IT Chapter One [2017] (5 Stars)

I already watched "IT Chapter One" at Stuttgart's Fantasy Film Festival, but it's good enough to watch a second time. After all, I doubt I'll buy it on Blu-ray until both chapters are available.

Instead of writing another review I'll just post a gallery of the Loser's Club, with the details of the actors who play them.

Ben Hanscom, played by Jeremy Taylor, DOB 2 June 2003

Beverly Marsh, played by Sophia Lillis, DOB 13 February 2002

Bill Denbrough, played by Jaeden Lieberher, DOB 4 January 2003

Eddie Kaspbrak, played by Jack Grazer, DOB 3 September 2003

Mike Hanlon, played by Chosen Jacobs, DOB 3 July 2001

Richie Tozier, played by Finn Wolfhard, DOB 23 December 2002

Stanley Uris, played by Wyatt Oleff, DOB 13 July 2003

Confessions Of A Sociopathic Social Climber (4 Stars)

It's been so long since I've watched this film -- six years -- that I'd forgotten how good it is.

Jennifer Love Hewitt plays Katya Livingstone, a wannabe socialite and compulsive liar in San Francisco. She earns more than $100,000 a year in an advertising bureau, but she only got the job because she lied about her university degree. Don't they check things like that in America? Nevertheless, she's good at her job. Someone as shallow as her knows what appeals to other shallow people, so she's a valuable asset to her company. All her money is spent on her image to promote herself in the San Francisco party scene, whether it's clothes or jewellery, but even there she's willing to cheat. For instance, she buys expensive dresses for parties, then returns them afterwards, taking advantage of store 30 day return policies. Her best friend is a gay man, because in San Francisco it's considered chic to have a gay best friend. Supposedly gay men know best how a woman should look. Is there any truth in that?

The top socialite in the San Francisco scene is Dove Greenstein. Katya keeps close to her, feigning friendship  in order to belong to belong to the in crowd. This ploy breaks down when she's caught having sex with Dove's latest husband during the wedding reception. Even worse, she tells a local newspaper Dove's real age. A few months later there's a party as a fundraiser for Youth Aid, stylised as a Royal Ball, the biggest social event of the year. Everyone who is anyone in San Francisco will be there, but Dove Greenstein is responsible for the invitations, which she sends in the form of golden keys. Ouch! Katya devotes her whole life to getting an invitation, either stealing one or attaching herself to someone as a plus one.

Is there a moral to the story? Yes, a very shallow moral to match the life of a shallow party girl. Money can't buy you love. Or maybe it can, if you take advantage of the 30 day return policy. Katya will happily sink into the arms of any man willing to give her a golden key for the Royal Ball. Or is there more to love more than beautiful clothes and lavish parties? Katya has to find out the answer for herself.

Sketch of the Week #2

Do you like my little sketches? Let me know. If you think they look stupid tell me, I promise I won't be insulted.

Chappie (4½ Stars)

When "Chappie" was made it was intended to be the first film in a trilogy. After initial vague responses the director Neill Blomkamp has clearly stated that the sequels will never be made. His reason is that it didn't perform well enough at the box office. I don't understand that. It earned more than double its budget at the box office, which means that the film at least broke even.

Maybe Neill Blomkamp's personal cut wasn't enough to buy the new Porsche he was eyeing in the showroom. Whatever the reason, he's made up his mind, so there's no use in trying to persuade him. Maybe as time passes he'll think differently when he sees it growing in esteem as a cult film, but nothing that you or I can say will make any difference.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Little Miss Millions (4 Stars)

"Little Miss Millions", also known as "Home For Christmas", is about a 12-year-old girl called Heather Lofton. Her parents divorced when she was very young, and she went to live with her father who remarried, rather than remaining with her mother who would have been a single mother. Her father has recently died and she can't stand her stepmother, so she decides to run away from home (in Los Angeles) to be with her mother in Denver, Colorado.

The father was a multi-millionaire and he's left his money to his daughter, so the stepmother is anxious to get her back, since she has been liberally dipping into her daughter's bank account since his death. Supposedly a parent is allowed to withdraw $5000 from an underage child's account at any time, but if the withdrawals are too frequent it has to be proved that the money is needed to be used for the child's care.

The stepmother hires a private detective called Nick Frost -- that's a good name! -- to find her daughter, offering him a reward of $500,000, but a few hours later she reports to the police that Nick has kidnapped her. This is a mean trick, but I fail to see why she did it. If she didn't want to pay the money, why couldn't she just have told the police she had run away? Maybe she expects the police to take a kidnapping more seriously than a runaway child? I don't know.

The story is about the relationship between Heather and the detective. At first she hates him because he's taking her back to her stepmother, but as the journey continues she realises he has her best interests at heart and begins to regard the seemingly heartless detective as a father figure. Nick dodges the cops, who are hilariously incompetent, in order to earn his money, but he begins to wonder if he is taking Heather back to the right place.

What's the reason for the film's alternative title? Heather runs away on December 20th.

The film is well written and competently acted, as is to be expected of all of Jim Wynorski's films. I don't know what the target audience is supposed to be. It doesn't seem suitable as a family film. Most parents would want to tell their daughters to go to the police rather than trust an older man, but "Little Miss Millions" gives the opposite advice. Obviously it's not a film intended to be watched by adults, but I'm not just any adult. I enjoy it as an alternative to Marvel blockbusters.

X-Men: Apocalypse (4½ Stars)

This is a film based on a Marvel villain who was first invented in 1986, when Marvel's non-canon period had begun. For that reason I'll make no attempt to reconcile Apocalypse with the comics, whether it was the Uncanny X-Men or any of the other myriad X-Men spin-off comics.

Apocalypse is said to have been the first mutant. This jars with me, because the whole premise of mutants is that they were a new arrival in the 20th Century. This is briefly mentioned and dismissed in the film: "We always assumed that mutants didn't arrive until the 20th Century, but we were wrong". So Stan Lee was wrong? I'm sad that he gave his approval to the film by appearing in a small cameo. Doesn't he realise what they're doing with his valuable creations, twisting and distorting them however they wish?

I'm not sure that "X-Men: Apocalypse" is even retaining continuity with the previous X-Men films. I shan't comment any further until I have a chance to watch all the X-Men films in release order, starting with the adult X-Men films and then continuing with the prequels.

Apocalypse is shown as the ruler of Egypt in 3600 BC. In the middle of transferring his consciousness into the body of another mutant he's betrayed, and his pyramid is destroyed. In 1980 he's awakened by the prayers of his loyal servants, who are unfortunately destroyed as he arises. He intends to destroy the world and recreate it in his own image, but first he searches for four mutants to support him, his "four horses of the Apocalypse". He selects Magneto, Psylocke, Storm and Angel, who he considers to be the world's strongest mutants. Only later does he discover Charles Xavier, who he considers to be the strongest mutant of all.

Once more the Phoenix force is shown to be part of Jean Grey's mutant powers. That annoys me every time it's said. I might not care if Apocalypse is shown differently from the comics, but Jean Grey should be portrayed accurately.

Nevertheless, this is a good film, full of action and excitement. Michael Fassbender proves once more that he's the best Magneto, giving the character even more emotional depth than in the first films.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

A Lonely Place to Die (4 Stars)

I'd change one letter in the film's title. "A Lovely Place to Die" would be fitting. With the exception of the town scenes, the film was made in the area between Glen Coe and Fort William, the most attractive scenery on Earth, in my humble opinion. Scotland's highest mountains are by the sea, giving amazing backdrops. It's true, Scotland's mountains aren't as high as the mountains in central Europe, but where else can you climb a mountain starting at zero meters above sea level?

I have holiday photos that closely match this view. The forest on the right of the picture is still the same shape as it was in the 1980's. I was probably walking across the ridge in the middle of the photo. That brings back memories. I wasn't a mountain climber, I was a hiker. The west side of Ben Nevis has a path to the peak that isn't steep and can be easily climbed by anyone with average fitness.

At first glance the film looks like the story of a mountain climbing disaster. That's what I expected when I picked up the film from the bargain bin of a store in Stuttgart. That isn't the case.

Five friends (three men, two women) are in the Scottish Highlands for mountain climbing. When they're hiking towards a peak they find Anna, an eight-year-old Serbian girl, trapped in a hole. They free her and decide to take her back to the nearest town. They have no way of communicating with her to find out why she's there. The viewers soon find out. She's the daughter of a Serbian warlord who's been kidnapped and held to ransom. She was being kept in a secure place while the kidnappers were waiting for the payment of six million Euros.

The kidnappers discover that Anna is missing and hunt down the hikers. Only two survive the journey to the town, but that isn't the end. They're caught in the middle of a battle between the kidnappers and Serbian soldiers, while the Beltane festival is being celebrated in the streets around them.

This is an exciting action film. It's slightly difficult to believe that young hikers could survive while being hunted by trained soldiers, but I can accept it in the context of fiction. Melissa George is the only actress in the film that I know, and she's as excellent as always. Other reviewers criticise the plot, and I have to agree with them, but I've given it a high rating for the scenery alone.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Liar Liar (4 Stars)

"My Dad's a liar. He wears a suit and goes to court and talks to the judge".

That might sound like a joke, but it's the most serious statement in the film. Five-year-old Max knows exactly what his Dad is. He doesn't need to be corrected. Lying is an integral part of a lawyer's job, especially if he's a defence lawyer. I've watched court cases in recent years. I watched the Jodi Arias murder trial online. I'm certain that Jodi's lawyers knew she was guilty, but they had to present arguments to prove her innocence. Ironically, that's required by the legal systems of most countries. Anyone accused of a crime has the right to the best possible defence. Lawyers are paid to lie. It's their job.

I've mentioned a few times that I didn't become a real film fan until 2003. I'd say that my film viewing has gone through four phases:

1. While I lived with my parents I watched random films on television.

2. After leaving my parents I had no television and only occasionally went to the cinema, so I rarely watched films. Beginning in 1997 I occasionally rented films on videotape, but not often.

3. In 2003 I bought my first DVD player, which kick-started my passion for films. I began to watch films daily at home, but only rarely visited the cinema to watch new films.

4. In 2013 I joined the Birmingham Film Club and began to go to the cinema about twice a week, while still watching films daily at home.

Phase 2 lasted 25 years, 1978 to 2003, which is why I have gaps in my film knowledge. Sometimes I'm talking to friends, film fans like me, and they're amazed when they mention a film that I've not watched or maybe haven't even heard of. It wasn't until 2003 that I started discovering the big films that were made from 1980 onwards, and I still haven't completely caught up.

Why am I writing that? It's because of Jim Carrey. He's been making films since the early 1980's. His first lead role was "All in good taste", made in 1983, a film I still haven't seen. In fact, I've seen very few of his early films, and I didn't watch "Liar Liar" until 2008, ten years after it was made.

Jim Carrey plays Fletcher Reede, a defence lawyer in Los Angeles. He's good at his job. He can help any crook be found innocent. But for Fletcher lying isn't just his career, it's a way of life. He lies to his colleagues, he lies to his ex-wife, and worst of all he lies to his son Max. On Max's fifth birthday he makes a wish: he wishes that his father won't tell lies for a whole day. Poof! Whichever magic fairy is responsible for answering children's wishes, it comes true. For 24 hours Fletcher has to tell the truth. This creates absolute chaos in his career.

His client on his truth day is Samantha Cole, played by the voluptuous Jennifer Tilly. Her millionaire husband is divorcing her because of her infidelity, and she wants half of his cash. Fletcher considers her to be a slut who doesn't deserve anything. Normally he would say the opposite in court, but this is his truth day.

This is a magnificent film, full of the zaniness that characterised Jim Carrey's early films. I really need to watch more of them.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Almighty Thor (4 Stars)

Some of you might have heard that there were two films made about Thor, the God of Thunder, in 2011. One was a big budget film about the Marvel superhero that cost $150 million. The other was a made for television film, first shown on America's Syfy channel, that cost a staggering $200,000. Which was the best? I can already hear you shrieking "The Marvel film". I agree, but the difference in quality isn't as big as you might think. A review in the Guardian actually found the low budget Thor film better.

The question is, what are we comparing? Is it even fair to compare two films when one of them had a budget 750 times as big as the other? Watching "Almighty Thor" today I had to ask myself how it could possibly look so good on such a small budget. The special effects are magnificent. The cinematography is perfect. The acting is first class.

It's a modern phenomenon that low budget films look good. Digital cameras give high quality for a cheap price. Aspiring cinematographers, fresh from film school, cut their teeth on small budget films while they're hoping to get a break and work for the big studios. On the other hand, I have to point out that the director is Christopher Ray. He's one of the world's biggest experts at making good films on a tight budget.

As for the acting, I'd like to concentrate on the lead actor, Cody Deal. After playing a few minor roles he auditioned for the role of Thor in the Marvel film. He was turned down in favour of Chris Hemsworth. Shortly afterwards he was given the role of Thor in this film. After seeing him today I wonder if the correct casting choice was made by Marvel. Cody is an excellent actor who could have carried the role for Marvel Studios for years to come.

The other actors are reasonable, although none stand out as much as Cody. Richard Grieco is a competent actor as Loki, but he doesn't portray the sheer maliciousness of Tom Hiddleston. Kevin Nash looks better than Anthony Hopkins as Odin, but he's only a wrestler, so we can't expect too much of him.

The film begins with a battle between Loki and Odin. Loki wants to destroy Yggdrasil, the tree of life, in order to bring about Ragnarok. The only weapon capable of destroying Yggdrasil is a hammer that belongs to Odin. Loki kills Odin, but as he dies Odin casts the hammer into a vortex where his son Thor can find it. Thor, as hot-headed as always, wants to battle Loki immediately, but he meets a Valkyrie called Jarnsaxa, who tells him that he can't defeat Loki without the hammer. Together Thor and Jarnsaxa flee to Los Angeles, closely pursued by Loki.

Doesn't Cody Deal look perfect as a blond-haired Norse God? I'm hoping to see a lot of him in the future. He's recently appeared in two films made by Dean McKendrick, "Deadly Pickup" and "Cosmic Calendar Girls". They're not bad films, but I'm sure he has much bigger roles ahead of him.

The actress who plays Jarnsaxa looked familiar, but I couldn't remember where I'd seen her before. Thanks to IMDB I know the answer. She's Patricia Velasquez, who played Anck Su Namun in "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns". I haven't seen her since then because she's been concentrating on a career in television series. It's good to see her again.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Fatal Attraction (5 Stars)

This is another film that I haven't watched for a long time and I don't know why not. It's sometimes called an erotic thriller, but that label doesn't fit. It's on the borderline between a psychological thriller and a horror film.

The plot can be described in a few words. A married man has a one-night stand while his family is away for the weekend, but the woman doesn't see it as casually as he does. She refuses to let go, first stalking him then terrorising his family.

It's an excellent film. Even though I already knew what would happen I was sitting on the edge of my seat, gasping as the events unfolded. For the first time today I realised that the woman in the film reminds me of someone in my life. That made the film even more personal for me.

Without meaning to diminish the responsibility of Alex Forrest, brilliantly portrayed by Glenn Close, let's look at the man in the story. Dan Gallagher is a happily married man. He loves his wife and his daughter. So why does he put it all at risk for a few minutes of pleasure? Two minutes, to be precise. Men should make an attempt to keep their sex drives under control. If they don't they'll wake up one day and find their rabbit has been cooked.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (4 Stars)

This is a sequel to the 2015 film "Kingsman". If you liked the first film you'll love this film as well. Don't expect anything different. You get more of the same: ridiculously exaggerated action and a barely credible plot about a megalomaniac who threatens the world's safety.

In this case, it's arguable whether the threat to the world is really a threat. A woman called Poppy Adams has a monopoly of the world's supply of illicit drugs, everything from marijuana to heroin. She's laced the drugs with a deadly poison that affects its victims in four phases.

(1) They get blue marks on their faces.
(2) They can't stop dancing -- Is that a bad thing?
(3) They're paralysed.
(4) After a few days they die.

Most of the Kingsman agents are killed in a deadly attack by Poppy, but the survivors travel to America to team up with Statesman, an American spy organisation, to save the world's drug addicts. I'm sure Donald Trump would have let them die.

The Kingsman films target audiences who want to forget the world outside, put their brain on standby and laugh for two hours. The critics hate it, which is no surprise to anyone, but I love it. Now I can hardly wait for the third film.

Watch out for Elton John parodying himself. He must have a big sense of humour to accept this role.

You're probably wondering why Colin Firth is in the film poster, because he was killed in the first film. That means that the film poster is a spoiler.

Flag of the Week: Jamaica

After yesterday's general election in Germany the newspapers are predicting a Jamaica coalition, an expression that must sound confusing to anyone who doesn't closely follow German politics. The reason is that each of the German political parties is assigned a colour. After yesterday's vote six parties will receive seats in the new parliament.

CDU (Black): 246
SPD (Red): 153
AFD (Blue): 94
FDP (Yellow): 80
Linke (Pink): 69
Green (Green): 67

That's a total of 709 seats. In order to rule a coalition needs 355 seats. The current government is a coalition between the CDU and the SPD, a Black-Red coalition, but the SPD has said that it refuses to enter a coalition in the next government, preferring to remain in the opposition.

It's not just a matter of balancing numbers. The political parties have different ideals, so not every combination is possible. The CDU (a centre right party) would never form a coalition with the Linke (a Communist party). The Linke is open to a coalition with the SPD (a centre left party), having already formed coalitions at state level. The FDP sees itself as a pure centrist party, and has formed coalitions with both the CDU and the SPD in the past. The Green party sees itself as left of centre and would prefer a coalition with the SPD, but it's willing to form a coalition with the CDU if compromises are accepted.

Nobody wants to form a coalition with the AFD, because they're considered to be far right.

The coalition touted by the press is CDU (246) + FDP (80) + Green (67), a Black-Yellow-Green coalition with 393 seats. Those are the colours of the Jamaican flag. Now it makes sense, doesn't it?

That's not the only possible coalition. The wildcard in the coalition negotiations is the FDP, who have frequently changed sides when their demands weren't met. In 1982 they put the CDU into power without an election by changing coalition partners mid-term. Nobody can rely on the FDP, as the large parties have learnt from experience.

The SPD could form a coalition government with SPD (153) + Linke (69) + Green (67) + FDP (80), a total of 369 seats. That's a Red-Pink-Green-Yellow coalition; are there any matching flags? This would be a preferable coalition for the Green Party, and the Linke would jump at the opportunity to enter the government. It all depends on the FDP. They have to be wooed with big promises by the large parties.

In its favour, Jamaica has one of the world's most attractive flags. It's also the most unique. With the exception of Scotland, which isn't an independent country (yet), it's the only flag that uses a diagonal cross.

This is probably my last flag of the week feature. After 10 weeks I've already featured the flags that I consider to be the most attractive, in particular Albania and Kiribati. This feature hasn't been received well by my readers. The only feedback that I've received has been negative. It's possible that I shall occasionally post pictures of other flags, but it will no longer be a regular weekly event.

A Hologram for the King (4 Stars)

Sometimes a film slips under the radar. It comes and goes without anyone noticing it was there. The film might have a big star like Tom Hanks, but in the modern world's mass production of films there are just too many for people to see all of them. A $35 million budget and less than $8 million was earned at the box office. That's unfair for a gem like this.

Tom Hanks plays Alan Clay, a salesman who travels to Saudi Arabia to sell a holographic conference system to the king. What he finds when he arrives is beyond his belief. When he visits the "king's city" he finds a building site in the middle of the desert, and he's told that the king hasn't been there for 18 months. There's a shallow front of religiousness; when he asks for a beer he's told that alcohol is illegal, but Saudi businessmen have well stocked drink cabinets in their offices.

Tom's best friend in Saudi Arabia is Youssef, a taxi driver who loves American music. Youssef helps Alan to understand the mysteries of Saudi culture, while giving him a rifle to shoot wolves at night. Nevertheless, Tom stumbles around like a sleep walker, unable to understand the bizarre things that happen around him.

Tom has a business meeting on the fifth floor of an unfinished building. No elevator, so he has to use the stairs. On the way he passes building workers beating up one of their colleagues. Keep moving, Tom, don't get involved.

Western comforts will be offered. Eventually.

In Saudi Arabia even the roads are segregated.

Tom does his best to fit in. The look suits him.

I almost forgot to mention that the film is a love story. When Tom is taken ill he meets a beautiful Saudi Arabian doctor. Is it inappropriate for a doctor to have an affair with her patient? Maybe it is in Europe, but in Saudi Arabia it's allowed. I should consider moving.

I can understand the attraction. She has beautiful eyes.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Bound (5 Stars)

It's difficult to believe that when I first watched "Bound" seven years ago I hardly knew Jennifer Tilly. Now I'm her number one fan. I mean that in a good way, of course. I'm not about to go Annie Wilkes on her. I admire her because she's a wonderful actress, she's beautiful, and she's highly intelligent.

In "Bound" Jennifer Tilly plays Violet, a young woman who's the girlfriend of Caesar, a man who works for the Chicago Mafia. His name is deceptive. He's not a crime boss, he's just a small man in a big organisation. The ex-convict Corky (Gina Gershon) moves into the apartment next door. There's an immediate physical attraction, and the two women begin an affair. Maybe the relationship isn't quite so spontaneous. Violet has a plan, and she needs a partner. Caesar has a suitcase with two million dollars which is going to be picked up by the Mafia boss. Violet wants the money for herself, so she can run away and make a new start. She has no prior experience in crime, so she's willing to share the money with Corky.

Even though she was never a criminal, Violet is pure evil. She's willing to kill any number of men to get what she wants. Through it all she projects an image of naive innocence. It's not just Jennifer Tilly's acting skill. She's been blessed with a voice that sounds like a young girl, which sounds so disarming when she plays a bad character.

I can't end this review without mentioning Joe Pantoliano's performance as Caesar. I've only ever seen him in a few roles, but it's enough to convince me that he's a magnificent actor. He's best in roles like this, where he plays a character who is slightly deranged.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

London Has Fallen (5 Stars)

This 2016 film is a sequel to "Olympus has fallen", made in 2013. Once more the critics don't get it. It has a 25% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, a site based on the opinions of critics. It has an A- rating on Cinemascore, a site based on the opinions of cinema audiences, which is the second highest rating. It was also a huge box office success. Critics rate films with their pens, while the public rates films with its cash. Who would you rather listen to?

Okay, I'm a critic as well. I'm sitting here pounding the keys of my computer, semi-anonymously, but I'm not a normal critic. In most cases I take the side of the public. That's what I'm doing today by giving "London has fallen" a five star rating, my highest rating. The film is full of fast paced action, first class acting and spectacular special effects.

But what does my nemesis Mark Kermode say? In an interview with BBC Radio 5 he says the film is "utterly terrible", "very boring" and "meat-headed rubbish". He says the special effects are "shriek-inducingly cheap", but by this point he's built up momentum and can't stop piling on the exaggerations. He tells the person interviewing him, "You have played Gameboys that have better special effects". Wow! Was he watching the same film as me? Maybe he had a beer too many in the cinema lounge and walked into the wrong film, so he's really talking about "Carry on Sergeant".

Mark Kermode criticises the script writers because a news report in the film says "Most of the known landmarks in London have been decimated", as if there are unknown landmarks and only a tenth of the known landmarks have been destroyed. Hold on there, Mr. Kermode. First of all, the word "decimate" is used as a synonym for "destroy" today, even though the Latin origin of the word means to destroy a tenth. Secondly, "most of the known landmarks" is a stupid expression, but that's exactly the sort of words used on American television. The script writers got it right.

Some reviewers have criticised the film for whipping up an anti-terrorism frenzy. They have called the film terrorsploitation. That's a beautiful word! All I can say is that if anyone walks out of the cinema and starts to be afraid of terror attacks from every corner, something was wrong with him already. It's a film! If I watch "Night of the Living Dead" I don't get so scared that I'm afraid to leave my house in case zombies are waiting in the garden.

After the big success of the first two films there will be a third film in the series, "Angel has fallen". Los Angeles? I don't know. Don't listen to Mark Kermode, listen to me. Go and see it. You'll enjoy it.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de