Forrest Gump (5 Sars)

There are several ways to look at Forrest Gump, but whenever I watch it, I'm most conscious of the way it tells the story of modern American history through the eyes of a man who never fully understands what's happening around him.

Forrest is a true innocent, a man who stumbles through life from one adventure or crisis to another. He meets presidents, serves in Vietnam, witnesses political scandals and finds himself caught up in cultural upheavals, yet he never really grasps their historical significance. He simply experiences them as they happen. It's a clever narrative device, allowing the film to move through decades of American history without becoming a history lesson. There's also a subtle satire in the contrast between the extraordinary events unfolding around Forrest and his uncomplicated response to them.

Tom Hanks gives an outstanding performance in the title role. He creates a character who could easily have become a caricature, but Forrest is never merely the butt of a joke. His intelligence may be limited, but his sincerity, loyalty and capacity for love are unquestionable. He doesn't complicate his life by trying to understand everything. He simply does what he believes is right, often with remarkable results.

< />

Jenny, by contrast, spends much of her life searching for happiness and repeatedly makes choices that bring her more suffering. Her troubled childhood offers a possible explanation for her inability to accept the love and security Forrest has always been willing to give her. Where Forrest moves through life with an almost unshakeable innocence, Jenny seems unable to escape her past. Their relationship is one of the film's saddest elements, particularly because the happiness Forrest wants for them seems so attainable.

The film combines comedy, romance and tragedy, but it never loses sight of the people at its centre. Its technical achievements, particularly the way Forrest is integrated into historical footage, help bring its unusual premise to life. Yet the special effects are ultimately less important than the emotional journey.

Forrest Gump is a film about an extraordinary life lived by a remarkably ordinary man. Through Forrest's eyes, history becomes a succession of strange and sometimes absurd events, while the things that matter most remain surprisingly simple: love, friendship, loyalty and the people we share our lives with.

It's a film that overwhelms me every time I watch it.

Success Rate:  + 10.4

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

Toy Story (3 Stars)

Disney Wednesday #30

I've rarely felt so ashamed to give a film a low rating. While watching "Toy Story" with my granddaughter Evelyn I could objectively accept that it's a good film, but it didn't excite me. Usually when I watch children's films I try to see them through a child's eyes, but this time I couldn't. I've made an effort to write a fair review, but my three star rating will will remain unchanged.

Evelyn laughed out loud while the film ran. What did she see that I didn't? She saw a world where her greatest wish is true: her toys really are alive.

To a young child, Woody isn't just a cowboy doll and Buzz Lightyear isn't just a plastic spaceman. They're friends with their own hopes, fears and adventures, carrying on secret lives whenever grown ups aren't looking. It's an irresistible idea that encourages children to see their own bedrooms as places of endless possibility.

The story is simple enough for young viewers to follow, yet exciting enough to keep them on the edge of their seats. There are funny characters, colourful settings and just enough danger to make Woody and Buzz's journey thrilling without becoming frightening.

Most importantly, the film celebrates imagination. After the credits roll, children don't just remember the story, they return to their own toys and continue it themselves. That's the real magic of "Toy Story". It doesn't end when the television is switched off; it inspires hours of make believe long afterwards. Few films understand childhood quite so well.

Success Rate:  + 11.4

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

Splash (5 Stars)

At first glance "Splash" looks like a straightforward romantic fantasy; what gives it staying power is how quietly peculiar it is. It drifts between tones, never quite settling, and that sense of imbalance is exactly what has allowed it to gather a cult following over time.

The premise is simple enough. Tom Hanks plays a lonely New Yorker who falls for a woman who happens to be a mermaid, played with detached serenity by Daryl Hannah. Around them, the film builds a world that feels only loosely tethered to reality. Scenes unfold with a kind of dream logic; the mermaid learns English from television, adapts to human life with improbable ease, and the story barely pauses to question any of it.

That refusal to over-explain is central to its cult appeal. Director Ron Howard lets the film slip between romance, farce and something more wistful without drawing firm boundaries. One moment plays like broad comedy, the next carries a surprising emotional weight. Cult films often live in that unstable space; they don't fit neatly into a single genre, and that makes them feel more personal to the audiences who return to them.

There's also the sense of a film caught between identities. Released through Touchstone Pictures, "Splash" sits somewhere between family-friendly fantasy and more adult romantic comedy. That tension gives it an edge; it feels slightly more daring than its premise suggests, yet never loses its softness. For many viewers discovering it on home video, it had the air of something both familiar and faintly subversive.

Its most lasting cultural impact, though, comes from a small, almost throwaway moment. When Hannah's character needs a human name, she chooses "Madison" from a street sign. Hanks' character even remarks on how unusual it sounds as a first name. In 1984 that was true; Madison was primarily a surname, historically meaning "son of Maud".

The film changed that. In the years following its release, "Madison" surged in popularity as a girl's name, particularly in the United States. What began as a joke became a trend; within a decade, the name moved from rarity to mainstream, eventually becoming one of the defining names of its generation. Few films have reshaped everyday culture in such a specific way, and fewer still have done so so casually.

That odd, lingering influence is what defines "Splash" as a cult film. It's not about perfection; the film meanders, and its fantasy is never fully grounded. What it offers instead is a distinct tone, a handful of memorable ideas, and a series of moments that stay with you long after the plot fades. Among them is a single name, lifted from a sign and given a new life, which might be the film's strangest and most enduring legacy.

Success Rate:  + 4.3

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

Captain Phillips (5 Stars)

"Captain Phillips" follows Tom Hanks as the most stressed man on the Indian Ocean. He is just trying to deliver some cargo, drink bad coffee and fill out paperwork when a group of Somali pirates shows up in a tiny skiff that looks like it should capsize if someone sneezes.

The pirates board the ship with enthusiasm that suggests they skipped every team-building seminar known to man. Their leader, Muse, announces “I am the captain now” which instantly becomes the world’s most quoted line. Phillips tries to reason with them using the universal language of middle-aged managerial concern.

Eventually the pirates kidnap him in a lifeboat that resembles a bright orange coffin. Tom Hanks spends the rest of the film sweating, negotiating and looking like he would give anything for a nap. The US Navy arrives with enough firepower to vaporise a small moon, which makes the pirates realise this was not the best career move.

The film ends with a famous scene in which Hanks delivers the most convincing performance of a man who has absolutely had enough. It is tense, gripping and unexpectedly funny if you enjoy watching sophisticated global shipping operations undone by four men in a boat that probably needs an oil change.

Success Rate:  + 2.0

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

Cars (3 Stars)

Disney Wednesday #22

After watching "Planes" a few weeks ago, my grandson Oliver said he wanted to watch "Cars". Have any of my regular readers noticed that I've added his name as a label to all the films he's watched with me? It helps me keep track of his viewing history, although he's started watching films with other family members.

"Cars" is an animated film made by Pixar Studios for Walt Disney in 2006. It takes place in a world populated by intelligent speaking cars. It's about a newbie racing car called Lightning McQueen who wants to win the prestigious Piston Cup. The first race is a three-way draw with the reigning champion Strip Weathers and the arrogant Chick Hicks. A second race is scheduled in Los Angeles a week later. On the journey Lightning falls out of his transport truck. He races towards California, but he's stopped for speeding and has to do community service in the small town of Radiator Springs. It lies on Route 66 and used to be a busy community, but now that Interstate 40 has been built it's practically a ghost town. The residents roll around complaining about the good old days. Lightning was always a loner, but he begins to make friends with the cars in Radiator Springs.

I have mixed feelings about the film. The story is interesting, but I'm put off by the constant fast, hectic dialogue. Apart from that, the concept of talking cars doesn't appeal to me. Oliver liked the film a lot, so maybe I should try to see it more from a child's perspective.

There are several well known actors who provide the voice for the cars, including Owen Wilson as Lightning McQueen. Why? I don't see the point in hiring successful Hollywood actors for voice roles. It must make the film more expensive. For me as a viewer it just makes me scratch my head when I hear a voice. "Is that <fill-in-the blank>? It sounds like him". I'm sure there are lesser known voice actors who can do just as good a job.

Success Rate:  + 1.9

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

Asteroid City (2 Stars)

What is the director Wes Anderson trying to do? Does he want to entertain the audience or just provoke us? I honestly don't know. I felt provoked. There were two young women sitting in front of me who felt just as provoked. Every time something strange happened in the film they turned and looked at one another. About half an hour from the end one of them put on her jacket and wanted to leave, but her friend tugged at her and told her to stay. It's a film that I almost walked out of. As it was, I was the only person in the cinema who remained seating to watch the bird hopping around during the final credits.

It's a film within a film, or rather a play within a film. It's about a playwright who writes, casts and directs a play about a group of people, mostly stargazers, who come together in a fictional city in the desert. While being told about an asteroid that fell in the desert thousands of years ago, an alien arrives and takes the asteroid away.

It's deliberately left unclear what's part of the play and what's really happening. It's possible that a real alien arrives while the play is running.

Wes Anderson has put a lot of work into the visual effects of the film. That's the only reason I haven't given the film a one star rating. I didn't enjoy it, and I have no intention to ever watch it again.

Elvis (4 Stars)

I'll start off by saying what's great about this film: Austin Butler's portrayal of Elvis Presley. He's an actor that I hardly know; I only remember seeing him as Tex in "Once upon a time in Hollywood". Whenever he steps onto the stage to start singing there's electricity in the room. It isn't just the girls watching him who're excited, the spark jumps over to the cinema audience.

The film's faults, the reasons why I haven't given it a full five star rating, lie in the film's writing and directing, both of which are the responsibility of Baz Luhrmann. He made certain decisions in the way he crafted the film, and I believe his decisions were wrong. The film begins as told through the eyes of Colonel Tom Parker as he discovers young Elvis. That gives the impression that the film is about Parker, not Elvis. That would have been a good film. But then we jump to flashbacks of Elvis' early life. Tom Parker slips into the background. As the film progresses, Parker comes and goes, and whenever he appears he acts as narrator in voiceover. He's an unreliable narrator. I like the concept of an unreliable narrator, it isn't used in films enough, but it also isn't used in "Elvis" enough. The problem is Tom Parker; either he should have been the main focus of the film, or he should have been pushed to the outskirts and only shown through Elvis' eyes.

The early part of the film is very staccato. We see phases in Elvis' development, but we don't see how he progresses from one phase to the next. We don't see how the young boy in Memphis became the King of Rock'n'Roll. Let's compare "Elvis" with a similar film. "Rocketman" succeeds in telling us how Reginald Dwight became Elton John, which makes it a much better film. Even "Bohemian Rhapsody", though not quite on the same level as "Rocketman", shows the development of Farrokh Bulsara to Freddie Mercury. Baz Luhrmann should have learnt from those films.

Another thing that annoyed me about the film was the final credits. After hearing great songs sung by Elvis, there were rap songs which use samples of Elvis' singing. Ugh! What sort of people like nasty music like that? I certainly don't.

I still think that "Elvis" is a good film. But it could have been a lot better.

Catch me if you can (4½ Stars)

True Stories #19

Name: Frank Abagnale

Lived: 27 April 1948 – still alive

Film dates: 1963 to 1974

Film made in 2002

From one con man to another. Steve Russell was a master con man, but Frank Abagnale was possibly the greatest con man who ever lived. His expertise was forgery, which he mastered at a young age. By the time he was 17 he'd gained $1.3 million by fraud, and by the time he was 19 it was $4 million. That was the 1960's. Allowing for inflation, you need to multiply those figures by nine.

Maybe he was too greedy. If he'd stopped stealing after his first million he would have had enough money to last the rest of his life, and he probably wouldn't have been caught. That's the trouble with money. If you love money, you can never have enough.

Frank Abagnale left home when he was 16, because he was traumatised by his parents' divorce. He paid for his rent by writing cheques, but he could never stay in one place long, because the cheques bounced and he was evicted. He had the idea to forge cheques issued by banks the other side of the country. In the pre-Internet days this meant that it took weeks for the cheques to be recognised as fakes. In order to cash cheques he needed credibility. He did this by wearing a pilot's uniform. Everyone trusts an airline pilot.

He forged university certificates to become a doctor, and then a lawyer. All the time he was writing cheques. The FBI detected him. Agent Carl Hanratty pursued Frank from one side of the country to the other. A bizarre relationship developed between the two. They had respect for one another, as if they were boxers duelling in the ring. Frank rang Carl every year on 24th December to wish him a Merry Christmas. Wasn't he afraid of having his call traced?

Eventually Frank was arrested in France and imprisoned in very unsanitary conditions. The film doesn't tell the whole story. According to Wikipedia, "At Perpignan he was held nude in a tiny, filthy, lightless cell that he was never allowed to leave. The cell lacked toilet facilities, a mattress, or a blanket, and food and water were strictly limited". Carl had Frank extradited to America so he would be treated better. While in prison in America Carl frequently consulted Frank for help catching other cheque forgers. Frank's assistance was so invaluable that after four years he was released and hired by the FBI. He became the FBI's top expert on cheque forgery.

This is an excellent film directed by Steven Spielberg. As I've said before, Steven Spielberg never makes a bad film. Tom Hanks is a phenomenal actor, and Leonardo DiCaprio also has great talent. They bounce off one another by their contrast between a humourless, uptight FBI agent and a flamboyant young man.

Success Rate:  + 4.8

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

Forrest Gump (5 Stars)

This is a film that I expect all of my readers have seen. In 1994 it was nominated for 13 Oscars, of which it won six, including the Best Film award.

The film tells the story of a man who's mentally subnormal and wanders through life as if in a trance, hardly understanding what's happening around him. Through luck, rather than his own abilities, he becomes a multi-millionaire, but he gives most of it away because he has no need for money. All his life he's in love with Jenny, a girl he met on the bus on his first day at school. She likes him, but she doesn't love him. She's attracted to other men who hit her. She's a tragic figure.

How subnormal is Forrest Gump? It's claimed he has an IQ of 75. It's common for people with an IQ below 70 to be institutionalised, so he's a borderline case. His mother is told that a child with an IQ below 80 has to be educated in a special needs school, but she has sex with the junior school headmaster to persuade him to accept Forrest. His skill as a fast runner gets him a college football scholarship. In Vietnam he becomes a war hero. As a table tennis player he's unstoppable.

What's the message of the film? To be honest, I don't know. It shows that a person can succeed in life if he has a good heart, but I don't think that's what the director is trying to tell us. One unkind reviewer says that the film is an affirmation of white privilege, that anyone in America can succeed if he's a white male. I definitely don't think that was the director's intention. Maybe I should read a few more reviews to find the answer.

The film is based on a book with the same name, but from the brief synopsis I've read, it seems that the film deviates greatly from the book. In the book Forrest Gump is presented as autistic, with great mental abilities despite his low IQ. In the film he's merely intellectually subnormal. (I have trouble thinking of a way to describe his mental state politely).

It's been a long, long time since I watched this film. It was long before September 2010. I don't intend to wait so long to watch it again.

Success Rate:  + 10.4

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

The Green Mile (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #81

This is a film that's simply magical. The director Frank Darabont has crafted a masterpiece, but it's equally the result of a powerful story written by Stephen King. He writes gripping stories that are easily adaptable for the big screen. More of his stories have been made into films than any other author. There was an article in Empire Magazine which claimed that exactly 50 films had been made from Stephen King stories, which it listed in chronological order. As far as I remember, that article was printed round about 2005. How many more films have been made since then?

Usually Stephen King is pigeon-holed as a writer of horror stories. That's an accurate description of most of his novels, but not "The Green Mile". This novel was a supernatural fantasy. It's full of religious imagery, but there aren't any serious Christian messages. It's the quasi-Christian superstition of the ignorant people who lived in the poverty of the Great Depression. The prison guard Paul Edgecomb is genuinely afraid that he'll go to Hell. His meeting with his maker is delayed. He's 108 at the beginning of the film, but the final scenes take place some years later.

John Coffey, pictured above, has no fear of dying. He's an innocent who only thinks of doing good in his life. The aura of a film projector above his head makes him look like a saint. Can a saint live in our world? John is sentenced to death for a crime he didn't commit. Paul knows he's innocent and wants to release him, but John refuses. The evil in the world causes him pain.

"The Green Mile" has frequently been criticised for being too long. I disagree. It's slow moving and intense. Every minute of the film is building up to the emotional climax. It's a film that makes me cry every time I watch it.

Success Rate:  + 2.8

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

Borat Subsequent Moviefilm (4½ Stars)

I never expected that "Borat" would have a sequel. It was such a perfect film in itself, and its concept made it a one-off. It was all about an actor (Sacha Baron Cohen) making a fool of people by pretending to be a dim-witted foreign journalist. Due to the film's enormous popularity everyone recognises Borat Sagdiyev and knows he's a fake. This problem is solved in the sequel by Borat being in disguise for most of the film. That's an amusing concept in itself; the person in disguise puts on an extra layer of disguise.

The original film was a brilliant blend of candid photography and staged performances with actors. I suspect that the staged performances make up a larger percentage of the sequel. My assumption is that whenever Borat speaks to people without his second layer of disguise, the people are actors. 

Sacha Baron Cohen might be the brains behind the film, but the actress Maria Bakalova, who plays Borat's teenage daughter Tutar, steals the show. She arrives in America just as naive and seemingly unintelligent as her father. I say seemingly, because she shows herself to be increasingly capable as the film progresses.

But what was Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York and currently Donald Trump's attorney, doing with his hand in his trousers? He says he was tucking his shirt in, but that's not what it looks like. Why would he lie on his back to tuck his shirt in? The scene needs to be examined carefully. I just think it's a shame that Borat burst into the hotel bedroom so soon. He should have waited a few minutes to see how it would play out.

"Borat Subsequent Moviefilm" isn't quite as good as the original film. The portion of the film that takes place in America (which is 95% of the film) is brilliant, but the scenes that take place in Kazakhstan at the beginning and end are weak.

The film is being shown exclusively on Amazon Prime. I hope that my readers who subscribe to Amazon will watch it.

The Green Mile (5 Stars)

After a week at the Stuttgart Fantasy Film Festival I've gone back to my normal film viewing. I couldn't resist watching "The Green Mile" again tonight. It's one of my favourite film. Some people have criticised it for being too long. It runs 180 minutes 35 seconds from the beginning to the end, not counting the final credits. Three hours sounds like a long time. Watching the film, there are many scenes that could be sped up. There are some scenes which could be removed altogether without spoiling the story. By saying that, I mean the story would still make sense after omitting a few scenes.  If the studio bosses had applied pressure a whole hour could have been cut from the film, but I assert that removing a single second from anywhere in the film would make the film less perfect than it is. There are many small details that you might forget because they have lesser significance, like the scenes of the chain gang or the faces of the old people in the retirement home, but everything is just where it ought to be. Here are a few screenshots from the dinner party at Paul Edgecomb's home.

Tom Hanks as Paul Edgecomb, the fatigued prison guard with the life of an innocent man on his conscience.

Bonnie Hunt as the loving wife who will support her husband whatever he decides.

David Pepper as the naive young prison guard with his whole life ahead of him.

David Morse as the seasoned, mature prison guard who carefully weighs the pros and cons of Paul Edgecomb's choices.

Jeffrey DeMunn as the elderly prison guard who would rather take the safe path.

These five actors have to be praised. Even their facial expressions reveal how their characters think. "The Green Mile" is a masterpiece on so many different levels.

Success Rate:  + 2.8

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

The Post (3½ Stars)

This is a true story about the efforts made by the Washington Post to publish details from the so-called Pentagon Papers, a report on the American involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. These papers contained information never revealed to the American public that showed why the American control of Vietnam was so important. It also contained claims by the government adviser, Bob McNamara, that the war in Vietnam was unwinnable, but it had to be continued for the sake of American prestige.

The main characters in the film are Meryl Streep as Katharine Graham, the publisher of the Washington Post, and Tom Hanks as Ben Bradlee, the chief editor. I'm surprised that Meryl Streep received an Oscar nomination for her role while Tom Hanks didn't. Maybe I'm confusing the actors with the characters that they play. Ben Bradlee was a shrewd, dynamic businessman. Katharine Graham was a naive woman who had inherited the newspaper from her husband and had to rely on the opinions of her advisers. She wasn't a strong woman, but if mistakes were made she was the one that everyone would blame.

We see Katharine Graham throwing dinner parties for her rich friends, while Ben Bradlee is the one doing the work. It's difficult for me to have sympathy with her.

Her biggest business worry is that the uncovering of the Pentagon Papers was at the same time that the Washington Post became a public company on the New York Stock Exchange. There was danger that the investors would pull out and the newspaper would be bankrupted. That was a real problem for her. She loved the newspaper, and she wanted it to survive at all costs, because it was the legacy of her father and her husband.

I found the portrayal of a newspaper company fascinating because my father worked for a newspaper, the Walsall Observer, for almost 20 years. He wasn't a newspaper professional as such. His qualification was as a carpenter, but he also had skills as a plumber and electrician, so he was well-suited as an all round handyman. If anything was broken Jack Hood would fix it. Since it was a small company, much smaller than the Washington Post, he rubbed shoulders with the bosses. After my father's death in 1983 the Walsall Observer's owner visited me and praised my father greatly, for his work and for his personality.

The film takes place in 1971, the good old days when printing was an analogue business. Typesetting was just what the word says. Metal letters were set on blocks and slotted together for printing. Isn't it so much easier today, now that we can type text on a computer?

The 1971 Pentagon Papers scandal is over-shadowed by the bigger Watergate scandal that began a year later. They both have a common issue: is the press free to print whatever it wants? My answer is Yes. It's a big subject, but I have a very simple answer. It's summed up in the words of Justice Black:

"The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfil its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors".

That applies to any other country just as much as to the USA. The freedom of the press is essential in a democracy. The rulers of a country must never be beyond criticism. It's possible that a newspaper might make mistakes. It's possible that a newspaper might be politically biased and write one-sided stories. It doesn't mean that newspapers like this should be banned. They can be balanced out by the reports of other newspapers.

So what happens if someone – a whistleblower – gives state secrets to a newspaper? That's a crime, so should the newspaper be forbidden to tell the story? I say No. If it's a crime, the whistleblower should be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law. That person has broken a contract and should be treated appropriately. However, the newspaper should be allowed to do whatever it wants with the information it has received. Newspapers aren't bound by legal contracts, and they can print whatever they like.

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

A Hologram for the King (4 Stars)

Sometimes a film slips under the radar. It comes and goes without anyone noticing it was there. The film might have a big star like Tom Hanks, but in the modern world's mass production of films there are just too many for people to see all of them. A $35 million budget and less than $8 million was earned at the box office. That's unfair for a gem like this.

Tom Hanks plays Alan Clay, a salesman who travels to Saudi Arabia to sell a holographic conference system to the king. What he finds when he arrives is beyond his belief. When he visits the "king's city" he finds a building site in the middle of the desert, and he's told that the king hasn't been there for 18 months. There's a shallow front of religiousness; when he asks for a beer he's told that alcohol is illegal, but Saudi businessmen have well stocked drink cabinets in their offices.

Tom's best friend in Saudi Arabia is Youssef, a taxi driver who loves American music. Youssef helps Alan to understand the mysteries of Saudi culture, while giving him a rifle to shoot wolves at night. Nevertheless, Tom stumbles around like a sleep walker, unable to understand the bizarre things that happen around him.

Tom has a business meeting on the fifth floor of an unfinished building. No elevator, so he has to use the stairs. On the way he passes building workers beating up one of their colleagues. Keep moving, Tom, don't get involved.

Western comforts will be offered. Eventually.

In Saudi Arabia even the roads are segregated.

Tom does his best to fit in. The look suits him.

I almost forgot to mention that the film is a love story. When Tom is taken ill he meets a beautiful Saudi Arabian doctor. Is it inappropriate for a doctor to have an affair with her patient? Maybe it is in Europe, but in Saudi Arabia it's allowed. I should consider moving.

I can understand the attraction. She has beautiful eyes.

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

The Circle (4 Stars)

This is a good film that deals with important issues.

Mae Holland (Emma Watson) applies for a job at a large Internet company called The Circle. At first she treats it as only a job, but after a few weeks she's criticised for not taking part in the company's after-hours and weekend activities. It's expected that The Circle should be her whole life. She begins to get more involved with the social life surrounding the company, and she finds that she enjoys it.

The Circle is a company that is seeking 100% transparency, both on the Internet and in real life. "Secrets are lies" becomes a company slogan. Small video cameras are placed all over the world which are monitored at The Circle's headquarters. Mae volunteers to be the first person to let herself be monitored 24 hours a day. Almost 24 hours. She's allowed a three minute break when she goes to the bathroom. People all over the world observe her with voyeuristic pleasure.

Mae is completely in agreement with the company's goals, and she wants The Circle to be given more power, which pleases The Circle's founder and chief executive officer, Eamon Bailey (Tom Hanks).

There's so much that be said about the implications of the film that I hardly know where to start. The film is a social commentary on the use and the abuse of the Internet today, but it's also a warning about what could happen in the future.

In the 1940's George Orwell wrote a book called "1984", in which he predicted that a world would come in which the state, "Big Brother", would monitor everything that people do. He was wrong. In today's world the Internet and social media encourage people to allow themselves to be monitored. So many people, mostly young people, live their lives on the Internet. They post messages to Facebook many times a day to let their friends know where they are and what they're doing. Sometimes this goes to ridiculous extremes, too much information, as in the case of a friend of mine.

Post 1: "I'm about to go to the toy store".

Post 2: "I'm caught in a traffic jam".

Post 3: "I'm almost at the toy store now".

Post 4: "Now I'm in the toy store".

This might seem ridiculous, but my friend considered it natural to make these posts.

Another example of potentially unwanted information is the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine. President Putin insists that no Russian soldiers are invading Ukraine and it's just a civil war. However, Russian soldiers have been posting photos of themselves in Facebook with messages like, "My assignment to Ukraine will soon be over". Vladimir Putin lies, the Internet doesn't.

Would I like my whole life to be recorded? Yes, definitely! My earliest memories are when I was four years old, and even my later memories, up to 14, are patchy. I wish I had a recording of my whole life so that I could be reminded of everything that happened from my birth onwards. The recording would be for me, primarily, but I'd like to be able to show incidents to other people when they don't believe what I tell them.

Would I like this recording to be publicly available? That's a difficult question. I don't mind the mistakes that I've made in my life being publicised, as long as they're shown in context. I believe that whatever I did that was wrong was motivated by good intentions. Most things, anyway. When I was 11 I broke an ornament in my uncle's house, and I hid it under a chair rather than admit it. When I was six I kicked a dirty football against my mother's washing on the clothesline and denied it was me. That's the first time I've ever admitted these two wrong-doings, and I feel so free! There might be other similar transgressions that I can't remember.

I'm not ashamed of my sexual fetishes being publicised. It's not a problem for me, because none of them are illegal. Or are they? A few years ago the pornography laws were tightened in England. Among other things, films that feature face-sitting were made illegal. I was quite horrified when the changes happened. Reading between the lines, it seemed that all domination practises that appear to be non-consensual were outlawed. Could I be arrested if my life's recording showed the many times that women have suffocated me by sitting on my face?

It's not just about me, of course. There are people who have led less moral lives than me. A thief wouldn't want his thefts made public. A paedophile wouldn't want recordings of himself looking at child pornography to be revealed. But from my point of view, activities like that should be revealed to the world. Criminal acts shouldn't be hidden.

Maybe a compromise could be made. A person's whole life could be recorded for the public, with the option to block certain areas. For instance, a whole house or certain rooms could be excluded from being monitored. It's still possible for crimes to be committed. For instance, a man can kill his wife within his own home. However, it would still be enough to identify the crime. If the wife is missing, the recording would show when she last entered the house and that she didn't leave again, so the police can check if she's been buried in the cellar.

The biggest problem of absolute transparency is the possibility of abuse by a totalitarian regime. A government that expects absolute obedience might punish citizens who visit opposition rallies. There are endless dangers.

This is a subject I'd like to discuss with my readers. Please leave comments.

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.