Artemis 81

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.

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.

Almost forty years ago, I lost three hours of my life watching, and trying to make sense of, this film. I still don't really know what it is about even today, when helpful people have written explanations and put them on the Internet.

My main memory is of Gordon Sumner aka Sting, standing on an obviously freezing beach wearing a bathrobe, stating "I am not uncomfortable, I am not of this world", his nose pink with cold.

By all means watch this film, but please don't expect to make any sense of it.

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.