Jurassic Park III (3 Stars)

"Jurassic Park III" proves one thing beyond any doubt: Steven Spielberg was the real star of the franchise. Strip away his direction and you're left with a noisy monster movie that completely misunderstands what made "Jurassic Park" a masterpiece.

Joe Johnston throws dinosaurs at the screen almost non-stop, confusing relentless action with genuine suspense. Spielberg made audiences hold their breath before unleashing his creatures. Here, every five minutes there's another chase, another roar and another narrow escape until the dinosaurs become little more than oversized theme park attractions. The magic has vanished.

Sam Neill returns as Alan Grant and remains effortlessly likeable, but even he can't rescue a script that reduces him to escorting one of the most irritating families ever to stumble onto Isla Sorna. The emotional intelligence, memorable characters and sense of discovery that defined the first film have all but disappeared.

The introduction of the Spinosaurus perfectly sums up everything that's wrong with the sequel. Instead of creating a memorable new predator, the film simply has it defeat the Tyrannosaurus  Rex in a desperate attempt to convince audiences that bigger means better. It's an empty gimmick that feels less like storytelling and more like marketing.

To be fair, "Jurassic Park III" isn't boring. The aviary sequence is genuinely thrilling and the special effects remain excellent. But impressive effects can't disguise the fact that this is the moment the series stopped being intelligent science fiction and became a generic dinosaur action franchise. Without Spielberg's eye for wonder and suspense, "Jurassic Park III" is little more than a loud reminder that anyone can film dinosaurs, but only Spielberg knew how to make you believe in them.

If anything, "Jurassic Park III" is the franchise's first warning sign. The dinosaurs survived, but the soul of "Jurassic Park" didn't.

Success Rate:  + 2.0

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

The Running Man (4 Stars)

I admit it: Edgar Wright is one of my favourite directors. He's probably my favourite British director. I can't think of anyone who comes close. I have to watch every film he makes, whatever it's about, whether it's serious or a comedy.

This film is an adaptation of a Stephen King novel with the same name. I've heard it wrongly called a remake of the 1987 film called "The Running Man". No. A film can only be called a remake if it's based on another film. A good example is the long list of films based on Bram Stoker's "Dracula". However many films are made called "Dracula" (or "Nosferatu"), they're not remakes; they're all adaptations of the novel.

The film takes place in a dystopian future. Based on the technology used, it might be 20 years or less from now, but no date is named. That's clever. America has fallen apart. There's a new currency called the New Dollar. Poverty is greater than ever before. The only way out for the average citizen is to take part in a television game show. The top game show is the Running Man. The contestant has to stay alive for 30 days. There's a team of Hunters looking for him with shoot-to-kill instructions, but everyone in America is allowed to kill him if they recognise him in the street. God bless America! You might think it's easy – just hide in a hole for 30 days – but there are rules that prevent it. The contestant has to make a 10 minute video of himself every day and mail it (by letterbox) to the game show. This brings him out into the public, and the location of the letterbox used tells the Hunters where he is.

I enjoyed the film greatly, apart from some problems I had with the ending. I don't want to give away spoilers. Watch it yourself, and leave me a comment telling me what you think.

Inland Empire (4 Stars)

"Inland Empire" is the final film made by David Lynch in 2006. Today is the fourth time I've watched it.

I wanted to watch it in the cinema in 2006, but it wasn't shown in any cinemas in Birmingham. That made me sad. I bought it from Amazon immediately after its release on DVD in October 2007. That was a rarity for me. I usually wait a few months until the price has dropped. It cost me £20.66, which was a horrendous sum for me at the time. Usually I paid no more than £5.

I watched the film as soon as the packet dropped through my letterbox. I enjoyed it, but I didn't understand it, so I watched it a second time, taking a break only to make a cup of coffee. That was a mammoth sitting, watching a three-hour film twice. The second time round I understood it even less, so I watched one of the German "Schoolgirl Report" films to get over it. I've forgotten which one it was, probably a later film in the series, but it was easy to understand: it was about schoolgirls having sex.

I didn't watch "Inland Empire" again until 2014, when it was released on Blu-ray. I've forgotten what my impression was, but based on my brief review I still didn't understand much.

And today I finally watched it again, almost eleven years later. I've reduced my initial rating to four stars. After watching it back to back with "Lost Highway" and "Mulholland Drive" I can see that it's not on the same level.

Maybe the problem is that I'm looking for an explanation that isn't there. When David Lynch was asked to explain the film he only said that it was about a woman in trouble. Nothing else. The actress Nikki Grace plays the lead role in a remake of an unfinished Polish film called "47". The film was abandoned because the two leading actors, male and female, were murdered. Now there are rumours that the film's script is cursed.

As the filming progresses, Nikki finds it increasingly difficult to distinguish between her character in the film and her real life. She staggers around, meeting the cast of the original Polish film. Is she having a mental breakdown, or is she caught up in a supernatural curse? I don't think it really matters. There are multiple layers of the story: her real life in Hollywood, her role in the film and her life in Poland. When we think we're seeing one layer, we suddenly become aware that it's another.

I found the picture quality poor today, not up to Blu-ray standards. Parts of the film, especially in the early scenes, looked unpleasantly fuzzy. While reading about the film afterwards, I found out that David Lynch filmed parts of the film in SD. That's not good, but I assume it was a deliberate decision. Supposedly the film was upscaled to HD using an AI algorithm in 2022, supervised by Lynch himself. That's the version I want to see.

I'd be glad to discuss "Inland Empire" with any of my readers. Let's start in the comments box below.

Success Rate:  - 0.5

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

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (4½ Stars)

This is the fourth film in the reboot of the Planet of the Apes franchise. It takes place many generations after the events of "War for the Planet of the Apes". According to the director, it's 200 years later, but that isn't obvious from the film itself. Humans are rarely seen, because the apes kill them on sight. The apes have now separated into different tribes. We see a tribe that calls itself the eagle tribe, because they train eagles as partners. The young ape Noah is the son of his tribe's leader. Together with two friends they climb to eagle nests to steal eggs, one each, for a ceremony called the bonding. This seems to be a coming of age ceremony. Each ape must find an egg, and when the eagle is born it becomes his own personal eagle.

There isn't peace among the apes. Another tribe is warlike and intends to conquer all other tribes to unite them. Most of the eagle tribe is captured and led away as prisoners. Only Noah escapes. He sets out to find his tribe and free his father. On the way he meets an orangutan called Raka and a lone woman called Nova. Where does she come from? When he finds out that she can speak, he realises that she's keeping secrets.

This film is slower moving than the previous films. Yes, there are scenes of violence, but mostly the film is thoughtful, showing the consequences of the new world and how the apes are managing to deal with it now that Caesar has gone. It's difficult for me to judge the film, because it's so different. It's a film I need to watch again as soon as possible.

Pleasantville (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #26

Henceforth, all good and decent citizens of Pleasantville are to obey this CODE OF CONDUCT:

1. All public disruption and acts of vandalism are to cease immediately.

2. All citizens of Pleasantville are to treat each other in a courteous and pleasant manner.

3. The area commonly known as Lovers Lane as well as the public library shall be closed until further notice.

4. The only permissible recorded music shall be the following: Johnny Mathis, Perry Como, Jack Jones, the marches of John Philip Sousa and the Star-Spangled Banner. In no event shall any music be tolerated that is not of a temperate or pleasant nature.

5. There shall be no public sale of umbrellas or preparation for inclement weather of any kind.

6. No bed frame or mattress may be sold measuring more than 38 inches wide.

7. The only permissible paint colours shall be black, white and grey, despite the recent availability of certain alternatives.

8. All elementary and high school curriculum shall teach the non-changeist view of history emphasising continuity over alteration.

Success Rate:  - 1.2

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

Fargo (5 Stars)

Today is the first time I've watched "Fargo", even though it was made long ago in 1996. It was a gap in my film education. Watching it today, I was stunned. It was nothing like what I expected. Despite its low key pacing, it's very Tarantino-ish in its screenplay. There are so many random elements that have nothing to do with the story, technically speaking, but by being included the characters are stronger and the whole film is better rounded. Think of all the talk about quarter pounders in "Pulp Fiction". Not relevant, maybe, but it's part of what makes the film a masterpiece. In "Fargo" we have the painting for a postage stamp and the emotionally unstable ex-boyfriend, to name just two small details. Genius! This is a film I should have watched 24 years ago.

Have my readers all seen it already? It's a story about a simple plan that goes terribly wrong. A car salesman wants to extort a million dollars from his rich father-in-law, so he pays two crooks to kidnap his own wife and hold her for ransom. What should have been a smooth operation turns into a disaster as the body count slowly rises.

The story takes place in the snow-covered plains of Minnesota. Without the desolate white background the film would only have been half as interesting.

Success Rate:  + 6.7

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

Pleasantville (5 Stars)

A year ago I published a list of my 30 films to watch before you die. I mentioned that I had already compiled a list of my favourite 50 films, a list which would include some other films that I regretted not including in the first list. This is one of the near misses, and an essential inclusion in any longer list. I just checked my list. It's actually a list of 100 films, and this is number 54. Oops! I need to rearrange the list. "Pleasantville" can't miss the cut a second time.

There have been disagreements about what "Pleasantville" is about. It's obvious why. The film quite deliberately touches on many different issues. If you ask five people what the film is about and they give five different answers, none of them are wrong. What's important is what you can take out of it for yourself.

The film is about racism.

The film is about the subjugation of women.

The film is about the role of science in society.

The film is about the beauty of art and literature.

The film is about the struggles between the old and the young.

Today I'll just pick on the religious themes. Pleasantville is a perfect world. It's the Garden of Eden. The people are innocent. God lives among them, in the guise of a television repair man called Norm. Since it's a perfect world the televisions never break down, so nobody ever sees Norm. His shop is in the middle of the town, but the most anyone does is look through the window. There's no reason to go inside.

Norm allows David, a teenager from 1998, to enter the world of Pleasantville, which is forever stuck in 1958. David appreciates Pleasantville and wants it to stay the way it is, but his sister Janet accompanies him. Janet brings temptation into the pure and innocent world by taking on the identity of a schoolgirl called Mary Sue. She has oral sex with the captain of the school basketball team, and she teaches older women how to masturbate. In traditional Christian thought these are terrible sins.

Even David falls into temptation. He sees the changes all around him, wrought by his sister, and he enjoys them. Not just that, he begins to argue with Norm. Norm wants to put things back the way they were, but David claims that the new ways are better.

There's a burning bush outside David's home. Could the Biblical allusions be any more obvious?

Of course, there are many other things that could be written about the film. I feel overwhelmed, unable to write an adequate description of "Pleasantville" and its themes unless I spent days writing about it.

David (Tobey Maguire) wishes he had a coloured girlfriend.

David finally finds himself a coloured girlfriend.

"Pleasantville" was highly praised by critics, but it was a box office flop. At the risk of sounding arrogant, the public wasn't smart enough to appreciate it. It's a very deep film that requires the viewer to think about it. I watched it repeatedly when it was new, I forget how many times. In the last few years it's been less often, only twice since 2010. So many films, so little time.....

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

Room (4 Stars)

This is an emotionally moving story about a young boy who lives the first five years of his life in a single room without any contact to the outside world. He has his mother with him and a stranger who brings them food and other items. He has a television, but but he assumes that everything he sees is fiction. All that he can see of the real world is the sky through a skylight in the ceiling. He remains there until his mother tricks their captor into believing the boy is dead, so that he can be taken away.

The film is based on a novel by the Canadian author Emma Donague. She wrote it after hearing about the case of Josef Fritzl, an Austrian who kept his daughter locked up in his cellar for 24 years, where he raped her repeatedly, so that she had several children who grew up in isolation. Emma's book differs in many details, so it can't be seen as being about the Fritzl family. It's only loosely inspired by the events. Her book isn't about the captor, it's about the captives, which is reflected in the film. We only see the captor, a man referred to as Old Nick, briefly on a few occasions, and it isn't stated what his relationship is to the mother. He doesn't matter. He isn't relevant to the story.

The boy, Jack, is the focus of the story. It's about how he comes to grips with being exposed to a large new world for the first time. The film succeeds in showing his wonderment and his disorientation. He even has the desire to return to the room, because it was a less complicated place.

I wouldn't say this is an easy film to watch. It has its dark moments, both inside and outside of the room. It's a film to watch with friends or family, to be discussed together. Maybe some of my readers can share their thoughts about the film by leaving comments.

Magnolia (4 Stars)

Things go round and round.

This is a film that I find it very difficult to write about. It tells several unrelated stories, only connected by the fact that they all take place on the same day, and some of the people know each other. A recurring theme in the stories is the alienation between children and their parents. And then there are the frogs falling from the sky.

It's a fascinating film that kept me glued to the screen from beginning to end. But when it finished I had an empty feeling. I was expecting the stories to be somehow linked together in a final scene, but they weren't. That was the point. Things happen side by side every day. We don't live in a well-scripted cinematic universe. When I leave home in the morning I say hello to my neighbours. It could be that several of us have intense personal dramas before we go to bed in the evening. And yet the only connection between these dramas was a simple greeting in the morning.

Inland Empire (5 Stars)

Laura Dern stars as Nikki Grace, an aging Hollywood actress whose best days are behind her. She's offered the leading role in a film called "On High in Blue Tomorrows", a love story which promises to make her an A-list star again. At the first rehearsal she's told that the film is a remake of a Polish film called "47", which was never completed because the leading stars were murdered.

As the filming begins Nikki finds herself trapped within the film, as if it's her real life. She further regresses and finds herself in the original Polish film, sometimes on the film set, sometimes within the film. She continues making her film despite gradually losing her identity.

This is the most confusing of David Lynch's films, but its incomprehensiblity doesn't make it any less enjoyable. We feel for Nikki's plight in her never-ending nightmare.

Pleasantville (5 Stars)

For some reason I haven't watched this film for a long time. Years. I'd almost forgotten about it. But this is an amazing film, thought-provoking from beginning to end.

It's a fairytale, beginning with the words "Once upon a time". David and Jennifer are brother and sister (maybe twins), two high-school children of the 90's, but totally different in their personalities. Jennifer is the cool popular girl in class, dating boys, and no longer a virgin. David is an outsider who avoids dealing with the ugliness of reality by engrossing himself in a 1950's television series called "Pleasantville". One Friday night David and Jennifer fight over the television's remote control; David wants to watch a Pleasantville marathon, Jennifer wants to watch a concert on MTV with her boyfriend. (Note for my readers: the film was made in 1998 when there was still music on MTV). The remote control breaks, and a mysterious television repair man immediately appears at the door who gives them a replacement. As soon as he leaves they continue to struggle with the remote control, when suddenly they find themselves inside Pleasantville, dressed in 1950's clothing, and in black and white.

David and Jennifer have now become Bud and Mary Sue Parker, the children of George and Betty Parker, the main characters in the television series. David already knows the episodes inside out, so he quickly works out where they are in the series' chronology, and he advises his sister to play along with the situation until they find a way to escape. Unfortunately Jennifer doesn't conform to the world's moral code. Instead of just holding hands on her first date with Skip Martin, leader of the school's basketball team, she performs oral sex with him. This creates a rupture in the universe, and colours begin to appear. At first David tells her to stop, but then he begins to introduce his own changes by encouraging Bill Johnson, the owner of the soda shop, to be independent and paint.

People begin to change their ways, the young people first, and then the adults. Reflecting the inner changes, they turn from black and white into colour, one by one, while inanimate objects gain colours at random. The changes aren't just in moral issues, such as the teenagers beginning to have sex, which they had never done before. Actually, the parents had also never had sex. Their children had just appeared from nowhere. Everything not shown in the television episodes didn't exist until David and Jennifer introduced it into their world. But there are other changes. For instance, the children begin to read books, much to the disgust of the town's elders. Pleasantville's mayor considers sexual promiscuity and reading books to be equally abhorrent.

Change is resisted, but change wins. Gary Ross, the film's director, wants to present personal change as the catalyst for changing society. "This movie is about the fact that personal repression gives rise to larger political oppression, that when we're afraid of certain things in ourselves or we're afraid of change, we project those fears on to other things, and a lot of very ugly social situations can develop". I can see this message in the film, but to me personally the element of personal change is what I take from the film. There's a conversation between Bud and Mr. Johnson:

        Bud: "People change."
        Mr. Johnson: "Can they change back?"
        Bud: "I don't know, I think it's harder."

This is something I've experienced in my own life. 12 years ago I went through a very big change in my life. The change wasn't voluntary, it was forced upon me by a very bad person, probably the most evil person I've ever met personally. I tried to change back later, but it was impossible. At the time I was suffering from depression and asked to be admitted to hospital for help. For a week I was doing well and improving. Then a psychiatrist, Dr. Jeremy Kenney-Herbert, transferred me to another hospital where my life was put at risk by being surrounded by violent patients. At first I accused Dr. Kenney-Herbert of incompetence in misdiagnosing me, but as time progressed I recognised that he was acting with malice. For reasons I can only speculate he hated me and wanted to hurt me. I lost 17 months of my life when I could have been discharged after a few weeks and returned to work.

Do I hate Dr. Kenney-Herbert? No. If I hated him I would lower myself to his level. He couldn't act any differently. He commits evil because it's his nature. I was unfortunate that I crossed his path, that I was put under his control at the time in my life when I was most vulnerable and least able to defend myself. I'm sure that over the years he has ruined the lives of many who have crossed his path. I can be thankful that I've now moved on. I've become a stronger person despite his attempts to destroy me. But I've also become a changed person. I didn't like the changes at first, but I now accept them. I won't attempt to change back.

I've been putting off writing a full report of my time in hospital. At first I delayed it because it was too traumatic for me to write about. Then I told myself I should leave the report until a significant date, such the 10th anniversary of my discharge. When that time arrived I didn't write it out of laziness. Maybe I should do it next month when my Five Star Month is over.

Mr. Holland's Opus (4 Stars)

As I mentioned in a previous post, I bought this film because it was highly recommended by a friend. It wasn't her recommendation alone. The majority of reviews I read online were positive, and Richard Dreyfuss was nominated for an Oscar for his performance in this film.

A young man, Glenn Holland, becomes a high school music teacher in 1964. Not out of enthusiasm for teaching, merely because he didn't have anything else. "I'm nervous. Boy, I never thought I'd be here. Like most people I only got my teaching certificate so I'd have something to fall back on. And now I have." At first he's totally disillusioned because the children have no interest in what he teaches them about classical music. He only begins to have success when he shows them that rock'n'roll has musical structures in common with Beethoven. But still it's a daily fight to inspire the children.

At home all is not well. Glenn has a son who he hopes will become a great composer. He names him Coltrane Gershwin Holland, though he nicknames him Cole. But Cole is deaf, which alienates Glenn. He largely ignores him and doesn't even succeed in learning sign language to communicate with him. He puts other children ahead of his own son. A recurring theme is Glenn's "opus", after which the film is named. Before joining the school he started to write a symphony which would make him famous, but as the years pass by he keeps changing it and adding to it, but it's never completed.

The story progresses in intervals up to 1980, punctuated by events in political and musical history. The Vietnam War, the Watergate Scandal, "Saturday Night Fever" and the Sex Pistols are mentioned in passing. The final big event is the murder of John Lennon, which is crucial in repairing the relationship with Cole.

From here we leap forward to 1995. Times have changed. Glenn has been a teacher for over 30 years. I won't say anything more to avoid spoilers.

I admit that for the first hour of the film I had difficulty watching it. It seemed erratic, meandering on aimlessly without any direction. I even considered turning it off. I'm glad I remained patient. As it continued it gained in emotional depth, and the seemingly random strands of plot were tied together, leading to a dramatic climax. This is a deeply moving film that I would recommend to anyone. Especially to teachers.

Click here to view the trailer.

Jurassic Park III (3½ Stars)

The third installment in the Jurassic Park trilogy, made in 2001. Dr. Alan Grant, who was the paleontologist in the first film, accompanies a couple on an expedition to find their son who is lost on Isla Sorna, the location of the second film.

I won't say any more about the plot. Straight to the criticism. Quite simply, this film isn't directed by Steven Spielberg, and it shows.  Spielberg passed the torch to Joe Johnston and remained as executive producer, which is a discreet way of saying he did absolutely nothing on the film.

The film does just about everything wrong. There's an action sequence at the beginning, but it falls out weak in comparison to the other two films. The film rushes into dinosaur action too fast after the arrival on the island without taking time for a build up. As the dinosaurs arrive one by one I can't help feeling that they're a "Best of Jurassic Park" selection, only included because the fans of the first two films expect them. Even the inclusion of pteranodons and spinosauri doesn't detract from this impression. And I thought that it had been established in the second film that the dinosaur breeds had divided the island into territories? In this film we see them all mixed together in the same area. The velociraptors have gained new "special powers", they can talk to one another, which they couldn't in the first two films. Worst of all, there's no real character development, the trademark of Spielberg's films. We are told who the characters are and what they want, but we don't feel who they are.

The only reason I'm giving this film more than 2 stars is because of the special effects, which are easily the equal of those in the second film, surpassing it in places. But overall the film is a flop. Instead of being a tale of human triumph over adversity it's just a 1960's dinosaur film with better special effects. If you watch the three films in short succession you get the idea that after two days of steak you've been served a hot dog.

Click here to view the trailer.

The Deal (4 Stars)

This is a difficult film to rate. Maybe 4 stars is too much. I enjoyed the first half of the film very much, but it changed style halfway through and lost its magic.

The premise of the film is amazing, and in the hands of Mel Brooks it would have been an utter masterpiece. Charlie Berns is a Hollywood film producer whose best days are behind him. When he was young he had a string of successes, but now nobody wants to hire him. Just as he is about to kill himself his nephew appears with a film script that he recognizes as what he needs to rejuvenate his career.

His nephew's script is entitled "Bill and Ben", and it tells the story of the 19th Century British prime ministers, William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli. Although the events take place towards the end of Disraeli's life, when he was in his seventies, Berns picks a black American action star to play the role and renames the film "Benjamin Disraeli, Freedom Fighter". Disraeli is shown running though the desert with a machine gun, mowing down the evil Moslems and single-handedly liberating Palestine.

The film comes to a halt when the action star is kidnapped and the plot has to be rewritten. After this I found the remaining film dull and slow moving. However, it gives fascinating insight into the making of films. As a film about making a film it succeeds. Overall an enjoyable film, but it could have been better.