The_Invisible_Dog

Barry Lyndon, The Golden Coach and The Red Shoes are three of my favourite movies despite being more memorable for sumptuous visuals than human drama. Lola Montes is in the same category yet with even more emotional distance.

The spine of the movie is her life story being presented as a circus act, narrated by ringmaster Ustinov (I understood his French clearer than anyone's). Lola is there like some mystical princess doll in a jewelled cage, the ring is alive with circus folk in a whirl of moving colour. The whole thing circles like a zoetrope and thus the movie of her life unfolds. Well, not really her life but choice fragments, namely her encounters with certain significant males from soldier boy to King. We voyage to Paris, Bavaria etc, all bursting with glorious period details and playfully shot as you'd expect from Ophuls.

Trouble is, you don't really remember the romances. There are more impressionable moments of tenderness or passion in Lyndon/Coach/Shoes but not so much here. It's not bad but somehow you never quite get close enough to feel what's going on. Nevertheless, the film is a beautiful breeze that blows through you and leaves the impression of having been to the theatre to see something ornate that you may have dozed off to and dreamt about while you were sitting there watching. It ends by illustrating the effects of capitalism in entertainment and fame, in a cartoonish way much like Chaplin or Buster Keaton.

I already want another viewing and although I just watched the restored edition DVD, the quality wasn't great. It deserves at least Blu-Ray quality to be properly immersed. It's also a good Christmas film: snowy, pretty, balletic, epic, sleepy and, thankfully, never nasty.

Hang on, did I just list seven dwarves?

What a drinking game that would be - one for every time they say Brian. You'll be out cold in minutes.

Currently, this has a 1 star review on imdb. Other 'bad' movies such as Manos: Hands of Fate, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians and Plan 9 From Outer Space have become beloved cult favourites due to certain qualities of 'badness'. Stargames is certainly full of such qualities but is not quite in that category.

There is plenty to 'enjoy' here: Tony Curtis laden with space robes in a galaxy far, far away and speaking in his thick Bronx accent; costumes and FX in the manner of Star Wars knock-offs like Starcrash; bulky, robot-troopers in the woods (reminded me of old Doctor Who); there are even some holographic Harryhausen-style dinosaurs that get summoned for a bit of cringey play-fighting between the two boys. Talking of cringe - wait til you meet Happy the holographic helper - a kraazy clown who's clearly been told 'do a Robin Williams!'.

The basic premise of this movie is an adventure of two boys lost together in the woods (one from earth, one from space) and both sought by their respective authorities. These types of 'kid in the wilderness' movies are almost a genre of their own. Disney made loads in the 60s/70s and they are cosy, Saturday morning viewing. This feels like those with a heavy dose of budget sci-fi. It is far more watchable than the vast majority of similar movies to found lurking on free movie apps.

For all its flaws it has a positive nature, is inventive and well paced and if you enjoy 'bad' movies - this is a very watchable one.

It was also one of Kubrick's favourite films of 1997 (not Stanley Kubrick but little Jimmy Kubrick, the 12 year old son of a bloke my Dad knew from a pub he used work in.)