Artemis 81

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.

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.

I'm not sure how to describe this bizarre, but beautiful movie.

First, it's long. Just one minute under three hours. And it's not exactly fast-paced either. If sci-fi for you means action, spaceships and interplanetary intrigue, give this one a miss. In fact, although the cover describes it as "The cult BBC Science Fiction film", I'd hesitate to call it science fiction; indeed, I'd hesitate to label it anything at all.

And it's definitely flawed. The dialogue is riddled with melodrama and pretentious poetry; the camera-work sophomoric, and the editing clumsy. And yet the effect shines through: the movie has an eerie, otherworldly quality, where trivial details (such as an old lady glaring at a noisy conversation in a library) seem to take on ominous significance.

And so, if you have the patience, you'll get sucked in to this movie. It's mysterious, and beautiful. But don't expect to come out satisfied. Although there is a plot, it is far from clear. The story moves from one surreal incident to another, each connected but seldom shedding any light on its predecessor; even at the end, when it appears that our protagonists have triumphed, it's far from clear what exactly they've triumphed over, and most loose ends are left firmly untied.

Hywel Bennett does a fine job as as the somewhat petulant author caught up in a situation that might have been co-written by Kafka and Philip K Dick. Dinah Stabb perhaps succumbs a little to her melodramatic script; Dan O'Herlihy brings an artistic gravitas to his role. A cameo from a very young Daniel Day-Lewis, and a supporting role by Sting, add a bit of celebrity interest.

Overall, Artemis '81 reminded me more than anything of Twin Peaks (which was made nearly a decade later, and, curiously, also featured Dan O'Herlihy) - the same sense of explanation hidden just around the corner, and another reality just half-glimpsed and poorly understood. I don't think everyone will enjoy this movie, but I certainly did.

This is the most excruciating, teeth-grindingly slow and incomprehensible piece of television I have ever sat through. It is almost unbelievable that this once received over three hours of Christmas prime-time terrestrial television programming. If anyone out there has seen this and can tell me anything about what was going on at virtually any moment of the proceedings after the author's van blows up, can they please e mail me and enlighten accordingly. I felt that this could have been at least an hour shorter but perhaps the extreme length was part of the makers intention. Certainly there are many striking images and memorable lines of dialogue but I found the pace to be impossible to bear at one sitting. Nevertheless, a very brave piece.