Kung Fu Panda 4 (5 Stars)

If I'm gauging his reaction correctly, this is the best film that Oliver's seen so far. He didn't laugh much, even though the film is a comedy, but he was shaking with excitement. It's a fast paced martial arts film that's perfect for young children.

There's so much going on that I felt like I needed a scorecard to keep up. What I mean is that there are so many characters running around and fighting. The basic plot is simple. Po the panda has reached the level of Dragon Warrior, but Master Shifu tells him that it's time for him to advance. He has to give up fighting and become the spiritual leader of the Valley of Peace. He has to choose a successor, but the candidates are all so good that he can't decide. Before he makes a choice a village is destroyed by a new enemy, known only as the Chameleon. She's a shape shifter who's able to absorb the kung fu skills of anyone she fights. So Po has to fight as the dragon warrior for one last time.

I remember watching the first Kung Fu Panda film with my friend Pete in Birmingham. I don't remember exactly when it was, but it's not mentioned in my blog, so it must have been before I started writing in September 2010. Pete owned the film on video, and he was totally excited about it. Pete often invited me to his home for a meal, but we rarely watched films together, so it was a special occasion. (As far as I can remember, the only other films that we watched together were "Kill Bill Vol 2" and Peter Jackson's "King Kong").

I never watched the two sequels, so I need to catch up. For Oliver and for me. It seems like "Kung Fu Panda 4" is the final film in the series, so I'll wait for a four-film box set to be released.

Perfume (5 Stars)

This is the latest film in the Best Of Cinema series. It's unique among the 24 films already shown or announced so far, as the only film that's less than 20 years old. Is that a mistake? Maybe it is, but it's a welcome mistake. It's a brilliant film, and it's already included in my top 100 film list. It's in 94th place at the moment, but I think it should be higher. I'll think it over next time I review my list.

Tonight I spoke with a few people in the cinema, and they'd all seen the film before. I've watched it four times since I started my blog, probably twice before. I wish I'd started my blog in 2003 when I first became a serious film fan. This is the first time I've seen it on the big screen.

One thing I didn't mention in my previous reviews is my shock at French executions in the 18th Century. Most countries used to hang criminals, and I thought that France used the guillotine, but not in this film. Is it historically accurate? The person is bound to a pillar and the executioner hits him with a hammer in eight places on his arms and legs, breaking his bones, after which he's left to die. Is it really necessary that the person should die in such pain, whatever he's done?

I expect to be writing less, if at all, for the next two weeks, because I'm going on holiday: one week in Borkum and one week in Karlsbad, on the northern tip of the Black Forest. I'll be looking after my grandchildren, so I doubt I'll have much time to write.

Success Rate:  + 0.3

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

Stranger Than Fiction (4½ Stars)

I'm returning to this film only nine days after I last watched it. Do I have an excuse? More to the point, do I need an excuse? It's an incredible film. I first saw it at a friend's house. I knew straight away that I had to see it again, so I ordered it on Ebay before I went to bed. It took a week to arrive because the seller was in England. Now I have the Blu-ray in my hands.

Even more than the first time I watched "Stranger Than Fiction", I've been thinking about the philosophical implications of the film. What if my life were being scripted not by a master being (God) on another plane of existence, but by a neurotic writer who lives just a few miles away? Would I even want to know? It seems like a freak of nature that allows Harold Crick to hear Karen Eiffel's voice narrating his life. It's a book she's been writing, on and off, for ten years, so she's been watching over his life for a long time, long before he became conscious of it.

I know Emma Thompson, of course, but this is the first film in which I've ever really paid attention to her. Her performance as the writer Karen Eiffel is outstanding. She's unaware of the power she has over life and death. She's already written eleven novels, and in each book the main character died. Were all of them real people whose deaths she unwittingly caused? That's suggested, but not followed up. If that happened to me, I would be traumatised. I wouldn't be able to live with the knowledge that I've caused one person's death, let alone eleven. On the other hand, being the victim of an all-powerful novelist wouldn't bother me. I'd just ask her to give me a good death.

Harold Crick has to die. The whole novel has been leading up to his death. It's too late to change it, without spoiling the ending. How can he spend the last few days of his life? He can learn to play the guitar, or he can fall in love. He should forget the guitar. That's not something he can do in a few days. Falling in love only takes a moment.

Success Rate:  - 0.2

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

Stranger Than Fiction (4½ Stars)

I've known about this film for years, but I never bothered watching it. It stars Will Ferrell, so it must be a comedy, and I've never liked his type of comedy. Putting it simply, I don't find him funny.

Today the film was presented in a group where we watch films together once a month, and my friend Anna called it one of her favourite films. So I watched it, and I realised that I'd got it all wrong. It's not a comedy at all. I'm not sure what genre it belongs to. Could it be deemed a supernatural fantasy? I'm not sure. It depends on the way the film is interpreted.

Will Ferrell plays Harold Crick, an aloof but highly disciplined IRS auditor. His life follows a strict schedule, for instance he goes to bed at 11:13 pm every night. He lives alone, and he doesn't have any friends, apart from people he talks to at work.

One day he starts to hear a voice narrating his life. The voice isn't talking to him, it's talking about him, telling unknown listeners what he's doing. It's unsettling, so he visits a psychiatrist, who tells him he's suffering from schizophrenia. Harold isn't happy with this diagnosis, so he asks if any other specialists could help him. After putting the psychiatrist under pressure, she finally advises him to visit a literary expert. He seeks help from Jules Hilbert, a literature professor. Based on the formulation of the narration he takes Harold seriously and says he's a character in a book. It's now up to him to find out what type of story he's in, a comedy or a tragedy.

Finally he meets the author Karen Eiffel, who's writing a novel about Harold and is unwittingly controlling his life. In her book Harold has to die, but she can't decide how he should die.

I'll stop the description there. It's a powerful film with deep philosophical ramifications. If we accept the premise that it's possible for someone to control the life of another person with his typewriter, how should the author and the character deal with it? How would I personally deal with it if it happened to me? My tendency would be to sit down with the author to discuss how I want to die, but that's not what happens in the film.

This is an amazing film that I want to see again. Soon.

Success Rate:  - 0.2

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

Perfume (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #80

For me every actor has a signature role. That's one role that defines him, and it's the role that people think of whenever his name is mentioned. If there's an actor who doesn't have a signature role, it's either because I don't know enough of his films or because he hasn't yet made the film with his signature role. To give a few examples:

Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature role is the Terminator.

Bela Lugosi's signature role is Dracula.

Tom Hanks' signature role is Forrest Gump.

Nicolas Cage's signature role is Seth in "City of Angels".

Bruno Ganz's signature role is Adolf Hitler.

Keanu Reeves' signature role is John Wick. This is an interesting one, because I used to think his signature role was Neo in the Matrix films, but I've changed my mind. John Wick expresses more accurately who he is.

Beverly Lynne's signature role is Tanya X.

And Ben Whishaw's signature role is Jean-Baptiste Grenouille in "Perfume". I don't care how many times he plays Q in the James Bond films, he'll always be the brooding serial killer Jean-Baptiste.

I can't write about this film without mentioning Karoline Herfurth, the stunningly beautiful actress who plays the plum seller. It was intended to cast an English or American actress for the role, but after a long fruitless search Karoline was picked, a German actress who had already worked with the director Tom Tykwer.

The film has epic proportions, despite its seemingly banal plot: it's about one man's quest to create the perfect perfume. 5,200 extras were used in the film, and the final orgy scene holds the record for the largest orgy on film, with 750 extras taking part. According to the director's commentary, they had to rehearse a whole week eight hours a day in order to feel comfortable with being naked.

These are just a few of the participants. It wasn't an easy scene to film, because the extras were all packed together in a cramped space. Amusingly, Tom Tykwer says that after making the film a large number of the naked extras still meet on a regular basis to reminisce about the film. Rolling naked in a courtyard with 750 other people must be a unique bonding experience.

Karoline Herfurth also appears naked briefly, though not in the orgy scene. She was already dead, Jean-Baptiste's first victim.

So many naked bodies, and yet Alan Rickman has to keep his clothes on. I bet he wishes he could have been one of the extras.

This is a magnificent film. It doesn't neatly fit any genre. It's a masterpiece.

Success Rate:  + 0.3

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

Mad City (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #95

There are a few things that amaze me about this 1997 film. Why did it fail at the box office? Why is almost unknown today, despite having two of the world's top actors? Why do the critics hate it so much? Why, why, why? It was made by the legendary Greek director Costa-Gavras. His films are always very special, with a unique style that sets him apart from other directors. His films all have a political message, while remaining entertaining. We don't have the feeling that he's lecturing the viewer, even though he probably is.

Sam Baily (John Travolta) is a man who's been fired from the Museum of Natural History in a fictional Californian city called Madeline. It shouldn't be confused with the small town with the same name. He visits the museum with a gun, hoping to persuade his ex-boss to give him his job back. His gun accidentally goes off, and he shoots his friend and former colleague Cliff, the museum's remaining security guard. In a panic he locks the doors.

Still in the museum is a group of schoolchildren with their teacher, as well as Max Brackett (Dustin Hoffman), a reporter for a local television station. It's become a hostage situation, even though Sam never wanted to hurt anybody, especially not children. From here on there are fascinating plots that run side by side. Max sees this as an opportunity to become famous by having an exclusive news story, so he coaches Sam on what to say to the police. He interviews Sam live on air, after previously giving him advice on what to say and what not to say. He tells Sam from the start that he has to give himself up, but not straight away. First Sam has to play the media to become popular before he walks out of the museum.

But there are conflicting forces. While Max's news reports make Sam out to be a normal, everyday man with the best intentions, Max's former boss phrases his news reports to make Sam out to be a malicious criminal. There's only one truth, but the media is twisting the story in opposite directions, depending on which news channel you tune into.

There's a scene in which Sam Baily is interviewed by Larry King, who appears in the film playing himself. He's a famous television host who died yesterday. I didn't pick this film deliberately because of him. I'd forgotten that he appears in it.

Larry King is an outsider, so he's not as personally involved with the story as Max, but he judges Sam very harshly. In the interview he says things that insult Sam. I wonder if he would have behaved like that in real life.

In the course of the film, Max slowly loses his selfish interest in coaching Sam. He begins to like him, and he genuinely wants the best for him. Sam isn't a bad man by any means. The children in the museum aren't afraid. He gives them chocolate and fizzy drinks from the vending machines. They're sad when they have to leave. In the scene where the first two children are released they're terrified of the reporters and attempt to run back into the museum. The media is more of an enemy than the man with a gun.

The film throws up interesting questions about the nature of truth. Is truth what happens or what you believe? The news media promises to report the truth, but they twist the truth, sometimes intentionally, but usually quite by accident. Philosophers have argued for hundreds of years about the nature of truth, and they're still far from reaching a consensus. When Pontius Pilate asked Jesus "What is truth?" he received no answer. As a result he decided that Jesus was innocent. Is truth something that is best not talked about, because every attempt drags it down into untruth?

My father used to say that for every truth there are hundreds of lies. My father was a simple, uneducated man, so I assumed this was a famous quote that he'd picked up somewhere, but it seems to have been his own wisdom.

People who know me know that I'm painstakingly honest. I never tell a lie under any circumstances, and even when I realise I've said something wrong unintentionally I panic and have to put it right. Honesty is a good quality, isn't it? However, I have a bad quality that stands alongside my honesty. It's not enough for me to be honest, I want everyone to know that I'm honest. That's pride. If I were a better man I'd just tell the truth and let people believe whatever they want about me, but I feel the need to stand up and defend myself when someone doubts my words.

Let me give you an example. I first watched this film in 2012. At the time my daughter Fiona was studying sometimes in Birmingham, sometimes in Stuttgart. After seeing "Mad City" I talked to Fiona about it in Facebook. She was fascinated, and she said she'd like to watch it. I put the DVD at the side of my computer. A few months later she returned to England. When she was at the computer (we shared my computer) I pointed at the DVD and said, "That's the film you wanted to watch". She replied, "I never said I wanted to watch it. You're lying!"

Wow! That hurt me. If a stranger calls me a liar it merely annoys me, but hearing those words from my own daughter hurt me immensely. So later, when I had the computer to myself, I scrolled back through the chat logs. It took me almost two hours. Then I went to Fiona and told her, "I can show you where you told me you wanted to see the film". Her reply was, "I don't want to see it". That hurt me even more. I had proof that I wasn't lying, but she didn't want to see it; she preferred to go on believing I was lying. I didn't discuss the subject again, even though I was hurt.

Fast forward to February 2020. I was now living in Germany, Fiona was still living in Birmingham. Fiona told me she was pregnant. I was overjoyed, but Fiona's mother, my ex-wife, was in a state of panic. She thought Fiona wouldn't be able to cope. She kept telling me that I should go to Birmingham to help Fiona before and after the birth. I said No, because I thought I would be in Fiona's way. My ex-wife said I should be close, so she found a cheap flat for me in Bloxwich. I refused again. A few days later I was talking to Fiona in Facebook, and I told her that her mother wanted me to spend more time in England. Her reply was, "My mother just said that she never said that, and I believe her, so I would appreciate if you could stop lying".

This was the second time she'd called me a liar. I didn't take it as passively as the first time. I told her that I wouldn't talk to her again until she apologised. The next day I asked my ex-wife about it. She told me that she couldn't remember what she'd said. Then she showed me some photos Fiona had sent her in Whatsapp. I spotted the conversation that Fiona had mentioned. My ex-wife had denied saying I should spend more time in England. I challenged her and asked her why she'd said it, and she was very vague. She just said she was probably busy and didn't think about what she was writing. I asked her to tell Fiona I'd told the truth, which she did the same day.

I waited for an apology from Fiona. None came. A month later Fiona came to visit us. I remained in my room and avoided her, waiting for her to come to me and apologise. It was the same as the first time. She knew that I wasn't lying, but she preferred to believe I was lying.

In November Fiona visited again with her baby on her arm, my new grandson Samuel. That melted my heart. I had to spend time with Samuel, so I talked to Fiona as well. We had pleasant conversations. Then she returned home. Since then I've reverted to the way it was before. I don't write to her on Facebook. I'm still waiting for the apology. I forgave (but didn't forget) the first time she called me a liar. If I forgive her the second time, there'll be a third time, and a fourth, and a fifth. She needs to learn to respect me as the most honest man she's ever known.

Am I stubborn? Yes. Am I stupid? Maybe. It's the way I am. I have good qualities and bad qualities. My worst quality is that I'm proud of my good qualities.

Success Rate:  - 4.8

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

Perfume (5 Stars)

Most people know Ben Whishaw for his role as Q in the recent James Bond films, but I can't look at him without remembering him as the cold killer Jean-Baptiste Grenouille in "Perfume". It's a role he plays to perfection. Even though he's a serial killer, we can't help feeling for him and wishing him good fortune in his quest to find the perfect perfume. He's a charismatic psychopath who draws us in and charms us in with his faraway stare.

I can't think of any other film with a plot vaguely like this. Perfume as the motivation for a murder spree is a bizarre concept, but it seems so natural in the context of the film.

Maybe one of the reasons that we can so easily relate to Jean-Baptiste is the vicious brutality of 18th Century France. Torture is the answer to everything. If someone is suspected of a crime, torture him and he'll confess; just make sure you accurately describe what the crime is, or he'll confess to the wrong crime. If someone is sentenced to death, torture him first, just for the fun or it.

The last time I watched this film I claimed that we don't empathise with Jean-Baptiste. I don't know why I wrote that. It's obviously what I thought at the time. Maybe I needed to watch the film a few times for him to grow on me.

Success Rate:  + 0.3

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

Mad City (5 Stars)

Once more I have to stand up to the serious film critics and tell them they're wrong. This film has had mostly unfavourable reviews, but I consider it to be brilliant, like all the films directed by Costa-Gavras (real name Konstantinos Gavras). He doesn't make many films, but the ones he makes are all masterpieces. This is no exception.

The natural history museum in Madeline, California has been forced to make cutbacks. Sam Baily, one of the two security guards, has been fired. He's so ashamed that he can't tell his wife about it. He goes out every day and sits in a cinema watching films until it's his normal time to go home. He begs his former boss, Mrs. Banks, for another chance. When she refuses he goes back with a gun to persuade her. He's not a bad man. He just wants his job back. That's all.

While talking to Mrs. Banks Sam's gun accidentally goes off, badly injuring his friend, the other security guard. Sam panics and locks the museum's doors. He's locked in the museum with Mrs. Banks, a class of young children and the reporter Max Brackett, who was visiting the museum to interview Mrs. Banks about the cutbacks.

Max used to be a reporter on one of the big national channels. Two years ago he was fired for being a loose cannon, and he now works for a small local television station. He sees this hostage situation as a chance to get his old job back. He talks to Sam, advising him on how to talk to the hostage negotiators. Max thinks that Sam has an important story to tell, so he advises him on what to do to become popular with the American public. He makes Sam no promises. He tells him he'll have to go to jail when he leaves the museum, but if he plays his cards right it'll only be a short sentence, and when he leaves jail he'll be offered a television show.

Sam and Max spend three days together with the "hostages". Max coaches Sam in what to say and do. For instance, when the first two children are released Max tells Sam that one has to be black so that nobody will accuse him of racism.

The children aren't scared of Sam. They sit fascinated when he tells them stories. He unlocks the vending machines to give them snacks. Significantly, when the first children are released they're scared of the reporters who rush to interview them and try to run back into the museum.

John Travolta has never been one of my favourite actors, but he's very impressive in this film. It's probably his best performance ever, even better than his role as Vincent in "Pulp Fiction".

In his earlier years I considered Dustin Hoffman to be the world's best actor. Who else came close to him in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's? This was his last really great film. He's lost his magic over the last 20 years. Let's hope he can get it back.

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

Perfume (4½ Stars)

Following the death of Alan Rickman yesterday I've decided to watch two of his films. He doesn't appear on screen until halfway through the film, but from that moment on he takes his rightful position dominating the film with his Shakespearian acting. This is in part due to the relative vacuum around the film's main character, Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, played by Ben Whishaw. This is, as far as I can see, deliberate. Jean-Baptiste is a man like no other who has ever been born, so no attempts are made to help us empathise with him.

The film takes place in France in the 18th Century, in the years before the Revolution. It was a time of great poverty for the masses, while the small ruling elite lived in luxurious excesses. Jean-Baptiste was born in the fish market of Paris. His mother had no intention of keeping the baby, so he was sent to an orphanage. At the age of eight he was sold to a tannery, where boys had a short life expectancy in the unsanitary working environment.

But as I already mentioned above, Jean-Baptiste Grenouille was like no other man. He was gifted with a sense of smell that was phenomenal. He could accurately recognise people and objects by their smell, even at long distances. On the other hand, he had no emotions at all. He was incapable of feeling love, and he didn't even have feelings of lust. For him the only thing that mattered was being able to smell the most beautiful of scents.

If Jean-Baptiste had been content with smelling what was around him he could have lived his life in happiness and anonymity. This changed when he met the beautiful red-haired plum seller, played by Karoline Herfurth. First he was intoxicated by her smell, but then he accidentally killed her, and he was fascinated to realise that immediately after her death she smelt even sweeter. He revelled in this odour, but it faded after a few minutes.

This leads to a life-long obsession. He wants to find a way to preserve the scent of a dying woman. He begins an apprenticeship as a perfumer to learn how to preserve smells. After mastering this skill he sets out to create the ultimate perfume by mixing the scents of 13 dead women. This brings him into conflict with the wealthy nobleman Antoine Richis, played by Alan Rickman, because he needs his daughter for the perfume.

Why does Jean-Baptiste have such an obsession with red-haired girls? Do they really smell better than anyone else? I don't know, because my sense of smell isn't as well developed as his. However, my eyesight is good enough to verify that both Karoline Herfurth and Rachel Hurd-Wood are stunningly beautiful. I'm sure my readers will agree with me.

Racing Stripes (4¼ Stars)

Ai Shinozaki does not appear in this film. I just felt like posting her photo.

Perfume (5 Stars)

Dying flowers smell best.

Mad City (5 Stars)

One man will make a mistake. The other will make it a spectacle.

This is a film by the legendary Greek director Constantinos Gavras, who prefers to call himself Costa-Gavras. His films will forever stand as works of art. They all manage to carry an important political or social message while remaining entertaining. That's something very few directors manage.

Dustin Hoffman is one of my favorite actors. In his earlier years he could be a totally different character from one film to the next, almost unrecognizable. Just to take a few examples, compare his performance in "The Graduate", "Midnight Cowboy" and "Rain Man". In the last 15-20 years he seems to have lost this versatility and always appears as a mumbling old man, but in my eyes he still stands up there as one of the greats. John Travolta, on the other hand, is an actor I've never liked. Except for this film. He excels in his portrayal of an uneducated security guard. The problem is that all actors are highly intelligent. This is necessary because it's a demanding career. Whenever an actor has to play the role of someone less intelligent he's acting against his own nature. Many times the result is a caricature, like a stupid redneck. Travolta does his job well in "Mad City", as a credible character who wants to do good but is hampered by his lack of intelligence. He's the perfect counterpoint to Dustin Hoffman, a highly intelligent person whose aims are primarily selfish.

Dustin Hoffman plays Max Brackett, a reporter sent to interview the curator of a museum that has reduced its staff. John Travolta is Sam Baily, a security guard who has just been fired. Sam enters the museum shortly before closing time with a gun to force the curator to give him his job back. Unknown to him, a group of schoolchildren are still in the museum. While arguing with the curator his gun accidentally goes off and he shoots his best friend, his fellow security guard who had kept his job. He panics and locks the front doors.

Max is trapped in the museum, and he sees this as an opportunity to tell an exclusive news story that will boost his career. He rings his colleague and tells her to make sure news cameras arrive before the police are called. "It's a guy getting shot, and a bunch of kids taken hostage. It's great television". Rather than just observe the news, Max begins to coach Sam, telling him how to speak to the police, advising him on how and when to release hostages. He interviews him live on television after telling him what to say so that he can gain favour with television audiences.

This is a story that tells of the shallow nature of today's media. An entertaining news broadcast is more important than saving lives. For instance, the intern standing next to the guard when he was shot is criticised for putting down her camera to help him; by doing so she lost the chance to get exclusive footage of a man suffering. While the film deals with Max's back story, which I won't describe here, the main point of the film is to show Sam Baily, a simple man who made a mistake and is then caught between the police and the media, not aware that he's being used. Brilliant.

Click here to view the trailer.