Theo Robertson I once attended University film classes and one of the courses was in European cinema . Our tutor Rolland was a flamboyant , larger than life character , very erudite and knowledgeable in his field but his tastes weren't exactly mainstream and one night the class was doing experimental European cinema " Now we're going to be seeing some Derek Jarman " " Aw no " I cried " " Ah Theo you must hate me ? " " Well thatdepends on what we're watching . It's not the last of England is it ? "" yes it is "" Aw no " I shrieked by which time the atmosphere in the class became one of intrigue as the other students became curious as to why a film could bring out such emotions from someone " but it's totally gay " Rolland replied in camp mock anger " Of course it's gay . Jarman was gay , he died from AIDS didn't you know that " " That's no excuse to wave penises at the screen " Laughs from the other students " Ah Theo now I understand - you have a small penis problem " cue laughter from the other students that seemed to last a lifetime I'd certainly recommend a Rolland film class . They're always interesting and informative with interaction class discussion and much laughter . The downside is you have to watch a Jarman film now and again Derek Jarman in invariably described as " a challenging film maker " which is pseudo-speak for pretentious art house garbage . TLOE is Jarman at his most challenging indeed and anyone attracted to narrative cinema need not to watch this The story at its most basic features a post apocalypse landscape and images that almost defy description . A youth has sex with a painting , a woman played by Tilda Swinton tears off her wedding dress , a man forages for food in a dustbin , with the images cutting to para military soldiers patrolling the devastated streets . Add to this abstract voice overs , sequences filmed in black and white 8 mm . time lapse photography and homosexual frotting and you've got a film that will only appeal to the most pretentious art-house cinema junkie . The only reason for watching it is that you can claim you've seen one of the most ostentatious films ever made and remind yourself that rubbish like this used to appear on Channel 4 every Thursday in the late 1980s and that British cinema was taking quantum leaps in quality ten years later

neilrolland Challenging the politics of 80s Britain and the film-making of the time, The Last of England stands out as an outstanding cinematic achievement.Don't get me wrong, when I first watched, I found it difficult to watch and actually left before it finished! But it drew me back. I did some reading on the film and on Derek Jarman and after this I was able to see the Genius in the piece.The main character is Spring. (we do not learn this is his name until the end credits) He portrays the working class outsider in Thatcher's Britain. There are scenes of destruction, the end of industry, the feeling of terror brought on by the IRA at the time. The film challenges the Taboo's of homosexual relationships, forbidden love, drug use etc etc Through montage, still images, music and voice over, Jarman portrays his feelings of Britain in the 1980s and how he would like to sail away from this terrible Island (see the final sequence) Shot on 8mm, Jarman was revolting against the Hollywood standard 35mm, using home video footage on top to garnish the effect.Really before you see this film, you MUST do some reading into it first. I believe this will enhance your enjoyment and let you get a flavour of what Jarman was trying to do with this piece

LaFeeChartreuse Reading the comments on this film or others like it is a frustrating experience, because so many people don't seem to be clear on the concept. Let me put it very simply:This. Is. Not. A. Narrative. Film.If you're going to complain about lack of a plot, character development, or other features of narrative films, don't go see a non-narrative film! It's an entirely different experience, and that's the whole idea. Judging an experimental montage of images and music and voice by the standards of a conventional narrative film is ridiculous -- like complaining about a drama because it wasn't funny. It's not SUPPOSED to be. If you don't like films that don't have a conventional narrative, don't see them.So, for those who DO actually like experimental, non-narrative film, I'd highly recommend this one -- it's one of my all-time favourite films of any sort, even though know the majority of the population probably couldn't sit through it. I found it incredibly powerful, evocative and visually stunning, and even 15 years after seeing it, some images from it are still burned into my mind. I'm a big fan of Jarman's work in general, but if I had to pin down one single favourite from his work, I think this would be it.

Shawn Watson This film seems to be a bizarre hybrid of David Lynch at his most weirdest and Jim Jarmush on an acid trip. There is no linear progression or any character development. Or any real characters when I think about it. Or story. Just a very strange mixture of disgusting visuals and gay imagery.For the first half of the movie we linger on a bunch of hobos in a demolished wasteland. We can't really tell if they are just living in an old factory or if the world has been destroyed by nuclear apocalypse. These scenes are tinted (or flooded) by either red, green or blue. The guys just walk around and stuff. Nothing special. I don't know why I didn't walk out of this movie. Obviously some part of it held my attention. I don't know what though. What's even stranger is that I WOULD recommend this film to others. If you like movies it's a good idea to see a few bizarre ones. If you don't like it that's fine. But I bet you can't fully explain WHY you don't like it. I can't explain why I even sat thru it.It's good to see. Even though it doesn't have the normal things associated with movies. IE script, producer and well…I dunno. Not much dialogue either.