Requiem for a Dream

Number 87 on the top 1000 films of all time is Darren Aronofsky brilliant Requiem for a Dream.

The film focuses on drug addicts and the extents that they'll to go feed their addictions.  Firstly, there's the protagonist Harry Goldfarb (Jared Leto), his girlfriend Marion, (Jennifer Connelly) and his best friend Tyrone (Marlon Waylans.) All three of them are heroin addicts.  Lastly, there is Harry's mother, Sara (Ellen Burstyn) who becomes addicted to diet pills.

After watching this film about drug addicts, I felt like I was coming down from a drug high.  It was intense, relentless and utterly engrossing.  Darren Aronofsky's cinematic style excellently put the audience in the minds of drug addicts.  Whenever the characters were getting high, the action would be shown in a montage of close-ups and jump-cuts, giving the film an erratic feel.  On other occasions, a fish-eye lens was used to give the sense somebody was watching you, thus creating the paranoia that results from drugs.  Aronofsky also makes use of time-lapse, slow-motion and split-screen to convey what being an addict is really like.  Aronofsky's cinematography was one of this film's strongest points.

What's fascinating about this film is how engrossing it is, despite how it doesn't have a plot in the traditional sense.  Whilst a conflict is introduced in the first act with the drug addicts, it isn't resolved by the film's conclusion.  That is to say, this film doesn't have a fairy-tale ending.  Things start badly and only get worse.  Furthermore, the characters don't go through any major or story-arcs or transformations.  They start the film as drug addicts and end it as drug addicts.  Sure you could argue, that this lack of transformation makes them two-dimensional, but I wouldn't agree. For so many drug addicts, like Harry, Tyrone, Marion and Sara, they end up in a hospital, prison or having to prostitute themselves.  To change this into some romanticised, fairy-tale ending would be an insult to real-life addicts and would seriously damage the film's gripping realism-another of the film's strengths.

I also really liked how Aronofsky portrayed the addicts for exactly what they were: addicts.  There was no romanticising or demonising, but rather a straight portrayal.  To do anything else would again be insulting to real-life addicts who have gone through the same journey.  Aronofsky is unflinching in what he shows the audience and rightly so.  For example, Harry's arm becomes so badly infected that it has to be amputated and Marion is forced to prostitute herself in a humiliating sex scene where she has to go "ass to ass" with another girl-all for the pleasure of her pimp who will trade her humiliation for heroin.  Many addicts go through the same pain and I think it was great that Aronofsky portrays as many facets of addiction that he could.

Lastly, I loved Sara's storyline and how it paralleled with Harry's.  Whilst her son and his friends are addicted to heroin, her drug is TV.  Having nothing else to do, she spends all day watching the charismatic talk-show host Tappy Tippons.  After receiving a phone-call telling her that she'll get to meet him on live TV, she becomes obsessed with losing weight through diet pills.  Sara's narrative is the saddest, as she is the most innocent.  Harry and his friends know what they are and don't pretend otherwise, but Sara wants nothing more than to be young again.

In a heart breaking scene between her and Harry, she explains that she has been feeling numb ever since her husband died and Harry moved away from home.  This ambition to reach her target weight has given her a new lease on life.  However, the diet pills are actually ecstasy, and as Sara becomes addicted and overdoses, she becomes increasingly delusional and psychotic.  We see her transform from a sweet old mother who wants a successful, married son, to a raving lunatic who ends up being sectioned after she has an episode in a casting agency, where she goes to chase up when she would be on TV.  To see this transformation was powerful, but horrifying to watch.  It makes you think that could be me.  Although I can't help but wonder whether the phone call in the first place was even real or all part of Sara's delusion.

However, if the film fell down anywhere, I'd say it was in the scenes with Sara in the hospital.  They just didn't feel as realistic as the rest of the film.  Sara is subjected to a range of brutal tortures/treatments from force-feeding to electric-shock therapy, of which she is too doped up to give informed consent for.  Is this realistic? Can/would doctors really administer shock therapy to a patient who obviously isn't in her right mind?

But to end positively, Sara's addiction highlighted something that is regularly glossed over in favour of heroin and ecstasy: prescription pills addiction.  Whilst it isn't on the same scale as illegal drugs, prescription pills can be just as dangerous and can ruin just as many lives.  Hell, you're always hearing stories of people killing themselves by overdosing on pills and drinking alcohol.

This film was a tour-de-force.  It was challenging and asks a lot of the viewer.  Whilst it wasn't always the easiest to follow, it was a raw and revealing look into the dark twisted world of drug addicts.  Watch it and you'll be coming down from the high for days.  Hell, I know I will.

All about Eve Review

Number 86 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1950 All About Eve.

Margot Channing (Bette Davies) is a fading Broadway star who is about to turn 40 thus marking the end of her career.  After a performance one night, Channing meets Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter) a superfan who inserts herself into Channing's life threatening her career and personal relationships, especially with boyfriend Bill Sampson (Gary Merill) and maid Birdie (Thelma Ritter.)

In light of today's celebrity culture, this was a great film to watch.  Celebrities have absolutely no privacy nowadays.  Case in point Brangelina's divorce hitting newspapers across the world.  However, it's not just the papers that celebrities have to worry about, but also fans.  You also hear stories about fans tracking down their favourite celebrities for autographs and photos, but sometimes for more sinister purposes.  For example, Britney Spears was bombarded with lover letters, David Letterman had a fan who thought they were together and Selena Gomez received death threats when she started dating Justin Bieber.  Especially with the advent of the internet, celebrities are never out of the limelight and this is a film which perfectly captures on this point.

Although it seems that Eve Harrington is just a slightly overzealous fan, she soon turns into something far darker.  She tells a questionable sob story about why she loves Margot Channing so much before progressively taking over her life.  First of all she replaces Margot's dedicated maid Birdie, before slowly breaking up Margot's relationships and scheming to supplant her by training as her understudy and making her miss performances.  As such this made the film a great commentary on the idolatry of celebrities today and also the superficiality of fame.  Margot knows that her youthful looks are fading and thus she fears that she will be replaced by a younger, prettier actress and this is exactly what happens.  Margot becomes continually unhinged, as Eve starts to supercede her.

This also makes the film a great portrayal of the pressure of living in the public eye and staying relevant.  As I was saying relevant, Margot fears getting older as she knows that everyone could soon forget about her.  In a sense, this film is a little like Sunset Boulevard.  Obviously, I'm no expert, but considering that this film was released in the Golden Age of Hollywood, where studios were all rushing to make as many films as possible, it wouldn't surprise me if this was what life was like for some Hollywood starlets.  I watched this with my Dad who told me about how Alfred Hitchcock described actors as cattle who just recite lines.  Judging from this film, I think this is right.

At the film's conclusion, Eve, who is starting to become the next big thing, encounters her own superfan in her dressing room.  This was a great way to end the film, as it once again accentuates the superficiality of fame.  There's every chance that this superfan could do to Eve what she did to Margot.

My dad told me that Bette Midler was always type-cast as cynical, battle-weary characters like Margot Channing and such played this role well.  Whilst this film wasn't always the most engaging or easy to follow, there were times that I did drop off and miss a few bits, I did really like the messages behind it.  This is especially because they're so pertinent with how celebrities are idolised today.

"In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes." Andy Warhol

The Returned Episode Four Virgil

Just like the last couple of episodes, Virgil opened on a flashback to 35 years ago where we found found out that bomber-jacket boy aka Virgil was a bit of a teenage misfit.  So much so that Milan decided that he should be killed to free him of his sins.  Along with Victor and Lucy, Milan is now responsible for the deaths of three important characters, so I don't know about you, but I definitely have Milan pegged as the villain of this season.

Also is anyone else wondering why all of the flashbacks are from 35 years ago?  These flashbacks are all from before the original flood too. Most of the first and second wave of returnees e.g Victor, Virgil and Morganne all died around the time of the dam bursting as well.  What is the connection between the returnees and the flooding of the original town? What's the significance of them all dying at similar times? Let me know your theories below.

In the present-day, Virgil continues to become closer with Camille.  He offers to take Claire and the recovering Lena back to where the living are but tells Camille that she can't go with them.  According to him, they have rejected her.  She only belongs with her own kind.  We find out that Virgil has the ability to sense people's secrets.  We already know that the dead have special powers, such as how Lucy can sense Milan's return.  Virgil and Camille kiss before Virgil leaves to wherever he keeps running off to.

Meanwhile, whilst Claire is searching nearby houses for medicine, she runs into this old man who, in the last episode saved her from the Horde.  However, he also seems quite threatening, not least because of the Returnees he has hidden away in his house.  At the moment, we don't know much or anything about him, but I'd be interested in any thoughts you guys have.

Last week, I said that sides are beginning to be chosen and Simon is struggling to stay neutral. In this episode, I think he has finally chosen to side with Adele and Chloe.  In Virgil, we initially see him choosing Lucy and the Horde by taking baby Nathan and giving them to a pair of Returnee parents-later revealed to be Simon's parents.  Lucy explains that Simon's parents think that baby Nathan is baby Simon.  As a brief aside, what's the deal with Lucy? We see that she's become the unofficial leader of the Horde, but we don't know why.  What hold does she have over them? She's definitely the one calling the shots though.  We also find out that Simon's parents committed suicide, as did Simon.  As Gwilym Mumford of the Guardian points out, Simon's backstory and particularly his death has never been something that's properly explored.

But what we do find out is that Simon's parents killed themselves as part of a suicide pact called the Circle.  He then takes Nathan (and a scared Audrey who wants to return to her parents) back to the alive side of town.  He takes Nathan to Adele and Chloe and tells them to leave town.  However, will they be able to leave town? Last season saw Laure, Julie and Victor, as well as Serge and Toni attempting to escape their town, which didn't end particularly well for either group.

Speaking of Julie, she didn't actually drown herself, as I initially thought, but instead swam back to the original town.  Having been rejected by Victor, she goes to his old house to find out more about him.  Instead, from a strange old woman, she learns all about Milan's backstory.  After the flood, he became a vigilante of sorts, taking the law very much into his own hands.  He ordered for Victor's death as he blamed him for the dam bursting.  He killed Lucy and Virgil to save them from their sins.  Although something's still bugging me about Victor's death.  If like I said, Milan ordered specifically for Victor's death, then why was it staged as a burglary? If we go back to Victor, we see that Victor's death was more of an after-thought, rather than anything pre-meditative.  He was killed so that he wouldn't say anything not as a punishment for making the dam burst.  Pierre tries to vouch for him before his partner impulsively shoots him.

Although Victor doesn't feature as heavily in this episode, his presence is still felt.  Berg and Jerome team up to explore Victor's old house, where they find a whole wall of his drawings behind a wardrobe.  As we've seen before, Victor's drawings have often acted like premonitions, and there were many of these types of drawings here.  There were references to Lucy's and Camille's death, as well as the dam bursting.  What's the significance of the drawings? Let me know what you think.

Another character who doesn't feature too heavily is Milan.  After Serge "killed" him last episode, he locks him up and then repeatedly kills him.  In one of the flashbacks, we find out that Serge is locking Milan up in the same place where he imprisoned Virgil.  Serge finds Virgil and frees him, before Milan tracks him down and kills him.  To punish Serge, Milan then shows him Virgil's dead body.  Anyone else thinking this is what partly contributed to his later murderous tendencies?

Anyway, whilst Serge is busy rescuing Toni from Pierre's dungeon in the Helping Hand, Lucy, who has sensed where Milan is being kept, takes him out to the middle of the lake and pushes him in tied to a heavy anchor.  It should also be noted that it's not Lucy who does this, but Morganne, who looks to be quickly replacing Simon as her right-hand man.  This was gratifying to watch considering Milan's brutality, but I certainly don't think this is the last we'll see of him.  I would also like to take a brief moment to commend the gorgeous lighting and cinematography of this sequence.

Lastly, the exploration of the sinkhole continues slowly and without much consequence.  The army deliberate over what the mysterious creature that they saw on the cameras was.  Whilst a team is exploring the sinkhole, they find skeletons of many animals.  I have to say that this isn't a storyline I'm liking as much, as it's straying a bit too close to supernatural or zombie horror.  What makes the Returned so refreshing is that it isn't your typical zombie or malevolent ghost/demon story.  The Returned are ordinary people who want nothing more than to return to their old lives.  The fact that this mysterious creature which is being treated with hostility and suspicion serves to undermine this.

Theory time:

1.  What's the significance of Victor's drawings?

2.  Why do most of the Returnees seem to be from the period of when the original dam burst?

3. What is that mysterious creature?

4. What is the Circle?

Jurassic Park: The Lost World Review

Warning Major spoilers

Click here for my review of Jurassic Park

So continuing my break from the top 1000 films of all time, I'll be reviewing Steven Spielberg's 1997 review to Jurassic Park.

Four years after the events of the original film, eccentric billionaire and creator of Jurassic Park, John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) is reporting problems on Isla Sorna.  Isla Sorna served as the breeding/hatching ground for the dinosaurs before they were moved to the main island.  To investigate, he sends chaos theorist Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum,) behavioural paleontologist and Malcom's girlfriend Sarah Harding (Julianne Moore,) environmentalist Nick Van Owen (Vince Vaughn) and field equipment expert Eddie Carr (Richard Schiff.)  Things start going wrong when Hammond's greedy nephew Peter Ludlow (Arliss Howard) brings his own team led by game hunter Roland Tembo (Pete Postlethwaite) to capture some dinosaurs and bring them back to Ludlow's own "Jurassic Park" in San Diego.

So originally I wanted to see how this film compared to Michael Crichton's novel, but as the film was very different from the book, this was pointless.  Instead I'll go into what was wrong about the film, to which there was much.

My main problem was Peter Ludlow who despite being the villain was pretty bland.  His main motivation was greed, which was understandable.  However, he didn't feature enough in the film to make any proper impact on the narrative.

The big game hunter Roland Tembo was a far more impressive character and would have made a better villain.  It can be argued that he was the secondary antagonist of the film, as he is motivated, not by money, but by the glory of killing the greatest predator in the world: the T-rex.  Yet by the end of the film, he experiences a change of heart, after his entire team, including closest friends were killed by dinosaurs.  However, I don't buy his transformation due to the absence of scenes where Tembo expresses any affection for his team or even interacting with his team.

For example, after Tembo's second in command, Dieter Stark is eaten by Compies, Tembo goes looking for him and callously says that he only found "the parts of him they didn't like." But did anyone else find it funny how Dieter dies in the exact same way as Hammond dies in the book?

Secondly, it is specifically the death of Ajay, Tembo's partner, that prompts his change of heart.  Yet I am struggling to remember any scene between the two that showed the depth of their relationship.

Also, can I just mention how crap hunters Dieter and Ajay are? Dieter wanders off alone without properly ensuring that anybody knew where he had gone and Ajay warns the other hunters not to go into the long grass, but then goes in after them and is subsequently eaten by Velociraptors.

So as not to be entirely negative, can we just praise the versatility of Pete Poselthwaite.  I've seen him in the the Usual Suspects and in the Sharpe series, in completely different roles, thus demonstrating his range.

I also didn't like the character of Malcolm's daughter from a failed marriage, Kelly.  She is pretty pointless to the plot.  I get that she was there to assist in Malcolm's development but she doesn't really do anything in the film.  Although as plus, at least she wasn't as annoying as Tim and Lex.

Speaking of not doing anything, after the events on the island, where Nick Van Owen is a key player, he is not seen or mentioned again when the T-Rex goes on a rampage in San Diego.  Instead, it is Malcolm and Harding who save the day, but I think that Nick could and should have been there as well.

As a last nit pick, there were a couple of scenes where Spielberg employed parallel dialogue and characters speaking over another which was annoying and confusing.

One thing I did like though was Jeff Goldblum as Ian Malcolm.  In the novel, Malcolm is cynical and sarcastic, which Goldblum, plays perfectly.  When Hammond says "I'm not making the same mistakes again," Malcolm replies "no, you're making all new ones." I thought this was hilarious and brilliantly captures Malcolm's personality.

So maybe I've been a bit of a grumpy, miserable critic.  As a summer blockbuster, this is a fine film.  The visuals are good, the suspense is there and it is entertaining.  Oh and if you're wondering why I didn't discuss the San Diego section in detail, that's because I'm trying to forget that it ever happened.

The Returned Episode 3 Morganne Review

SPOILER ALERT

Review of episode 1: L'enfant

Review of episode 2: Milan

This episode might have been valled Morganne, but he was more of a clue to Lucy's past more than anything. Just the same as last episode, Morganne opened with a flashback to 35 years ago. We saw Morganne sharing a bed with Lucy, showing that she is far older and more complicated than we first thought. Afterwards we see them running across the dam, just before it bursts and floods the town. Lucy and Morganne join Milan, Victor and Mrs Costa in watching the town flood. We know the town has flooded before, but it was something else to see it on screen. This episode hit the ground running.

Gwilym Mumford of the Guardian identified that in this episode, Milan continues to cause trouble which  I would agree with. He's shaping up to become the villain of the show.

Milan continues to bully his terrified son, Serge, but things become more complicated when Lena arrives at Serge's cabin out of the blue. Milan tells Serge to take her into the forest and kill her, as according to him, the reason that he and the others have returned is to help the living join their ranks. Serge stands up to his father by first lying to him and then shooting him, but not before Milan stabs Lena. Will Milan be back? I reckon so. As we've seen before, it's possible to return more than once. This is exactly what happened to Lucy who in a following flashback is shown to have been killed by Milan who was trying to cleanse her off her sins.

Religion is a big theme in the Returned. Adele is constantly confiding in her priest (but more on her later) and Pierre has seen the returned as a coming sign of the apocalypse. Yet I think Milan killing Lucy to cleanse her of her sins, very much sounds like him trying to justify his actions. He thinks he is, if you will, performing an act of God by killing Lucy. He is in full control of his actions, unlike Serge, whom I think has some type of mental health problem, thus causing his murderous tendencies. 

Milan offers one interpretation to why the Returned have returned. You've already seen my scepticism to his justifications, but what do you think? Did the dead return to kill the living? Give me your thoughts.

Whilst Milan is bad through and through, Serge does have glimmers of light. He takes the wounded Lena to Camille and Claire whose relationship is at breaking point. Claire is desperately still trying to protect Audrey and Esteban from the truth of their situation, but Camille impatiently tells Esteban that his parents committed suicide. Later Esteban sneaks out and the mysterious boy in the bomber jacket comes to Camille's house to lead her to Esteban. Claire tries to stop Camille from going, going so far as to slap her, but it doesn't help.

Camille and bomber-jacket boy find Esteban at his old house and bomber-jacket boy provides answers of sorts. He explains that the Horde, essentially the Returnees who aren't main characters and are lingering around in the town, are the dead who had nobody to return to. Nobody was looking for them. As I said last week, I think that's one reason some people are so scared of death. It's not the dying that's scary, but the possibility that nobody may mourn or miss you.

The bomber jacket boy is part of the second wave of Returnees who all seem to be congregating at Lucy and Simon's house. Morganne is also part of this new wave and soon goes back to Lucy's bed. It's interesting that these Returnees have all latched onto Simon and Lucy. Their house becomes a shelter for the Returned who have become refugees of sorts, looking for Lucy and Simon for leadership.

The image of the dead gathering together is paralleled nicely with the living, including Audrey's parents, collecting in Pierre's 'the Helping Hand' shelter. Meanwhile, Pierre has Toni hostage and is interrogating him to discover where the Returned are. With these two scenes, the board is starting to e be set with sides being chosen. Could all this be building to some confrontation between the living and the dead?

In the storyline most removed from the main action, we find that the murdered police officers were all shot dead, before being tied to the trees. However, one of the officers was missing. In Mumford's review he speculated that it was Julie's ex girlfriend Laure who was missing, but I think it could be the police captain-Thomas. Let me know who you think it is.

Meanwhile, the sinkhole, that was discovered last episode, was explored with the cameras picking up a creature in a shot straight out of a horror film. What is the creature? Another Returnee? A demon? A chupacabra? Who knows?

I was speaking about sides before and I think that Simon is struggling to stay neutral. He keeps going to see Chloe who is feeding him information about Adele's child, yet he always returns to Lucy. Although I wonder how Morganne's return will affect their relationship. Simon didn't look the happiest when he saw the two sharing a bed. But Chloe and Adele is what's tying Simon to the living world, and I wonder whether soon, he'll be forced to choose between siding with the living or the dead.

Mumford identified that this episode was all about characers rejecting one another. For example, Adele continued to reject her baby son, which Chloe calls Nathan, after Adele refuses to name him.

However, in my mind , the far more significant and hear-breaking rejections was Victor's rejection of Julie. Yes i know that Victor's real name is Louis, but I'm going to keep calling him Victor. Anyway, Victor finally seems to be accepting his mother and his newly returned brother Paul, so much so, that Julie begins feeling redundant. In a cruel and emotional scene, Victor tells Julie that although he no longer needs her, she still needs hm. Before him, she had nobody and she should leave now. Mrs Costa adds insult to injury telling Julie that she "doesn't belong here." Anyone else find it weird why Mrs Costa is living with Victor and co, and not with Lucy and the rest of the horde?

Anyway, the devastation is evident on Julie's face and all credit to the wonderful Celine Sallette for portraying this. The final gorgeous shot sees Julie walking to the flood to perhaps drown herself. I hope she doesn't die, but it would make sense. Without Victor, she had absolutely nothing in her life. Nowhere to go and nobody to turn to. Although, as we already know the dead don't stay dead long e.g Lucy and Simon.

This was a thought provoking episode that for once provided some answers of sorts. It was also heart-breaking, especially Victor's ice-cold rejection of Julie. But also the Horde having nobody to return to. In some ways this is even sadder. They're "living some type of "purgatory" or "hell," condemned to "Life" without their loved ones.

Some questions I'd love to hear your thoughts on:

1. Why do you think the dead have returned? Do you agree with Milan?
2. What does Pierre want with the Returned?
3. What was the creature in the sinkhole?
4. Who is the missing police officer?
5. What's going to happen to Julie?

Hannibal Review

Read my review of Red Dragon

Read my review of the Silence of the Lambs

So I'm taking a break from the top 1000 films of all time to review the third in the Hannibal Lecter films.  As I have read the book, I wanted to see how the two compared.

Ten years after Dr Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) escaped from prison, it emerges that he is in Florence, posing as a museum curator.  One of his previous would-be victims, the sadistic millionaire Mason Verger (Gary Oldman) is determined to take his revenge on Hannibal by feeding him to his herd of specially bred wild pigs.  Meanwhile, FBI agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore) faces a fall from grace after an internal investigation is launched with Justice scumbag Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta) determined to see her fall.

Technically this film is strong.  I've read IMDB reviews praising James Cameron's direction and cinematography and rightly so.  The scenes in Florence and Sardinia look great on screen.  Further praise goes to Hans Zimmer and his musical score.  A lot of the film's gorier scenes, and there are a lot of them, are off-set against a piece of classical music, as if saying that violence murder are forms of art, which to some serial killers they are, but that's for a whole different review.

The performances were also strong.  Anthony Hopkins was great as Lecter, as he had a lot more to do than just stand in a jail cell. I also thought Julianne Moore was good at Starling.  Jodie Foster played Clarice Starling in the Silence of the Lambs, but after she declined to return, Hopkins recommended Julianne Moore.  And I think she made a decent stab at it.  Clarice Starling is ten years older than the last film and Moore played her world-worn cynicism and exasperation of the backstabbing politics of the FBI well.  Speaking of backstabbing politics, Ray Liotta was great as the slimy and under-handed Paul Krendler.  It was a far cry from is role in Goodfellas as Henry Hill.  Gary Oldman, whom you may not have recognised as the deformed Mason Verger, was also creepy and threatening.

As can be expected from all book-to-screen adaptations, a lot was cut out or changed.  The novel Hannibal is close to 600 pages long, so characters and subplots had to be excised for timing and pacing issues.  However, this is where I think the film falls down.  Some of the changes I can understand and respect.  For example, Jack Crawford, Clarice Starling's boss and biggest supporter, was completely omitted from the film, as was the subplot of his wife who was dying from cancer.  The whole investigation about Starling is largely compressed as well.  However, I didn't mind this, as the film wasn't about Starling, but Hannibal.

Except it wasn't about Hannibal.  The novel delves into his backstory with flashbacks to his childhood and sister Mischa, which also explains his motivations for his cannibalism.  But this is entirely absent from the film.  As such, I think a dimension is missing from Hannibal's character.  He's become so iconic due to how interesting of a character he is but when you deny the audience a chance to learn more about him, he loses his depth.

At the film's conclusion, Mason Verger gets his comeuppance by being fed to the pigs, he wanted to feed Hannibal too.  However, it wasn't Hannibal who was responsible for his death or even Starling, but Mason's private doctor Cordell, whom according to many internet summaries has always hated Mason.

However, in the novel, it is Mason's sister Margot who kills him, as she deeply loathes him, stemming from how he raped her as a teenager.  Margot is completely cut from the film, but I think her motivations for killing Mason are far more obvious than Cordell's.  Throughout the film, I never got that Cordell hated Mason.  It more seemed like he was indifferent to him.  This was another poor change.

In a slightly more positive note, the penultimate scene where Hannibal dissects pieces of Krendler's brain, sautes them and then feeds them to him, all in front of the drugged Starling, was brilliantly adapted from the novel.

Whilst the film is strong technically and has good performances, I do think it's suffered from too many changes from the novel, most notably Hannibal Lecter, who goes from a feared serial killer to little more than a card-board cut out.

The Returned Episode 2 Milan recap

Read my review of episode 1

One thing you may have noticed is that every episode of the Returned is named after a specific character.  Last episode was named L'enfant after Adele's unborn child and this episode after Milan (Michael Abiteboul.)  Although we don't immediately find out who he is, we do find out that he is not a good character.

The Returned is a show that likes to play around with time and this episode is no exception.  It begins with a flashback to 35 years ago where Victor's (Swann Namboutin) house is being burgled.  However, the difference here is that it is shown from the perspective of the burglars.

We find out that the robbery is orchestrated by Milan, although he doesn't take part in it.  Rather it is a far younger Pierre who has to be strongly persuaded to take part, and his unnamed accomplice.  We never find out who his accomplice is, which isn't really a criticism, but more like I really want to know, tell me now.

Instead what the episode told us was that Milan and co weren't involved in a burglary, but rather an intimidation tactic.  They want Victor and his family to leave the town immediately.  Why? Something to do with Victor and his general creepiness.  We do know that there is something off about him.  Whilst it might seem weird that Victor's family would be warned to leave and then killed afterwards, it is important to note that it was Pierre who gave those warnings in a vain attempt to prevent any bloodshed.  Without success, he later tries to stop his accomplice from shooting Victor dead.  What do this mean for Pierre? More on this later.  But in the meanwhile, feel free to speculate in the comments.

In the present day, we see Serge (Guillaume Goux) discovering Milan in his cabin in the woods and we find out that Milan is Serge's father and has also returned from the dead.  We also find out that he isn't the nicest father.  In a great scene where the character dynamic between the two is established it is obvious that Milan is in full control and his son is terrified of him.  Gwilym Mumford of the Guardian finds Milan's grip over Serge striking in particularly how he can reduce a serial killer to a scared little boy. Click here to go to his recap.

And I completely agree with Mumford on this point.  One thing that's not been satisfactorily explored is Serge's motivations for killing, but I think that this scene does well in explaining it.  His father is a complete drill-sergeant and it wouldn't surprise me if he was abusive to Serge when he was younger.  This abuse must have changed Serge in some way or catalysed his murderous tendencies.  Either that or he's suffering from mental health issues and he isn't in full control of his actions.  A lot of serial killers and mass-murderers have suffered from parental abuse or mental abuse.  Those are my theories at least, but I've probably been watching too much Criminal Minds, so let me know your own ideas.

However, Milan's terror extends far further than Serge to the seemingly unrelated Lucy (Ana Giradot.) In a scene where she is for some reason naked, she confesses to Simon (Pierre Perrier) her fear of Milan's return.  This then poses a few more questions.  How does she know that he has returned? Do all of the Returnees have some type of psychic connection with each other? And why is Lucy so afraid of Milan? We know little of Lucy's backstory-only that she arrived in town out of the blue and got a job in Toni's pub.  Could Milan link into her unexplained past? What do you think?

With Serge's and Milan's relationship, it is the son afraid of the parent, the reverse is wonderfully portrayed in Victor and his mother.  The last episode saw her return and Victor's less than happy reaction.  Victor's mother tries to rekindle their relationship by cutting his hair and most importantly calling him by given name Louis, but Victor refuses to accept her.  Julie (Celine Salette) has to encourage him to sit with her whilst she is eating.

Victor confides to Julie that his mother doesn't love him, which I think is right.  It seems more as is she is terrified of him and wants to keep him happy.  She tries to act like the perfect mother and tries to protect him, but there isn't any feeling behind her actions.  As I said before, this is a great reverse of Milan and Serge's relationship.  Where it is the parent doing everything not to anger the child.  But why is Victor's mother is afraid of him? Why doesn't she want him to draw? We do know that there is something off about Victor.  His drawings have foreshadowed the deaths of characters before.

However, Victor isn't the only one affected by the return of his mother.  There is of course Julie.  Their relationship is one of the best things of the show and its main driving force.  Seeing these two characters together is great, as they're both so interesting.  They both have traumatic backstories, which is one reason why they have grown so close.  Why Victor says he loves Julie and it is Julie's love that has helped him to grow.  How cute was that scene?

There is also another returnee who I have yet to mention: Mrs Costa (Laetitia da Fombelle).  Ever since her return in season 1, Mrs Costa has always been in the background and most significantly doesn't have anyone.  Her husband killed himself upon her return.  In some ways she is the saddest character, as she personifies people's fears of not being remembered when they die.  Of all the returnees, she's the only one who hasn't formed a proper attachment to somebody else, so much so, that nobody tried to stop her going with the Horde last season, which only emphasises how sad of a character she is.

So for whatever reason she is now staying with Victor and Julie and her discussion with the latter is very telling.  She calls Julie out on how lonely and sad she must be now that Victor's mother has returned.  Julie unconvincingly responds that she is very happy that Victor has found his mother and that Victor found his mother.  Before Victor, Julie didn't have anyone and she is in danger of not having anyone again.

From here we jump to the other returnees being kept prisoner by the Horde: Camille Seguret (Yara Pillartz) and her mother Claire. (Anne Consigny) In the last episode, they were joined by Audrey (Armande Boulanger) who also died in the bus crash that killed Camille.  Camille wants to tell Audrey the truth whereas Claire would rather comfort her with a lie.  I said it last week and I'll say it again, Camille is in the right here.  It's better that Audrey finds out the truth as soon as possible.  But Camille and Claire's debate is one of the many standout moments of the episode.  Claire argues that Audrey has already been through traumatic experience and doesn't need any more stress and Camille counters that she went through the exact same thing.  Claire is worried that Audrey would be terrified of the truth, but Camille argues that "Audrey's always terrified," which I think is a great comment which perfectly describes Audrey's character.  It also typifies the blunt, callousness that can be expected from teenagers.

However, things become more complicated when another of Camille's classmates who died in the bus crash returns: Esteban (Thomas Doret).  Audrey spots him and calls him into Camille's house.  Claire's desperate attempts to hide him from the Horde cause him to panic and he runs out of the house with Audrey and Camille.  Claire tries to stop them and fails.  I can't help but feel sorry for Claire.  She is well-intentioned but misguided.  She obviously wants the best for Camille, but is either ignored or disobeyed.

When Camille is alone with Audrey and Esteban, she tells them the truth, but this doesn't stop Esteban from wanting to swim across the flooded town to go back to his parents (little does he know that they killed themselves back in season 1 to be with their son again) However, he doesn't get very far before the Horde stop him.  From here the three teenagers run to Esteban's house where Camille to prove her point threatens to cut her throat, as she believes that she is immortal and she cannot die again.  We know that this isn't true.  The Returned can die again and then return again as is what happened to Simon in season 1.  Before she attempts to urm kill herself, she is stopped by a mystery boy who takes all three to the memorial site where their coach crashed.  This was another standout moment of the episode and absolutely heart-breaking.  All three of the young actors did very well, but in particular Yara Pillartz.  Ever since Camille has returned, she has had an icy exterior up, but here we saw the chinks in her armour beginning to show.  It was powerful seeing her cry and I got goosebumps.

Things aren't going too well for the other half of the Seguret family.  Lena (Jenna Thiam) goes to see her father Jerome (Frederic Pierrot) who has really gone off the rails.  He lives in a house where there are plastic sheets hanging from the ceiling and he has a big flowchart and pinboard of clippings which he is using to try to find some logic or reason to why the the Returned have returned.  Lena, angry and scared at how deranged her father has become storms out.  This is a great portrayal of people's reactions to death.  Sometimes it is difficult for people to truly let go, which is what we see in Jerome.

Gwilym Mumford again talks about this scene in depth and particularly in how Jerome is trying to rationalise the impossible.  Mumford argued that what the fanbase want is an explanation for how the dead can return.  However, I don't agree with the fanbase here.  I'm perfectly fine in not knowing.  The dead coming back to life is impossible so any explanation as to why this can be will never be fully satisfying.  The writers would be better off not trying to explain it, as any explanation needs to be bloody good to adequately satiate the fanbase.

Read Mumford's recap here.

After Lena leaves Jerome's house, she goes to the Lake Pub where she finds Toni (Gregory Gadebois) who has recovered from his earlier accident.  Shortly joining them is Pierre who wants Toni to come with them to the Helping Hand.  Lena doesn't trust him and I don't either.  Mumford compared Pierre's group to a cult, which I would agree with.  Pierre seems amiable and charismatic enough, maybe not quite a Jim Jones or Charles Manson type but close enough.  In the last season, he saw the Returned as a sign of the apocalypse.  Does he still think that? Or is the explanation more innocent?

As we saw in the flashbacks, he didn't want Victor to die.  He was ready to spare him and vouched for his life to his accomplice who shot him anyway.  In a final flashback, it is revealed that Victor's father survived the initial attack and Pierre's accomplice is about to shoot him.  However, Pierre, sick of the bloodshed, kills his accomplice.  Is that what motivates Pierre now? Is that why he wants to help the dead? Is he trying to atone for the deaths he's been responsible for?

Although Adele (Clotilde Hesme) was centre-stage last week, she took more of a backstage role in this episode.  It is revealed that she has given birth, but her child is dying.  Adele wants nothing to do with it and refuses to go to it.  It is only with her daughter Chloe's (Brune Martin) encouragement that she does so.

Lastly, we've come to what could be argued to be the framing narrative and I would argue the least interesting one which is why I'm saving it to last.  This revolves around Berg's (Laurent Lucas) investigation into why the town flooded.  In the first season, there was a narrative about falling levels in the Dam and we've seen in flashbacks that the town has flooded before, but this narrative was always too disparate to really be of any interest to me.  It was never really accorded enough time either.  Concerning Berg's investigation, there were only two things of note.  Firstly, Berg goes to the site of the dam where he discovers a seemingly endless crater/cave/tunnel.  Mumford speculated that this could be where the Returned came from.  What do you think?

Secondly, and this isn't strictly related to Berg or the dam investigation, but we've finally found out what happened to the police officers who disappeared at the end of season 1.  In a chilling shot, they were discovered all dead tied to trees in the forest.

So as per usual, a lot happened in this episode and there is a lot to keep track off.  New characters and plot threads have been introduced, including the villainous Milan.  And as always there are a million different questions to answer.

What is Milan's relationship to Lucy?

What is motivating Pierre?

Did Milan contribute to Serge's murdering tendencies?

What is the deal with Victor?

Let me know your best theories and anything I've missed.

And be sure to give Mumford's recap a read.