Nobody 2 (4½ Stars)

As promised, today I returned to the cinema to watch "Nobody 2" again after re-watching the first film yesterday. I was presently surprised to see that the cinema was more than half full, despite the film being in its third week. It's good to see that films can make a profit in these rough days. It's true, a lot of films are poorly made and don't deserve to make a profit, but so many viewers are scared away from the cinema and fail to go to see excellent films like "The Life of Chuck". There needs to be more marketing to persuade people to go to see films in the cinema instead of waiting to see them on streaming platforms. What sort of marketing? If I could answer that question I'd be a millionaire advertising executive.

Today I hesitated to go to the cinema because the film was shown dubbed into German. I shouldn't have worried. The dubbing was excellent.

Once more, Hutch Mansell's adventures are a clone of the John Wick films. Hutch even loses his finger. That's the only spoiler you'll get from me.

Nobody 2 (4 Stars)

When I reviewed "Nobody" in 2023, I said that a sequel is unnecessary. That's still my opinion, but I have to admit that "Nobody 2" is a good attempt to continue with the character Hutch Mansell. My only problem with the film is that the action is too unfeasible. Okay, I admit that the action in the John Wick films is also over-the-top, but Hutch Mansell is portrayed as anormal man, not a superhero, not a Baba Yaga, and yet he still triumphs against overwhelming odds. I need to make more of an effort to suspend disbelief next time I watch it.

I can recommend the film to anyone who wants to watch a good popcorn movie with a lot of action.

Basic Instinct (5 Stars)

There's something that I've told my friends in person, but I haven't mentioned it in my blog. I find smoking so revolting that I penalise films that show the main characters with cigarettes in their mouths. If there's just brief smoking I deduct half a star from the rating the film would otherwise have received, but if there's a lot of smoking I deduct a whole star.

"Basic Instinct" is an exception. The film contains smoking, but I accept it because the cigarettes are essential to the plot. The film has been criticised for glamorising smoking, but I don't see it that way. Smoking is portrayed as a vice, and when Detective Nick Curran begins to smoke again after three months without cigarettes, it's a part of his steady decline.

I'm going to see "Basic Instinct" in the cinema next month, the first time I've seen it on the big screen. I'm already excited to see it. The best films really need to be seen on a large cinema screen.

Success Rate:  + 5.2

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

P. S. Can anyone explain to me why "Basic Instinct" is out of print in America? It's possible to order imported copies from Amazon, but you won't find it in any high street stores. Is it America's prudishness?

Basic Instinct (5 Stars)

This is an incredible film, so good that I've watched it six times since 2010, including twice last year. That also means that I've written all I can about it. Read one of my old reviews. You can find them listed in my alphabetical list of posts.

Success Rate:  + 5.2

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

Lovelace (4 Stars)

True Stories #36

Name: Linda Lovelace

Lived: 10 January 1949 – 22 April 2002

Film dates: 1970 to 1980

Film made in 2013

Ten years ago the actress Julie K. Smith was active on Facebook. I often spoke with her. She read my blog, and she commented on my reviews of her films. She recommended the film "Lovelace" to me. She said that it had Oscar written all over it. I'd missed the film in the cinema, but I bought it on DVD as soon as possible, based on Julie's recommendation. No, it didn't win any Academy Awards, and it wasn't even nominated. To be honest, I didn't expect it to win any awards. It's not the sort of film that finds recognition.

The film is based on Linda's autobiography, written in 1980, but many of the people mentioned in the book claims that she's lying. Her publisher asked her to take a lie detector test. She passed, but there are ways of beating the machine. When I was at university one of my professors, an ardent opponent of lie detectors, gave his class instructions on how to beat the machine. I still remember everything, just in case I ever have to take a test.

The film is shown in two halves. In the first half we see Linda as the world saw her. It was a glamorous  life, and she was envied by all. In the second half her story begins again, and we're shown what really happened behind closed doors.

Linda Boreman was born in New York in 1949. After an unwanted pregnancy her family moved to Florida to get her away from temptation. She married a man called Chuck Traynor. In his own words, he owned a restaurant which sold good food and had beautiful waitresses. That was a euphemism for a titty bar. Linda didn't approve, so she stayed away from the restaurant and never asked Chuck about it.

Chuck was always in debt. He had connections in the pornography industry, so he got her a role in a film. He didn't even tell her what she was auditioning for. She thought it was a serious film, but it was actually the infamous movie "Deep Throat". This made her famous, bringing her together with film stars and other celebrities. She even became friends with Hugh Hefner, who's played by James Franco in this film.

That's a handsome young Hef. Did he really look so good?

In the second half of the film we see what the first half omitted. Linda was never happy with her husband. Chuck raped her on her wedding night. Is that at all possible? Evidently, yes. He had sex with her in a way that hurt her, and he didn't listen when she repeatedly told him to stop. Adding insult to injury, the next morning he was enthusiastic about how good it was. In the following months and years he often beat her.

The casting for "Deep Throat" was more than just reading lines. Chuck told her she had to sleep with four men from the film studio. When she refused, he held a gun to her head and threatened to kill her if she didn't go through with it.

Linda made the film, doing everything that was expected of her. When it was finished, she was credited as Linda Lovelace. She never picked the name for herself. It was given to her by the film producers, and they didn't even consult her.

Linda was ripped off. The film made over $30 million at the box office, and another $500 million in video sales. She was paid $1250, and she didn't even receive that, because Chuck took it to pay off his debts. She was asked to film a sequel, but she refused. "Deep Throat" was the beginning and end of her film career.

If you check IMDB, you'll see that she made another two films, "Deep Throat 2" and "Linda Lovelace for President". That's where different stories are told. Linda claims that these two films were patched together from unused footage for "Deep Throat". The film producers contradict this. 40 years later it's impossible to be certain, but my gut feeling tells me to believe Linda's words.

While watching the first half of the film I thought to myself that I ought to watch "Deep Throat". It's a gap in the education of a serious film fan. After watching the second half I said No on principle. I don't want to watch any film that a woman is forced into against her will.

Today Linda Lovelace is still considered to be the most famous porn star of all time. That's remarkable, considering she was only a porn star for 17 days.

Success Rate:  - 4.4

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

Basic Instinct (5 Stars)

I watched "Basic Instinct" two months ago as one of my top 100 films, but I thought I'd return to it today to listen to the film commentary by Camille Paglia. It's very rare for me to listen to a film commentary more than once, but this is an excellent commentary, judging the film from a feminist perspective. It's been about 12 years since I listened to the commentary, so I only remembered the main points, not the details.

Camille Paglia is the Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia. She's an expert on the films of Alfred Hitchcock, and she draws many comparisons with Hitchcock's films, especially "Vertigo". She sees a connection between Sharon Stone and the blondes in Hitchcock's films.

Paglia describes the police station as a boys club. With the exception of Elizabeth Garner, the police psychologist, we only see men. Among themselves the men feel strong. They invite Catherine Tramell into the station for interrogation. They seek to intimidate her by facing her five on one in the interrogation room. Within minutes the tables are turned. Catherine's sexual openness in her answers, combined with the exposure of naked flesh, intimidates the men. 

Catherine Tramell's body language proclaims her self-confidence. One of the most powerful strategies of a woman is to give overt sexual signs to a man when he's not in a position to answer them. This drives men into a state of frenzy. They desperately try to remain calm and do their job, but they end up shrinking away in fear. Catherine Tramell has emasculated the male horde facing her.

Catherine's main target is Detective Nick Curran. She's writing a book about a detective who falls in love with the wrong woman and ends up being killed by her. It's a cat and mouse game. Catherine lures Nick with her sexual wiles. She gives him glimpses of her naked body while she's a murder suspect. He can't stay away from her, even though he knows she could kill him at any moment. He willingly lets her tie him to the bed, even though she's suspected of having killed the last man she tied to a bed. This proves the words in Valerie Solanas' Scum Manifesto: "The male likes death. It excites him sexually and he wants to die".

When "Basic Instinct" was released in 1992 there were mass protests throughout America. It was claimed that the film shows feminists and lesbians in a bad light. I have difficulty understanding this, and Camille Paglia definitely disagrees. Sharon Stone portrays Catherine as a feminist icon. She's responsible for at least four deaths, but Paglia never calls her evil. She compares her with a pagan Goddess. If men like Nick come to her and beg to be killed, she's doing them a kindness by ending their lives. In ancient pagan temples it was common for men to offer themselves as sacrifices to a priestess.

The film ends with uncertainty. Catherine Tramell spares Nick's life, but she can kill him any time she wants.

Success Rate:  + 5.2

Basic Instinct (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #33

Has it really been six years since I last watched "Basic Instinct"? Wow! I shouldn't have waited so long.

The Coronavirus has ravaged the film industry. Cinemas have closed for months on end, and films that should have been made last year are still stalled because of the danger of infection. It's a tragedy. Even when/if the virus has been defeated, the film industry will never return to the way it used to be. However, I thought about something yesterday while I was standing in front of my bookcases looking at my film collection: even if no films are ever made again, I have enough first class films on disc to watch and enjoy for the rest of my life. Why do I need something new?

I have the habit of calling films made since 1996 new films and films made before 1996 old films. That's not completely arbitrary. 1996 is the year when the first DVDs were sold. That doesn't mean that the production quality of films suddenly became better in this year. There were excellent films in the 1980's and poor films in the 2000's. All I'm saying is that from 1996 on films were made taking into account that more people would watch them on high quality discs at home than on a cinema screen.

By that definition, "Basic Instinct" is an old film, since it was made in 1992. It's an incredible film, one of the first erotic thrillers, and still the best erotic thriller ever made. It's a film that's loved for the wrong reasons and hated for the wrong reasons. It's infamous for giving a glimpse of Sharon Stone's naked vulva when she uncrosses her legs. Some people criticise this for exploiting a woman, but they just don't get it. It has to be seen in context. Sharon Stone plays Catherine Tramell, a powerful, self-confident woman. She's sitting in a police interrogation room facing four policemen and an assistant district attorney. This would intimidate any other woman, but not Catherine. She's already revealing a lot of leg in a short dress, keeping the men's minds off their work, but she gives the men a slow, deliberate flash in the middle of the questioning. I almost feel sorry for the men. They're sitting red-faced with embarrassment, trying to hide their erections while Catherine mischievously grins at them. She's turned the tables.

Power.

It's all about power.

Female power.

The film isn't really about sex. There's a lot of sexual interaction, but sex is merely a tool used by Catherine Tramall to remain in control. She flirts with the men around her, teasing them, intimidating them. Her main focus is the detective Nick Curran, played by Michael Douglas. Reading between the lines we can assume that she's had him in her sights for years, long before she commits the murder that he's investigating. She seduces him, but that isn't enough for her. She puts him in a situation where he thinks she's about to kill him. She wants to terrify him to keep him under her control.

Later in the film Nick tells Catherine he's in love with her. He isn't. It's pure lust, but by this point Nick is so mixed up that he can't tell the difference. Catherine is manipulating him, and he doesn't even notice.

The film is currently out of print in most countries, but I've read that a new remastered version will be released next month. The new Blu-ray should include the excellent commentary by the feminist critic Camille Paglia, which was only included on the DVD releases until now.

Success Rate:  + 5.2

The Disaster Artist (5 Stars)

The best thing about reviewing true stories is that I don't have to worry about spoilers, especially if it's a story that's well known. In the case of this film it's even easier because the plot itself is so simple. Let's get the plot out of the way first:

Tommy Wiseau meets Greg Sestero in acting classes in San Francisco. They move to Los Angeles and make a film called "The Room", which is considered to be the worst film ever made.

That's it. No spoilers.

Tommy Wiseau was, and still is, a mystery. To this day nobody knows how old he is, where he comes from or how he became so rich. In 1998, when he met Greg, he claimed to be 19, but he was probably in his mid 40's. He said he was from New Orleans, but his accent sounded like he came from Eastern Europe. An investigator claims to have evidence that he was born in Poland, but Tommy has never confirmed it. As for the source of his money, it's a complete mystery. He invested six million dollars to make "The Room", and how much money he still has left is a closely guarded secret. Estimates range from $500,000 to $20 million.

Tommy Wiseau had unshakeable confidence in himself and the quality of his film. He thought it was good enough to win Academy Awards, even though it only earned $1800 in its opening weekend. Some people claim that the film has finally become profitable due to its notoriety as a bad film, but that's questionable. The midnight screenings at Arthouse cinemas don't earn much money.

Is it really the worst film ever made? That's a matter of opinion, and it depends on the criteria. I've seen films that I consider worse, such as "Jupiter Ascending". There's a common expression that says a film is "so bad that it's good", but I think that expression is only used by people who don't want to admit that they don't know what they're talking about. A film might have technical errors but still be exciting and enjoyable. Another film might be technically perfect but boring. "Jupiter Ascending" fits into the latter category. The best example of the former category is "Plan 9 from Outer Space", which used to be called the world's worst film.

I've only watched "The Room" once. I can't judge it impartially, and I don't even intend to try. I'll probably watch it again soon, but only in order to put "The Disaster Artist" into context. It's probably impossible to understand "The Disaster Artist" if you've never seen "The Room".

James Franco won the Golden Globe award for Best Actor for his role as Tommy Wiseau. This was well deserved, and I'm surprised he hasn't been nominated for the Academy Awards. The film is hilarious, and the cinema audience was in stitches. They weren't laughing with Tommy, they were laughing at him. Does Tommy care? I doubt it. If he'd made a good film he would have been forgotten by now. By making a bad film he's established himself as a legend.

P.S. If you haven't seen the film yet, make sure you don't miss the after-credits scene in which the real Tommy Wiseau appears.

Basic Instinct (5 Stars)

30 films to watch before you die, #12

I'm sure most of my readers have seen "Basic Instinct", the 1992 film that stands out as the best erotic thriller ever made, but I'll point out some details you might have missed. Look at the newspaper pictured above. You can click on it to enlarge it.

The relevant article is in the middle, but we can only read part of it because the newspaper is folded. It says:

---

Cop cleared in Tourist Shooting

Grand Jury Says Shooting Accidental

 
Authorities acknowledged today that Inspector Nick Curran of
.....
Inspector Curran was involved in the shooting death of tourists who were visiting in San Francisco. The board will re-instate Inspector Curran to full duty.
.....
A suggestion that public hearings on applications be limited to one every six months was taken under advisement by the commission. (I'll call this Paragraph K).
.....

---

The third paragraph seems less relevant, doesn't it? If you look at the top right paragraph in the article about Kuwait you'll see it contains the identical words. Sloppy.

Now check the article on the left. In the left column there are two paragraphs:

---

Thus at the conference all our governments found themselves in unanimous agreement regarding this undertaking. Arrangements for dealing with questions and disputes were further improved. (Paragraph 1).

Of no less importance was the common recognition shown of the fact that any menace from without to the peace of our continents concerns all of us and therefore property is a subject for consideration and cooperation. This was reflected in the instruments adopted by the conference. (Paragraph 2).

---

Now if you look at the second column you'll see that the paragraphs 2, 1, 2 and 1 are repeated again. Very sloppy.

A few seconds later the newspaper is unfolded and we can see the bottom of the newspaper.

Let's go back to the article on Nick Curran. Now we can see the missing part of the first paragraph. The text reads, from the beginning:

---

Authorities acknowledged today that Inspector Nick Curran of the San Francisco Police Department will be re-instated to active duty. (Paragraph A).

Many persons feel at this stage that some legal action is forthcoming but it now becomes common knowledge that there is pressure from the inside which will materially change the aspect of the case. (Paragraph M).

Residents feel that they have been taken advantage of ever since the tax laws governing their additional land holdings were reviewed and increased.

---

What does the third paragraph have to do with the first two paragraphs? Nothing. But then paragraph 2 from the article on the left is repeated, followed by paragraph K from the Kuwait article, then the "Many persons" paragraph again.

The centre column continues with a photo of Nick Curran, followed by another repeat of Paragraph K.

The third column begins, as we already saw, with paragraph K, and then it is followed by pagraphs 1 and 2 from the article on the left.

I'll let my readers study the continuations of the articles on the left and right for themselves. They too degenerate into random repetitions. It's amazing that a film with a budget of $49 million created such a sloppy newspaper. If they had paid me $100 I would have written a random text about Nick Curran which would have been a lot more realistic, and I would have borrowed news reports from online newspaper sites for the other two articles.

Apart from the totally unnecessary blunder with the newspaper, it's an excellent film, in my opinion one of the best films ever made.

Other examples of erotic thrillers are

• Poison Ivy (1992)
• The Crush (1993)
• Chloe (2010)

Basic Instinct (5 Stars)

She's evil! She's brilliant!

These words, spoken by Dr. Elisabeth Garner in the film, are just two of Catherine Tramell's qualities. They're probably her most important qualities. I'd add to them:

She's beautiful! She's rich!

I've seen Sharon Stone in many films, made both before and after "Basic Instinct", but I've never seen her looking as attractive as in this film. She looks like the perfect femme fatale. I wouldn't call "Basic Instinct" an example of film noir, but it certainly has a lot of the characteristics.

It's a perfect film. I can't fault it in any way. Even down to the small details, like the detective's shirt when he goes to the night club. He's obviously trying to look cool, but doing things wrong. He's totally out of place among the ravers.

Click here for my last review.

Broken Flowers (3½ Stars)

Don Johnston, played by Bill Murray, is an ageing gigolo whose latest girlfriend has just left him. On the day of her departure he receives an anonymous letter telling him that he has an 18-year-old son who is looking for him. He didn't know he has a son, and he wants to know who the mother is. Based on the letter's postmark he narrows it down to five of his ex-girlfriends. He sets out on a journey to visit each one of them.

Is this a good film? A bad film? I can't really say. The film is stylish and has a strong sense of purpose, and it seems to be getting somewhere, but in the end -- and I know this is a spoiler -- it gets nowhere. The women are fascinating, each one different from the one before, but apart from the first he visits, played by Sharon Stone, there's no possibility of a romance rekindling. Bill Murray's usual low key acting makes me wonder how he could have been so successful with women. Maybe they only wanted his money.

I can't criticise the film for leaving loose ends, because I know this was deliberate. But it's still unsatisfying.

Lovelace (4½ Stars)

How can a film this good be such a failure? The budget was $10 million, but it only earned $1.5 at the box office. Maybe the subject matter was too controversial. Maybe people stayed away because of false expectations? For me there was one main reason for watching it: it stars Amanda Seyfried in the title role, and her acting abilities lend magic to any film she appears in. I wasn't disappointed.

The film is about Linda Lovelace, probably the most famous porn actress ever, even though she only worked as a porn star for 17 days. These 17 days forever defined the perception people have about her. Is that fair? Maybe not, but it's normal. For instance, Roger Bannister is known for four minutes of his life, even though there must be much more to him.

She was born as Linda Boreman in 1949. She married the bar owner and small-time crook Chuck Traynor in 1971. It was Chuck who encouraged her to become a porn star. After leaving him in 1974 she disappeared from the public eye.

I felt unhappy during the first half of the film. It tells of Linda's meteoric rise to fame, and how she mingled with mainstream celebrities. It all seemed so shallow to me. But then I realised this was deliberate. The first half speaks of the Linda Lovelace we know, the second half speaks about the real Linda. The clock rewinds, and we see the same events as in the first half, but we're also told what happened behind the scenes. This is a very effective way of telling a story. I suspect that some "professional" reviewers who call the film shallow only watched the first half before forming an opinion.

Linda was a victim of domestic abuse from the beginning of her married life. Chuck forced her into pornography against her will in order to pay off his debts. In addition to this he pimped her as a prostitute, knowing that her fame could earn him big money. However much she earned for him he remained in debt, due to his luxurious lifestyle and his drug habits. It's estimated that "Deep Throat" was the most successful porn film of all time, earning $600 million. Linda only received $1250. She claims that she was exploited by both Chuck and the film company, but the film company denies this, saying that they honoured all contracts signed with her husband.

This is a deeply emotional film. The second half of it, at least. I was sobbing when it ended.

Linda Lovelace
January 10, 1949 – April 22, 2002

Basic Instinct (5 Stars)

"Basic Instinct" is a first rate film that is well known for all the wrong reasons. If you mention it to someone they'll start talking about the grand opening in the interrogation scene. And they'll also point out that it features Sharon Stone, a "serious actress", in nude scenes. Yes, that's all true, but this film has so much more going for it. It's so perfectly crafted, everything from the character development to the suspense and action scenes, that it could be called the best film ever made. More than anything else I compare "Basic Instinct" to Alfred Hitchcock's films. It's the sort of film he might have made, about a washed out police detective investigating a beautiful blonde in a story full of twists, except it has more sex.

I think the story is well known. An ex-rock singer is found stabbed to death with an ice pick during sex. His girlfriend was a millionaire authoress who had written a book about a rock singer being killed during sex. The police detective who investigates her falls in love with her.

That's a simple enough story that could have been made into a very bland film in the hands of a less capable director. Paul Verhoeven rose to the task and created the greatest masterpiece of his career. The film is an ode to feminism, maybe a theme that Hitchcock would have avoided. The film is full of strong women and weak men. Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is the murderer, as the viewer realises very early in the film, but she uses her intelligence and sexual attraction to guide the police investigations, leading them to the conclusions she wants them to reach. She toys with detective Nick Curran (Michael Douglas), telling him that she's writing a book about him in which he will be killed after falling in love with the wrong woman, then tempts him to get closer to her.

In the famous interrogation scene Catherine Tramell opens her legs and lets the police officers see that she's wearing no panties. This is all about control. She sits self-confidently in front of a group of men who are nervous and sweating. Also interesting is her posture afterwards. Her legs are crossed in a way that almost but not quite reveals her crotch. This keeps the men staring at her, hoping for another flash between her legs, unable to concentrate on the interrogation. This is more effective than if she had simply sat with her legs open for the whole interrogation.

Nick is the main focus of her attention, of course. He's given up drinking and smoking, but she entices him to take up both again. While together in bed after sex she feeds him clues about a possible murder suspect, and he is too befuddled to doubt her. Despite the large number of deaths in her past – her parents, her college counsellor, her ex-lovers – he remains convinced of her innocence. She flaunts an ice pick in his presence. She ties him up during sex, to show him that she could kill him at any time if she wanted to.

Catherine's superiority over Nick is emphasised in many details that might not be obvious on first viewing. She's much richer than he is. She has two luxurious houses, he lives in a small apartment. Her car is better and faster than his. She always lets him know when he's welcome and when he isn't, such as initially rejecting his advances in the nightclub. She makes him put his life in danger for her, not just in the sex I mentioned above. She encourages him to pursue her on the road, which almost gets him into a deadly car accident.

Having said all of that, watch out for the smaller details for yourself. The characters are all believable, the scenery is beautiful, and the action is exciting. I can't fault the film in any way.