Seneca (5 Stars)

Seneca is the kind of film that seems almost designed to slip through the cracks on first release, only to be rediscovered later by a small but fiercely devoted audience. Ostensibly a historical drama about the Roman philosopher Seneca and his final days under Nero, it is in practice a far stranger and more provocative work, one that feels deliberately out of step with mainstream expectations.

Part of its cult potential lies in its tone. Seneca refuses the polished prestige-movie sheen that usually accompanies films about ancient Rome. Instead, it leans into theatricality, artifice and anachronism. Dialogue often sounds more like modern political or philosophical debate than period drama, and the staging frequently recalls experimental theatre rather than epic cinema. This creates an unsettling effect; viewers are constantly reminded that this is not history being reconstructed, but ideas being argued. Films that make such bold stylistic choices tend to alienate casual audiences while captivating those who respond to them.

John Malkovich's performance in the title role is another key factor. He does not attempt to play Seneca as a conventional sage or dignified martyr. His Seneca is ironic, weary, self-aware and sometimes uncomfortably smug. It is a performance that invites disagreement as much as admiration, which is often a hallmark of cult acting turns. Fans of the film are likely to quote his lines, debate his interpretation and defend it passionately against detractors.

The film's portrayal of Nero also contributes to its cult appeal. Rather than a straightforward monster, Nero is depicted as a volatile mixture of childish insecurity, performative cruelty and desperate need for approval. The dynamic between Nero and Seneca feels disturbingly contemporary, echoing modern discussions about power, complicity and the moral compromises of intellectuals who serve authoritarian regimes. This thematic resonance gives Seneca the kind of relevance that encourages repeated viewings and late-night discussions.

Finally, Seneca is unapologetically talky and idea-driven. It foregrounds philosophy, rhetoric and ethical contradiction over action or spectacle. For many viewers, this will feel dry or pretentious. For others, it will feel like a refreshing provocation, a film that trusts its audience to engage intellectually rather than emotionally. Cult films often thrive precisely because they reject broad appeal in favour of a clear, uncompromising vision.

In short, Seneca is unlikely to be widely loved, but it is very likely to be intensely loved by the right audience. Its eccentric style, divisive performances and philosophically confrontational approach give it all the ingredients of a future cult favourite; a film discovered not by marketing campaigns, but by word of mouth, debate and the slow accumulation of devoted admirers.

Shadow of the Vampire (5 Stars)

After watching "Nosferatu" on Saturday I felt inclined to rewatch the 1922 version of the film for comparison. I changed my mind and picked up "Shadow of the Vampire" instead. When's the last time I watched it? It was before I started writing my blog, so I have no exact date. I remember seeing it in the cinema in 2001, at a time when I rarely visited the cinema. It was one of the first films I bought on DVD, probably in 2003. I know I watched it a few times, but it was long, long ago. For this reason it was a good idea to choose it today.

The film follows F. W. Murnau and his filming of "Nosferatu" in 1922. Rather than tell the true story as a biopic, it tells a fantasy version of the story. Max Schreck, the man who was to play Count Orlok, wasn't an actor; he was a real vampire. After discovering him, Murnau asked him to appear in his film in exchange for being given the German actress Greta Schröder as his bride.

All went well on the film set, until Schreck got hungry and started to eat other members of the cast and crew. Murnau fights to keep Schreck's true identity a secret.

From my description the film might sound like a comedy, but it's played seriously. Willem Dafoe is genuinely scary as Max Schreck the vampire. It's tragic that this magnificent film has been forgotten with the passing of time. Despite its critical success, it's no longer available for purchase except for a Spanish Blu-ray. It has the original English version.

Success Rate:  - 0.6

Seneca (5 Stars)

Amazon Friday #38

I fear that "Seneca" won't be made available on disc, at least not in English. The subject matter is too obscure. It's about the last day in the life of the Roman philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca. I can already hear my readers shouting "Who's that?" Don't feel ashamed. When I went to see the film in the cinema last year I also had no idea who he was. I could have googled before I went, but I wanted to be surprised by what I saw. And surprised I was. The scene where he makes repeated attempts to commit suicide by cutting his wrists seemed unrealistic, but I read about him afterwards and found it was true.

Seneca was the greatest philosopher of his time, the second half of the first century AD. He was arguably a hypocrite. He spoke about the virtues of a simple life, but he was also one of the richest men in Rome. In his defence he said, "I own my wealth, but my wealth doesn't own me". He was the personal tutor of the Emperor Nero, but he was foolish enough to speak his mind on too many occasions. He fell out of favour, and Nero ordered him to commit suicide.

The writings of Seneca remained popular for more than a thousand years. As recently as the 13th century the Catholic Church praised him and speculated that he might have been a Christian convert. That's highly unlikely, but I'm curious what was so special about his writings. Before beginning this post I ordered his complete works for my Kindle. The whole of his thoughts are now mine for less than two dollars. That's a small price for a lifetime's work.

I'm the first to admit that "Seneca" isn't a film for everyone, but everyone has to agree that John Malkovich puts on an excellent performance. The director/screenwriter says that he wrote the film with John Malkovich in mind, and if he'd turned down the role he wouldn't have made the film.

The film has been released on Blu-ray in Germany, but only in German. The original English dialogue is missing from the disc. That's weird. It hasn't been released in Britain or America. Luckily the original version is available on Amazon Prime.

Seneca (5 Stars)

I visited the premiere of "Seneca" in Stuttgart last week. Unfortunately, it was shown dubbed into German. Today I went to see the film in its original English version. I'm glad I did so. Within the first ten minutes I'd already decided to give it a higher rating than last time. The dubbing was good, but it wasn't John Malkovich's voice. He has one of the most distinctive voices in Hollywood. Apart from this, it was good to hear Tom Xander's real voice as Nero. He's an actor I've never seen before, but Tom's voice has a manic quality missing in the voice actor, however skilled he is.

One of the things that I like about the Roman Empire, at least in the time when the film takes place, is that the Romans were so pedantic with their records. We know exactly who said what and when. Seneca died just as his death is portrayed in the film. Even the difficulties with his suicide attempts, which seem like they were included for comic relief, are based on the books of contemporary Roman historians. At the premiere the director Robert Schwentke cited Tacitus as his source for Seneca's veins not bleeding out when he cut them.

I'd never heard of Lucius Annaeus Seneca before seeing this film. He was never mentioned when I studied Roman history in school. Supposedly he was one of the most prolific writers of his day. His writings were popular in Europe 400 years ago, but now they've been widely forgotten. Forgotten but not lost. Anyone who's interested can find them in libraries.

The film has some violent scenes. When the two slave boys were being hacked into pieces, two people in my row left the room. It's not for everyone, but really, there are much worse films.

The film's anachronisms are amusing. When I first saw Nero wearing dark glasses I thought the director had made a mistake, but a few minutes later Nero is shown playing an electric guitar.

This is a brilliant film. It's almost certain to find a place in my top 10 list for 2023.

Seneca (4 Stars)

Today I went to see the German premiere of "Seneca", sometimes called the longer title "Seneca, on the Creation of Earthquakes". In attendance were the director Robert Schwentke, the producers and some of the special effects team.

The film is about the last days of the Roman philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca, played by John Malkovich. He'd previously been the mentor of the Emperor Nero, giving him spiritual guidance and writing his speeches. As the film states, Nero was the first Roman emperor who didn't write his own speeches. It's well known that he was lacking any morality present in his predecessors, but he was obviously less intelligent as well. The film portrays Nero, 28 years old at the time, as an uncouth lout. He had all his family executed, finally his mother, and after killing her he had to kill others to satisfy his paranoia.

Seneca was a complicated person. He recommended that Nero should be a generous, merciful leader, but Nero thought this was weakness and refused to listen to the advice. On the other hand, Seneca did things that would shock people today. He wrote plays in which actors were killed; not just acting, they were really murdered in the plays. When the audience complained about the brutality he said, "If this were all that happened, it wouldn't be too bad. But while you're watching my play, Emperor Nero is killing hundreds of people". That's a strange way to teach his audience morality.

At some point Nero turned against Seneca, and ordered him to kill himself. Seneca had always said that death shouldn't be feared, so he prepared to kill himself surrounded by his closest friends. But one by one they turned against him, refusing to stand by him, in case they too were sentenced to death.

I was happy to see that the cinema was almost sold out. The only free seats were in the first two rows. I had to sit in the fifth row, further forward than I would usually sit. Maybe that was a good seat, because people at the back of the room complained that the microphone wasn't loud enough.

I'd prepared some questions, but they were answered in Robert Schwentke's opening speech. He picked John Malkovich for the role when he wrote the film, and he says that without him he probably wouldn't have made the film. John Malkovich is an imposing classical actor, perfect for a role like this. He's worked with Robert Schwentke in a previous film, "Red", but that was an untypical role for him. Luckily they've stayed in touch ever since.

 

Robert says that he's discussed converting the film into a play and going on the road with John Malkovich. That would work. The film has minimalist settings, and the second half of the film takes place in a single house.

The premiere was shown with the film dubbed into German. I intend to see it again next week in English.

Adaptation (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #55

Nicolas Cage was nominated for an Oscar as Best Actor in the 2003 Academy Awards. He didn't win. That was a miscarriage of justice. "The Pianist" was a good film, but there's no way that Adrien Brody was a better actor.

Meryl Streep was nominated as Best Supporting Actress, but lost to Catherine Zeta-Jones in "Chicago". That's a close call, but I still think that Meryl was slightly better.

Chris Cooper won the award as Best Supporting Actor. So there's still some justice left in the world. His performance in the film is incredible.

It's almost 20 years since "Adaptation" was in the cinemas. How many of my readers know it? I consider it to be a cinematic masterpiece that's been unjustly forgotten. It's rarely been shown on television, and even in our Netflix days television is the best way to keep films alive. Random films are thrown at viewers who just tune in to watch whatever's on.

I don't often watch television. Almost never. Usually it's only when I'm a guest in someone else's home and they have the television running in the background. Today was the first time I consciously watched television in my own home for more than five years. I watched Prince Phillip's funeral. Before it started there were advertisements for films that would be shown in the evening: "Thor: Ragnarok" and "300". They're both good films, in their own way. I'd say that they're better television films. What I mean by that is that there's a lot of action, so if you walk into the room while your wife or kids are watching you'll be attracted and sit down to watch the rest.

"Adaptation" isn't a good television film. Anyone who walks in and sees it will say "Huh? What's this?" and walk out again. It's a film you have to give yourself to. You have to sit down and devote yourself to the plot. It's a film for thinkers. You have to actively participate in the film and think about everything that happens. I'm sure that television planners realise this, which is why it's not shown.

In my opinion, this is the most intelligent film ever made. I wouldn't say it's the best film, just the most intelligent, as far as the plot is concerned. It's been called a meta-film, but it's really a meta-meta-film. It's a film about a film about a film about a book about true events. "Adaptation", the film, shifts constantly between the different levels, so that at the end you don't know what's real and what isn't.

In 1998 the journalist Susan Orlean wrote a book about John Laroche, a man who was arrested for stealing rare orchids. The book was a surprise bestseller, so it was decided to make it into a film. When the screenplay was finally written it was shown to Susan Orlean for approval, and her reaction was "Absolutely not! Are you kidding? This is going to ruin my career!" The film portrayed her as a drug addict who posed for pornography sites. There was no truth to this, but it's well known that films often take liberties with the truth. She eventually changed her mind and allowed the film to be made. That surprises me. Most respectable authors would have refused to be slandered in this way. Maybe she treated it as a joke.

Charlie Kaufman was hired to write the screenplay for the book. He was an unusual choice for such a task. In my opinion, he was the wrong choice. He suffered from writer's block, so eventually he made the unusual decision to write a film about himself suffering from writer's block while writing the screenplay. He's hampered in his writing by his fictitious twin brother Donald, who also wants to be a screenwriter. Charlie considers Donald an idiot, but he has to stand by and see that Donald is considered a genius. It's significant that Charlie only succeeds in finishing his screenplay when Donald is killed.

This is a film that I can wholeheartedly recommend to everyone who likes to watch films that he can think about.

The film is universally available on DVD, but it's only been released on Blu-ray in America. The Blu-ray disc is locked to region A.

Success Rate:  - 0.3

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

Ava (4 Stars)

This is a film that was scheduled for cinema release in October 2020, but it was cancelled because of the Coronavirus lockdown. In Germany the cinemas were closed, at least. It's possible that some of my readers in other countries were lucky enough to see it on the big screen.

Ava Faulkner (Jessica Chastain) is an ex-soldier who now works for a shady group known only as the Organisation. I don't know whether to spell that with a capital O or not. The Organisation seems to be on the right side, but it's ruthless in the way it acts. It sends agents to assassinate money launderers, arms dealers and anyone else who's above the law, wherever they are in the world. This is illegal, of course, but they believe that the end justifies the means. This is the same sort of principle as in Luc Besson's "Nikita".

Ava is the Organisation's most efficient operative, and she's responsible for 41 kills. Two years ago she had a meltdown. It's not stated what happened or why, but we can assume it's because she developed a conscience. She got over it and she's back to work, but someone high up in the Organisation thinks she's a liability and wants to kill her.

That's a simple enough story, but there are a few subplots to complicate matters. Her ex-fiancé Michael, who's now married to her sister, has $80,000 gambling debts. That's a strange relationship. Evidently Ava walked out on him eight years ago without saying goodbye, so he married her sister on the rebound. Strange guy. Ava's mother is sick, close to death, but the illness is left unnamed. Overall, a lot of things are annoyingly left open, leaving the viewer to guess.

Jessica Chastain is a competent action hero. It's a joy to watch her taking out male attackers, either with a gun or with her bare hands. She just needs a better written screenplay next time.

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

In Tranzit (3 Stars)

A few days ago I watched "The Brylcreem Boys", a film about an unusual POW camp in Ireland. "In Tranzit" (sic) is about an equally unusual POW camp in Russia. Before you ask me, the answer is No; I don't know the reason for the strange spelling in the title. The film is based on a true story, and from what I understand it's close to the true events, even though the names have been changed.

In 1946 a Russian women's prison is about to close down. The reason isn't stated, but judging by the ruined buildings I assume that it was damaged in the war. All we see is that the prisoners are all transferred to other prisons. Before the staff can be transferred elsewhere a new purpose is found for the prison. 53 German prisoners of war are sent to the prison, of whom two are dead on arrival and are dumped in the courtyard. This leads to the extraordinary situation that all the prisoners are men, but the camp's commander, the guards and all the other staff are women.

At first the men think they can take advantage of the women, but an example is made in the first few minutes. When a German prisoner breaks rank to take the jacket from a dead soldier he's shot dead, and his body is hung upside down in the courtyard as a warning to the others.

The Russian Colonel Pavlov, portrayed splendidly by John Malkovich, visits the camp occasionally to check on the prisoners. He tells the guards that there are SS officers hiding among the normal soldiers with false names. Two are uncovered within a few days and taken to nearby Leningrad to be hanged in the street, but he suspects there are others. The men should be persuaded to betray one another.

A subject matter like this offers a lot of possibilities for kinks, but it's kept to a minimum. One exception is a scene where the men are forced to strip naked in the snow covered courtyard.

The men are herded into a shed where they're sprayed with cold water and told to wash themselves. The guards think it's funny. Girls just wanna have fun.

The camp guards hate Germans and are cruel to the prisoners from the start. The only person who treats the POW's with dignity is the camp doctor Natalia, played by Vera Farmiga. She's taking care of her husband Andrei, who is suffering mental damage after his head was injured by shrapnel. He's the only Russian man in the camp, but he's a mental wreck. Natalia begins to feel attracted to one of the prisoners.

As the film progresses, the sexual tensions between the Russian women and the German men bubble to the surface. The cook gets pregnant, and she's ordered to have an abortion to avoid a scandal. Other Russian women who live nearby have affairs with the men when they leave the camp to work. That seems difficult to believe. Russia (the Leningrad area) is presented as a place where there are hardly any men. The Germans have killed them all. What feelings would be stronger, the hatred for the killers or the desire for replacement men? I would have thought the former.

This isn't an easy film to watch. It's slow moving, gloomy and depressing. There are no good guys in the film, everyone is bad, the Russians and the Germans. It's just a matter of who is less bad than the others. It's an evil story that takes place in an evil world. The film is interesting, but it's not something I can watch more than once.

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

Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (4 Stars)

This is the third film in the Stuttgart Nights Festival.

The film's shockingly long title, which isn't shown on screen until the end of the film, is a quote from the judge when sentencing Ted Bundy to death.

The film shows Ted Bundy's life in episodes from 1969 to 1980. None of Bundy's killings are shown. For the first hour of the film this disturbed me, and I thought I was missing something. Then I got used to these omissions as I realised it wasn't what the film was about. The film shows Ted Bundy through the eyes of those who knew him, in particular the women who loved him. They didn't see his murders, and they didn't even believe they happened, so they aren't shown.

Throughout the film Ted Bundy, admirably portrayed by Zac Efron, is a smooth-talking charismatic man who always proclaimed his own innocence. Like the real Ted Bundy, if I hadn't known his background I would have been seduced by him and believed his innocence. How could such a perfect gentleman be a killer? It must be a mistake.

This is a film that I need to see again.

Mile 22 (4 Stars)

I got a shock when I went to see this film in the cinema today. I was the only person in the room when the advertisements started. Minute after minute went by. Finally, after about ten minutes, four other people walked in. (The advertisements and trailers in the Stuttgart cinemas last about 15 minutes, less than I'm used to in England). This is the film's first week, only the fifth day, so I can safely say that the film has flopped in Germany. As for the rest of the world, let's wait and see. It was moderately successful in America, but it still hasn't been shown in most other countries.

Mark Wahlberg plays James Silva, a member of an elite American combat team called Overwatch. The team travels to Indocarr, a fictional East Asian country, to locate stolen caesium, enough to make six powerful atomic bombs. A local police office, Li Noor (played by Iko Uwais), says he knows where the caesium is stored, but he won't reveal the location until he's put on a plane to America. Indocarr's government officials try to negotiate for Li Noor's return, making it clear that their country is planning deadly attacks. Unknown to Overwatch a Russian secret service team has hacked into their communications and is attempting to kill Li Noor before he can leave the country.

Indocarr might not exist, but it's obvious that it represents North Korea. A Korean-Russian alliance is planning major terror attacks on six major western capitals.

This is a fast-paced thriller. Especially the fight scenes involving Iko Uwais are exciting. I wouldn't say it's a great story, but I enjoyed watching it in the almost empty cinema.

Deepwater Horizon (2 Stars)

I love disaster movies. I love films based on true stories. "Deepwater Horizon" also stars some of my favourite actors, so there's no reason why I shouldn't like it, is there?

Unfortunately, that's not the case. It's a poorly written and poorly directed film. In a good disaster movie, like "Titanic" or "Dresden", there's a slow build up in which we get to know the main characters intimately. In "Deepwater Horizon" we're rushed through a background story with Mike Willis (Mark Wahlberg), but by the time he flies to the oil rig all we know about him is that he loves his wife and his family. Doesn't everyone? We know even less about everyone else we see. They're just hollow characters running around in circles. There should have been at least an hour added to the beginning of the film. Don't tell me that would have made the film too long. A good film is never too long.

Another problem was with the technical details of the events leading up to the catastrophe. Every few minutes a text flashed onto the screen telling us what some device or monitor meant, but I couldn't keep up. I needed a longer explanation. There should have been longer explanations. A fictional character could have been added, someone new on the job who could have posed questions about what was happening.

The best part of the film was the disaster itself. It's a well-filmed spectacle of explosions and fires, but even there I have a criticism. In part of the film, when the power failed, the picture was too dark. It was impossible to recognise who was on the screen.

At first I wanted to give "Deepwater Horizon" a 3 star rating, but after reflecting I had to downgrade it. It's not an average film, it's a poor film.

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

Adaptation (5 Stars)

This year the film "Legend" was shown in which one actor, Tom Hardy, played two characters, the Kray twins. It might seem like a novel gimmick to have an actor play both twins, but it's something that has been done repeatedly in the history of cinema. In 1929 William Bakewell played Louis XIV and his unnamed twin brother in "The Iron Mask". In 1946 Douglas Fairbanks played the twins Mario and Lucien Franchi in "The Corsican Brothers". Of course, in the early days of cinema technology was limited. It was difficult to put the same actor in the same picture twice without cutting film frames in half, or maybe using a stand-in in double shoots with his face hidden.

In 2002 Nicolas Cage was cast to play both of the Kaufman twins, Charlie and Donald, in "Adaptation". No other film comes as close to highlighting Nicolas Cage's brilliance as an actor. Charlie Kaufman is insecure, full of self-loathing. Donald Kaufman is self-confident, happily sailing through life, naively oblivious when people speak badly of him behind his back. (On a side note, the Economist once praised German Chancellor Helmut Kohl for dealing with problems by not noticing them until they were gone). The relationship between the twins is even more poignant. Donald, on the left in the picture above, loves and idolises his brother. Charlie's feelings are more complex: he has affection for Donald, but he considers him to be stupid and an embarrassment. Nevertheless, Charlie would like to be more like Donald.

My regular readers will realise that it's no coincidence that I've shown a screenshot where the two characters are reading books. Charlie is reading "The Orchid Thief" by Susan Orlean, the book which he is attempting to adapt into a screenplay. Donald is reading "Story" by Robert McKee, a book of instructions on how to be a successful screenwriter. The authors of both books appear in the film, played by Meryl Streep and Brian Cox respectively.

In real life Charlie Kaufman doesn't have a brother. In the context of the film it's obvious to interpret this as a multiple personality disorder. Donald is writing a screenplay in which a police detective and a serial killer are the same person, which the detective doesn't realise when he's pursuing the killer, or even when the killer holds the detective prisoner. We can interpret the film as Charlie being held prisoner by his other self, unable to escape until he kills him.

Robert McKee

However, there's another way to interpret Donald Kaufman. Donald represents Robert McKee, while Charlie represents the real Charlie Kaufman. They are two screenwriters, but on opposite poles of creativity. Robert McKee has all the answers. "Follow my 10 rules of screenwriting and you'll be rich". Charlie Kaufman struggles to do something original, knowing the rules but deliberately breaking them. Supposedly Charlie dislikes Robert (or at least what Robert stands for) in real life. "Adaptation" is Charlie's way of dealing with him. If Robert says don't use voice-over, he'll use it throughout the movie. If Robert says don't use a deus ex machina, he'll throw in an alligator in the final scene.

"Adaptation" is as much an adaptation of "Story" as it is of "The Orchid Thief". The joint adaptations go in different directions. "The Orchid Thief" is a sprawling non-narrative which has been developed into a coherent plot. The story emerged from the primeval ooze and developed into an upright piece of fiction. "Story" is a well-organised book, but it's reduced into chaos, being smashed to pieces by the end of the film. It's evolution versus entropy.

"Adaptation" is probably the most brilliant screenplay ever written. Its depth and nuances make it an ideal topic for a film studies PhD thesis. Probably someone has already written a thesis about it. If I find a thesis on this film I'll ask the author for permission to publish it in full on my blog, because I know that nothing I write myself could ever say enough about the film.

Adaptation (5 Stars)

"You are what you love, not what loves you" (Donald Kaufman).

This is probably the cleverest film ever made. Note that I didn't say the best. Whether or not you like it will depend on whether or not you like intelligent films. A film that just uses action to entertain the audience isn't necessarily a bad film. I enjoy action films. Some films go halfway by containing deep philosophical thoughts or political messages. Good films as well. But then there's "Adaptation". From the beginning to the end it sets out to puzzle the viewer. It's a true story. It's also a work of fiction. But where is the dividing line? When the film reaches its final scene where the film's screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman, dictates what he's doing into a voice recorder we still don't know where to draw the line between fiction and reality.

Basically, the film is about Charlie Kaufman writing the screenplay of a film about himself writing a screenplay about himself. That would be enough in itself to make most people's head spin, but the confusion runs deeper. Charlie Kaufman -- the real Charlie Kaufman who wrote "Adaptation" -- would be a psychiatrist's dream patient. In the film he invents a twin brother who is his complete opposite, then kills him and gives him the credit for writing his screenplay. That's not just in the film, or in the film about the film, it's in real life. Donald Kaufman, a man who has never existed, was nominated for an Academy Award in 2003, making him the only person ever to be nominated for an Academy Award who didn't exist. After killing his brother Charlie becomes his brother.

This is a film that deserves a full psycho-analytical analysis. I'm afraid to attempt it myself, because I'm sure that whatever I write I'll look at it a week later and realise that I've left out half of the film's meaning.

Being John Malkovich (4½ Stars)

I have been to the dark side, I have seen a world that no man should see.

Craig Schwartz (John Cusack) is an unemployed puppeteer in New York. He lives in a basement apartment with his wife Lotte (Cameron Diaz) and her many exotic pets, which include parrots, iguanas and chimpanzees. He takes a temporary job as a filing clerk. One evening, while working late, he finds a secret door hidden behind a filing cabinet. This door leads into John Malkovich's head. Anyone who enters can see through John Malkovich's eyes for 15 minutes, after which he's thrown out onto the grass at the side of the New Jersey Turnpike.

This seemingly absurd film throws up so many philosophical questions. The first time you watch it you have to laugh. You could mistakenly think you're watching a Woody Allen film. After you see it the second time you begin to see the bigger issues. It's a film about reality, identity, gender roles and control.

When I first saw this film I gave all the credit to the writer, Charlie Kaufman. He's written several amazing films, including "Adaptation" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". I paid no attention to the director Spike Jonze, who has made his career directing music videos. After seeing "Her" earlier this year, which Spike Jonze both wrote and directed, I can look back and see his influence on this film.

This message appeared at the end of the credits. All the characters portrayed in the film are fictitious? That's strange. I thought that John Malkovich really existed. Wikipedia says he does, but sometimes Wikipedia lies.

What is this strange power that John Malkovich exudes?

RED 2 (4 Stars)

I had to watch the two RED films back to back. This film has a slightly different style. The age of the retired agents is less strongly emphasised, even though the same characters return from the first film. The action is more over-the-top. This time there are car chases that would make Roger Moore proud. Instead of the scenes jumping from one part of America to another this film jumps from one country to another.

The plot, or rather the excuse for the action, is the same as in the first film. Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) and his partner Marvin (John Malkovich) have been marked for elimination by the CIA because of a mission they carried out in Russia in 1979. Victoria (Helen Mirren) is hired to kill them, but she refuses the job and helps them instead. Frank tries his hardest to keep his girlfriend Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker) out of danger, but despite her background working in a pension company's call centre she loves danger and wants to be in the middle of it.

It's a good film, though it probably isn't one I'll watch often. Roll on "RED 3".

RED (4 Stars)

I suppose that "RED" is the correct spelling of the film's title, one word all capitals. Technically it should be "R.E.D.", since it stands for "Retired Extremely Dangerous", but I'll stick with the name that's been given to it. Sometimes there are discrepancies between the posters, the DVD covers and the title in the film myself. The example that springs to mind is "Run Fatboy Run". I'm surprised I didn't mention it when I wrote my review. That's the way it's spelt on the splash screen of the film itself, but both the posters and the English DVD covers write "Fat Boy" as two words. The American DVD covers write "Fatboy" as one word. That must make it confusing for mailorder companies.

I've avoided watching "RED" since it was released in 2009, despite the nagging of a friend who absolutely loves it. Something seems terribly un-sexy about a group of old men and women reuniting to face a common enemy. I needn't have worried. The film is perfect. It's a very good story, and the age aspect adds a certain poignancy to it.

Frank Moses is a retired CIA agent. He lives a comfortable but reclusive life in Ohio, receiving a generous pension. He has a crush on Sarah Ross, a woman who works at the pension department in Kansas City. He's never met her, he just likes her voice and makes excuses to ring her as often as he can. His comfort is disturbed when a heavily armed assault team comes in the middle of the night to assassinate him. He escapes them, but in the process his house is destroyed, and he's on the run. The first thing he does is drive to Kansas City and pick up Sarah, because he thinks that Sarah might also be in danger, since she's his only friend. That's sad. He finds out the assault team was made up of CIA operatives, and he also discovers that several of his former colleagues have also been killed. He realises that they all have in common that they took part in a mission in Guatamala in 1983, so he rounds up the survivors from that mission to find out why the CIA wants to eliminate them.

CIA agent William Cooper in a previous life

This is a very good film. I particularly enjoyed the performance of Karl Urban as Frank's nemesis, the young CIA agent who is just "doing his job". Apart from appearing in "Star Trek XI" this is the first time I've seen him since his regular role as Julius Caesar in "Xena Warrior Princess". He's an underrated actor who deserves bigger roles. The main roles, the old guys, are played by Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, Morgan Freeman and Helen Mirren, all first rate actors in their own right.

I didn't realise until today that the film is based on a DC Comics graphic novel. If I'd known that I might have watched it earlier.

RED [Guest Writer] (5 Stars)

Frank (Bruce Willis) is retired, bored and lonely living off his government pension in a nondescript suburb in an equally nondescript house. The only joy in Frank's life are his calls to the government pension processing center when he gets to talk to his case worker Sara (Mary-Louis Parker). Sarah is as bored and lonely as Frank and marks her conversations with the unknown Frank and her spy novels as the only things fun in her life. When something in Frank's past forces Frank back into his old line of work and puts an unwitting Sarah in the middle of the intrigue, Frank and Sarah begin a journey into Frank's past and the people he used to work with. Like Frank they are all RED...Retired Extremely Dangerous.

This was a good movie in my opinion and the actors did their characters well. Bruce is a veteran at this and I had no trouble believing he was an ex-bad-ass spy that was ready to take your ass out in a heart beat- he does these roles the best. I think that this was action-packed, lighthearted, and a potential tear-jerker (depending on how much of a softie you are). I saw this movie probably four times and I wasn't bored once which means that in my book it stands the test! Good movie. Good plot. Great actors. Ass-kicking action. Belly laughs sprinkled throughout. A splash of re-kindled romance. Really...what more could I ask for in a movie?! Absolutely nothing!

Adaptation (5 Stars)

For a film that was nominated for several Oscars in 2002, including a win for Chris Cooper as best supporting actor, it's amazing how few people know this masterpiece of cinema. The following review contains spoilers, so read on with care. Normally I try to avoid spoilers, but I don't know any other way to write this review.

At its core it's a true story. A successful Hollywood screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman, is asked to write a screenplay for a best-selling book, "The Orchid Thief". After reading it he realises that he can't see any way to adapt the book to film, so he sinks into depression and insecurity, hindered by the presence of his identical twin brother, Donald, who is everything he isn't. While Charlie is a social misfit and is unable to write, Donald dates girls and quickly churns out a detective thriller. Nicolas Cage plays both brothers to perfection. Charlie is encouraged to spice up the book, adding elements such as sex, drugs and violence to make it more appealing to the audience, but he refuses.

Finally Charlie makes a breakthrough when he decides to write a film about himself writing the film. This is where it gets complicated, especially when the viewer realises he's watching a film about a film about a film. Actually it's a film about a film about a film about a book about true events. As the film progresses the viewer has increasing difficulty to distinguish between fiction and reality. Are we seeing the real events, or things that Charlie invented for the sake of entertainment? In fact, does Donald really exist, or is he a product of Charlie's multiple personality disorder? It's significant that the film in the film doesn't get written until Donald is killed.

Maybe that's the reason "Adaptation" isn't more popular? It's too intelligent for the mass audience. Despite Charlie's eventual capitulation, dumbing down his film by adding sex, drugs and violence, the film still hovers on a high intellectual plain. If you want a film that will make you think, watch this. You won't be disappointed.

Interestingly, Donald Kaufman was nominated for an Oscar for the best adapted screenplay jointly with his brother Charlie. This is the only time in the history of the Academy Awards that someone who didn't exist was nominated for an award.