hissingsid

Hurrah. Here come the daleks. Again.

But don't be scared. They're in fine fettle this time and while this film is just as daft as its predecessor it's far better-paced and the good guys don't have stupid eye make-up, instead resembling good old London Council Workers, circa 1955. It's a slight anachronism, but I like the idea of a sci-fi setting where the heroes are all unshaven working class 'Uncle Fred, Friend of Your Dad' types who wear jackets and caps that make them look like bin men. I suppose actually, given that the Daleks do resemble (and are referred to as) motorised dustbins, there's probably some poetry in this. Anyway, forget the title, this might as well be set in 1950 AD - it certainly feels a bit Ealing at times.

So, how is this rather entertaining nonsense an improvement on the cinematic war-crime that was the first film? Well, just that, it's entertaining. The Daleks are still quite funky, despite their ongoing choice of fire-extinguisher weaponry. They're also much more enthusiastic these days - we even see one going for a swim at one point (I can't think of a better explanation! You'll see what I mean...).

Anyway - the plot? Well, I suspect the title might give it away. In fact, I'm not sure it even IS the title. Maybe they just wrote the plot-summary in the wrong box. Whatever, I don't feel I'll be spoiling anything if I give you the following outline: Daleks have invaded Earth because they felt like it, and are now constructing a large Roller Disco/Cinema Multiplex/Dodgem park in Bedfordshire.

Okay, they're not, but it's entirely as likely and sensible as what they ARE doing there (or as the swimming Dalek). There are some great British actors having fun in this - Philip Madoc from Wales, Andrew Keir from Scotland, Peter Cushing from England. A truly unified effort - all silly together.

People who smashed their television set in an effort to survive the first film will be pleased to see that Roy Castle is not reprising his role as Ian (for those who didn't see it, I rather suspect George Lucas got his idea for Jar Jar Binks from Castle's performance), and has been replaced in the light relief stakes by the altogether defter and more endearing Bernard Cribbins (for non-British readers, Cribbins is one of the most highly regarded and acclaimed English actors of the last forty years, and his profound performance in The Wombles is still remembered by many people of my generation today).

For that matter, even Peter Cushing's mad professor is rather good this time round, and provided one doesn't expect more than robot monsters, rubbish flying saucers, and huge armies of (toy miniature) Daleks, not to mention quite a few laughs, then this will pass 80-odd minutes in quite an agreeable manner. Not as effectively as becoming an alcoholic, but more so than banging your head against concrete. I suppose this is the bottom line really - watch this film too many times and it remains preferable to headbutting a concrete wall, which is painful. Watch the first film too many times and you'll find the experience of headbutting a wall strangely comfy on account of all the padding it will have acquired.

A friend of mine said I should give this film a bit of a critical kicking and I protested on the grounds that it would be rather like sawing the legs off a man who has lost the use of them in a bizarre yachting accident - adding insult to injury, as it were.

Then again, boy does this film deserve it. All of you young people who think Fantasy films are great because you've been spoiled by stuff like Fellowship of the Ring (and even minor players like Dragonheart) just haven't got a clue what it was like in the 80s. When I were a lad, pretty much all fantasy films were this horrible. The Beastmaster was about as rich, exotic and imaginative as it got because some of the baddies wore nasty armour, and there some flying carnivorous birdmen things in it. Oh, tell a lie... Krull was quite good with the Slayers and The Beast and Firemares and Robbie Coltrane. But this? You've got men in dirty leather. You've got Jack Palance being oooooh villainous, scareeeeee. You've got a man with a logically unfeasible crossbow, and a faintly magnificent seveny plot. If it is a 'plot'. Personally I think it's more of a 'splat'.

Strangely, the cast is almost good. They should be ashamed of themselves. Patricia Quinn from Rocky Horror's in it. And Annette Crosbie's in it - okay, British viewers will know her as Victor Meldrew's wife, but she was the voice of Galadriel in the dodgy old cartoon of Lord of the Rings. For that matter, Bernard Bresslaw's in this - he's sort of the thinking man's Brian Blessed only without the beard. He plays the cyclops in Krull, too! Quality stuff.

My favourite though has got to be the old bloke with the crossbow. This is none other than W. Morgan Shepherd, known to subsequent generations as G'Kar's uncle in Babylon 5, Blank Reg in Max Headroom, and - currently - Colonel Hargrave in the Medal of Honor computer games. He the man.

Don't watch this film, you'll regret it. It's like Monty Python and the Holy Grail without the jokes. Well, I tell a lie. There are worse films. Wizards of the Lost Kingdom, or that one with the stupid sword that can fire blades at people unconvincingly and that weedy man from Street Hawk in a loincloth.

Ah me. Those were the days. And that's why you should be grateful you're living in a time when 'fantasy' means 'Lord of the Rings', and 'spectacular cinematic achievement', and isn't a word one uses in hushed tones. In fact, consider this mind-blowing fact... in its day, Hawk the Slayer was considered not half bad as far as cinema fantasy films went. That's how desperate things were.

Anyway - Hawk the Slayer's not the worst fantasy film in the world, much as Pol-Pot, being responsible for the deaths of a mere 2 million civilians really isn't the worst mass-murderer in the world.#

Enjoy.

(The first observation is a compliment, the second a criticism)

Things to like about this film:

1. Joan is quite plausibly in a state of psychological distress throughout the story, and comes over as quite human as a result... she's not some simplistically-presented figurehead.

2. The Battle Scenes - if you like battle scenes, that is. I do, and the bit with the flail is lovely.

3. Dustin Hoffman's thorough deconstruction and destruction of Joan's advocacy of nationalist warfare in the name of God. I bet he didn't like Braveheart either.

Things to laugh at in this film:

1. "LOAD THE PORKY-PINE!!!" Historically accurate I'm sure - it doesn't make this particular war-cry any less silly. What next, 'Fetchez le Vache?'

2. That English warlord who sounds pretty Scottish to me. There's a guy who obviously didn't even watch Braveheart.

3. That bloke who played Weedy David in The Fifth Element. Standing him next to Jovovich for so much of the film's duration conjures inappropriate comparisons. Like if Braveheart had Max Von Sydow as Edward Longshanks and Sam J. Jones as Wallace... Which would probably have been fab, now I think about it.

4. Vincent Cassel as the smouldering Eurocrumpet Gilles de Rais. Also an alleged sadistic mass-murderer of children (de Rais, I mean!), but at least he wasn't English, eh?

5. John Malkovitch. Is 'Being John Malkovitch' a film at all? Is it not rather a very short review of his acting style?