adaru

... Just wanted to add my views to the chorus: this was very bad indeed.

So bad, in fact, that having watched the first half, I've been putting off watching the second for every reason I can think of, and have finally admitted to myself that I really don't want to, and deleted it.

Some may think that disqualifies me from commenting, but I think it just goes to show how poor this thing was, since generally I'll sit through any old rubbish. Apart from 'Razor Blade Smile', obviously. Managed three minutes of that.

Now I find, reading the other comments here, that the writers of 'Supernova' rely on the most feeble kind of deus ex machina to get themselves out of the corner, and I'm glad I didn't waste my time.

The whole thing (at least, the whole first half) is thoroughly confused and confusing. I was never entirely sure where things were supposed to be set, or who people were - the caption would say we were in Australia and ten minutes later you'd realise you were watching things happening in South Africa with no real awareness that the transition had been made. The 'science' - even to an amateur astronomer - was appalling: this idea that the sun will suddenly start spitting fireballs out exclusively at Earth, and suddenly stop having any problems at all when someone gets marked badly in maths... well, everyone else has already covered this.

Oh, and the US government have had the foresight to build dozens of giant cities underground for people to hide in in the event of a supernova - for some reason assuming that their cities will survive the shattering of the planet around them. "We're hoping for something a little less apocalyptic", I think was the rationalisation here - but the character never explained why.

Plus points? It's got Tia Carrere in it. That's it.

I must admit I approached this movie with a certain trepidation - fairly convinced it was going to be nothing but a vehicle for Ant and Dec to do further madcap comedy as in their roles as presenters. Let me say at this juncture that I am a fan of the two in that role - but I wondered how such an approach would lend itself to the big screen.

Fortunately, I did not have to worry. Ant and Dec (or should I say Declan, for the actor version?) performed surprisingly well in their respective roles, and the film overall was pitched at just the right angle. It was entirely possible to forget that these were "those two off Saturday Night Takeaway", and to see them simply as actors in a movie. Their acting was pretty good for a first serious shot at it (I'm not sure whether I should be counting 'Byker Grove' there - but even so, it was quite some time ago).

As to the story, well, that was hindered slightly by the fact that I'm still not entirely sure what to believe about the autopsy footage in any case. Of course it's down to the viewer to make up their own mind about that, and I'm not going to criticise or credit the film based on my opinion of its subject matter - but I couldn't help wondering whether what I was seeing was supposed to be interpreted as fact or fiction. That aside, the makers clearly went to a great deal of trouble to get the details right.

The most important thing to remember if you're considering watching this film for the first time - especially if you're a fan of Ant and Dec - is that this isn't *supposed* to be hilarious and wacky. It has its funny moments, and plenty of them - but Ray Santilli is not Declan Donnelly, and Gary Shoefield is not Ant McPartlin, so they don't act like them. Instead, Ant and Dec act like Gary and Ray, because that's what actors do. And, for a first movie, they do it creditably well.

Those who remember fondly Frankie Howerd's take on Roman society in 'Up Pompeii' will probably enjoy this bizarre comedy featuring, we presume, Lurkio's descendant, the serf Lurkalot (who does).

The plot is a little contrived, it must be said, and involves twin princes, separated at birth, finding themselves at opposite ends of the social spectrum: one a king, the other a peasant. There's something about the Holy Land, the Crusades and the key to the titular chastity belt - but really the plot is only an excuse for a relentless barrage of gags.

It could be said fairly that much of the content and certainly many of the jokes would probably not be considered appropriate if this film were being made today. But of course, it is important to remember that it is not being made today - it was made quite a long time ago, and attitudes were rather different then. As the title should suggest, much of the subject matter revolves around sex, although it is generally handled fairly innocently in comparison to modern movies, and those able to sit through any of the 'Carry On' films without taking offence should have no trouble with this. For example, the entertainingly camp portrayal of a certain green-clad, forest-dwelling folk hero is positively tame compared to many of the stereotypes and caricatures regularly presented on modern British TV.

In short, those who are able to endure such terrible political incorrectness will find Howerd in fine form, with a supporting cast all hamming it up good and proper in what is essentially a pantomime on film. Definitely worth a look, if you think you dare risk letting yourself laugh at it...