Skip to main content

As if it were all planned.

Children of the Stones
4: Narrowing the Circle


We’ve seen a fair bit of Kevin (Darren Hatch) before now, but we have barely glimpsed his father, Dr Lyle (Richard Matthews). Their role in this fourth episode is essentially a repeat of Jimmo and Tom Browning in the third, but in a much more detailed form.

MargaretAs if it were all planned.
Dr LyleNo proof. Just unspecified reactions to unexplained data. Planned by who?


Set against the “surviving” villagers (six in total, excluding Dai and Hendrick), Lyle becomes the arch-sceptic and logician. Adam references “Happy Day-itis” as a condition they will succumb to in due course, and it is noted that families seem to change together. Lyle poo-poos this, and assumes the scientific approach that Adam previously extolled. There’s a nice moment where Lyle asks them why they don’t leave if they are so concerned, and the weight of the capitalist system provides an answer; they need their jobs. “So you are, in effect, trapped,” he responds. Is this The Prisoner-esque case the series is making? That we are all trapped in our own Milbury construct, impelled to become Happy Day pod people living out a pre-programmed existence?


MatthewI’m inside his head. I can read his mind.

Like pod people, the Happy Day villagers never get sick, (there are 55 patients in the village; before Adam and Matthew arrived there were 53, the same number as the stones). So Lyle is pleased to be called out of town to an old patient. The concept of psychometry (once again, Margaret does the explaining) is introduced, as Matthew discovers that the gloves Lyle has left behind are full of static. When he puts one on, he sees what Lyle sees, and announces that something has blocked his exit from the Milbury.  As per his flip-flop style, Adam is now called upon to be sceptical of his son’s experience. He is relieved when Lyle surfaces the next day and disavows Matthew’s account. In an inevitable, but no less satisfying for it, moment, Lyle exits with the farewell words “Happy Day to you”, so confirming Matthew’s thoughts.


This is further underlined by the behaviour of Kevin, who can best be described as right little shit. Dai is onto him being a wrong ‘un from the start, reluctant to allow him to enter his sanctuary (“What did you bring him for?”), which he has sealed up in a blind panic over what may be in store. And rightly so; the terrible oik demands Dai hand over the amulet. His casting of the bones has repeatedly revealed the shape of a serpent, and presumably it is this serpent, in the form of Kevin, that has now gained access. 



As a result, Dai’s protective amulet crumbles and he is doomed. It’s too late when Matthew and ever-so posh Sandra later suss out Kevin and disinvite his company (“No, it’s time you got to school”).  With all the speculation over how the not-we are turned, one begins to wonder if there’s something nasty in Mrs Crabtree’s chocolate cake.


The paralleling of Dai and Hendrick in Three is now verbalised in the recognition that neither has been affected by Happy Dayitis; Dai has been safe at the sanctuary, while Hendrick is protected at the centre of the ley lines. In this episode Hendrick puts me in mind of Christopher Lee’s Lord Summerisle, presiding over Summer Isle in The Wicker Man. Both are the educated gentlemen presiding over superstitious and impressionable locals. And there’s a burst of that 1976 sunshine as he, Adam and Margaret discuss local lore in the grounds of the church. Of course, he professes no knowledge of the protection granted to him at the manor, while simultaneously noting how fortunate it is that Margaret has answered “Milbury’s call”.


When Dai’s amulet is broken, it seems so is his spirit, and he goes ranging off over the hills. When Matthew sees him in the distance he gives pursuit. But, when he arrives, there is only a stone there, one that wasn’t present before. Margaret notes that this is where the Barber Surgeon was known to have died, but the stone was removed years before and there is nothing left now. 



When Matthew takes them back to the spot, Dai is found lying there all dead and bloodied. It’s an effective moment, as the disturbing voices intrude; the gap between past and present within the loop is blurring.  This is the first episode that really ups the stakes; not only have the remaining numbers of the free been sorely impacted, but the one in-the-know ally has been felled.

Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.