilate, and rape the innocent villagers. Yet exactly the same retribution is visited upon them. One of the Christians muses that it is never justifiable to use violence or to kill. Ironically (or predictably) he beats a soldier to death with a stone at the films climax. It can be also argued that his specific point is paradoxical coming from the God of the Old Testament, who handed out death and destruction liberally. But then Ghandi changed the destiny of a nation through non violent protest. However, he was not faced with a force that was happy to commit genocide.

Film critic Mark Kermode slated “Rambo” as being totally morally bankrupt, a claim also made against the 1985 instalment. Stallone counters this argument by stating that violence is simply human nature. It is “what we are”. A point that is often unpalatable to some intellectual quarters, possibly because it is so near to the truth. The writer Robert A. Heinlein proposed that violence has settled more issues in history than has any other factor and that all actions in human society are governed by force. The very act of voting is a manifestation of exerting ones dominance. Also there is the debate that violence can be justified if the cause is morally valid. It is intriguing that the Christians depicted are at odds with their faiths historical legacy, on this issue.

Of course, you can simply ignore these philosophical diversions and simply watch “Rambo” for what it is; an action film. The set pieces are well crafted and exceptionally violent. The stunt work is real and there is minimal use of CGI. There are some amusing knowing clichés such as the group of mercenaries with their stereotypical backgrounds. Stallone like it or not has a screen presence and this would be diminished if there was an excess of dialogue. He conveys his inner conflict well and it was quite uplifting to see the film end on a positive note, with John Rambo returning home to the US to see if he can find a place for himself. Despite the death of the great Jerry Goldsmith, who scored the three previous instalments, Brian Tyler includes the famous music cues and embellishes them well with his own material.

After 90 minutes you will be left to decide whether “Rambo” is a solid piece of entertainment or a politically incorrect cinematic slaughter house? Is it a revisionist western or nihilistic sanguinary pornography? Some argue that films do not set the cultural agenda but merely reflect it. If that is so, then don’t shoot the messenger.

XoD.

After an exceptionally fresh and original horror film (30 Days Of Night), we now have the embodiment of everything that's wrong with the genre. Steve Miner's lamentable remake of George A. Romero's "Day Of The Dead. The original back in 1985 was a bleak and remorseless masterpiece. Its central theme was that in a world on the brink of destruction, man is still the biggest threat to his own existence. It was well scripted, clinically accurate and thought provoking. This new version directed by someone with a background in slasher and exploitation movies,takes a contrasting approach.

Soldiers led by Captain Rhodes (Ving Rhames) seal off a remote US town due to an alleged viral outbreak. Junior officer Mena Suvari soon suspects worse when the sick's symptoms change from coughing and nosebleeds to bad skin and a penchant for cannibalism. Cue mayhem, death, bad acting, teenagers in peril, every cliche under the sun (from "let's split up" to the ubiquitous "mouthy blackman"), ludicrous psuedo-science even for genre standards, zombies climbing around walls and ceilings like Spiderman, and one of the most lacklustre endings for a movie of this ilk for a long time.

It's cheap and looks it (filmed mainly in Bulgaria). This is movie making by focus group and boardmeeting at its worse. Every possible box has been ticked and then executed poorly. Horror fans are often a forgiving lot, but this film over steps the line. It's biggest crime being the charactor Bud played by Stark Sands. This is new take on the zombie Bub in Romero's original, who was being conditioned by mad Dr. Logan. Here he is a soldier who succumbs to his wounds and becomes re-animated, but eschews his zombie nature because he was a vegetarian when alive!

Steve Miner has been involved with some interesting films over the years. I enjoyed his homage to creature features, "Lake Placid" and the gothic "Warlock". But since then he has worked a lot in television and I wonder if that has blunted his talent. It can be argued that as a director he is not suited for this sort of movie, that was handled previously in more thoughtful and creative ways. Zack Snyder's 2004 remake of "Dawn Of The Dead" cannot be accused of being a shallow teen oriented exploitation piece. This film can be. It would appear that its distributors have got wind of the shortcomings of their product as the title is to be released direct to video this April.

XoD.

Every once in while an established genre will get a new interpretation that gives it fresh impetus. "30 Days Of Night" does exactly that to the Vampire mythos, and is a very good horror film as well. Based on a well known series of graphic novels, it tells how a remote Alaskan town fall under siege by a group of the undead during the extended period of darkness that comes during winter.

What is refreshing is the fact that the Vampires back story is left suitably vague. There is also a complete omission of any religious inference. There are no crucifixes wielded here. The human characters are also likable. The themes of death and how we face it are explored with People you have sympathy for. The production also has some solid special effects. Be warned, there is a lot of brutal violence. Head are hacked off rather than swept of the neck with a single blow. "30 Days Of Night" also attempts to join that exclusive cinematic club of showing a child killing on screen. However, as the child is a Vampire, it does not quite have the same impact. It also does not have an ending that will endear itself to those with a "happy ever after" disposition.

I haven't enjoyed a film of this kind as much since "Blade 1 and 2" and the seminal "Near Dark". It is refreshing to see Vampires treated in a way other than the traditional Eastern European idiom with all the psycho-sexual connotations. Being based in the UK I was rather amused to see that the film was awarded a "15" rating for its theatrical release. This has increased to an "18" for DVD. How times have changed. The recently re-released Hammer version of "Dracula" was reclassified as a "12" certificate. Recommended to all who love the Vampire genre and superior horror films.

XoD.

Robert Wise's 1951 Cold War/Sci-Fi analogy still has relevance today. A recent viewing reminded me what a finely crafted piece of cinema this is. The superb production design with its use of scenery to represent bars and imply incarceration. The pioneering use of high and low angle shots and the religious allegory is still fiercely debated. Bernard Herrmanns use of the theremin which greatly influenced the film soundtracks. All round a genre classic.

I was surprised to find that this film is currently being remade. I have no problem with remakes per se. They are not a new invention, Hollywood has been living off it's past glories for years. What did bother me was the casting. Keanu Reeves taking the Michael Rennie role of Klaatu. Despite being an open minded person, I do not hold out great hopes for this production.

One question comes to mind. Will this "re-imagining" still keep one of cinemas most famous lines of dialogue? "Klaatu barada nikto!"

XoD.

I've always watched a lot of television. But I've re-evaluated this policy recently. Modern TV series have big budgets, excellent production values, known stars. They fight for their place in the market. There in lies the problem. Market forces. US shows are especially driven by this factor. I'm fed up with investing my time in shows that fail to maintain ratings, so are cancelled. I'm also bored with shows that are successful and just keep going, exhausting credible story lines.

"CSI: New York" is currently in its 4th season. Initially a more enjoyable spin-off of "CSI" than its Miami based counterpart, the latest series is really straining the bonds of credibility. Now am well aware that all series of this nature assume a certain amount of artistic license and require the willing suspension of belief. However, as a very wise person said, "There's a difference between farting and shitting yourself". Story lines have included high tech criminals with vehicles made of memory metal, time travel quantum physicists, voodoo zombies and contract killers roaming "Second Life".

It's just getting plain silly. So, I'm voting with my feet. It's a shame because the charactors in this show are well defined and quite engaging. I understand the writers strive to produce enjoyable plots to maintain a healthy viewing audience, but I feel that a line has been crossed. The same has happened with several other series, but "CSI: New York" seems to be the most obvious example.

On a wider issue, I simply cannot keep up with all the programs I'd like to. Series do not seem to end anymore (unless the ratings dictate it). Theoretically, I could therefore be watching "Cold Case", "24" or "Bones" for several years to come. Each time a new series starts, another 45 minutes of my life is to be lost each week. Well I can't accomodate that. So I'm simply going to be more selective about my viewing.

XoD.

I'm always intrigued by films that have troubled production histories, or that have failed at the box office. This is one is very hard to define. A real cinematic oddity. Superficially it is a fusion of "Post Apocalypse" and "Buddy" genres. It has a distinguished pedigree, boasting a cast of quality character actors, an experimental director, excellent locations and a solid UK production crew. It also sports a superb score by the great Elmer Bernstein, considered in some circles to be one of his finest. The result though is messy, disjointed, poorly edited and somewhat ponderous in its intellectual aspirations. However, despite all these criticisms, it has a quality that holds your attention.

In the future the earth has been ravaged by a series of natural disasters. Eartquakes have altered the continents throwing nations together. The surface is swept by super windstorms, forcing people to travel the "Slipstream" in the canyons and ravines of the earth crust. Bounty hunter Mark Hamill is searching for Bob Peck, a mysterious figure who is wanted for murder. Despite capturing him, he soon loses his prisoner to Bill Paxton, and enterprising "trader" to takes Peck in hope of collecting a reward himself. During their travels, dogged by a relentless Hamill, Paxton and Peck become incongruous friends. Yet what is the secret behind Pecks skills and abilities?

On paper it sounds quite good, doesn't it? But rather than approaching the material as an action/sci-fi film, director Steven Lisberger (of Tron fame)seems hellbent on making a "message" picture with intermittent pauses in the story to ponder metaphysics. performances, as I have said, are very good. Bob Peck is superb, being both enigmatic, vulnerable and possible just a bit dangerous. Hamill, a truly underrated actor, is very convincing as the hard nosed, old school bounty hunter. The aerial photography is very creative and makes use of multiple European locations.

"Slipstream" smacks of a film that has gone through multiple edits. There are several scenes that end abruptly or shy away from what the plot has been built up to. For example, Hamill confronts a group of smugglers. Guns are drawn and then instead of a dramatic shootout, we cut to close shot of a shotgun muzzle being fired rapidly. Next thing we see is the dead victims being buried. Yet strangely, during the films climax, we see one of the lead characters shot and blown backward through a glass cabinet in slow motion. People also enter the story and then are never seen again. The title "Slipstream" itself seems to diminish in importance as the film progresses. I just get the impression that there's another 20 minutes of footage somewhere.

Several of the subplots introduced to pursue philosophical questions pertaining to the end of society, seem strangely dated. I felt that the directors had taken a very 70's approach during these scenes and indeed, I was strongly reminded of such films as "Zardoz" and "A Boy And His Dog". One of the most thought provoking aspects of the film is the old chestnut about how androids are mirrors of mans vanity. Peck who was built as a companion, ended up murdering his master. When questioned, Paxton assumes that "he had it coming". Peck confirms this, but his delivery of the lines imply a deeper meaning. A mercy killing perhaps, of someone who was terminally ill. It is an aspect of the story that would have benefited further exploration.

So, if you are a connoisseur of the unusual and have patience and an open mind, "Slipstream" is worth a look. It is a failed oppurtunity, but still has many aspects to engage the mind. "Slipstream" is available on both Region 1 and 2 DVDs. Unfortunately, both copies are 4:3 prints that are poorly panned and scanned, that clearly show the ravages of time. The optical effects suffer as a result. It is a shame that a 2:35:1 anamorphic print could not be sourced. The US DVD cover has stills of the lead actors taken from completely different films!

XoD.

I was listening to Mark Kermode's and Simon Mayo's Podcast over the weekend and it would appear that people are complaining about "Sweeney Todd". They didn't realise it was a musical? I find this strange, but then again not everyone is like me and shows the same degree of interest in cinema. I'd be curious to talk to such a person to establish exactly what it was that they were expecting. But then again with the work of Tim Burton, that's a somewhat paradoxical question.

"Sweeney Todd" is the story of Benjamin Barker (Johnny Depp), a barber, wrongly sentenced to a life of hard labour in Australia by debauched Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman), who covets Barker's wife, Lucy (Laura Michelle Kelly). Returning 15 years later, having escaped the Penal Colony, Barker adopts the alias of Sweeney Todd and says goodbye to his friend, sailor Anthony Hope (Jamie Campbell Bower), who rescued him from the sea. He then returns to his old flat above Nellie Lovett's (Helena Bonham Carter) pie shop on Fleet Street. She tells him that after his arrest Turpin raped his wife, and she poisoned herself out of humiliation. Turpin then took Barker's daughter Johanna in as his ward. After receiving this news, Todd vows revenge and reopens his barber shop in the upstairs flat. Throats are cut, corpses disposed of and pie sales increase!

This "Gothic" tale of revenge and cannibalism certainly lends itself to the big screen. It has been filmed before, the 1936 version being the most memorable. Yet the version that Tim Burton has chosen to bring to the big screen is Stephen Sondheim's 1979 musical. This is a fact that has not featured heavily in the studio's advertising campaign. Does it work I hear you ask. Yes it does! Surprising as it may seem, the story lends itself very well to musical interpretation. The songs are very morose, bleak and bitter. However, they reflect the narrative perfectly and the lead stars perform them exceptionally well. Mr. Depp exhibits a interesting vocal style that is reminiscent of both David Bowie and Anthony Newley. As usual with Tim Burton's work, the production design and costumes are very stylised and influenced by German Expressionism.

It is interesting to see that this film has been nominated for three Oscars. Best Actor in a Leading Role (Depp), Best Achievement in Art Direction, and Best Achievement in Costume Design. Certainly the two technical awards can be justified, but I reserve judgement of Mr. Depps performance, as good as it is. As for the film itself, I whole heartedly recommend it. However, only if you like the directors previous work or have a love of the baroque and unusual. The casual viewer should avoid, especially if they don't realise it's a musical.

XoD.

What is it with Ridley Scott? Is he indecisive, a victim of studio politics or simply greedy? I suspect none of these are true. So how come there are always multiple cuts of his film? Which is the best version to see? "Kingdom Of Heaven" was greatly improved in its extended format. Yet his revised version of "Alien" is actually inferior to the original theatrical cut.

I viewed the "Unrated/Extended" version of "American Gangster" and have not seen the alternative version. I therefore cannot make any comments about difference or alleged improvement. What I can say is that this is a well written and performed drama. Exactly what you would expect from such a director and cast. The subject although very interesting, does not bring anything radical or new to the genre. It is absorbing and rather low key. It is not epic or illuminating.

The portrayal of drug addiction is ugly and harsh, exactly as it should be. For a film that focuses on one of the most violent aspects of American culture, it is quite restrained. The sub plot relating to Police corruption at times seems a more intriguing story. The involvement of US Army personnel and the violation of the war dead, whose caskets are used for smuggling heroin could have been explored further.

The gangster genre has not critically performed as well as it has in the past. "The Departed" did not clinch the Best Film Oscar it so desperately wanted. "American Gangster" also strives to be worthy, yet strays from the historical facts and ultimately feels routine. It is by no means a poor way to spend three hours, simply adjust your expectations accordingly.

“City Of Vice” is the true story of Henry and Sir John Fielding, the crime-fighting magistrate brothers who created Britain’s first police force. Eighteenth century London was a violent den of brothels, murderers and street gangs. It fell to Henry Fielding, the author of the novel Tom Jones, and his half-brother Sir John, a leading social reformer, to bring order to the streets. In 1749 Parliament permitted the magistrate brothers to put together a small constabulary to clean up London.

This Channel 4 series which has just finished, luridly shows that alleged crime swept contemporary London is nothing compared to the 18th century. Gangs of cut throats roam the streets, robbing, raping and murdering with impunity. Home invasions are common. Prostitution and pedophilia are rife. The inequalities between the rich and the poor are starkly shown. Based on Henry Fielding’s diaries and contemporary sources such as the Old Bailey Sessions Papers, “City of Vice” is designed to provide a lurid counterpoint to rival period dramas. The world of Jane Austen is violently contrasted.

“City Of Vice” has taken certain historical liberties for the sake of drama. But the basic historical premise is sound. It is interesting to see that human vice is universal and that it is not just the product of the modern world. It is paradoxical that the judicial system of the time is equally as cruel as the criminal element that it seeks to eradicate. If nothing else Channel 4 has at least given us an interesting new spin on the crime drama. Let’s hope there is a second series.

XoD.

Japan, its culture and heritage have always been a source of fascination for Hollywood. This 1974 thriller plays upon the fact that the west at the time was still ignorant, to a degree, of life in post war Japan. It makes an excellent setting for a story of revenge and honour. This character driven thriller/drama, written by the great Paul Shraeder, encompasses all the best aspects of a mature Hollywood. George Clooney recently wrote of the golden age of American film making, between 1964 – 1976. This is an idea that I entirely agree with and “The Yakuza” is a prime example of film from this time.

It portrays the clash of traditional Japanese values during the transition from the US occupation to economic success in the early 1970s. The story's themes are concepts of moral indebtedness and obligation, loyalty to family and friends, and sacrifice; Eastern and Western cultural values are contrasted, and Classical Japanese tradition versus the modern, Westernized, tradition of contemporary Japan. The film is driven by an incisive and thoughtful script and excellent performances by Takakura Ken and Robert Mitchum.

The production is lavish for the times and portrays Japan as a beautiful but alien nation. There are dramatic contrasts between the traditional shrines and villages and the harsh new modern industrial and business centres. A theme later used by John Frankenheimer in “The Challenge”. There are some succinct and well choreographed action sequences, but they never overwhelm the film or upstage the narrative. The ending is appropriate and credible. Hollywood at this time did not mind ensuring that plot realism was not outweighed by commercial demands.

This is a movie for a multitude of audiences. It should not be seen as a Japanese based action vehicle. It is a well crafted and poignant character study that tackles timeless themes. I hate to think how a contemporary industry would “re-imagine” this. Enjoy a film from when the US film industry was at its best. When there were actors who were credible and the concept of a good story was paramount.

XoD.

Extended version of the opening theme.

In late 1975 I was faced with a very difficult choice. Should I watch Doctor Who on BBC1 or the new Gerry Anderson series Space: 1999 on LWT? I opted for the latter, being seduced by the big budget production with its special effects that were (for the time) streets ahead of the competition. Now if memory serves me rightly, this was broadcast late afternoon or early evening. It was definitely a pre-watershed show (there was no concept as such at the time). Yet, like its competitor, this had me hiding in terror behind the proverbial sofa. Two particular episodes left a marked impression on me. This was because they were creepy and punctuated by some rather frightening imagery. They were “The Troubled Spirit” and “Dragon’s Domain”.

I was channel surfing recently and came across Space: 1999 being repeated on ITV4. So I settled down for a spot of nostalgia. As luck would have it I found that the episode in question was “The Troubled Spirit”. Would 33 years alter my opinion? Would it still be the same? As a precaution I moved the sofa away from the wall.

“The Troubled Spirit” is about how Hydroponics expert Dan Mateo holds a psychic experiment relating to plants. But something goes wrong and a burnt apparition subsequently stalks Moonbase Alpha. Fatalities occur so Koenig holds a second séance. It soon becomes apparent that the ghost is in fact that of Dan Mateo. Killed in an accident that has yet happened the vengeful spirit seeks to kill those he holds accountable for his own death. Dr. Bergman suggests neutralising the psychic powers that Mateo has gained by placing him in a containment field of reverse energy. During the experiment the ghost appears seeking retribution. Mateo wrestles with his dead self and breaks the containment field. Mateo is burnt and dies from his injuries. As he does, his defeated ghost vanishes.

Well despite the passage of time this was exactly as I remember it. It was certainly one of the best episode of series one. The use of sitar music adds to the creepy ambience and the whole story is handled in the style and idiom of the 70’s UK horror market. I am still surprised that such a mainstream product for the time could be so frightening. Although the murders are discrete the burnt apparition is far from that. As a result, I felt the need to revisit the “Dragon’s Domain”. Through the miracle of the internet I had secured a copy within 48 hours.

“Dragon’s Domain” focuses on discredited astronaut Tony Cellini, only survivor of the Ultra Probe Missions. He starts having nightmare about the creature that allegedly killed his crew. Popular consensus is that he is covering up his own incompetence. Koenig ignores Cellini’s renewed claims that the creature is near, so he steals an Eagle. Cellini arrives at a space graveyard full of derelict ships, the Ultra Probe among them. He docks and faces his nemesis. Koenig arrives in time to see Cellini fight and die at the hands of the creature he confronted years before. It falls to him to avenge his exonerated friend and slay the beast.

This is another dark and creepy episode, punctuated by nasty death of sundry supporting cast. The tentacle dragon has an unpleasant habit of dragging victims into its mouth and then spitting out a smouldering corpse a few seconds later. As a child this caused many a sleepless night. Again we see one of the better written episodes with a modern twist on a traditional storyline. The atmosphere is further enhanced by the use of Tomaso Albinoni's "Adagio in G Minor".

Nostalgia can often be very disappointing. I’ve found that a lot of what I’ve watched and enjoyed in the past was dependent on the circumstances of the time. In the 70’s there was less choice as far as channels. Story’s were paced decidedly slower. It can be argued that I was less discerning in my taste. Certainly less sophisticated. I recently watched “The Incredible Melting Man” to find that it was far from how I remembered. Instead of taut and horrifying it was merely languid and cheap. The FXs were its only saving grace. However with these two episodes of Space: 1999, they held up remarkably well. There are other instalments that are a lot more dated and weaker. But in this instance I was not disappointed. 33 years later, at least this time I watched them while seated on the sofa than behind it.

XoD.

I remember the disappointment I felt after seeing the 1991 release of Highlander II: The Quickening. It was disjointed and totally contradicted the premise of the original. This was courtesy of the completion bond company pulling the plug on the original production, due to spiralling costs and economic problems in Argentina. They then edited the film without the director, Russell Mulcahy. Subsequently, Mulcahy brought out the “Renegade” version in 1995. This removed the contradictory plot themes, re-instated footage and revamped FX shots. This resulted is a more coherent film and enjoyable film. The producers (Panzer/Davis) still felt there were improvements to be made and brought out a revised edit of the “Renegade” version in 2004. This included further changes to the visual FXs.

The link below has details of all the various versions and their respective differences:

Highlander 2 alternate versions.

Now this film not only has an interesting history, but a distinguished production pedigree. It’s very British, with much of the crew being Bond veterans. Second Unit Direction by Arthur Wooster, FXs by John Richardson and Chris Corbould etc. The production design is very striking and there is excellent use of location in Argentina. The studio work is also very impressive. The petrol tanker jack knife/explosion and freight train fight are all meticulously created. Most importantly, it is the chemistry between Lambert and Connery which carry’s the film. The troubled production history is a story in itself. You get a good insight into the way independent films are financed, what exactly a completion bond is and what happens when the money men take steps to protect their investment.

A lot of “Highlander” fans ignore this instalment in the franchise as they do not consider it to be canon. Personally I think the next entry is worse, but that's just my personal prejudice against any material featuring Mario van Peebles. Yet despite the troubled production, “Highlander 2” was one of the biggest earners of the series, pulling in three times as much as the original in the US. Its international sales were even higher. I would recommend this version of the film as it’s the most polished version available. Hardcore fans may prefer the 1995 “Renegade” version as it has a few additional scenes for the completists. It may also be of interest to fans of films that have difficult productions as a curiosity.

Being a child of the 70's I was raised on films. I saw a good many classics, usually on a Sunday afternoon, which I'd watch with my family. I use to enjoy the adverts in the Evening Standard for the latest releases. The poster art would often promise so much. As video was not yet available to the domestic market, trips to the cinema were much more of an event than they are now. Being a 10 year old boy when this film was released, I was already a firm genre fan. I had seen the previous films that John Dark had produced in this series. Although cheap and cheerful, they were very entertaining.

Anyone who simply compares this film with a similar product today (although there aren't any that are directly equivalent) is a fool. Like most art forms, cinema has to be viewed considering its historical context. The FX's were budget for the 70's. They were not as good as Harryhausens work at the time. But Roger Dickens monsters have a certain charm about them. They strive to beat the technical restrictions of their budgets. The miniature work is also good, but then again John Richardson was (and is) an expert in his field, with many a distinguished pedigree. I would also draw attention to Mike Vickers score which is rather enjoyable. It adds an extra dimension of bogus quality to the proceedings.

The cast is packed with stalwarts of the industry. Doug McClure, who could play himself with such intensity. Shane Rimmer, in-between his work for Gerry Anderson. Michael Gothard and Peter Gilmore. All produce performances that are totally suitable for the material in question. Malta and Gozo once again provide the exotic location required for the mysterious undersea kingdom. Not being hindered by any social politics, there is also the ubiquitous ample breasted female. This film just keeps ticking the right boxes.

The market of the time was soon to be saturated by "Star Wars" rip-offs and as a result this was the last of the Amicus productions in this vein. Their traditional approach does not lend them to today’s sensibilities and I shudder to think what sort or "revisualisation" they would require to reach the screen today. Enjoy it for what it is.

XoD.

“Hitman” apparently had a troubled production. It was originally intended as a vehicle for Vin Diesel. Various writers and directors came and went and the final choice, Xavier Gens had a lot of his material reshot at the studios request. Locations were changed and plot devices altered at the last moment. Considering this, you'd excpect the finished product to be a mess. Surprisngly it's not! What we are presented with is a well paced action film with good action sequences, a competent cast and an unusual setting.

I have often stated that the action genre was at it's peak in the the 80's. Although contemporary films can offer more sophisticated productions, movies from back then had superior editing, physical stunts, and most importantly, no need to pander to political correctness. In this respect "Hitman" is a throwback. It also does not feel the need to provide all protagonists with a indepth back story. It is simply not important to know the complexities of the title charactors background. This is a genre movie and the fans should come equipped with the collective knowledge that popular culture has accumalted.

Timothy Olyphant is rather enigmatic in the role and has a good rappour with Olga Kurylenko. He also acquits himself well in the action sequences, particualrly the four man sword fight. The use of Eastern European locations and the involvement of Luc Besson and general non US production staff makes the film a little more exotic than usual. The theatrical version that I saw was also suitably violent. Apparrently there will be an unrated DVD/Blu-Ray release.

Despite this movies bad reviews, it was successful at the box office. However, I would expect a different point of view from genre fans. It has enough stylistic differences to make it sufficiently unusal and considering the fact that most movies based on games are poor, is a enjoyable way to kill 90 minutes.

XoD.

This is a poor film. It pains me to say it. This is such a good franchise, yet once again the studio has fumbled the ball. This is purely down to an incredibly poor script. To call it predictable, perfunctory, formulaic and contrived, is an understatement. When will studios learn that without a decent story with characters we give a damn about, it doesn't matter how good the set pieces are, you'll be left with a dog's dinner.

Unlike the last AVP movie, this one has more violence. Hooray, they figured something out. The production is good and the FXs top notch. There is lots of evidence of the directors, The Strause Brothers, of knowing their subject with lot's of nods to previous instalments. But the human storyline is terrible. It simply comes a cross as borrowed from a "Friday 13th" movie.

The cinematography is also a bone of contention. Lot's of fans have complained that the shots are too dark and confused. I think this may be down to the directors trying to recreate the style of James Cameron's "Aliens". But it doesn't work here. Cameron used this technique to create a sense of claustrophobia and confusion. It also assisted in hiding the FXs shortcomings, which although superb for the 80s, where pushing the limits of what could be done without CG. Here it simply annoys. Especially when you recall the slow motion full-contact slug fest, which was the one redeeming factor of the last AVP instalment.

The "Alien" franchise has a particularly good pedigree for a genre series. Yet all AVPR seems to do is denigrate that heritage with a weak entry. Don't get me wrong, it's still watchable for the spectacle. There are also some brief creative touches, such as the glimpse of the Predators home planet. But it is still ultimately disappointing. But, as of January 2008, the film has grossed $121,223,815 worldwide. I'm sure after the DVD release, it will have made a handsome profit for the studio. Expect another.

XoD.

Carry On Camping.

Music and dialogue from the 1967 comedy classic. Listen to Miss Haggard profess her love to Dr Soaper along with banter from Sid Boggle and Bernie Lugg. Also psychedelic music from "The Flowerbuds" during the open air festival climax!

Carry On Loving.

Following a variation of the "Wedding March", Sophie Plummett berates Sid Bliss for his alleged improprieties. Include (in my opinion) Eric Rogers best work for the entire Carry On series; the "Going All The Way" Theme. From 1970.

Carry On Abroad.

After the European opening, enjoy the annoyingly catchy Holiday Theme from this 1972 outing from the Carry On team. Includes some double entendres between Stewart Farquhar and Miss Plunkett.

XoD.

This film is based on a story by Philip K. Dick and has nothing to do with the Sensational Alex Harvey Band. Nor is it linked in anyway to the fashion and lifestyle chain of stores.

I believe that the world in general, pretty much wiped their critical backside on this film. There were complaints regarding the lack of explanation, back story and motivation within the plot. Well I dealt with all these points by engaging my brain and sense of imagination. I do not require very nuance of the storyline to be telegraphed and detailed. I do not like to be cinematicly spoon fed. But there again, I am not American.

Nicholas Cage plays a Vegas stage magician who has the real ability to see two minutes into his own future. It's been a curse to him all his life and so he hides in plain sight, in the only environment that suits his needs. It's not long before