The Truman Show (5 Stars)

I recently rebought "The Truman Show" on the recommendation of Jeff from the YouTube channel "Films At Home". He's someone whose opinion I respect when it comes to buying 4K discs. He said that the 4K release of "The Truman Show" is much better than anything that's been available until now. I can see what he means. The Blu-ray disc I've been watching until now isn't that bad, but it was made in the early days of Blu-ray, and there was room for improvement.

Today I watched the film paying close attention to the video quality. I didn't see much difference in the first ten minutes, but as the film progressed I was bowled over by the quality. It's the most impressive in the last 30 minutes. It's true that when I paused the film I could see occasional dirt specks on the picture, but what else can you expect from a film made with a film camera?

I've watched "The Truman Show" more often than any other film, more than 30 times. Is it possible to still take a new message? Today it hit me that the only way for Truman to discover the nature of the world around him is to overcome his fears. He's been afraid of water all his life, but he climbs into a boat and sails into the unknown. Can I do that? Am I capable of doing something I've never done before, instead of relaxing and accepting the world as it's presented to me? Probably not.

Success Rate:  + 2.4

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

Man on the Moon (5 Stars)

True Stories #30

Name: Andy Kaufman

Lived: 17 January 1949 – 16 May 1984

Film dates: 1955 to 1985 (a year after death), mostly 1971 to 1985

Film made in 1999

If you want a full review of this film, please check the post I wrote two years ago. Today I'll just add a few thoughts.

The film begins with the eccentricity that characterised Andy Kaufman. Jim Carrey walks onto a black screen and introduces the film.

"Hello. I am Andy, and I would like to thank you for coming to my movie. I wish it was better, you know, but it is so stupid! It's terrible! I do not even like it. All of the most important things in my life are changed around and mixed up for dramatic purposes. So, I decided to cut out all of the baloney! Now the movie is much shorter. In fact, this is the end of the movie. Thank you very much".

Then the final credits roll, while Jim stands and watches them. When they're finished the screen goes black for 14 seconds.

Jim cautiously peeks into the screen from the left, and addresses the audience again.

"Wow, you're still here! Okay! I hope you're not upset. I did that to get rid of those folks who just wouldn't understand me and don't even want to try. Actually, the movie is really great. It's just filled with colourful characters, like the one I just did and the one I'm doing now. And so the story begins".

The credits end at 3:40, so that means the rest of the film is an after credits sequence that lasts 109 minutes. This must be the longest ever after credits scene.

Jerry Lawler plays himself in the film. This is ironic, because he's acting out the events that he performed with the real Andy Kaufman 15 years previously. It must have been emotional for Jerry, because he used to be close friends with Andy.

Nobody but Andy Kaufman would have turned his own funeral into an entertainment show. After his death from cancer at 35, his body lay in an open coffin while a recently recorded video encouraged the people in the church to sing and be happy.

Before his death, Andy encouraged his closest friends to spread rumours that his death was a hoax. His friend Bob and his girlfriend Lynne wrote a book, "Andy Kaufman: The Truth, Finally", in which they claimed that Andy was in hiding and would return 30 years after his death. Sadly, he didn't return.

Success Rate:  - 1.1

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

I'm happy that there's renewed interest in this magnificent film. I bought it on DVD in 2005, but the DVD has been out of print for years. Later this month it will finally be released on Blu-ray for the first time.

The Truman Show (5 Stars)

I was shocked to hear that my son Benjamin had never watched "The Truman Show", so I couldn't push the disc into my Blu-ray player fast enough. Before it started I told him that it was the film I've watched more often than any other. I wish I knew exactly how often. In the early 2000's I didn't keep track of my viewing. That didn't change until September 2010. All I know, from my memories, is that I recorded "The Truman Show" on videotape when it was broadcast on television, and it fascinated me so much that I watched it at least twice a week for several months.

When the film started my son asked me if it was a true story. It was difficult to answer the question. It's a Yes or a No, depending on how the question is interpreted. When the film begins, Christof speaks to the camera and tells us that everything is true. Are we considering the film or the television show within the film, both of which are called "The Truman Show"? I avoided giving Benjamin an answer and told him to watch the film.

"The Truman Show" (the film) is about a man searching to find the meaning of life, or more correctly the meaning of the world in which he lives. He has the impression that the whole world revolves around him. In a certain way, everyone has the same feeling. A typical person has contact with a limited area. A child sees his house, his family, his school and his friends. As he gets older he meets more people, and he goes to work, where he meets more people. Further contacts are defined by his own interests. He might want to go to church, to a football club or anything else. Do you see what I'm getting at? He's in a restricted world. A normal person like me doesn't suddenly find himself in the White House or in Moscow's Red Square. I have a small world around me. Everything else is only seen second hand. I see far off places on the television or in films. Do they really exist? Or are they just pictures put there for my sake, to give my miniature world a context?

Of course, a person who digs too deep into these thoughts might be accused of having a psychosis. Getting back to the film, Truman Burbank (played by Jim Carrey in his first serious role), grows up accepting the world as he sees it. Then several things happen that make him suspect the world around him is fake. His father died in front of his eyes when he was a boy, but now he returns, alive and well. Truman's attempt to speak to his father is blocked by dozens of men who bundle him into a bus and drive him away. Truman sees a big conspiracy around himself. He thinks that everyone is playing a big show for his sake. As the film continues, we find that it's true. Truman Burbank is unwittingly the star of a television show called "The Truman Show". Everyone around him is in on the secret. Only Truman isn't.

"The Truman Show" is also a prison with thousands of guards. Everyone is working to keep Truman where he is and prevent him escaping. In this respect the film is terrifying.

Ed Harris plays Christof in the greatest role of his career. Christof is the creator of "The Truman Show" (the television show). Christof is all powerful. Christof is God, as far as Truman is concerned. Christof's voice booms down from the sky. Truman challenges him. He denies God's right to determine his life.

When the film was over, Benjamin said that it's one of the best films he's ever seen. I'm glad that he enjoyed it. He has good taste.

Success Rate:  + 2.4

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

Amazing Spider-Man 2 (3 Stars)

This is a film that should never have been made. The same is true of the previous film, "Amazing Spider-Man", but at least that was a better film. "Amazing Spider-Man 2" is just a mess. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy was brilliant. He should have been allowed to make a fourth film with Tobey Maguire. I've been told that Raimi was fired because he refused to make "Spider-Man 4" in 3D. What??? Is that the only reason? I admit that I'm biased. I don't like watching any films in 3D. It's not that I'm against 3D in principle. My complaint is that the current 3D technology is just pseudo-3D. Once you get used to it, it looks artificial.

And so, without Sam Raimi, the Spider-Man franchise was rebooted. Uncle Ben died again. There was a new Peter Parker who looked nothing like the comic book character. Supposedly Andrew Garfield is a Spider-Man fan and he was excited about being picked for the role. He gets the Spider-Man banter right when he puts on his costume, but without his costume he fails miserably. Walking around with a skateboard? Please! Peter Parker was never that cool. If you want to know what Peter Parker was like, watch Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man". That's a film that got everything right. The rebooted Amazing Spider-Man films get almost everything wrong.

And what's with all the rubbish about Richard Parker bio-engineering the spider that would one day bite his son? That's just too silly for words.

The Amazing Spider-Man films should have been a trilogy. It was cancelled after this film, leaving loose ends dangling. The studios knew it was too bad to continue. I'd be happy to forget the Amazing Spider-Man films ever existed, but Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man is being revived in the next MCU Spider-Man film. That's embarrassing. Let's hope it isn't too bad.

Success Rate:  + 0.4

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

Gunpowder Milkshake (4 Stars)

This is the first film in the Stuttgart Fantasy Film Festival.

I'm excited to be able to visit the Stuttgart Fantasy Film Festival again this year. I missed it last year. It took place, but the restrictions imposed due to the Coronavirus were so strict that I didn't want to go. This year there are no restrictions, apart from having to provide proof of being vaccinated when I visit the festival. I can deal with that.

As always, I only write short reviews for the films in the film festival. That's for practical reasons. Including travelling time, I'm away from home for about 12 hours every day. When I get home I'm tired and don't want to spend too much time writing. For that reason I've imposed a 10 minute limit on the time I spend for each post.

"Gunpowder Milkshake" has been compared with "John Wick", but I see more similarity with "Kill Bill". The main similarity with "John Wick" is the organisations of killers that exist side by side with our normal lives. The main similarity with "Kill Bill" is that the main assassins are female.

Sam (Karen Gillan) works for an organisation known only as the Firm. They pay her to kill, and she's good at her job. The trouble is that she's too soft-hearted. She's sent to retrieve money stolen from the Firm and kill the man who stole it. She finds out that the man only stole the money because his eight-year-old daughter is being held hostage. Instead of returning the money to the Firm, she gives it to the gang holding the daughter. This makes her a liability, and the Firm's bosses decide to kill her.

When the film started I thought it would be a five-star film. I like girls with guns. I dropped the rating a point because some of the action are just too ridiculous. There are fight scenes that are totally infeasible. I definitely want to watch it again, so I might change my mind. Watch this space.

The Truman Show (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #29

This is the film I've watched more often than any other. I can't say exactly how often. At least 30 times, maybe 40 or even 50. I didn't see it in the cinema in 1998 when it was released, but I taped it when it was on television a year later. Something about it touched me, so for months I was watching it two or three times a week. It was one of the first films I bought on DVD after I bought my first DVD player in 2003. I still watched it fairly often in the first few years when I didn't have many films on DVD. This is only the fourth time I've watched it since September 2010. I've binged out now, if that's the right expression. I still like it a lot, but I can't watch it as often as I used to.

One problem with the film is that it's become dated. It doesn't fit in with modern technology. When it was made in 1998 it was feasible. The creation of Truman's world would be immensely expensive, but not impossible. It depends on the year. The date isn't named, but the film takes place in the 30th year of the Truman Show. It could have been constructed in the early 90's at the earliest, so the film would have to take place in the 2020's. It was the 2020's as they were imagined in 1998. But now things have changed. The Internet has completely changed our society. The Internet already existed in 1998 (I personally have had an Internet account since 1995), but it wasn't as important as it is now. It's difficult to say exactly when the Internet took over our society. I didn't notice, because I was one of the first users and blind to what was happening around me. At a guess, I'd say that the watershed was in the mid 2000's with the advent of social media. It was no longer just computer geeks who used the Internet, it was also semi-educated teenagers who wanted to chat with their friends.

That's the problem. The Truman Show is a world without Internet. If we watched a reality show without Internet today it would seem quaintly old-fashioned. But if the Internet were allowed in Truman's world he would soon discover the truth about his existence.

So, when we watch "The Truman Show" (the film) we have to think of it as taking place in 1998 or close to the turn of the millennium. If we put ourselves in that mindset we can enjoy the film, but that means that the Truman Show (the television show) must have begun round about 1970, which isn't feasible. Apart from that, the Truman Show is based on the new wave of reality TV shows, which didn't start until 1997 with "Big Brother", the first series that allowed viewers to observe people 24 hours a day.

Some reviewers make the mistake of calling "The Truman Show" a comedy. Even the film's Wikipedia page makes this mistake. Sometimes I doubt the intelligence of my fellow reviewers. I can understand the reason for their error, but it's still unforgivable. The film's lead actor is Jim Carrey. All his previous films were comedies, so they assume that this film is a comedy as well. Obviously they didn't watch the film closely. It's not a comedy at all. "The Truman Show" was Jim Carrey's first attempt at making a non-comedy film. There have been many more since. In the film Truman Burbank is an amusing character at times, but that doesn't make it a comedy. Jim Carrey's next film, "Man on the Moon", makes the distinction even clearer. The film is about a comedian (Andy Kaufman), but the film isn't funny at all.

"The Truman Show" is a psychological drama that borders on horror. The futuristic world justifies those who want to call it a science fiction film. It's a virtual world, an artificial reality that closely mimics our real world. The people in the film who watch the Truman Show can relate to it because they can see themselves living in Truman's place. He's a man doing a dull office job, barely making enough money to get by. He's married to a shallow, annoying wife. On the plus side, he has a good friend with whom he can drink beers and discuss the meaning of life.

I'm not blind to the film's religious messages. If you're a religious person you'll see your own religion in the film, whatever it is. I see Christianity, as the religion that I've grown up with. Truman is given the rare privilege of meeting his Creator. First he fights with his Creator, refusing to submit, even if it means his death. Finally he turns his back on his Creator.

"The Truman Show" is a film that will make you question the nature of reality. It's so deep and meaningful that it's nothing less than a disgrace that it didn't sweep the awards at the 1999 Academy Awards. It's a much better film than "Shakespeare in Love", which won the Best Film award.

Success Rate:  + 2.4

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

Man On The Moon (5 Stars)

This is a biopic about the life of Andy Kaufman, who lived from 17th January 1949 to 16th May 1984. He's considered by many to be greatest comedian of the 20th Century, even though he rejected the label "comedian".

I confess that I didn't know Andy Kaufman at the time the film was released, and I only bought the DVD because it starred Jim Carrey. I'd never even heard of Andy Kaufman. As far as I know, he was only ever popular in America. The DVD contained a few short videos of Andy Kaufman in the special features, and I watched various other performances on YouTube. After watching him I'm sure I would have been a fan if I'd known him during his lifetime. More accurately, I would have hated him at first because I didn't understand him, but he would have intrigued me enough to want to see more of him, and I would gradually have grown into a big fan. Somehow I think that's what Andy would have wanted.

Andy Kaufman was an eccentric and an innovator. At the start of his career he was booed off stage by audiences that didn't get it. I would have been too polite to boo, but I wouldn't have got it either. He told jokes that weren't funny, and he kept repeating them until people were laughing at him, not the jokes. He wanted to be ridiculed. On the other hand, it was more important for him to be able to laugh at the audience than for the audience to laugh at him. For instance, in a television special he let the picture roll to make the viewers at home think their television set was faulty. That's a wicked joke.

He was fascinated by wrestling, in particular the play-acting aspect of professional wrestling. He wasn't strong enough to become a normal wrestler, so he decided that he would only fight against women. The fights were staged, unknown to the audiences, but he was so abusive to women in his pre-match speeches that he became the most hated man in America, and he loved it! Jerry Lawler challenged him in order to defend women and bring back respect to wrestling as a sport. They had several fights and public brawls. They seemed to hate one another, but it wasn't until 10 years after Andy's death that Jerry Lawler admitted they were good friends and had planned everything together.

When Andy was diagnosed with cancer, nobody believed him. Everyone thought it was a sick joke, especially since he'd already talked about staging his own death as a prank. His final joke was actually the opposite. Before he died he arranged for clues to be left that he was still alive. Or was he really still alive after faking his death? He didn't want anyone to know.

Enter Jim Carrey. This was the dream role for him, as someone who had always admired Andy Kaufman. He didn't just play the role, he became Andy Kaufman. He's always been a method actor, but in this case he pushed it to the limits. He refused to let others call him Jim while he was filming. Jerry Lawler appeared in the film, playing himself, and Jim Carrey continued an enmity with him off-screen. This was especially disturbing for Lynne Margulies, Andy's former girlfriend, who was on the film set as an adviser. She asked Jerry Lawler one evening, "Do you think he's really Andy?" That's freaky. But Jim took it one step further. Even after the film was completed, he continued to live as Andy Kaufman, leading the newspapers to speculate that he was having a mental breakdown.

Jim Carrey and Andy Kaufman are kindred spirits. They're both insane, and they're both geniuses. Could anyone else have played Andy Kaufman? Impossible. This is Jim Carrey's film. It might not be his best film, but it's certainly his most personal film. He pours his whole being into the role.

I like Jim Carrey as an actor. I always have done. I forget what the first film is that I saw him in, probably "The Mask", and I've loved him ever since. But you know something? I think that if I ever met him and told him that I didn't like him, he wouldn't care. He'd probably laugh about it. Jim wants to have an effect on people, and he'd rather a person dislikes him than remain indifferent. Andy Kaufman revelled in being hated. I don't think Jim would go quite that far, but I don't think it would worry him. I'd like to meet Jim and tell him I hate him. He'd probably laugh at me. If he believes me, that is. I'm not a good actor, and he'd probably see through me immediately.

Jim Carrey. A great actor. A great man.

Success Rate:  - 1.1

The Truman Show (5 Stars)

I absolutely love "The Truman Show". It's difficult for me to understand why I didn't include it in my list of "30 films to watch before you die". That's the only mistake I made when compiling my list. It's not just a matter of it being a film I enjoy. It's also an important film. When it was released in 1998 there was a two-page article in Newsweek magazine that called it the most important film of the decade. I didn't go to see it in the cinema, but a year later I saw it on television, and it blew me away. It became the film I've watched more often than any other film in my life. I recorded it on video tape, and for months I was watching it two or three times a week. Something about the film touched me in a way that no other film has ever affected me. I've only watched the film three times since I started my blog in 2010, but that's not because I like it any less. It's because I've binged on it so much that I can't take anything else from it.

Or maybe I can. Something new occurred to me today. As great as the film is, it's not a film that would appeal to modern viewers who see it for the first time. The absence of the Internet is essential to the film. The whole premise of a person being unknowingly the star of a global reality show wouldn't be possible in a world with smart phones. I can still enjoy the film because I lived most of my life in a world without the Internet, but what would a 25-year-old think of "The Truman Show" if he watched it today? Let that be a challenge to my readers. If you're 25 or younger, how do you react to the film?

Success Rate:  + 2.4

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

Amazing Spider-Man 2 (3 Stars)

This is the sequel to "Amazing Spider-Man", the second part of a trilogy that was never completed. It's just as well. I could grudgingly accept that the first film had some quality, but the second film is a mess. The blackwashing of Electro is one of the smallest problems. What's more disturbing is the increase in the Richard Parker sub-plot and the hasty addition of the Green Goblin.

To deal with the second point first: after two hours showing the conflict between Spider-Man and Electro, the Green Goblin flies onto the screen. It's at the 1 hour 57 minute mark, to be precise. He isn't even announced as the Green Goblin. Anyone who hasn't read the comics or seen the Sam Raimi films would have no idea who he is. This is bad scriptwriting and even worse directing. The director is mostly to blame, because there are several deleted scenes involving the Green Goblin that were removed at the last moment to make the film shorter. Marc Webb needs to go back to film school.

Instead of shortening the film, it should have been made longer. The Green Goblin is defeated after a four minute fight. As one of Spider-Man's deadliest enemies he deserved at least 30 minutes.

Now to Peter Parker's father Richard. The film opens with a lengthy scene of his plane being sabotaged and crashing. During the film we see various video recordings that he made. Peter Parker spends the film doing research into his father's disappearance, when he isn't busy fighting Black Electro.

Today I discovered an alternative ending on the Blu-ray that I missed when I bought it three years ago. The film should have ended with Richard Parker approaching his son at Gwen Stacy's grave and apologising for his disappearance. According to Marc Webb, this scene was removed because test audiences unanimously complained about it. I'm not surprised. I would have thrown something heavy at the screen. What a disgusting way to ruin the film! Richard Parker even speaks the words "With great power comes great responsibility", the words that have forever been associated with Ben Parker.

The ending was rightly cut out, but it tells us that we could expect Peter Parker's father to return in the third film. I'm glad it was never made. Let's forget the silly Richard Parker story-line once and for all. Let's also forget "Amazing Spider-Man 2". It's an embarrassment.

We shouldn't forget Stan Lee's cameo. He appears as a guest at Peter Parker's graduation ceremony for five seconds. Those are the best five seconds of the film. We can forget the rest.

Success Rate:  + 0.4

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

San Andreas (4½ Stars)

These are the three steps you must follow if you're caught indoors in an earthquake.

DROP where you are, onto your hands and knees. This position protects you from being knocked down and also allows you to stay low and crawl to shelter if nearby.

COVER your head and neck with one arm and hand.
If a sturdy table or desk is nearby, crawl underneath it for shelter.
If no shelter is nearby, crawl to an interior wall (away from windows).
Stay on your knees; bend over to protect vital organs.

HOLD until shaking stops.
Under shelter: hold on to it with one hand; be ready to move with your shelter if it shifts.
No shelter: hold on to your head and neck with both arms and hands.

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

Saving Mr. Banks (5 Stars)

This is one of the most delightful films made in recent years. It's hard to recommend on the basis of the plot alone. What I mean is, the plot doesn't sound interesting. Nobody would be convinced to buy it merely by reading the text on the back of the DVD box. If you like the film – as I do – you need to force it on your friends, tell them that they must watch it, and they won't be disappointed.

The film's strength is in the quality of the acting. Tom Hanks was born to play Walt Disney. Not only does he look similar, he projects an outgoing jovial style that immediately wins over everyone around him. Emma Thompson puts on the performance of a lifetime as Pamela Travers, the grumpy old lady who wrote the Mary Poppins books. It's amazing how an author can be totally different to the image portrayed by her books. Not least are Colin Farrell and the child actress Annie Rose Buckley, the affectionate father and daughter living in poor circumstances in Australia.

The story is told in two threads interwoven through the film, the present day in Los Angeles (1961) and Pamela's childhood in Australia (1906). As Walt Disney struggles to understand the author's stubbornness to accept any changes to her story we're shown scenes from her early life that offer clues. As we see, the Mary Poppins story is an idealised auto-biography in which things succeeded that failed in real life.

This is one of those films that makes me cry when I watch it. It will have the same effect on you, unless you're totally cold-hearted.

Pamela Travers (1924).

One significant but understandable deviation from the true story is Pamela Travers' reaction to "Mary Poppins" when it was released. "Saving Mr. Banks" shows her emotionally enjoying it at the premiere. In actual fact she hated the film and remained angry with Walt Disney until her death in 1996.

Pamela Travers in 1964 with Julie Andrews and Walt Disney.

Love & Mercy (5 Stars)

This is a film about the musician Brian Wilson, told in parallel in two phases, his life in the 1960's and his life in the 1980's. The dates are never explicitly stated, but it seems like the main periods dealt with by the film are 1964 to 1966 and 1986 to 1988. Brian Wilson is played by two different actors, Paul Dano as Brian Wison in his early twenties and John Cusack as Brian Wilson in his late forties. Before I saw the film I thought that using different actors would detract from the realism, but it works very well. People's appearances do change over a period of time. I know that from my own experience. In my early childhood I had white hair, in my late teens my hair was yellowy blond, in my thirties my hair was dark blond, almost brown, and now I shave my head to hide the size of my bald patch.

The film opens with the Beach Boys already at the height of their fame. It was a family group: Brian Wilson, his brothers Dennis and Carl, a cousin and a childhood friend. From the beginning Brian was the driving force. He wrote the songs and the Beach Boys performed them. On stage Carl Wilson was the more dominant personality. This was just as well, because Brian said that live performances were too stressing for him, and he decided to stay at home while the group was touring. His strength lay in creating new songs in the studio, not in performing them on stage.

Brian's time away from the band allowed him to record "Pet Sounds" with session musicians. This was released as a Beach Boys album, but it was effectively Brian Wilson's first solo album, since the other band members added almost nothing to it, musically or vocally. Surprisingly, it was their least successful album. I say "surprisingly", because I'm used to it being regarded as their best album. I don't understand why it took so long to become popular. Maybe it's because the American public associated the Beach Boys with surfing music, and "Pet Sounds" was too different for them to accept straight away.

Behind closed doors not everything was so positive. Brian Wilson heard voices in his head, which was made even worse when he experimented with LSD and other drugs. His father, who had produced the band's first few albums, hated Brian's new music and said so in unpleasant ways.

In the 1980's we see Brian Wilson under the control of Dr. Eugene Landy, a domineering psychiatrist who lived with Brian and had taken complete control of his life. Dr. Landy's treatment had made Brian active again after a period of three years spent in bed, but as we see, he wasn't happy. People who know about Brian Wilson probably know what happened next, but I shan't say any more to leave it as a surprise for those who still haven't seen the film.

This is an incredible film, whether or not you consider yourself a Beach Boys fan. The atmosphere of the past decades is perfectly recreated, the happy 60's and the dismal 80's. It feels like we're living in the past. Both actors who play Brian Wilson give first class performances, but in my opinion it's Paul Dano who stands out. The film has been tipped as a contender for the Best Film at next year's Academy Awards, and I can see why.

The real life Brian Wilson, who is now 73, has praised the film for its accuracy, especially in the portrayal of his mental illness in the 1960's. Compare this with other biopics like "Foxcatcher", which Mark Schultz criticised for its inaccuracy. For some of the scenes the original locations were used, such as the recording studios which the Beach Boys actually used. Paul Giamatti bases his portrayal of Dr. Eugene Landy on surviving film footage of the eccentric doctor, both his speech patterns and his mannerisms. "Love & Mercy" is more than a piece of entertainment, it's a respectful tribute to Brian Wilson's life.

I'd like to add a few personal thoughts, based on my impression of Dr. Eugene Landy, pictured above with Brian Wilson (the real people, not the actors). Mental illnesses do exist, and psychiatrists are necessary to treat them, but in my opinion there should be more stringent controls on what psychiatrists are doing. It's true that Dr. Landy was an extreme case, but it happens more often than people think. I too spent 17 months in the hands of an abusive psychiatrist, Dr. Jeremy Kenney-Herbert.

My closer friends already know about this, but I'll give some brief details here. In 2000 I was suffering from depression.after a relationship break-up. I was caught up in a vicious circle. The depression caused me to lose my job, and I was refused unemployment benefits, so I ended up sleeping on the streets, which made me even more depressed. An Anglican priest advised me to commit a small crime, because being in prison would give me free food and board. I couldn't do this, because I have a natural aversion to breaking the law.

One day I witnessed a man committing a violent assault. I saw a chance to be arrested without committing a crime. When the police came I confessed to the assault and they arrested me. Unfortunately, I'm not a very good liar. After three hours of questioning they were convinced it wasn't me and sent me back onto the streets. I kept up my story in the hope that I would be re-arrested, but it never happened. After telling my story to a G.P. I visited, Dr. Benn in Ladywood, I was referred to Dr. Kenney-Herbert, and I was admitted to a mental hospital. That was fantastic. A comfortable room, three meals a day and nice people to talk to.

The first 10 days were okay. Then I was transferred to another hospital, and the worst time of my life began. Imagine the situation. There were 12 patients on the ward. 11 of them were young (under 35), black and violent. Then there was me. They noticed straight away that I didn't fit in. A rumour spread that I was an undercover policeman, and I was frequently beat up. I don't blame Dr. Kenney-Herbert for considering me to be violent when he first met me. After all, that was what I told him. But after my admittance into hospital he requested details about me from the police. He read the police report, but nobody else in the hospital ever saw it, because it was "lost". It's obvious that after reading the report he realised his mistake, but rather than admitting to it he tried to cover it up. I stuck to my story for two weeks after my admittance into hospital. (After my initial arrest and release I was put on bail for 7 weeks, so I continued to claim to be guilty for this time. After the 7 weeks were over I admitted that I had lied about it).

I had difficulty making out Dr. Kenny-Herbert's motives. At first I thought he was incompetent in the way he treated me, but as time progressed I realised he was malicious. He wanted me to be attacked by the other patients, hoping that I would retaliate, because that would prove to everyone that I was violent. After months of mistreatment without retaliation he tried a different tactic. He claimed that the only reason I got into so many fights was because I was attacking the other patients first.

It was obvious that Dr. Kenney-Herbert wanted to keep me locked up for the rest of my life. He might have succeeded, if I hadn't been extremely lucky. He was transferred temporarily for six months. The psychiatrist who replaced him, Dr. Russell, read my files and immediately noticed something was wrong. He interviewed me at length two days in a row. At the end of the second interview he asked me, "Do you know why you're in this hospital?" I replied "No", to which he answered, "Neither do I. Let's see about getting you out as quickly as possible".

So it isn't just Dr. Eugene Landy. Other psychiatrists such as Dr. Jeremy Kenney-Herbert can be just as malicious, doing everything they can to harm the patients in their care. This is wrong. I was helpless. I was vulnerable. I was suffering from depression and unable to defend myself. In fact, all my time in hospital I never received any treatment for depression. If anything, my state of mind deteriorated while I was in hospital, and I didn't start to recover until I was released.

Amazing Spider-Man 2 (4 Stars)

Everyone has a part of themselves they hide even from the people they love most.

I can't really add much to the review I wrote last year after seeing the film in the cinema. I'm still disturbed by the same points. What I forgot to mention last year is that I was (and still am) disappointed with Jamie Foxx's performance as Electro. He's one of the worst actors I know. The only film in which I've seen him acting well is "Django Unchained". Maybe it's because that role didn't demand much from him.

Things have moved on since last year. Despite its box office success, the public at large was very critical of the film. They paid their money on the strength of the previous film, and they went home disappointed. There won't be an "Amazing Spider-Man 3". There will probably be a film starring the Sinister Six, but it's unlikely that Andrew Garfield will return to play the role of Spider-Man. Despite the amusing banter, which was more true to the comics than the way Tobey Maguire spoke, Andrew Garfield was miscast for the role. A new younger actor will be chosen for the next Spider-Man film. It'll soon be time for Ben Parker to die again.

San Andreas (4½ Stars)

This film was a risk for me. I'm always reluctant to go to see films starring Dwayne Johnson, aka The Rock. Admittedly, he's better than most professional wrestlers who turn to acting, but he still comes across too wooden in most of his films. I took a peak at the Rotten Totamotes summary, because it's usually a good place to get a quick spoiler-free opinion, and I read "San Andreas has a great cast and outstanding special effects, but amidst all the senses-shattering destruction, the movie's characters and plot prove less than structurally sound". Okay, it was primarily the special effects that interested me, so I went to the cinema, accompanied by my friends from the Birmingham film club.

I needn't have worried. In this film The Rock excels himself. He convincingly carries the role of a loving husband and father in the middle of a divorce. He's sad, but he's not angry, and his emotions are apparent in what he doesn't say rather than what he says. The other characters are just as convincing, and I can't fault the plot, apart from the opening rescue scene which seems more impossible the longer I think about it.

Ray Gaines (The Rock) is a veteran of the Afghanistan war who now works for the Los Angeles Fire Department. We meet his team at the beginning, but they soon disappear as the action focuses on Ray's solo mission. A series of major earthquakes devastate San Francisco, which is where his wife and daughter are currently visiting the offices of his wife's new boyfriend. Instead of taking part in the official rescue missions, Ray sets off on a one-man hunt to find and rescue his wife and daughter, as the city collapses around him.

"San Andreas" is far superior to the award-winning "Earthquake", made in 1974, and not just in the special effects. The human interest story is also more gripping. This is an incredible film, visually breath-taking and emotionally moving.

The Truman Show (5 Stars)

We accept the reality of the world with which we're presented.

That awkwardly formulated line of dialogue could have come from "The Matrix". In fact, the world in which Truman Burbank lives could be considered a Matrix For One. The world is fake, but he's the only one who believes it's real. The whole world has been created for his benefit, and he's lived in it since the day he was born. That's a whole lot of world for one man. This is a film I can never get tired of, however often I watch it.

Amazing Spider-Man 2 (3½ Stars)

I'd better write this review fast. After leaving the cinema today I gave it four and a quarter stars in my head. When I sat down to think about it I dropped it to a round four. And as I began to write I struck off another half point.

So what's good about the film? The web-swinging scenes are breath-taking, even better than in Sam Raimi's films. Spider-Man makes death defying leaps before firing his web to swing back up. The action scenes with Electro are good, although it's not the real Electro that we know from the comics. And that's where the problems start. The film includes three of Spider-Man's old villains from the 1960's, and none of them look vaguely like their comic book equivalents. Why doesn't Electro wear his shocking green and yellow spandex? (Sorry, I couldn't resist that pun). Why does the Rhino look like a robot? And why does the Green Goblin's hair stand up on end? Click on the pictures below to see the contrast between the real villains and the cinematic fakes.

The structure of the film is bad. I have serious doubts that Marc Webb knows what he is doing. Everything was fine when the film started and as long as Spider-Man was battling Electro. But the Green Goblin sequence was like a last minute addition, just slapped on for the sake of getting Gwen Stacy killed. That's not a spoiler to comic book fans, because we all know that Gwen Stacy was killed by the Green Goblin, leading Spider-Man to kill the Green Goblin in revenge. But apart from that, it was the wrong Goblin. It was the first Green Goblin, Norman Osborn, not his son Harry, who killed Gwen Stacy.

And then the Rhino is tagged on at the end for no reason at all. Maybe it was intended as an introduction to the Sinister Six, but this could have been done without the idiotic fight scene. The death of Gwen Stacy was highly emotional, even in the way that the film mis-portrayed it, so it could have been left to finish there. Please, can someone fire Marc Webb before he makes things any worse? Better still, bring back Sam Raimi. He's a director with skill and vision.

Saving Mr. Banks (5 Stars)

Today was my last chance to see "Saving Mr. Banks" in the cinema. I'm glad I took the opportunity while I still had it. Evidently others thought the same as me, because the cinema was packed. This will be a short review, but I have to give away spoilers to explain what makes the film so wonderful.

The film tells the true story of the making of "Mary Poppins", one of Disney's most successful films, based on a children's book with the same name. In 1938 Walt Disney first approached the author, Pamela Travers, for the rights to make the film, but she turned him down. Over the next 20 years he regularly wrote to her, but she always refused. In 1961 she finally went to Los Angeles to meet him. She said she would only sign the contract if Walt agreed to her conditions, for instance that it shouldn't be a musical and there should be no animation included. Walt was unable to win her over until he realised that the book contained biographical elements. She was writing about her father who she had been unable to save as a child.

I don't know who to praise most when it comes to the actors. Tom Hanks is a good actor, but he's never impressed me as much as in this film, playing Walt Disney. Emma Thompson manages to make Pamela Travers look like a grumpy old lady, while letting her hidden pain seep through as understated hints. Colin Farrell is perfect as Pamela's loving father, tainted by his alcohol addiction. Paul Giamatti is usually an unassuming background character that we hardly notice in his films, but in his relatively small role as Pamela's chauffeur Ralph in Los Angeles his acting ability dazzles. This is a very beautiful film. It's all about relationships: Pamela's relationship with her father, with Walt Disney, with Ralph.

Rock of Ages (4 Stars)

This review must come as a shock to my regular readers. I've regularly complained about Tom Cruise's acting ability, but now I've watched one of his films and even given it a good rating. Let's just say that I keep an open mind. Even the worst actors have their day. Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't a good actor, but he was perfect in "Terminator". Keanu Reeves is also a poor actor, but he was the perfect choice for "The Matrix". Kyle McLachlan is probably the worst actor I know, but who else could have starred in "Twin Peaks"? I watched "Rock of Ages" because of the music, and I have to admit that Tom Cruise didn't do a bad job as the washed up rock star Stacee Jaxx. Supposedly washed up, at least. Whenever he climbed on stage he found his old magic.

When this film was in the cinemas last year a film critic for the "Metro" wrote, "It's difficult to believe we used to like music like this". He then went on to ridicule what he called "hair metal", in which long-haired men sing like castrati. I wonder what music the reviewer listens to at home? Does he prefer the type of music where black men dress like pimps and sing about bitches and hoes? No, the rock music of the 80's was real music. Calling it "hair metal" is an insult, it was never about the hair, it was all about the music. I don't like the term "glam metal" either, since it only refers to the stage shows, not the musical style.

The main characteristic of 80's rock music was that it shed the blues element that was characteristic of the big 70's rock bands like Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple. The beats were fast, the music was loud, and yes, the men sang in high pitched voices. More than the 70's, the rock music of the 80's was good time party music, uplifting, happy music. People can complain that the days are gone, but the music is still available today, on CD's or as MP3's. The music of the 80's will live on forever.

The Truman Show (5 Stars)

How many of you have had the feeling you were being watched? You might have been walking along a busy street or sitting alone in your room when you felt like someone was looking at you. Don't worry, it's quite natural, as long as it only happens occasionally. If you feel like that all the time it's paranoia.

Truman Burbank lives a normal life as an insurance salesman. But then he finds out that he's being watched by the whole world, 24 hours a day. He has no secrets. Everyone knows everything he has ever done since the day he was born. Unknown to him he is the star of the world's biggest reality show. Everyone he knows, including his parents, his wife and his friends, are actors paid to interact with him.

I've never watched any film as often as "The Truman Show". I first saw it on television in 1999 and taped it. For some reason it spoke to me at that point in my life. Over the next few months I watched it two or three times a week. Every time I watched it I looked at the film from different angles and enjoyed it more.

If anything, the film is even more relevant now than it was when it was made. Reality shows were still new in 1998; today they have taken over television. They are relatively cheap to make. They don't need highly paid actors, they just need normal people who will appear on screen for almost nothing. Reality shows satisfy the voyeuristic lusts of the general public, whether it's "Big Brother" or "The Osbournes". In 1998 "The Truman Show" was an outlandish piece of fiction, today it's very feasible.

This was Jim Carrey's first role in a serious film. He's still considered a comedy actor, but his non-comedy films are better. "The Truman Show", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", "The Majestic", "Number 23", "Man on the Moon". All are brilliant and unforgettable films. Special mention should be made of Ed Harris, who plays Christof. This is the best film of his career. Una Damon also shines in her role as his assistant Chloe.

Click here to view the trailer.

Shoot 'Em Up (2 Stars)

A man known only as Mr. Smith is sitting at a bus stop when he witnesses a pregnant woman being pursued by men with guns. He rushes to her rescue and helps to deliver the baby while still in a gun fight with the men. He goes into hiding with the woman, but he is discovered and the woman is shot. He thinks this is the end of the problems, but more men come after him attempting to kill the baby. He struggles to find out why it's so important that the baby has to die.

The whole film is a series of gun fights strung together by a scanty plot. Everything is played for shock value to make the viewer gasp as he sees it. This isn't negative in itself; I can enjoy a film that has little or no plot if the action appeals to me. But if there is a plot, it has to make sense. This is the main reason why I didn't enjoy the film. The explanations which Mr. Smith finally finds for the bounty on the baby's life are very thin and difficult to believe. The film is a showcase for Clive Owen's acting talents, but the story is disappointing.

Click here to view the trailer.