Artemis 81

I first saw this when I was 10 years old and it baffled me. As it's never been repeated or made commercially available I've been waiting ages for a DVD release to see if I can make sense of it. It's a film that deserves a second look, without a doubt - and thankfully the audio commentary with the director and writer explains so much, because without it you'll still be scratching your head and muttering "what the hell was that all about..." In particular, that strange, terrifying Eastern-block country Gideon finds himself in. Fepiz! was the title of DC Thompson's Dandy comic that is seen next to a copy of his own book, and for some reason it's that image that has always stayed with me since '81. Listen to the audio commentary for an explanation of that strange language and the city as a whole. A fine and Fepiz work? Not a masterpiece by any means, verging on the pretentious at times but brave, ambitious and with some disturbing imagery that will remain with you for a long time.

Okay, so Artemis gets off to a dodgy start with Asrael sounding like the decapitated Dr Hill in 'Re-animator', followed soon after by the dreaded hubcap shot (although that may have been a deliberate spoof, you never know with this epic.) However, intrigue soon captivates and the production becomes enthralling. Surprisingly, as homo-erotica is not my first choice viewing, nor am I a devote of crosswords, Suduko and puzzles in general. It takes a little adjusting to because the characters speak in elliptical and metaphysical terms, occasionally lapsing into jarring movie speak such as: "what the hell is this place?" although purposefully, I suspect. It's not always clear what is real or imaginary, for instance, how the two protagonists got from what appeared to be a polluted East-European country to Wales, but you always want to know what happens next. The Bela Lugosi/Hitchcock references may be over-literal for some. For instance, I exclaimed: "oh, look, a Hitchcock blonde!" only to find the actress listed as 'Hitchcock Blonde' in the end credits. But the playfulness helps offset any pretensions.

Artemis would have made a great widescreen feature, not that it would have made a penny at the box office. For something done with such obvious love and commitment, it is woeful that it has never been repeated or released retail. It really is beautifully done. Those who like the children's sci-fi serial 'Sky' may like this, although Rudkin is ideologically opposed to interventionist supreme beings. Brazil also springs to mind, although Artemis is diametrically opposed to that film's freneticism. A rum concoction for sure, but I for one can't wait to see it again.

"Artemis 81" is a made for TV movie that is three hours in length. This alone is not a problem, but the pacing is glacial and the movie is made with minimal incidental music...and it feels very slow and sterile. It's a shame, as the rather original plot about a battle between good and evil angels is intriguing.

So why did I watch this slow film? Well, it's one of the only movies I haven't seen with Daniel Day-Lewis...though his part is rather small. This is a bit of a suprise, as he's barely in the film at all...and would one day be a multi-Oscar winner.

While I noticed that almost all the reviewers liked this film, I cannot say the same. Its pacing is THAT slow...so slow that I just found myself about to yell at the TV...telling everything to just hurry up! Because of this and a decent story hidden by all this, I wouldn't mind watching a remake....a remake with life to it. Even with Sting playing one of the major characters, I just kept nodding off as I tried to finish the picture.

Impossible to explain fully tale (I'll have to listen to the commentary on the DVD at some point when my brain comes back to me) of a writer who gets put on the trail of a series of coincidences involving the battle between two angels to awaken their mother.

I don't know what to say about this. The dialog tends to be discussion of ideas relating to the events, everything has multiple meanings, it references religion, myth, Hitchcock movies, notions of love, the philosophy of life, and probably about seven or eight dozen other ideas.

As a head trip food for thought film this is almost too much to take in.For the first Hour and fifteen minutes or so its also a finely crafted supernatural thriller. Then something happens and things begin to get weird. Is what we are seeing real or allegorical? On the face of it it isn't clear. Actually much in the second half isn't all that clear. The discussions remain however the plot line gets confused...then again this is a three hour movie and I was watching it late...then again its really confused.

I really like the film. I can believe that many people who saw this pillaged it for their own work, while others were confused and bored. I don't know if I love the film since its a too rich meal.

The cast is good, with Dan O'Herlihy giving a wonderful turn as an organist and key to the plot.(Daniel Day Lewis- listed high in the promotional credits for the DVD has one small scene as a library student) I have to process this. But those looking for heady discussion and fantasy that no one is doing anymore are directed to try this very unique little film.

I just wrote 'I'm astonished it exists' while reviewing something else and it goes double for this. Others have already made better attempts to review it than I can, but I want to add it to my list for the sake of those who haven't heard of it.

I'm not even going to try to describe it, but here are some of the things I have exclaimed to people when failing to do so after watching it:

Sting is an Angel! Or perhaps some kind of alien! Hywel Bennett is in love with him! Or vice versa! Hywel Bennett descends into Hell or some kind of parallel world which is like Liverpool only they speak Estonian backwards and there's constant tannoy and posters warning you about crab monsters! There's a long-haired musical genius with this statue of a goddess who causes suicides all around him and is going to play a song that will end the world!

It's three hours long! They showed it without a break on the BBC at Christmas back when there were only three channels! And when TV was allowed to take risks.

It's not for everyone but for me the three hours passed in a flash. Some of it went over my head but at bottom it's a simple and powerful morality tale. Unlike some other reviewers I loved the poetic dialogue. It's worth watching for the bizarreness and unlikeliness and grandiose ambition alone - the joyous sense that you can do anything you damn well like in art and that some people have done - but it has far more going for it than that.

I recommend watching the writer David Rudkin's fantastic Penda's Fen first as an introduction to his world.