Nocebo (4½ Stars)

This is the eighth film in the Stuttgart White Nights Festival.

A nocebo is the opposite of a placebo. To quote Wikipedia:

A placebo effect is the tendency of any medication or treatment, even an inert or ineffective one, to exhibit results simply because the recipient believes that it will work.

A nocebo effect is said to occur when negative expectations of the patient regarding a treatment cause the treatment to have a more negative effect than it otherwise would have.

Christine is a successful fashion designer who specialises in children's clothing. One day, while she's displaying a new collection, a sick dog approaches her. The dog shakes itself, and she's covered with ticks. As a result she develops a mysterious illness that makes her weak and have memory lapses. The doctors are unable to recognise the illness, but they suspect it's only psychological, so they give her a large cocktail of multi-coloured tablets to take every day.

Several months later a Philippine woman called Diana rings the doorbell and says that Christine has hired her as a housemaid. Christine can't remember speaking to her, but she accepts her into the house. In addition to fulfilling her normal duties, Diana has herbal remedies that cure Christine's illness. But all is not as it seems.

This is a very complex film. There are mysteries in the opening scenes that aren't explained until the end. There are frequent flashbacks to Diana's life in the Philippines. It's a film that needs to be watched more than once to be fully appreciated.

Dumbo (2019) (4 Stars)

This film is described as a remake of the 1941 animated Disney film with the same name, but it's so far removed from the original that I don't like to use the word remake. The only thing that is has in common with the 1941 film is that it features a baby elephant called Dumbo who uses his long ears to fly.

The film takes place in 1919. The horse performer Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) returns from the war to face several tragedies. He's lost his arm, but he considers himself still able to do stunts on his horses. However, the circus boss, Max Medici (Danny DeVito), has sold the horses because the circus was in financial problems. Added to this, Holt's wife died of pneumonia in the last winter. The only good thing in his life is that he still has the loving affection of his two young children, Milly and Joe. Since he has no horses to ride, Medici gives him the job of looking after the pregnant elephant Jumbo. That's not a job he wants to do, but it's either that or be unemployed.

When the baby elephant is born it's considered a freak because it has very large ears that drag on the ground. Medici insists on the ears being covered up when it first appears in the circus, but the covering comes off and the audience mocks it. Why? If I saw a baby elephant with big ears I would smile happily. It looks so cute.

The children share my feelings and sit fascinated with the baby, who's soon given the name Dumbo. Then they discover something amazing. If Dumbo sucks a feather into his nose he can fly for a few minutes. This makes Dumbo the biggest attraction of the circus.

That's not the end of the story, it's just the beginning. Entrepreneur V. A. Vandevere wants Dumbo in his new amusement Dreamland amusement park, which presents circus acts at a fixed location instead of travelling from town to town. He tricks the naive Medici into signing a contract that is against his best interests.

This is a beautiful film that made me feel like a child again. Circus is one of the finest old forms of entertainment that still exists in the world today. Unfortunately, circus is changing. We see this in the film. The old family circuses are dying out and being replaced by the more efficient large circuses. I personally prefer the small circuses. They don't have the same big acts, but there's a familiarity and closeness to the artists that the large circuses don't offer. In Germany there are still small circus families that travel from town to town scraping a living. They have six or less artists who do everything. The smallest circus I've seen had only three artists who appeared in different costumes in every act. That's real circus entertainment. If you have the chance to visit a small circus, please take it. You won't regret it.

At this point in time it's still unclear whether "Dumbo" will be released on disc. Amazon lists DVDs and Blu-rays that can be pre-ordered, but they may never be released. Disney is starting its own streaming service later this year, and it's expected that they'll take steps to encourage new subscribers, such as making films available exclusively on their web site. That's sad. Every new streaming company means a deterioration of the supply of available films, because they'll be spread thinly over more companies. What we need is a consolidation of streaming companies into one big company that offers everything. But as we know, governments don't like monopolies. The future is looking bleak for online film streaming, and when Disney withdraws its films from Netflix it'll be one more big step downhill.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (4 Stars)

This delayed sequel almost but not quite lives up to the quality of the first film. Sadly it flopped at the box office. I have no idea why. The chronology is difficult to understand at first, because some parts of the film take place before the first film, some parts after it. This is further complicated by actors being replaced between the two films. It wasn't obvious to me at first that Josh Brolin was playing the same character as Clive Owen in the first film. They don't look vaguely alike. The replacement of Devon Aoki with Jamie Chung was less jarring. The absence of Michael Clarke Duncan was excusable, because he died before the sequel was made, but the only similarity with his replacement is that they both have the same skin colour. I didn't realise that Jeremy Piven was supposed to be playing the same character as Michael Madsen until after the film.

I just paused before continuing with this post. The more I think about it, the more weaknesses I can see in the second film compared to the first. The next time I watch the films I'll make sure it's back to back again.

Success Rate:  - 1.6

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

Based on a True Story (4 Stars)

Any new film directed by Roman Polanski is a cause for excitement. His films can be relied upon to have high quality. A problem I used to have is that his films are made alternately in English and in French, and it's not very common for French films to be shown in England. Now I live in Germany, and one of the local cinemas shows French films every week. Today I was able to see "D'après une histoire vraie" in French with German subtitles. My French is good enough that I would have risked watching it without subtitles, if necessary, but I might have missed some of the subtleties by not knowing individual words.

The film is about Delphine Daryieux, a successful French author, played by Roman Polanski's wife Emanuelle Seigner. Her latest novel, a biographical novel about her mother, is her most successful book so far. Many female readers say it has touched them. However, there are backlashes that the public knows nothing about. She has been receiving anonymous letters criticising her for lying about her family.

Against this background Delphine meets a woman called Elle who calls herself Delphine's biggest fan. Elle is also a writer; she's a ghost writer who has written biographies for many famous celebrities. Delphine is suffering from writer's block and can't start her next novel, but Elle becomes a close friend and encourages her to write a book about herself. At the same time Delphine decides to write a book about Elle, but doesn't tell her about her plans.

The relationship becomes ever closer, as Elle weasels her way into Delphine's life. They move together, supposedly for two weeks while Elle is looking for a new apartment, but it becomes permanent. Elle become jealous of everyone else that Delphine has in her life.

The film has obvious overlaps with "Misery", but it tells its own story. It becomes a tale of cat and mouse as each of the two women tries to exploit the other.

For me personally the film took too long to get going. It ran very slowly in the first half, only speeding up in the second half. The other member of the film group that I was sitting with disagreed with me and enjoyed the slow build up.

I can't be sure, but was there a Nicholas Cage cameo at the end? The man who asked for his book to be signed looked like him, but he isn't listed on the IMDB page. Please let me know your opinion if you see the film.

Casino Royale [2006 version] (4 Stars)

This is a remake of the 1967 film which was also called "Casino Royale". I strongly disagree with people who say that remakes are always inferior to the original versions of films. In this case the remake is better, because it keeps closer to Ian Fleming's novel. The novel portrays James Bond as a young agent who has only recently been promoted to Double-O status. The 1967 version shows Bond as an elderly man who has retired from active service, but returns to go on a mission that nobody else can do.

From 1962 to 2002 22 films were made about James Bond, starring six different actors as Bond. It's often claimed that only 20 films were made, because two of the films are considered unofficial and non-canon. One of the unofficial films was "Never say never again" (1983), while the other was "Casino Royale" (1967). "Never say never again" was a remake of "Thunderball" (1965), while the original version of "Casino Royale" was intended as a prequel to the official films, taking place long before "Dr. No" (1962). It's suggested that the elderly James Bond is the father of the new James Bond, which would mean that Sean Connery played James Bond Jr!

For the sake of simplicity, let's stick to the 20 official James Bond, all made by Eon Productions in London, in which five different actors play James Bond. Despite the different ages and appearances, it's always the same character. That's easy to accept, with just a little suspension of disbelief. What's more difficult to believe is the timescale. Each James Bond film is set "in the present", so, for instance, "Dr. No" takes place in 1962 and "Die another day" takes place in 2006. Each film takes place using the current technology, so things like mobile phones appear in the later films. This stretches out the timeline of the man called James Bond. It would have been easier to set all the films in the 1960's, but I can understand that Eon Productions wants to sell more cinema tickets by keeping the films up to date.

Now things have changed. In 2006 "Casino Royale" was made, followed by another three James Bond films so far. Daniel Craig has become the new actor to portray Bond. This isn't just a remake of the 1967 film, it's a reboot of the James Bond franchise. The story of James Bond is being told again from the beginning, which wasn't clear to me immediately. I didn't realise the franchise had been rebooted until I saw the fourth film, "Spectre", in 2015. I was so used to Bond regenerating every ten years that I didn't realise it was a new franchise until I saw the re-appearance of Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Now everything is clear. The old stories will be retold, rewritten and repackaged for the 21st Century.

I call the first 20 films "Classic Bond" and the films since 2006 "New Bond". I haven't heard anyone else making this distinction, but I believe it's appropriate.

The link between Classic Bond and New Bond is Judi Dench in the role of M, the head of MI6. When she first appeared in "GoldenEye" (1995) it was a critical change for James Bond. He had always been a misogynist, treating women as playthings, so it was a shock for him to have a woman appointed as his boss. In the New Bond films it isn't an issue. He might still be a callous playboy, but he's modern enough to accept that women can be in charge.

James Bond always had a rebellious attitude, but in "Casino Royale" it's pushed to the extreme; too far, in my opinion. A secret agent should do what his boss tells him. Instead of that we see that M is only aware of what he's doing when she reads about it in the newspaper. He means well, he wants to save the world, but he's incapable of following orders. When MI6 puts a tracer in his arm it's not just to track him while he's on a mission, it's so that they know what he's doing when he disappears on his own initiative.

"Casino Royale" might have been made with a budget of $150 million, but evidently the producer didn't have enough money left to write a good newspaper article. The last paragraph is a repeat of the second paragraph. That's sloppy. I would have written the extra paragraph for $100. Please get in contact with me when the next James Bond film is made.

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

Dark Shadows (5 Stars)

There's no justice in the world. This film was a box office flop. I don't understand why. It was directed by Tim Burton, it stars Johnny Depp and vampires are "in". It earned $80 million at the box office, but considering that its budget was $150 million that's an enormous loss. So what went wrong? I honestly don't know. Was it the film's quality? I think not, "Dark Shadows" is a typical mix of Burton-Depp brilliance.

The film is based on the television series that holds the record for being the longest running vampire tv series ever, running for a total of 1225 episodes from 1966 to 1971. Compare that with the 144 episodes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". The tv series is often referred to as a soap opera, as if that would degrade it. The ctiteria for a series being a soap opera is that it is aired at least twice a week without interruption for 52 weeks a year. That would indeed qualify it as a soap opera, even though its supernatural subject matter is unusual for the genre.

Tim Burton, Johnny Depp and Michelle Pfeiffer all claim to be big fans of the original series. As a child Johnny even wished he could be Barnabas Collins. This film fulfilled his wish at last. The story is very compact, only having 90 minutes running time, but it captures the essence of the Barnabas Collins saga. In 1760 the Collins family emigrated from England (Liverpool) to Maine, where they founded first a port and then a town that they named Collinsport. The son and heir of the family, Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp), has a brief affair with a maid, Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green). Unknown to him she's a witch, and when he turns away from her she curses him by making him a vampire and burying him alive.

200 years later, in 1972, his coffin is accidentally unearthed. Barnabas returns to the family mansion and finds it run down. The family matriarch, Elizabeth Collins (Michelle Pfeiffer) is struggling to hold onto it despite being bankrupt. Barnabas reveals the treasure hidden in the cellar and helps revive the family fishing business. But Angelique is still alive and well in Collinsport, now a successful businesswoman. She still loves Barnabas, but he spurns her once more, and she vows revenge.

The beauty of this film is the portrayal of the dysfunctional Collins family. We find out very late in the film that the younger family members, 10-year-old David (Gulliver McGrath) and 15-year-old Carolyn (Chloe Grace Moretz), also have secrets. I'll refrain from spoilers. All I'll say is that the groundwork has been lain for a sequel. Unfortunately, after this film's poor box office performance I doubt the sequel will ever come.

Franklyn (3½ Stars)

Loss. Separation. Reunion.