The Doors (5 Stars)

This is the May 2024 selection for the "Best Of Cinema" film. It definitely belongs to the selection of films, unlike some others which have been announced for the coming months. I shan't name them now. Although there are differences in opinion about the quality of the film. I have a friend who's a big fan of the Doors, so much so that she even visited Jim Morrison's grave in Paris. A pilgrimage? She told me that the film is awful because it's so inaccurate. When I hear words like that I'm confused. I like the music by the Doors, especially their earlier music, but I wouldn't call myself a fan. My only knowledge of the band's history comes from this film, so I have no way of knowing how accurate it is. All I can say is that it's a good film, as far as the story is told.

Even though the film is called "The Doors", it's really a film about Jim Morrison. The other band members aren't fleshed out, they're just background figures. The film could just as well have been called "The Rise and Fall of Jim Morrison". He begins as a charismatic wild boy, and a few years later he's descended into drugs and alcohol. He makes Mick Jagger look tame in comparison.

I like the way he's portrayed in the early scenes. I see a lot of myself in him. He's a lot like I was in my mid teens, 16 to 18. It's difficult to explain what I mean. I didn't take drugs, but I still had a feeling for the world that was delirious. It's like I was high without taking drugs. I always felt that I was a hippy born too late for the hippy era. I often walked barefoot in the Walsall town centre for no other reason than to be different.

The film takes place in a different era, 1963 to 1971. Society seems so primitive. The police are always fast to step in when Jim says or does something offensive. Today people would just tut and look the other way.

I've listed Jennifer Tilly in the credits, but her scene was cut from the film. You can find it online.

Success Rate:  - 0.9

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

Planes (3½ Stars)

Disney Wednesday #21

After watching the second Planes film two days ago, my grandson Oliver insisted on watching the first. It introduces us to the cute orange plane, Dusty Crophopper. He's a crop duster who believes he can do more. He wants to become a racing plane. He's trained by the retired navy war plane Skipper Riley. He qualifies for a race around the world, competing against seasoned racing planes. Most of the other planes welcome the newcomer, but the reigning champion, Ripslinger, mocks him and says that he doesn't stand a chance. Dusty does badly in the first few legs of the race, but he edges into the lead. Ripslinger resorts to dirty tricks to win the race.

"Planes" is better than the second film. I still can't relate to the concept of talking airplanes, but I felt sympathy with the underdog competing in a race he can't hope to win.

Success Rate:  + 2.8

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

The Doors (5 Stars)

It's been a long time since I last watched this film. More than 10 years, since it hasn't been mentioned on my blog. The title of the film is "The Doors", but it's really about Jim Morrison. The other band members hardly get any screen time, and their characters aren't fleshed out enough for us to get to know them.

I enjoy the film a lot (as should be obvious from my rating). Val Kilmer was an excellent choice to play Jim Morrison. He's fascinating from his early years (1965) until his death (1971). He was doubtlessly a genius, based on the poetry he wrote. Were the drugs that he took (mainly LSD) an inspiration or a hindrance for his poetry? They were probably both. LSD opened his mind to new thoughts, but as he continued the drugs took control of him and stifled his creativity. Added to the problem is that he mixed drugs and alcohol. There may be different opinions on the harm or benefit of several recreational drugs, but one thing all experts agree on is that alcohol and drugs shouldn't be mixed.

The film has a dreamlike quality. Jim Morrison's trips repeatedly bring back memories of a dead Indian (Native American) that he saw in a car crash as a child. He considers him to be a shaman. I don't know whether this actually happened in his life, but it makes the film more fascinating.

Today, after watching the film, I read that the film has been heavily criticised by those who knew Jim, in particular the other members of the Doors. They think that he was portrayed too negatively in his later years. I can't comment on this. I just know that the way he's shown makes a good film. It could have been called "The Rise and Fall of Jim Morrison". In his 27 years he lived more than most people live in a hundred years.

I might have written more about this film, but the bugs in the new Blogger interface take a lot of the joy out of writing. How long will it take for Google's Blogger team to fix the critical bugs, let alone the minor bugs?

Success Rate:  - 0.9

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

Song To Song (1 Star)

I very rarely give a film a one star rating. For me that's rock bottom, it means that the film has no redeeming qualities. Whenever I see a film I don't like I deliberately search for things I can praise about it. I did that today when I watched "Song To Song".

The film is about love and music. Those are two topics I like. In both cases, the film is about them, but we don't see them. There are big concerts, and we see artists like Iggy Pop, Johnny Rotten and Patti Smith talking backstage, but we don't see them perform. There are couples who say they love one another, but we don't see any passion. It's all so sterile.

But what is the film really about? What does the director want to say? If the film has a message, I can't see it. Supposedly the film's original cut lasted eight hours, but it was shortened to two hours for the theatrical release. Maybe the eight hour version would have explained more. Or maybe it would have been four times as boring.

Despite the abundance of great actors, I sat in front of the screen feeling bored. It's painful to even write about it, so I'll stop here.

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

The Snowman (4 Stars)

This is the second time I've gone to see "The Snowman" in the cinema this month. That's unusual because I didn't intend to see it in the first place. The first time I saw it was in England with my daughter Fiona, the second time was in Germany with my daughter Gillian. I'm glad that I was persuaded to see it, and I'm also glad that I was persuaded to see it a second time.

Fiona loved "The Snowman" so much that she said it's the best film she's seen for years. Gillian was less enthusiastic. She found it okay, but boring in parts. Scandinavian films are a matter of taste. Yes, I know that the main actors are Hollywood stars, but the director is Swedish and the film has a typical Scandinavian style. I need to narrow that, because I don't mean all of Scandinavia, just Norway and Sweden. Is there a word that includes only those two countries? I'll continue to say "Scandinavia", as long as my readers understand that I'm not talking about Denmark.

Scandinavian films, regardless of their genre, tend to be slow, depending on an intense mood to invoke emotions. The best films I can think of as examples of the Scandinavian style are "Insomnia" and "Let the right one in". I can understand that people not accustomed to Scandinavian films might find them boring.

The Snowman (4 Stars)

Depending on its success, this is the first in a series of films about the Norwegian detective Harry Hole. Is that a typical Norwegian name? Up until now the author Jo Nesbo has written 11 books about him, all of which have become international bestsellers.

The film didn't take much to win me over. As soon as I saw the beautiful Norwegian scenery in the first five minutes I was in love with it. I would have given it a good rating whatever happened next. However, there were no disappointments for me, even though I'm not a big fan of murder mysteries.

Over a period of seven years women have been disappearing in different places in Norway. Sometimes their bodies were later found cut up into small pieces, sometimes they simply remained missing. Detective Harry Hole from Oslo is the first to suspect that the cases are related. They all have in common that the woman who was killed had a child from a man who wasn't her husband. A snowman was always found outside the woman's house; as we find out later in the film the snowman was built before the murder in preparation.

The film weaves through a series of surprises and fake clues, keeping the audience guessing until the end. The murderer taunts the detective, sending him clues about who his next victims will be before he kills them.

Michael Fassbender puts on an excellent performance in the lead role. The supporting characters also fill their roles well, especially Rebecca Ferguson as Harry Hole's assistant Katrine.

I've seen reviews that criticise the film for its complexity. It's impossible to please critics nowadays. Either a plot is too simple ("predictable") or too complex. I enjoyed the way the case kept heading towards a conclusion, only for something to happen at the last minute that proved the detective was wrong his assumptions. That's good storytelling.

Top Gun (2½ Stars)

This was the third film at the 2014 Brindley Place Film Festival. It was the first sunny day this week. Some of my friends complained about the wind, but I was glad about it. Without the wind it would have been too hot.

It was the first time I've seen this film. I do my best to avoid films starring Tom Cruise. I almost didn't go to see the film today, but I thought I should go to support the Birmingham Film Club. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that the film's soundtrack was made by Harold Faltermeyer. You can't beat 1980's German synthpop!

The story is about a navy pilot who is sent to an elite school, the Fighter Weapons School, informally known as Top Gun. Only the navy's best pilots are picked to join it, and the goal is that they should become even better. Tom Cruise plays Pete Mitchell, codename Maverick, a highly skilled but undisciplined young pilot. He walks into the school expecting to finish top of his class, but there's another pilot, Tom Kazanski, codename Iceman, who is always a fraction better than him.

Unfortunately, the music was what I liked most about the film. Tom Cruise's unconvincing acting and his big smiley face annoyed me, as they always do. 

True Romance (4½ Stars)

I admit that my main reason for watching "True Romance" today was in remembrance of James Gandolfini, who died last month. I wanted to watch one of his films, and in my opinion this was the best film he made. His part is small, but his role as a mobster is probably one of the reasons he was picked to play Tony Soprano a few years later.

In many ways it's a curious film. It stars many top actors in small roles, actors who would normally be the stars. Brad Bitt, Val Kilmer, Christopher Walken  and Gary Oldman are just a few of them. Despite all the stars it was a box office flop. I don't understand why. The film is a masterpiece in its own right, even without the added appeal of the top actors.

As the film's title suggests, it's a love story. Clarence (Christian Slater) works in a comic book shop, Alabama (Patricia Arquette) is a call girl. They meet at a kung fu movie in Detroit and get married a few days later. Clarence sees a vision of Elvis, who tells him to kill Alabama's pimp. By accident he picks up a suitcase full of cocaine when he flees from the murder scene. He thinks he can make money easily by selling it to a film producer in Hollywood, but the mob already knows his name and is pursuing him across the country.

The film starts slowly and escalates into total chaos. The screenplay was written by Quentin Tarantino, who originally wanted to direct the film himself. I find it a shame that he didn't, but it still turned out well.

Alexander (4½ Stars)

There are three versions of this film: the original theatrical version, the director's cut, and the "final cut". The third version is supposedly structured differently to the first two. I can't comment on the differences because the third version, the final cut, is the only version I've seen. Judging by director Oliver Stone's introduction this is the way he really wanted the film to be, free of the constraints of having to satisfy the film studio, the critics or even the audience. As such this is a very self-indulgent film. Oliver Stone is saying, effectively, that he's made this version for himself.

Obviously this is a work of love. Stone states his admiration for the epic films he watched as a child, but he also admires the man Alexander. He has a fascination with the remarkable young man who achieved greater victories in a short lifespan than any other leader ever. Stone wants to show how he grew up, how he became king, how he triumphed and how he died at the age of 32 without leaving an heir.

Stone succeeds in imparting this fascination on the viewer. We feel Alexander's passion and his belief in his noble destiny as the son of Zeus. He see him torn between love and contempt for his ambitiously evil mother. We feel his idealism as he proclaims freedom from slavery in the kingdoms he conquers. Only when he becomes overcome with fanaticism to continue fighting, not stopping to enjoy the spoils of victory, do we finally feel alienated. Like seeing an old friend on a doubtful path I found myself calling out "Turn back, Alexander, before it's too late".

My main criticism of the film is that it took so long to get started. If it had showed Alexander's life chronologically I would have accepted the slow start. As it was the film begins with Alexander's greatest victory, the Battle of Gaugamela, but rather than start with the battle itself we have long discussions of strategy. I'll deduct half a star for that, but overall this is a brilliant film, a masterpiece.

I believe that the final cut that I'm reviewing here, sold under the name "Alexander Revisited", is no longer available on DVD. It's worth looking for if you can find a second hand copy.

Batman Forever (4½ Stars)

People tend to mock this film. They say it isn't as good as the two previous Batman films. I wouldn't completely agree. It might not reach the height of "Batman Returns", but it's in the same class as "Batman", maybe even better. Obviously it's a different style. It wasn't directed by Tim Burton, although he stayed on as producer. This is very much Joel Schumacher's film.

Some of the actors have changed. That's a shame. Val Kilmer isn't as realistic a Batman as Michael Keaton, although he puts on a very good Michael Keaton impression when wearing a mask, even imitating his voice. The strangest change of cast is Harvey Dent, the district attorney who turned evil, played in the first film by Billy Dee Williams, in this film by Tommy Lee Jones. Oops. Not much of a resemblance between the two actors, is there?

But the quality of this film comes from the sheer madness of the two villains, the Riddler and Two-Face. Jim Carrey is perfect as the Riddler, even though the film character has a different origin to the comic book character. Carrey is obviously imitating the incomparable Frank Gorshin. And Tommy Lee Jones is imitating Jim Carrey. It's a perfect mix.

Don't put this film down. Watch it and enjoy it.