Another Trip to Twin Peaks



Charlene Lydon explains why we shouldn’t be afraid to get excited about new Twin Peaks.



My gut reaction to the news that Twin Peaks is coming back to our screens was painfully panicked. I was, at first, excited, then terrified, then, for a horrible moment, thought they were talking about re-runs, then went back to panicking again.


I always get a blast of this when I hear of a remake or a sequel or a reboot of something I love. It’s the fear that the thing I love will be somehow corrupted by a poor imitation of its former iteration. It’s a valid fear. But I’m also an optimist so I choose to believe that new Twin Peaks will be great, perhaps even just as great.


There’s a well-earned trust in David Lynch’s catalogue of past treasures (filmography feels too slight a term). He is truly a great auteur and one with a distinct, singular vision in which audiences put their trust. So what if it doesn’t make sense? It isn’t supposed to! Lynch’s films wash over you in the most wonderful way. They fill you with dread and energy and delirium with every frame. The only pieces of work that incur any sort of critical wrath are Dune and Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me. But in this fangirl’s opinion, these films are both full of the aesthetic and psychological pleasures that Lynch always provides. In fact, since we’re on the topic of Twin Peaks, Fire Walk With Me, it managed to touch on the tragedy and horror of the incest storyline in a way that the television show never got to do. It was full of rage and sadness and the full horror of Laura Palmers sad life is really, truly confronted. Replacement Donna aside, I think it’s an excellent prequel to a wonderful series.


The worry with reboots is that the cast and crew are doing it for the money. I call it Fierce Creatures syndrome, and I happily believe that there’s a genuine affection within the show’s stars (many of them at least) for the show. All of them regularly entertain interviews about the show and attend fan conventions and so many of them contributed to the recent Blu-ray release, And truly, how could anyone who was part of that world not want to go back there? At the end of the day, Twin Peaks is such a fully realised world that without the ghost of Laura Palmer looming there’s still a wealth of wonderful stories in there and old friends (and enemies) to catch up with.


So what will the series be about? I hate to even think about it but when we last left Twin Peaks we were left with the utterly shattering image of our hero Dale Cooper inhabited by the spirit of Bob, an incarnation of all evil that lurks beneath the surface. An unpopular ending in certain circles, I always thought it was simply the most horrific conclusion imaginable for the show. Coop, the innocent, the ultimate force for good, corrupted. And with the “dot dot dot” conclusion, Coop is now frozen in time, forever corrupted with no chance of being saved. Until now.


I have no doubt that David Lynch would not have returned to the northeast passage did he not have a story to tell. Twin Peaks was always about America, its secrets, its lies, its rotten core. One must wonder if this will be the central thesis of the new Twin Peaks or if there will be a different direction. Who will be back? Who won’t be back?


The fact that the how was picked up by Showtime, one of the more liberal networks, means there will be fewer restraints regarding sex and violence. There will probably be little by way of network pressure for Lynch and Frost to conform to. But how will they react to the quarter-century that has passed and can Twin Peaks remain unique after so many excellent shows have borrowed from it? From The X Files to The Killing and Desperate Housewives and everything in between, the legacy of Twin Peaks looms large all over this so called golden-era of television. Can Twin Peaks maintain its unique quality?


I believe it can. I believe in David Lynch and Mark Frost and the world they created. So let’s be hopeful.


Cinema Review: Oz The Great and Powerful

DIR: Sam Raimi  WRI: Mitchell Kapner, David Lindsay-Abair  PRO: Joe Roth  ED: Bob Murawski  DOP: Peter Deming  DES: Robert Stromberg  CAST: James Franco, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weiz, Michelle Williams

I have to admit, I have a soft spot for the merry ol’ land of Oz, so off I went in my sparkly red shoes (egg on my face though, cos there wan’t a ruby slipper to be seen in Raimi’s version) to a Sunday morning family screening of Oz The Great and Powerful.

Raimi’s film is essentially the origin story for the wonderful wizard. Oz (Franco) is a selfish circus con-man whose tendency towards smoke and mirrors has left him devoid of any real sense of self. Like Dorothy, he is swept away in a cyclone and transported to a strange and magical world where he is soon recognised as the man who is destined to rule all of Oz. In order to gain the throne and a room full of gold, he must convince them, and himself, that he’s the man they need him to be

Knowing Sam Raimi and his tendency towards playfulness I was unsurprised but no less delighted to see him open his film with 4:3 monochrome, where it stayed until we enter Oz, where he then revealed in all its 3D glory, all the beauty and spectacle we would hope to see in Oz.

The plot sees  three witches struggling for power over Oz (the place AND the man), one is beautiful, naïve Theodora (Kunis) who falls in love with Oz as she leads him to meet her sister Evanora so they can plot to kill the wicked witch who has been banished to the woods but they suspect to be planning an uprising. But things get complicated when he finds the “wicked witch” and she turns out to be the beautiful, wise and good Glinda The Good.

The production design, CGI effects and cinematography are absolutely beautiful throughout the film, which instantly removed the slight alarm bell of cynicism that might have existed in me around this project. But it’s clear from the outset that love and passion went into the aesthetic of this film. Special mention must go to Gary Jones for the unbelievably beautiful costume design. All the actors seem to be having a blast camping it up in their roles (does Franco ever really do anything else?) and it’s especially nice to see Michelle Williams in a happy film for once.

At almost two and a half hours, I couldn’t help but feel that the thin plot didn’t really warrant the lengthy running time, but having said that I absolutely adored so many aspects of the film that I never really wanted it to end. Raimi’s stamp is all over the film in the most wonderful ways! His flying cameras, his sharp visual wit and not to mention his horrifying witch and flying baboons, there’s plenty on display here to keep his fans happy. But what about the most important audience of all? The children. What’s in it for them? Magic, a cute monkey, a lovely little china doll, action, scary villains and most of all a wonderful sense of what epic 3D cinema should be. Big! From where I was sitting (which was surrounded by hundreds of children) they seemed very, very pleased with themselves. One thing it is missing though – singin’ and dancin’;  but I guess I can’t have it all.


Charlene Lydon

PG (see IFCO website for details)

Oz The Great and Powerful is released on 8th March 2013

Oz The Great and Powerful – Official Website


Bloody Countdown to Halloween: Salem’s Lot

As the spooky season raises its sharpened axe to soon fall upon us, the ghouls and goblins of Film Ireland wallow in the terror of the films that embrace the nutty freaks, bloody psychos and raging spoonatics with our ‘Bloody Countdown to Halloween’ – cue Vincent Price laugh…


Salem’s Lot

(Tobe Hooper, 1979)

Charlene Lydon

It may seem rather an odd addition to this list of such great horror films, a three-hour-long TV adaptation of a Stephen King story, but this is definitely a film that deserves a second look. I read King’s novel when I was way too young to be exposed to such horror and it started a lifelong love affair between me and King’s books. I first saw the movie as a child, rented by my older sister from the video shop and I remember it being the scariest thing I had seen in my life, up until that point. I revisited the film recently and despite the fact that it has aged terribly in parts, including the odd freeze-frame here and there and the dodgy floating demon children, the film still terrified me and the other members of the audience. Because it was originally a TV movie, there is surprisingly little blood in the film. This is something I realised after the fact and had trouble believing how little onscreen violence there actually was, especially considering Tobe Hooper was at the helm.

Salem’s Lot is a story about a journalist, Ben (David Soul) who returns to his home town of Jerusalem’s Lot, Maine to write about the Marsten House, a place that had frightened him as a child and has haunted him since. He has arrived at the same time as the mysterious antiques dealer Mr. Straker (James Mason) and his as yet unseen partner Mr. Barlow, who have rented the Marsten House.

The film is part haunted house horror, part vampire thriller, part indictment of the passive masses. King has been known for his tendency to favour small-town Americana. Perhaps this is because his good-evil dichotomy has always had an observer; the passive townsfolk who get picked off one by one. Salem’s Lot is a fine example of this.

‘You’ll catch your death out there…’

The standout aspect of Salem’s Lot is the fact that it features a truly terrifying vampire, a rarity in cinema these days. Mr. Barlow is not sexy, he is not a tortured soul and he is not tragic…he’s evil, he’s ugly and he’s scary! I can’t remember the last time I saw a depiction of a vampire that was truly a bloodsucking demon and nothing more. The introduction of Barlow after almost two hours of anticipation is brilliant, one of the greatest scares in all of horror cinema.

The very long running time of the film may seem excessive but the character exposition and the slow burning tension ensures that it rarely drags. Some of the characters’ stories may seem superfluous but it all acts as a gateway into the lives of the town’s inhabitants and how far they all are from the world of vampires and demons.

Salem’s Lot is a genuinely tense and scary film; a good, old-fashioned horror film and a fine example of what can be done without overuse of blood and gore. Flawed and at times a little cheesy, this is still a truly terrifying film which has been unfairly overlooked for a long time. Maybe it’s time to give ol’ Mr. Barlow another look. You might just find it’s the perfect film for a dark, spooky, Halloween night.

Charlene Lydon


Check out our blood-soaked countdown of Halloween Horror here.


We Love… 2011 – The Skin I Live In

Illustration: Adeline Pericart

We laughed, we cried, we sneaked in our own popcorn. 2011 brought with it some memorable trips to the cinema to revel in the joy of film. And so the Film Ireland collection of filmbots look back in love and recall their favourite films of the last year in the latest installment of…

We Love… 2011

The Skin I Live

( Pedro Almodóvar)

‘… maybe my favourite Almodovar film of all time …’

Charlene Lydon

As a longtime fan of Pedro Almodóvar’s films my expectations are always high when he releases a new film. The Skin I Live In gave us a trailer that teased a lot but answered nothing and so I had little expectation of what I was in for when the movie started, but I was definitely intrigued!

What can I say about the film without spoiling it? How can I possibly convey the sheer beauty and masterful storytelling on display here without giving away major plot points? Ideally, I want audiences to go in to this film knowing as little as I did and getting wrapped up in the world Almodóvar creates without trying to guess the plot twists and to delight in the developing story without second guessing the logic. It’s science fiction, but a most elegant example of the genre.

Antonio Banderas plays a rather unhinged scientist who is keeping a beautiful young woman prisoner in his home while using her as a human guinea pig for a new type of synthetic human skin. That’s about as much information as you need. As the story unfolds, petal by petal in that flower-like way we’ve become accustomed to seeing from Almodovar, each scene adds wonder and flavour to an already robust set-up. Moving at a break-neck pace, not a frame is without beauty and not a second is wasted without pushing the story along. This screenplay is extremely polished and beautifully nuanced.

Swapping his usual primary colour palette for a more subdued steely grey tone fused with fleshy beiges achieves an uncharacteristic, almost Cronenbergian feel to the cinematography. Despite toning down the colours, Jose Luis Alcaine delivers wonderfully vibrant visuals and makes the best of the limited locations that are used.

In a film that relies on ambiguity in so many ways the cast here must be commended. Delicate balances are achieved by all concerned and it’s wonderful to see Antonio Banderas settling into the rather unsettling role of Dr. Robert Ledgard. He exudes the same charisma and sexual bravura that made him famous but without the least whiff of sex symbol status coming through in the performance. He is creepy, strangely alluring and underplays the ‘mad scientist’ bit admirably. Elena Anayas also impresses in a very challenging performance both physically and emotionally, both of which are perfectly effective as her story unfolds. A brilliant character who may not have been so impressive in the hands of a less capable actress. The camera intimately caresses her face and body throughout and she steadfastly rises to the challenge of being as beautiful a muse as a director could ask for.

2011 was a year that didn’t deliver a tremendous amount of great cinema but the great cinema was really incredible and I think 2011 gave us some future classics, not least of which is The Skin I Live In, maybe my favourite Almodóvar film of all time…and that’s saying a lot.


We Love… Summer: 'Weekend at Bernie's'

We Love... Summer

Illustration: Adeline Pericart


Blisters on your shoulders, sand in your underwear, coughing up seawater and being packed into a caravan with the entire extended family – the sweet, sweet memories of summer’s past. Thank God we have film to look back on with pleasure. And so the Film Ireland sun lovers lay down their towels, unwrap a Cornetto and recall their favourite summer films in the latest installment of We Love… Summer. Charlene Lydon spends the Weekend at Bernie’s.

We’ll be adding to the list throughout July – check it out here. As always, feel free to add your own favourites. If you’d like to include your own review, contact

Now lash on the sunblock…


Weekend at Bernie’s



Charlene Lydon

The beauty of summer movies is that they don’t have to be classy, they don’t have to be clever, they just need to be fun! For me at least, Weekend at Bernie’s has a lot to offer those in need of some summer madness. For those of you who have not had the pleasure, here’s the plot in a nutshell. Larry and Richard, two down on their luck office workers uncover an anomaly which suggests someone is ripping off the insurance corporation they work for. Their shady boss Bernie, the real culprit, invites them to his place in The Hamptons during a massive New York heatwave where he plans to have them ‘silenced’. The plot thickens when the dodgy characters Bernie is involved with decide to ‘silence’ him instead, killing him and leaving him propped up at his desk with sunglasses on. When Larry and Richard arrive for their well-deserved weekend of fun, they realise what has happened but fate (and the prospect of ‘getting laid’) intervenes to ensure that they can’t quite find the time to phone the cops.

In the true spirit of ’80s comedy, a lot of over-the-top nonsense ensues whereby Larry and Richard must pretend to everyone, from party to party that Bernie is alive, just kind of ‘wasted’. This is easier than you imagine when everyone’s an airhead, a floozy or just completely hammered for the whole weekend. This is 1980’s New York we’re talking about here, hedonism is rampant for the well-heeled. Weekend at Bernie’s feels like Some Like it Hot crossed with a Bret Easton Ellis novel, completely ridiculous, over the top and slyly commenting on the hollow lifestyles of the rich and famous. Is that a stretch? Maybe it is.

At the heart of Weekend at Bernie’s is the desperate hunger to get out of the heat of Manhattan. The director does a good job of painting a picture of the unpleasantness of New York City in the sticky heatwave. It looks like the last place you’d ever want to be and therefore somewhat believably gives the guys an incentive to want to stay in The Hamptons at all cost. Disbelief must be suspended tremendously if you are to have any fun watching this film, but if you can just roll with it, it’s very funny and has an unjustly ignored fantastic central performance from Terry Kiser as Bernie. For two thirds of the film, he is dead. He has no lines. But the physicality of his performance is more than admirable, it’s downright brilliant!

With a premise like this, you’ll either love the film or hate the film, but it’s difficult not to crack a guilty smile here and there at the sheer absurdity and hideous lack of morality displayed by pretty much everyone in the film. Necrophilia, grave-robbing, desecration of a corpse via staple-gun, if it weren’t so damn sunny and nonchalant this would be a dark, dark piece of cinema. We’d all be shifting uncomfortably in our seats, unable to stay on board with these horribly selfish characters. But if you can allow yourself the indulgence Weekend at Bernies will evoke that feeling of desperately trying to enjoy the perfect summer weekend when you know it’s fleeting, even if you have to cart a corpse around with you to do it.

Sun, sand, women in bikinis, speedboats, creepy kids armed with a bucket and spade and of course a dead guy with his shoelaces tied to your shoelaces as you cruise the beach… that’s the recipe for a great summer movie!



Insidious Q&A with Leigh Whannell and James Wan


Charlene Lydon risks disembowelment as she goes after the brains behind ‘Insidious’ – out in cinemas on Friday, 29th April.

After a terrifying ninety minutes sitting through Insidious I wondered, as I always do, why is it that I can’t reason myself out of being scared in the cinema. As a seasoned cinemagoer and horror-lover I still find myself being extremely uncool in the cinema when it comes to scary films. Not all scary films, mind you. Just the ones where you sense from the first minute that the director knows horror films and intends to use and/or subvert every trick in the book to scare you. From that moment on I trust nothing. Every camera move is a potential lurking creature. If I spot a little too much space in the frame I worry that it is to allow space for the monster/killer/evil puppet to jump out.

From what I know of James Wan as a director, he is a huge fan of the genre and knows all the tricks and isn’t afraid to exploit them to scare the pants off an audience. Having said that, Insidious is a relatively slow-moving haunted-house thriller with admirable restraint and for all my hiding behind my fingers, staring at the floor and taking off my glasses so the screen would be blurry, the actual scares were spread out nicely.

When we first met Leigh and James they gave a brief introduction to the film and complain that the audiences they have seen the film with in the UK during this tour have not responded like the Americans do, with screaming and yelling. They ask us to be sure to let loose with the reactions (which we Irish are not capable of doing in the cinema). To egg us on Leigh stays behind for the opening credits to shout ‘Boo!’ at us a few times. I think to myself that this sums up what these guys are about. They are filmmaking tricksters who scare people out of mischief and delight in their reactions.

The post-screening Q&A with the writer/director team behind the movie and also such films as Saw and Dead Silence was illuminating and confirmed my suspicion that these guys were intent on proving themselves capable of making something truly frightening, not dependent on blood and gore.

Leigh and James explain that when they first met at university, RMIT in Melbourne, they were outcasts, ‘everyone was into Wim Wenders and whatever film Yoko Ono had made and we were into Sam Raimi and Dario Argento.’ They began working together in college and after they graduated they found themselves and going from job to job and writing together on the side. When asked why Saw was so successful Leigh admits, ‘we were surprised at how it connected with the public zeitgeist. It played at Sundance and in Toronto and was released at Halloween 2004 up against The Grudge, which was huge, but it connected with audiences and it turned out to be a great word of mouth movie.’

When it was pointed out that there really isn’t much violence in the first Saw movie, especially in comparison to its sequels, Leigh is in complete agreement. ‘There’s not much at all because the first movie was completely focussed on the main plot, the two guys trapped in the room, not the jigsaw traps. We loved the story and we loved the ending.’ But how has the success of Saw and in particular its six (yes, SIX) sequels affected their careers? Is it difficult to avoid being typecast. James passionately exclaims that ‘I’m branded with a label I don’t really care for’, perhaps he is referring to the label of originator of the torture porn sub-genre and not just typecast as a horror director. Saw is often cited as the first film to popularise the torture porn film, which would become worryingly popular in the mid-late noughties. ‘I’m really proud of Saw but I’m not into gore, I just love scary films. With Insidious, as a director, I just wanted to prove to people that I can make an atmospheric film with no blood and guts.’

The discussion moved on to the process of making a scary film and how you make a film scary. Leigh insists that it is ‘instinctual’ and goes on to explain that there are three phases of filmmaking and each one gives an opportunity to refine the scares. ‘There’s writing, shooting and editing. With each phase comes changes and new scares are added.’ They tried to capture what they themselves found scary and much of the film comes from stories they heard growing up. The first idea was astral projection and then they worked from there.

When asked about the film’s obvious allusions to Poltergeist they denied there was any sort of homage happening. ‘We don’t approach films as homages. We were excited when we had an idea that nobody has seen before (astral projection) but we housed the film within a “haunted house” and that’s why it’s like Poltergeist. It’s a staple. Certain staples you need to do if you’re working within a genre. If you make a western you need a man with a gun. Otherwise it’s just a film about farmers.’

Insidious proudly avoids using special effects as much as possible. The film is all about atmosphere and lurking shadows and scary -looking people. They were asked if horror films get less scary as special effects get more advanced. The early Saw films were more simple but later it became about the traps. Leigh points out that ‘me and James believe that special effects are the antithesis of good horror.’

One thing that is essential in a haunted house story is a creepy kid. Insidious has no shortage of those. But is working with children a horror film unto itself? James explains, ‘I have worked with kids a lot in my movies but I have never them through this much. Ty (Simpkins, who plays the comatose son of Renais and Josh) was a lovely kid but he had a tough time doing scenes with the demon. He would cry, real tears, and I’d feel so sorry for him! He was eight years old and terrified of the dark. He just couldn’t get past the fact that it wasn’t real. We would bring him to the makeup trailer to see the actor who played the demon getting his makeup done. Over time he started to relax a little.’

Despite the Saw franchise being such a huge success, Leigh and James wanted to keep the budget for Insidious small in order to obtain complete creative control, a point that the guys agree is essential in order to make a good horror film. As a result of the restrictive budget, the shoot was a mere 22 days and it was shot entirely on the Red digital camera. James co-edited the film himself which he felt was a great help in shooting so quickly, ‘It was certainly challenging but I knew what I wanted and knew how I would edit as I went along. It was the first time I’d used the digital format and in post I could do a lot more.’ The change in technology was symbolic of the style he was going for. ‘I was making an old-fashioned horror film but with a contemporary edge.’

Throughout the film, there’s an extremely frightening tune ‘Tiptoe Through the Tulips’ by Tiny Tim. It is highly effective and undoubtedly would give anyone a case of the willies even were it not in any way connected to a scary film. A member of the audience was curious where the song had come from. It turns out it was as simple as James calling Leigh during the writing of the script and asking him if there’s any way we can fit this creepy song into the script. They laugh that this has happened a number of times and Leigh tells the stories of Saw’s infamous jaw-trap. ‘James calls me up, explains the idea of the jaw, trap and how the victim has to find a key or this thing is gonna rip her head apart but they key is in this guy’s stomach. I said’ “Great!” and he said “If you put a creepy doll in it this will be brilliant!” I asked “How are we gonna get a creepy doll in there?” and James said “He’ll just ride in on a bike”’ and that’s exactly how the story ended up going. It seems James is to be held responsible for the creepy puppet imagery in their films (his Twitter handle is actually creepypuppet).

As the Q&A is drawing to a close they are asking the obligatory ‘what are you doing next’ question. Leigh explains that he is writing a sci-fi with James in mind to direct. They want to get away from the horror genre. Leigh is also working on an animated film, an Australian drama and a comedy. When asked if it is hard to sell other genres, James makes the fair point that it’s easier for Leigh as a writer because if he writes something they can physically see it and if they like it they’ll go with it but it’s harder for someone to take a chance on a director.

A final question asked how long the film took to edit. James explained that when he edits he eats, sleeps and edits. He had a rough cut finished in three weeks. It was important to him to edit the film and he insisted to the producers who were apparently pleased to hear that they wouldn’t have to use their limited funds to hire and editor.

Charlene Lydon


We Love… April Fools: Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne in Dumb and Dumber


Illustration: Adeline Pericart

It was Clubber Lang who first uttered the immortal words ‘I pity the fool’ when asked if he hated Rocky Balboa by an intrepid journalist seeking to hype up thier impending meeting in the ring. In honour of April we here at Film Ireland challenge Clubber Lang and propose to ‘praise the fool’.

We’ll be adding to the list throughout April – check it out here. As always, feel free to add your own favourites. If you’d like to include your own review, contact

Now bring on the jesters…

Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne in Dumb and Dumber

Charlene Lydon

I couldn’t ask for better fools to write about. First of all, there are two of them, so double the fun! And second of all, there are few more likeable fools in all of cinema than Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne!

This is a stupid film. It is low-brow, it is crass, it is formulaic and it is completely juvenile. From the opening credits use of Boom Shakalaka over misspelled credits, we know we’re in for a silly, irreverent and unapologetic caper. So what is it about the Farrelly Brothers’ debut that made it an instant classic that is still one of the only films to make a giggling mess of me on every single viewing (and there have been many viewings)?

The plot is simple. Lloyd, a limo driver falls in love with Mary when he drives her to the airport. When she leaves her briefcase behind her, Lloyd and his best friend Harry decide to drive all the way across the country to return it to her. What they don’t know is that they’ve just foiled a ransom drop and the kidnappers will stop at nothing to get their briefcase back. It’s as classic a set-up as there is, no complicated plot to detract from the rapid-fire attack of insanely funny jokes.

One of the main reasons the film works so well is the fact that the world Harry and Lloyd inhabit is both depressingly gritty and strangely realistic. Perhaps it is because the Farrelly brothers filmed it around their locality of Providence, Rhode Island using local actors and non-actors in the minor roles. Lloyd and Harry’s existence when we first meet them is unpleasant but it feels real. They are surrounded by no-nonsense, blue-collar people, living a normal life. Drop these two over-the-top comic characters into that world and there is an instant sense of the surreal that adds humour to every incident.

They live in a run down part of town and seemingly own nothing except a worm farm and a ragged poster of Bo Derek. Lloyd earns some extra cash for their trip by selling Harry’s dead, headless budgie to a blind kid. ‘But Lloyd, Petie didn’t have a head’ Lloyd looks indignant and replies ‘Harry! I took care of it.’ Cut to: Blind kid fawning over bird with head attached with a mound of sellotape. Later, when the boys have completed their journey and befriended Mary, we see her watching a feature on TV about evil men who sold a dead bird to a blind kid. ‘Who are these sick people?’ she asks aloud. They’re not sick, they’re just in the same moral league as mischievous children.

So, who is dumb and who is dumber? Debate as you will, there is no easy answer. The other reason this film works so well is that you don’t just have two simple idiots to deal with. Lloyd sees himself as the ‘ideas man’, the one who can handle himself in a crisis and speaks with authority when necessary, but by golly, is he hare-brained! Despite doing countless stupid things throughout the movie, Lloyd is arrogant enough to believe he is the brains of the operation. On the other hand, crazy-haired Harry is certainly the more outwardly goofy of the two with his manic appearance and childish, hearty laugh but he is, at times, the more sensible and sensitive of the two.