Downsizing (4 Stars)

"Downsizing" has one of the most brilliant science fiction concepts in recent years, then spends the next two hours trying to avoid it.

The opening act is wonderfully inventive. Scientists discover how to shrink human beings to five inches tall, promising a future where overpopulation, climate change and financial inequality might finally be solved. Matt Damon's everyman sees downsizing as a chance to escape his ordinary life, and the film initially feels like a sharp satire of consumerism and modern economics.

Then it changes its mind.

What begins as a social comedy becomes a marital drama. That soon gives way to a fish-out-of-water story, before turning into a romance, then a critique of wealth inequality, then a meditation on global poverty, followed by an environmental apocalypse and finally a philosophical search for the meaning of life. Each new theme pushes aside the previous one, leaving the fascinating central premise increasingly forgotten.

The result is a film that feels less like a carefully constructed narrative and more like several unfinished screenplays stitched together. Every time "Downsizing" finds an interesting idea, it abandons it in favour of another. The miniature world itself, arguably the film's greatest attraction, becomes little more than a backdrop for subjects that could have been explored without shrinking anyone at all.

The real disappointment isn't that "Downsizing" has too many ideas. It's that it refuses to develop any of them fully. Rather than exploring the social, political and ethical consequences of its extraordinary premise, it keeps jumping to the next big theme before the previous one has had time to breathe.

"Downsizing" is an ambitious film that deserves credit for thinking big, but its constant thematic detours prevent it from becoming the great science fiction satire it could have been. It shrinks its characters, but never quite decides what it really wants to say.

Success Rate:  - 1.2

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

Dracula: A Love Tale (4 Stars)

Last week I watched the new version of "Frankenstein" in the cinema. Today I saw a new version of Dracula, directed by Luc Besson. Is this nostalgia for the classic horror films or just moneymaking? I hope it's the former.

The film's full title is "Dracula: A Love Tale", but it's being marketed as "Dracula", as in the poster above. It's always been a love story rather than a horror story. It's one of the most tragic love stories ever told, about a prince who loses his soul when God allows his wife to die. He's cursed to live forever, eternally waiting for his wife to return to him by reincarnation.

Luc Besson takes a lot of liberties with the original source material. We see some of the characters from the book, such as Jonathan Harker and his fiancée Mina, but most of the supporting characters are missing. In particular, Abraham Van Helsing has been replaced by an unnamed priest. Instead of taking place in England, the present day scenes are set in Paris. 

Despite the changes, it's a good film. I didn't immediately like it, the way I enjoyed Guillermo Del Toro's "Frankenstein". I need to watch it again.

It's interesting that Christoph Waltz appeared in both films, "Frankenstein" and "Dracula". Is he being pushed as a modern day replacement for Peter Cushing? I can see a similarity between the two actors, not in their appearance but in their dignified styles.

Frankenstein [2025] (5 Stars)

When I heard that Guillermo del Toro was planning to film "Frankenstein", my immediate thought was "Why? Hasn't it been done so often before?"

It's true. Mary Shelley's famous novel has been adapted for cinema so often over the years, more or less accurately. The best known adaptations were made by Universal Studios in 1931, Hammer Horror in 1957 and the Hollywood version in 1994. All three have their charm, but the 1994 version is the most accurate in comparison with Mary Shelley's novel.

I don't want to include spoilers in this review, but I assume that my readers have seen the three versions named above and many have also read the novel.

The version I watched today includes the story's outer frame that was omitted in the first two versions. We see Victor Frankenstein and his creature on the ice heading towards the North Pole. Then the rest of the story is told in two parts: Victor's life up to the creation of the creature, and the creature's life. The first half is greatly changed from the novel, making it less accurate than the 1994 version, but it's so emotionally moving that it doesn't matter. The second half, the creature's life, keeps close to the novel, even more accurately than the 1994 version.

Guillermo del Toro has created a masterpiece. It's a horror film for people who don't like horror films.

Wahnfried (3 Stars)

I bought this film because I wanted to find out about the life of Richard Wagner. Okay, I could have read a book or even spent time researching online, but I'm a film fan, and I get most of my information from films. I've already been criticised for this, but it's the way I am.

Unfortunately, the film didn't fulfil my expectations. It concentrates on the affair between Wagner and the married woman Cosima von Bülow, the daughter of the composer Franz Liszt. The film doesn't help any viewer like me with limited knowledge of Wagner's life. It was impossible for me to tell when the events happened. I knew it was over a period of years, because Wagner's son Siegfried became older as the film progressed. There was only one historical event that I could latch onto. Wagner shouted with joy when he heard that Prussia had just declared war on France. "We can finally drive the Jews out of Paris". At this point I paused the film to check the date of the Franco-Prussian War. July 1870. So I finally knew when the film was taking place.

But let's backtrack. The film begins with Cosima and her children coming to live with Wagner in Switzerland. Shortly afterwards Friedrich Nietzsche also arrives to live with them. Why? I'd have to read a book to find out. Cosmia's children, especially her oldest daughter Daniela, dislike Wagner.

For the first half of the film they live in Switzerland. Then they move to Bayreuth, a town that Wagner considers a paradise, because there are no Jews. When they arrive, Wagner has a house built. He also has a crypt built opposite the house, where he intends to be buried. Every afternoon he sits with Cosima looking at the crypt, discussing which one of them will die first.

Richard Wagner is an unpleasant person. He looks down on the people who listen to his music. He says that they don't understand his music, and he accuses them of falling asleep during the performances. He claims to love Cosima, but he yells at her whenever she interrupts him while he's composing. At other times, however, he becomes softer. He suggests they should move to Italy so he can concentrate on her and give up music altogether.

As for Cosima, she's a very stern woman. In the course of the film she never once tells Richard she loves him, not even when he declares his love for her.

Cosima's husband, Hans von Bülow, is a pathetic man. He intends to challenge Wagner to a duel, and he even takes shooting lessons to be sure of his victory, but he backs out at the last moment. He says that he understands music, and it would be a sin to prevent Wagner composing more operas.

Friedrich Nietsche, Wagner's closest friend, is a strange person. He says he's a vegetarian, but he likes to eat meat when nobody is watching. He tells Cosima he loves her, but she turns him down.

Wagner is a womaniser. Despite living with Cosima, we see him having two other affairs in the film. Cosima knows about the affairs and tolerates them. She tells one woman, an opera singer in Wagner's Ring cycle, "I want you to be with Richard because you make him happy, but as soon as the festival is over you should leave".

There are strange scenes in the film. Friedrich Liszt, who lives with the family in Bayreuth, has an affair with his granddaughter Daniela. Did that really happen? It's disgusting.

It's a difficult film for me to rate. It would have been better if the historical background had been explained in more detail, but evidently that's not what the director intended. The film has been made for people who already know about Richard Wagner's life. That's not me. But at least it's inspired me to do some online research into his life.

Django Unchained (5 Stars)

This is the latest selection from my top 100 film list that I decided to watch with my son Benjamin. It's currently in 40th place.

I don't have much to write about it today, apart from sharing some information I recently read.

There's a scene where Leonardo DiCaprio, playing the slave owner Calvin Candie, had to bang his hand on the table. He did this so vehemently that he broke a plate and cut his hand. This wasn't scripted, but it looked so good that the cameras continued to roll.

Is Samuel L. Jackson, the head slave Stephen, staring at Leonardo because of the unexpected blood on his hand?

Leonardo went on to smear his blood onto the face of Broomhilda, played by Kerry Washington. That's an amazing improvised scene. I'm surprised that Kerry even put up with it. Some actors are true professionals.

Success Rate:  + 2.3

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

No Time To Die (4½ Stars)

Amazon Friday #31

I've finally got round to seeing the latest James Bond film after missing it in the cinema last year. I like the film a lot, and I felt tempted to give it a five star rating, but I changed my mind at the last moment because of one thing: it's not a James Bond film.

I refuse to get into arguments about whether Daniel Craig is a good Bond or not. For me it's all about how the script has been written. Daniel Craig doesn't play the brash, sexist Bond that we've grown to love over the last 60 years. He stands mourning for his lost love, Vesper Lynd. She was a character in Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel, "Casino Royale", a book that was never filmed in the classic James Bond series, 1962 to 2002. It was finally filmed in the rebooted series in 2006.

There's no bad Bond girl. That's not right. James Bond always needs a sexy woman trying to kill him, whether or not she eventually succumbs to his charms. The only real good Bond girl is Ana de Armas as Paloma, but this is spoilt by her not falling into bed with him. Madeleine Swann is a character from a previous film, which is a no-no, as far as James Bond is concerned. His lovers never last from one film to the next, so I wouldn't count her as a Bond girl.

And James Bond as a father? Really? He's always careful that things like that don't happen.

Let's see what happens in the next film. Will it be another reboot? Or will it be a James Bond film without James Bond? It would be interesting to have Nomi return as the new 007, as long as the tables are turned. Lashana Lynch could play a sexist Jane Bond, and each new film would feature Bond Boys that she beds at a whim. I'd like that.

Success Rate:  + 1.1

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

Inglourious Basterds (5 Stars)

Netflix Thursday #14

I warned you that I'd be watching Netflix more often while I'm on holiday. That includes films like "Inglourious Basterds", which I have on Blu-ray at home.

In a recent interview Quentin Tarantino named six films which he considers to be perfect. The films, in the order he named them, are:

• "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (1974)
• "Jaws" (1975)
• "The Exorcist" (1973)
• "Annie Hall" (1977)
• "Young Frankenstein" (1974)
• "Back to the Future" (1985)

That's an interesting list. I've seen all the films except for "Annie Hall", but I've only reviewed "Jaws" and "Young Frankenstein" in my blog. I ought to watch all of the films in a row to see what he means. He claims the films are technically perfect, regardless of a person's personal tastes. That's difficult for me. My reviews are subjective, and I don't think I'm able to make an objective decision whether a film is perfect. I'll do my best.

Quentin should have added one more film to the list: "Inglourious Basterds". Maybe he was too modest to name one of his own films. The film's chapters are a series of vignettes, each of which can be judged on its own merits. Each vignette is perfect. If anything is imperfect, I'd like to hear Quentin himself tell me what's wrong with it.

Success Rate:  + 2.6

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

Inglourious Basterds (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #24

This film should be called "How the War should have been won". It's the first film in which Quentin Tarantino rewrote history. It's a fictional film, but it features authentic historical characters, such as Adolf Hitler. The film shows Hitler dying in France in 1944, a year before his real world death. Tarantino's most recent film, "Once upon a time in Hollywood", also rewrites history by showing Sharon Tate survive the attack by the Manson Family.

So who kills Hitler? It's a joint effort. There are two plots running in parallel. One is the fighting group called the Bastards, eight Jewish soldiers led by Aldo the Apache (Brad Pitt). It's Aldo's right hand man Donny Donowitz (Eli Roth) who fires the bullets that kill Hitler. When you look at his face it seems like he isn't just acting, he's really enjoying killing Hitler. But Hitler wouldn't have survived anyway. He's locked in a cinema that's being burnt down by Emmanuelle Mimieux, the cinema's owner who's secretly Jewish. Aldo's Bastards and Emmanuelle don't meet, and they aren't even aware of one another's existence.

As I've mentioned many times before, I consider the opening scene in a French farmhouse to be the best scene ever filmed. It's perfect. It's slow and intense with seemingly harmless conversation between the French dairy farmer and the SS officer Hans Landa. In fact, the whole film moves slowly, and there are only occasional short bursts of action.

This is a film I can watch again and again and never get bored. The same is true of all of Quentin Tarantino's films. If you haven't watched it yet, what are you waiting for? Please don't shy away from it with excuses like "I don't like war films". This isn't a normal war film, which should be obvious as soon as the background music begins. The music sounds like it comes directly from a spaghetti western.

Success Rate:  + 2.6

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

Django Unchained (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #35

I don't hesitate to call "Django Unchained" the best western ever made. When Quentin Tarantino made the film in 2012 he was deliberately breaking the rules that had been implicitly set for westerns for decades. The lead actor is black, which had only ever been done in the comedy "Blazing Saddles". Even more significantly, westerns have always ignored the subject of slavery. Slaves are never shown in westerns, even though slavery was common in the years before the Civil War. Tarantino doesn't just acknowledge slavery in this film, it's the main subject.

Django is a slave who's given his freedom by the bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz. He's a German who used to be a dentist. It's been five years since he last practised dentistry, but he still uses his wagon with a wobbly tooth on the top. It's difficult not to laugh.

Schultz's attitude to slavery isn't completely negative. Even though he says in an early scene that he's "no friend of slavery", he still purchases Django and keeps him as a slave until he's succeeded in killing the Brittle Brothers. After this he releases Django, and the two men become friends. He trains Django to become a bounty hunter, although it seems that not much training is necessary. Django is a natural when it comes to shooting people.

Schultz is naive when it comes to racism. He doesn't expect or understand the negative reaction to a black man riding a horse or walking around free.

Today is the fourth time I've watched the film, but I picked up a few small details that I didn't notice in the past. Django (Jamie Foxx) is enjoying a drink at the bar. He's joined by an Italian slaver called Amerigo Vessepi. He asks Django his name, then asks him if he knows how to spell it. Django tells Amerigo that the D is silent. Amerigo is played by Franco Nero, the actor who played the original Django in 1966.

After this Django is joined at the bar by Dr. Schultz, who's drinking a beer from a Bügelflasche, commonly called a flip-top bottle in English. This sort of beer bottle is common in Germany, but its use in the film is a blunder. The film takes place in 1858, but this type of bottle wasn't invented until 1875.

Bam! The sight of this young woman carrying an axe gave me such a shock that I had to pause the film. Could it possibly be Zoe Bell? I ran to my computer to check, and yes, it's her. I'm surprised that I never recognised her in the past.

She appears again in a later scene, where it's easier to recognise her. There's no special significance to her scenes. They're purely gratuitous. It's no secret that Quentin Tarantino is a fan of Zoe Bell, so he wanted to slip her into the film.

Quentin Tarantino plays a small role as an Australian miner. Is his accent any good? It sounds okay to me, but only an Australian can judge his accent. I welcome comments from my Australian readers.

Samuel L. Jackson plays a very untypical role. He's a slave, in theory, but he has a special position as the head of the household at the Candyland Plantation. He's a despicable character. He can be considered a traitor to his race. He unquestioningly accepts white superiority and looks down on the black slaves around him.

His boss is the head of the plantation, Calvin Candie, who's excellently portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio. He typifies everything that people praise about the Old South. He's elegant, well-spoken and a perfect gentleman; and yet he's a bigoted racist.

I admit that I've never liked Jamie Foxx as an actor. He's usually bland and emotionless, but in "Django Unchained" he's wonderful. Somehow Quentin Tarantino can coax the best out of actors.

One of the things I like about all of Tarantino's films is the pacing. His films move slowly, with long periods of conversation between the action. I don't know any other director who can make this type of film so successfully.

Success Rate:  + 2.3

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

Inglourious Basterds (5 Stars)

The world according to Quentin Tarantino is better than the real world. In Tarantino's world the last thing Hitler saw was the face of a laughing Jewish woman. In the real world he died in or just outside a cold bunker. Tarantino gave him a sexier death. I'd like the last thing I see to be a laughing woman, Jewish or not.

It's a fairy tale, not meant to represent the truth. It opens with the words "Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France". Fairy tales have happy endings. The big bad monster dies, and they don't come bigger or badder than Adolf Hitler.

The film shows two unconnected plots to kill Hitler. The one is a big operation ordered by Winston Churchill, carried out by the Jewish American squadron called the Basterds. The other is a solo effort by a Jewess who wants revenge for the death of her family. I know that Hitler killed six million Jews, but that's just a number. A number on a piece of paper is abstract, it means nothing. What makes it personal is if Hitler and his followers kill just one person that you know, a family member or a friend. That's what spurs revenge. That's what makes Shosanna Dreyfus aka Emanuelle Mimieux laugh.

Hitler's death takes place in a cinema. This is no coincidence. For Quentin Tarantino films are important, and cinemas are important as the place where films are shown. He loves films, and he openly displays his nostalgia for old films.

This was the film that helped Daniel Brühl make his breakthrough into Hollywood. He'd already been a successful German actor for ten years, but this is the film that made him well known internationally.

Martin Wuttke was primarily a stage actor in Germany, but since appearing as Adolf Hitler in "Inglourious Basterds" he's been cast in a string of American films.

Brad Pitt is the film's anti-hero. He's one of the good guys, but he's so mean in carrying out justice that he makes the audience shudder. His aim isn't primarily to win the war, it's to kill Nazis. For him, anybody wearing a German uniform isn't a human being, he's a Nazi, and he has to die. Obviously, this attitude is completely wrong. The vast majority of the German soldiers didn't put on uniforms because they were Nazis, they put on uniforms because they were conscripted. But it's just a film. The characters aren't meant to be perfect.

Christoph Waltz won an Academy Award as Best Supporting Actor, but anyone who's seen the film knows that he was really the Leading Actor. Despite having less screen time, Brad Pitt was named as the Leading Actor for two reasons:

1. He's more famous than Christoph Waltz.

2. Bad guys aren't usually the Leading Actor.

But look... isn't that a foot rising up Christoph Waltz's jacket towards his medals?

Yes, it's Diane Kruger's foot. I promised you that I would point out the bare feet in Quentin Tarantino's films.

Christoph Waltz gets to put a shoe on Diane Kruger's foot. Most actors work for 50 years and never get a chance like that.

Here are both of her feet, one of them in a plaster cast.

Before anyone accuses me of having a foot fetish, no, it isn't true. All I'm doing is acknowledging Quentin Tarantino's foot fetish. I have many fetishes, too many to list, but a foot fetish isn't one of them. I would rather look at Diane Kruger's face than her feet. She's beautiful, isn't she?

I definitely have a Sitting-In-The-Cinema-Watching-A-Laughing-Woman-Telling-Me-I'm-Going-To-Die fetish. That's a good idea for my blog. I should have a Fetish Of The Day feature. All year long!

This is probably Quentin Tarantino's best film. It's difficult to say. Every time I watch it I'm stunned, like I'm watching it for the first time. My definition of a good film is that I want to watch it at least three times. Today I watched "Inglourious Basterds" for the seventh time, and I still want to watch it again. That makes it better than good.

Success Rate:  + 2.6

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

Alita Battle Angel (4½ Stars)

This is a film based on a Japanese manga series. It takes place in the year 2563, 300 years after a global war which led to "The Fall", the collapse of society. A small elite lives in a floating city called Zalem, while the majority of mankind lives on the ground in a slum-like society called Iron City. Humans still exist, but the majority of the population are cyborgs, with more or less of their bodies replaced by artificial parts.

The film begins with a scientist scavenging a junkyard for spare parts. He refers to himself as a doctor, because he repairs or replaces damaged cyborg limbs. He finds the upper half of a female cyborg in which the heart and the brain are intact. Based on the technology of the heart he surmises that the cyborg was built before the Fall. He rebuilds the cyborg using parts that he had intended to heal his daughter's crippled body before she was murdered. He wants to know who the cyborg was, but she has no memory of her past. He calls her Alita, the name of his daughter.

Maybe Alita has no memory of her past, but her instincts show that she's a highly skilled fighter. She fights and defeats other cyborgs much bigger than herself. As the mystery of her origin is unravelled she discovers love and she begins to stand up for what she considers unjust in the world.

I greatly enjoyed "Alita Battle Angel", despite my aversion to post-apocalyptic films. The film was directed by Robert Rodriguez, but it has more in common with the films of James Cameron, who wrote the screenplay. Even though James Cameron was only the producer, the film shows so much of his handiwork that I suspect he shared the work as director.

The new sport of Motorball is typical for post-apocalyptic films. It's an extremely violent game played by cyborgs on motorised roller skates which frequently leads to the players being injured or killed. For me this is the weakest part of the film. It's such a cliche that I groaned as soon as it was shown. It's an integral part of the plot, unfortunately, because only the champion of this sport is allowed to ascend to Zalem.

What the film has in its favour is action, action, action. If you want a good night out at the cinema to see a film without a lot of deep philosophical baggage, this is a good choice.

Downsizing (4½ Stars)

If you've ever been to a Chinese restaurant in America you know about those funny little things they give you after the meal called fortune cookies. They're horrible tasting sweet biscuits which contain a strip of paper with a message. This message might be a prediction of what will happen to you, or it might be a wise statement. When I visited a Chinese restaurant with work colleagues in Poughkeepsie, New York, I found a message that I'll never forget:

"The man is richest whose pleasures are cheapest".

It didn't mean much to me at the time, but I'm glad I didn't forget it, because a few years later it become my life motto. After having a large income for more than 20 years my career collapsed and I earned less than 20% of what I'd had before. But it was enough. I realised that I could make do with my smaller income by being happy with less. I didn't have a car. I never went on holidays. I rarely ate out. My only luxuries were a good computer and a good stereo system, and even they were bought carefully after tight budgeting. Now, after spending 15 years getting by with limited resources I don't want to return to the days of having too much money.

Many people don't understand me because this way of thinking is so alien to them. Many don't believe me when I say I'm not interested in acquiring money. My brother-in-law, a very greedy man by nature, has repeatedly accused me of wanting to get my hands on the family inheritance. He's projecting his own faults onto me, but even people with greater moral integrity think in similar ways. The opposite is the truth. If I somehow won a million dollars today my first thought would be to divide it among my children, keeping only enough for my basic needs for the rest of my life.

That's what "Downsizing" is about. Paul Safranek is a man who learns to live a life of virtual luxury by reducing his size and reducing his needs. Then he loses the little he has left when his greedy wife divorces him, but he still manages to survive. He finds pleasure in things that don't cost money.

I'm pleased that this film is already included in Amazon Prime, less than a year after it appeared in the cinema. Maybe that's because it was a box office failure. That's a shame. It's a film that deserves to be watched, and it's a film that should make you reassess your life and your goals.

Success Rate:  - 1.2

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

Tulip Fever (4 Stars)

Let's jump straight into the controversy. This film has been savaged by critics, in my opinion unfairly. The film flopped at the box office, but this was because cinema audiences weren't given a chance to see it. It was only given a limited release in America, and it wasn't shown at all in England. The main accusations levelled against the film are poorly written dialogue and an over-complicated plot.

What's the problem with the dialogue? Many of the characters are either rich or strict Christians, so stilted speech is to be expected from them. As for the plot being complex, that's a valid criticism, but I personally didn't consider it excessive. Anyone who enjoys films will make the effort to sit down and pay attention to what's happening. The film is about a love triangle, but there's another pair of lovers involved in the story. Is that too difficult to follow?

Sophia (Alicia Vikander) is a 17-year-old who has grown up in an orphanage. She's sold to a rich businessman in Amsterdam, Cornelis Sandvoort (Christoph Waltz). He's not a bad man. He wishes the best for Sophia, and she does all she can to honour and obey him, but she doesn't love him. Cornelis commissions a young artist, Jan Van Loos (Dane DeHaan) to paint their portrait. A romance develops between Sophia and the artist, but she feels guilty because she knows her husband loves her.

At the same time Cornelis' maid Maria is having a passionate affair with the fishmonger Willem (Jack O'Connell). There are few chances for poor people in 17th Century Amsterdam, so he invests all his savings in tulips to make enough money to get married.

After that the plot develops the complexities that the critics don't like. Willem loses his money and is forced to join the navy. Maria is pregnant, but Sophia pretends the baby is hers. (That was possible in the good old days when husbands weren't allowed to witness the birth). Jan gets involved in the tulip market as well. The story is fascinating. It has the making of an epic, but I don't think the film needed to be any longer. It's just right as it is.

The only thing that the film is missing, in my opinion, is more tulips. The film is all about the tulip mania of the 17th Century, when tulips were more precious than gold, but we don't see many tulips. We see a few flowers here and there, but I would have liked to see a field, or at least a garden full of tulips.

The acting is excellent by all the main characters. Christoph Waltz and Dane DeHaan are two of my favourite actors. It's worth watching the film for their performance alone.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.de

Downsizing (4½ Stars)

This is a beautiful film which almost earned a five star rating, but I had to deduct half a star for a plot weakness that I can't describe in this review. Spoilers!

In the near future a Norwegian scientist has discovered the solution to the overpopulation that is exhausting the Earth's resources. People can be shrunk to a fraction of their size, from six foot tall down to five inches. To make a real difference the whole human race has to be shrunk, but the project begins with it being done on a voluntary basis. In the film 3% of the Earth's population have already volunteered, which is already a considerable number.

There are big advantages in volunteering in the initial period which have nothing to do with saving the planet. The little people can live in luxury, because their savings go a lot further. A full sized mansion costs millions of dollars, but a miniature mansion costs less than $500.

Paul and Audrey Safranek are a young couple who decide to downsize, as the procedure is called, to escape the dull routine of their lives. The promise of great riches after being shrunk is an added perk. On the day of the downsizing they're separated into the male and female downsizing areas. Paul arrives in the little kingdom, but Audrey isn't there. She changed her mind at the last minute. Paul is now rich and alone.

Audrey files for divorce, taking most of the money Paul had saved for his new life. Now Paul is poor and alone.

Despite comedy elements this is a serious film. Maybe it has a message. I don't know. If it does, it's not a deeply significant message, it's a parable. It's the sort of plot that Spike Jonze or Charlie Kaufman might have written, but Spike Jonze would have added more of a political message while Charlie Kaufman would have made the film even weirder.  Matt Damon isn't one of my favourite actors, but he's very convincing as Paul. Christoph Waltz and Udo Kier play relatively small parts, but they're always exquisite actors who can't put a foot wrong. The Norwegian scenery in the last half hour of the film is so beautiful that I want to visit Norway as soon as I can.

Based on early prognoses "Downsizing" looks like it will have trouble making back its budget at the box office. That's a shame. It might look like an over-intellectual film on the surface, but I believe that it's a film most people would enjoy if they gave it a chance.

Inglourious Basterds (5 Stars)

Yesterday I went to see "Loving Vincent" in the cinema with the Stuttgart Cinema Meetup. I asked one of the other members what his favourite film was, and he answered "Inglourious Basterds" without hesitation. I'm always glad when someone has an answer ready for that question. It shows that they've sat down and seriously thought about films. I know it's not an easy question to answer. I've changed my mind a few times in the last 20 years, but however often I might change my mind I can always tell you with certainty what my favourite film is today.

This was the reason why I decided to watch "Inglourious Basterds" again this evening. I sat watching it while asking myself "Is this the world's best film?" After the film came to an end I didn't think it was quite good enough to knock my current favourite off the number one spot, but I do have to say that it's technically one of the best films ever made. I already consider the film's first scene, the farmhouse scene, to be the best scene ever filmed. These 20 minutes are perfection. I can't think of any other scene that comes close. However, several other scenes in the film are also of incredibly high merit. They're all scenes in which Christoph Waltz appears. That's probably not a coincidence.

Today I watched the film with my son Benjamin. It was his first time seeing the film. He was shocked to see that Adolf Hitler was killed. That was also my reaction the first time I saw the film in the cinema in 2009. It's something I didn't expect to happen. What I mean is, there have been dozens, maybe even hundreds of films about Hitler, and he never dies, unless it's in his bunker in 1945. After the initial shock I laughed about it and said "Why not?" If a film is a piece of fiction there's no need for it to agree with historical facts. Quentin Tarantino, who both wrote and directed the film, decided to rewrite history. For that I thank him. Tarantino's version of history is better than what really happened.

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