Run Lola Run (5 Stars)

Lola Rennt (1998)

The Philosophy of Fate, Free Will and the Consequences of Chance

Introduction: A Race Against Time

At first glance, "Lola Rennt" ("Run Lola Run"), directed by Tom Tykwer in 1998, appears to be a relatively straightforward thriller. A young woman has twenty minutes to find 100,000 Deutsche Marks to save her boyfriend from what is almost certainly a fatal encounter with a criminal employer. She runs through Berlin, encountering obstacles, making decisions and desperately trying to reach her objective before time runs out.

Yet this deceptively simple premise conceals a much more ambitious undertaking. Tykwer has constructed a film that is simultaneously a thriller, an experiment in narrative form and a philosophical examination of the relationship between human beings and the forces that govern their existence.

The story is presented three times. Each version begins with essentially the same circumstances, but small variations in events produce radically different consequences. People who survive in one version die in another. Relationships change, fortunes are reversed, and apparently insignificant encounters determine the future of individuals who have only briefly crossed Lola's path.

The central question is therefore considerably more complicated than whether Lola can save Manni. It concerns the extent to which human beings control their own destinies. Are our lives determined by the accumulation of previous events? Are we free to make independent choices? Or are we ultimately at the mercy of chance, subject to circumstances over which we have little or no control?

Tykwer doesn't provide a conventional answer. Instead, he constructs a cinematic experiment in which the audience is invited to consider several competing explanations of human existence. Nevertheless, the film does appear to favour one particular proposition: although we cannot control every circumstance, our actions matter, and determination can sometimes transform apparently impossible situations.

To understand how the film develops this argument, it's necessary to examine the philosophical ideas that underpin its unusual structure.

1. The Nature of Time and the Possibility of Repetition

The film announces its philosophical intentions almost immediately. Before Lola begins her first run, the audience is presented with two quotations.

The first is from T. S. Eliot's "Four Quartets", suggesting that exploration ultimately brings us back to where we started, but with a different understanding of the place we have reached. The second, attributed to the German football coach Sepp Herberger, is considerably more succinct: "After the game is before the game."

These quotations are not decorative introductions. They establish the intellectual framework within which the narrative should be understood.

Time, in the conventional understanding, moves in one direction. Events occur, consequences follow, and the past cannot be recovered. Tykwer challenges this assumption by presenting the same twenty-minute period three times, allowing the audience to observe how different decisions and seemingly insignificant variations alter the outcome.

The structure resembles a philosophical thought experiment. If we could return to the beginning of a particular sequence of events, retaining the knowledge acquired during our previous experience, could we improve the outcome?

There's an important distinction between repeating an event and experiencing an alternative version of it. The film never establishes conclusively whether Lola is travelling through parallel realities, reliving the same period of time, or being offered successive opportunities to correct her mistakes. Each interpretation produces a different philosophical understanding of what we are watching.

The suggestion that Lola might retain knowledge from previous attempts deserves particular attention. During the first run, Manni explains to her how to release the safety catch on a gun. In the second, she already knows how to operate it. This small detail raises the possibility that the three sequences are not entirely independent. Perhaps Lola is learning from her previous experiences.

If so, the second and third runs are not simply alternative possibilities. They are attempts informed by what has happened before. The distinction is significant because it introduces the possibility of accumulated experience influencing subsequent decisions.

The film doesn't provide sufficient evidence to establish this as a literal explanation. Nevertheless, the detail is difficult to dismiss. It invites us to consider whether Lola is gradually acquiring greater control over circumstances that initially appeared beyond her influence.

The three attempts might therefore be understood as a progression from ignorance to knowledge, and from helplessness towards agency.

2. Determinism and Free Will

One of the oldest philosophical disputes concerns the relationship between determinism and free will.

Determinism proposes that events are the consequences of preceding conditions. Every occurrence has a cause, and the present is the product of everything that has happened before. Taken to its logical conclusion, this suggests that the future is already determined by the past, even if human beings are incapable of knowing precisely what will happen.

Free will, by contrast, assumes that individuals possess some capacity to make independent choices. We are not merely passive participants in a predetermined sequence of events. We can deliberate, decide and act.

"Lola Rennt" places these two positions in direct competition.

Consider the apparently insignificant events that occur during Lola's three journeys. A momentary hesitation, an encounter with an individual on the pavement, or a slightly different reaction to an obstacle can alter the entire course of events.

The film's photographic sequences are particularly revealing. After encountering certain individuals, we are shown a rapid succession of still photographs illustrating possible futures in their lives. In one version, a person might become prosperous and contented. In another, the same person might experience misfortune or personal tragedy.

The implication is that the future is extraordinarily sensitive to apparently trivial circumstances.

This is difficult to reconcile with a rigid understanding of determinism. If every event were inevitable, why should such minor variations produce such dramatically different outcomes?

On the other hand, a determinist could argue that the variations themselves have causes. Lola's altered behaviour, the actions of other people and the physical circumstances surrounding each encounter are all parts of an interconnected causal sequence. The fact that the outcome changes doesn't necessarily mean that the universe has abandoned determinism.

The film therefore doesn't disprove determinism. Rather, it challenges the assumption that human beings can understand or predict the full consequences of their actions.

There's also a more optimistic interpretation. Lola's determination becomes increasingly important as the story progresses. She refuses to accept the apparently inevitable consequences of Manni's mistake. Her actions change the course of events, and in the final version she succeeds.

The film appears to favour a form of human agency in which individuals cannot control everything, but are nevertheless capable of influencing their circumstances.

This isn't necessarily a rejection of determinism. It may instead suggest that human decisions are themselves among the forces that determine the future.

3. The Butterfly Effect: How Small Events Change Everything

Closely related to the question of determinism is the concept commonly known as the butterfly effect.

Associated with chaos theory, the butterfly effect describes how small differences in initial conditions can produce enormously different outcomes in complex systems. A seemingly insignificant change can eventually have consequences far beyond anything that could reasonably have been predicted.

The film provides an unusually accessible illustration of this idea.

Lola's encounters with strangers are not merely incidental episodes inserted to make her journey more interesting. They demonstrate the interconnectedness of human lives.

A few seconds can change whether somebody catches a particular vehicle, meets another person or experiences an entirely different future. The people who appear to be minor characters in Lola's story are, of course, the protagonists of their own lives.

This is an important philosophical observation. We tend to understand the world from our own perspective, treating other people as supporting characters in our personal narratives. Yet every individual has an independent existence, with relationships, ambitions and problems of which we may know nothing.

Lola's journey exposes the fragility of their circumstances.

The film also raises an uncomfortable moral question. If our actions can have consequences that we cannot possibly anticipate, how much responsibility should we accept for them?

It's relatively easy to accept responsibility for an immediate and foreseeable consequence. It's considerably more difficult to accept responsibility for a chain of events extending far beyond our intentions.

The film doesn't offer a moral solution. It simply demonstrates that the consequences of human behaviour are often unpredictable, and that even apparently insignificant decisions can matter enormously.

4. Chance, Probability and the Roulette Wheel

The casino sequence in the third run is perhaps the most important visual expression of the film's philosophy.

Having failed to obtain the money through conventional means, Lola enters a casino. She places a bet on the number twenty and wins. Rather than accepting her winnings, she repeats the bet, placing the accumulated money on the same number.

She wins again.

The sequence is extraordinary because it appears to transform Lola from somebody struggling against circumstances into somebody capable of bending probability to her will.

Roulette is particularly appropriate as a metaphor. The outcome of the wheel is determined by a combination of physical forces, but from the player's perspective it is unpredictable. No amount of determination can ordinarily guarantee that a particular number will appear.

Lola nevertheless behaves as though she possesses an extraordinary certainty about the outcome.

Her scream, which shatters the glass around her, seems almost supernatural. It is as if her determination has become a physical force capable of influencing the machinery of chance itself.

This raises an interesting question: is Lola simply extraordinarily lucky, or has she acquired some ability to influence events?

The distinction is important. If she is merely lucky, the film's conclusion suggests that success is ultimately dependent upon chance. If she has somehow learned to influence probability, the conclusion is considerably more optimistic about human agency.

There's also an alternative interpretation. Perhaps the casino sequence deliberately exaggerates the absurdity of believing that we can control random events. Lola's success is so improbable that it becomes almost a fairy tale, a fantasy of human determination triumphing over mathematical probability.

The film doesn't resolve the contradiction.

Nevertheless, the roulette wheel provides a powerful image of the relationship between human ambition and the unpredictable nature of existence. We make decisions, take risks and hope for favourable outcomes, but we cannot always determine what the future will bring.

5. Existentialism: Taking Responsibility for Our Own Destiny

Another philosophical tradition relevant to the film is existentialism.

Existentialist thinkers such as Jean-Paul Sartre argued that human beings are not born with a predetermined purpose. We construct our identities through our choices and actions. We cannot simply blame our circumstances for everything that happens to us, because we retain some responsibility for how we respond to them.

Lola is an interesting embodiment of this principle.

She doesn't spend twenty minutes discussing the injustice of Manni's situation. She doesn't philosophise about the unfairness of life or resign herself to the possibility that nothing can be done. She acts.

Her determination is almost absolute. She runs, confronts obstacles, makes decisions and accepts the consequences.

There's something distinctly existentialist about this behaviour. Lola doesn't wait for the universe to provide her with a solution. She attempts to create one herself.

However, existentialism also raises questions about the responsibility of the individual.

Manni's predicament is partly the consequence of his own actions. He's lost a substantial amount of money belonging to a dangerous criminal. His immediate response is to contemplate robbing a supermarket, thereby potentially endangering innocent people.

Lola assumes responsibility for rescuing him, but should she?

Her determination is admirable, yet the film doesn't necessarily establish that Manni deserves the extraordinary sacrifice she makes on his behalf.

There's an interesting contrast between the two characters. Manni appears overwhelmed by his circumstances, while Lola refuses to surrender to them.

Perhaps the film is suggesting that the difference between success and failure is not always intelligence, strength or good fortune. Sometimes it's simply the willingness to act when everything seems hopeless.

6. The Religious Dimension: Providence, Prayer and Karma

The philosophical questions raised by "Lola Rennt" inevitably invite religious interpretations.

At the centre of many religious traditions is the relationship between human freedom and forces beyond human understanding. Are our lives governed by divine providence? Do our actions determine our destiny? Is there a purpose behind events that appear random?

Christian theology offers one particularly interesting perspective.

Traditional Christianity maintains that God is omniscient and therefore knows the future. At the same time, human beings are generally understood to possess free will and moral responsibility.

This creates a longstanding philosophical problem. If God already knows what we are going to do, are our choices genuinely free?

Christian thinkers have proposed various explanations. Some distinguish between knowing what will happen and causing it to happen. God's knowledge of a future decision does not necessarily mean that God compels the individual to make it.

Other theological traditions place greater emphasis on divine sovereignty and predestination, making the relationship between human freedom and God's will more difficult to reconcile.

The film offers no obvious evidence of divine providence. Its universe appears to operate through coincidence, human decisions and unpredictable consequences.

A religious objection might therefore be that "Lola Rennt" replaces divine purpose with randomness, presenting human determination and luck as the principal forces governing existence.

Yet there is another possibility.

During her third attempt, Lola appears to be praying as she runs. The gesture is brief, but its placement is significant. In the first two attempts, she relies almost entirely upon her own determination. In the third, she seems to acknowledge that something beyond her control may be necessary.

It would be excessive to interpret this as proof of religious conversion or even a clearly defined belief in God. Nevertheless, the gesture introduces a spiritual dimension that wasn't previously apparent.

Perhaps Lola is appealing to a higher power. Perhaps she is simply expressing desperation. Or perhaps the apparent prayer represents an acceptance that human beings cannot control every aspect of their existence.

There's also no contradiction between prayer and personal responsibility. A religious interpretation might suggest that faith provides the strength to continue acting rather than an excuse to remain passive.

The Buddhist concept of karma provides another interesting comparison.

Karma is frequently misunderstood as a system of cosmic reward and punishment, but its philosophical meaning is more complex. It concerns the relationship between intentional actions and their consequences. Human behaviour contributes to the conditions in which future experiences arise.

In this respect, the film's repeated demonstrations of causality have some similarities to Buddhist thought. Actions matter, and their consequences may extend considerably beyond the immediate circumstances in which they occur.

However, karma should not be confused with simple fate. Nor does Buddhism necessarily regard every event as the consequence of a single identifiable action. Its understanding of causality is interconnected and considerably more sophisticated.

There's also an important difference between karma and the film's apparent reliance upon chance. Buddhist philosophy generally regards the universe as governed by conditional relationships rather than pure randomness.

Nevertheless, the comparison is illuminating. Both perspectives encourage us to consider the consequences of our actions and the interconnectedness of individual lives.

Ultimately, the religious dimension remains ambiguous. Lola's apparent prayer might represent an appeal to divine intervention, a psychological response to desperation, or an acknowledgement of human limitations. The film leaves the interpretation to the audience.

7. Three Runs, Three Outcomes: The Meaning of Success and Failure

The three versions of the story are not simply different ways of presenting the same events. They represent three radically different possibilities for the characters.

In the first, Lola's attempt to obtain the money fails, and she is killed during the supermarket robbery.

In the second, she manages to acquire the money, but Manni is struck by an ambulance and killed.

In the third, Lola wins the money at roulette, while Manni independently manages to recover the missing money from the homeless man who took it.

The third outcome is particularly interesting because both characters succeed, but not through a common effort.

Lola finds an extraordinary solution to her problem, while Manni resolves his own predicament. Their survival is therefore the product of two separate sequences of events that happen to converge favourably.

This is important because the film doesn't simply reward Lola for running faster or trying harder. It gives both characters opportunities to influence their own circumstances.

The final outcome might be interpreted as a demonstration of the power of human determination. Alternatively, it might be regarded as an exceptionally fortunate coincidence.

There's also something significant about the fact that the first two versions end in tragedy. The film doesn't present success as inevitable. It demonstrates that the same initial circumstances can lead to radically different conclusions.

The third version is therefore not merely a happy ending. It represents the possibility that an apparently hopeless situation can still be transformed.

However, the question remains whether Lola has genuinely changed her destiny or whether we are simply being shown a different possible reality.

That uncertainty is fundamental to the film's philosophical achievement.

8. The Cinematic Language: Form as Philosophy

It would be impossible to discuss "Lola Rennt" adequately without considering its extraordinary visual and musical style.

Tykwer doesn't simply tell us that time is important. He makes us experience its pressure.

The ticking clocks, relentless electronic soundtrack, rapid editing and repeated sequences create an almost physical sensation of urgency. The audience becomes acutely conscious of every passing second.

The mixture of live action, animation, still photography and different film formats also contributes to the impression that we are watching several versions of reality rather than one continuous narrative.

The animated sequences are particularly effective. They appear to represent Lola's subjective experience, transforming the physical act of running into something almost abstract. She becomes less a conventional film character and more a figure moving through a constantly changing system of obstacles and possibilities.

The photographic sequences showing the futures of people Lola encounters are equally important. They make visible something that would otherwise remain hidden: the extraordinary number of possible lives that can emerge from a single moment.

The soundtrack deserves particular attention. Its repetitive electronic rhythms reinforce the circular structure of the narrative, while the music's relentless momentum mirrors Lola's determination.

The film's formal experimentation is therefore inseparable from its philosophical argument. Its style is not merely an entertaining accompaniment to the story. It is the means through which the story communicates its ideas.

There's also a distinctly playful quality to the presentation. The film borrows from video games, particularly through its repeated attempts and alternative outcomes. Each run resembles a new attempt at completing the same level, with the player learning from previous mistakes.

This comparison reinforces the possibility that Lola is acquiring knowledge between attempts. It also introduces an interesting distinction between the audience and the characters. We can compare all three versions, identifying the small changes that produce different outcomes, while the characters may or may not possess the same awareness.

The result is a film that constantly encourages the audience to participate intellectually in the construction of its meaning.

9. The Director's Philosophy: An Argument for Human Agency?

What, ultimately, is Tom Tykwer suggesting?

It would be presumptuous to claim that every philosophical interpretation discussed here represents the director's conscious intention. Nevertheless, the structure and conclusion of the film provide sufficient grounds for identifying a dominant philosophical position.

The film appears to reject passive acceptance of circumstances.

Lola is confronted with an apparently impossible situation. Her boyfriend has made a serious mistake, time is running out, and the consequences of failure are potentially fatal. Yet she refuses to accept that the outcome has already been decided.

In this respect, the film is fundamentally optimistic.

It suggests that human beings possess the capacity to influence their circumstances, even when the forces surrounding them appear overwhelming. Our actions matter. Our decisions matter. Even small changes can have enormous consequences.

However, this optimism is qualified by the film's repeated demonstrations of chance.

Lola cannot control everything. She cannot anticipate every encounter, prevent every accident or guarantee that the people around her will behave as expected. Her success depends partly upon circumstances that she cannot influence.

This creates an interesting philosophical position that might be described as qualified human agency: we are neither completely free nor entirely powerless. We operate within circumstances that are partly beyond our control, but we retain some ability to shape what happens next.

There are alternative interpretations, of course.

A determinist might argue that all three outcomes are simply different causal sequences, each inevitable within its own circumstances. A religious viewer might see the third outcome as an expression of providence, particularly given Lola's apparent prayer. A more sceptical interpretation might regard the entire film as a celebration of randomness, with Lola's success ultimately no more meaningful than an extraordinarily fortunate spin of the roulette wheel.

All these interpretations have merit.

Yet I would argue that the film's emotional centre lies elsewhere. Its emphasis is not on the inevitability of events, but on the importance of refusing to surrender to them.

Lola runs.

She doesn't know whether she will succeed, but she continues regardless.

Perhaps that is the film's most persuasive philosophical statement.

Conclusion: The Meaning of Running

"Lola Rennt" is an unusual achievement because it manages to combine an exceptionally entertaining thriller with a surprisingly ambitious philosophical investigation.

Its treatment of time, chance, determinism and free will is not merely intellectual decoration. These ideas are embedded in the structure of the narrative, the visual presentation and the behaviour of its characters.

The film encourages us to question how much control we really possess over our lives. It demonstrates the extraordinary consequences of apparently insignificant decisions, while reminding us that the people we encounter are living lives just as complex and unpredictable as our own.

It also challenges the distinction between success and failure. Lola's first two attempts end disastrously, but they're not necessarily meaningless. If she learns from them, they become part of the process through which she eventually succeeds.

There's an appealing optimism in this interpretation. Failure need not be final, and circumstances that initially appear impossible may contain opportunities that we have not yet recognised.

Nevertheless, the film doesn't allow us to forget the importance of chance. Lola's final success is partly the result of circumstances that she could never have predicted or controlled.

Perhaps the most reasonable conclusion is that human beings exist somewhere between fate and freedom. We cannot determine everything that happens to us, but neither are we simply passengers in a predetermined journey. Our decisions contribute to the unfolding of events, even when we cannot foresee their consequences.

The film's title is therefore particularly appropriate. It doesn't promise that Lola will win, save Manni or defeat destiny.

It simply tells us what she does.

She runs.

And perhaps, in the final analysis, the willingness to keep running is more important than knowing where the journey will end.

A Philosophical Epilogue: Three Attempts at Life

There's one final question that the film leaves us contemplating, and it extends beyond Lola's particular predicament.

Suppose we were given three opportunities to live the same twenty minutes of our lives. We would retain the memories of each previous attempt, and we would be free to make different decisions.

Would we choose differently?

Most of us would probably like to believe that we would correct our mistakes, avoid certain encounters and take opportunities that we previously overlooked. We might even imagine that, given sufficient knowledge, we could construct a better life for ourselves.

But there's a fundamental difficulty.

The person making the second attempt would already have been changed by the experience of the first. The person making the third attempt would be different again. Our memories, regrets and acquired knowledge would influence every subsequent decision.

Would we therefore be improving the same life, or creating three increasingly different versions of ourselves?

And if we could change every unfortunate event, would we also eliminate the experiences that made us the people we eventually became?

Perhaps the most unsettling possibility is that we cannot separate the person we are from the events we might wish had never happened.

Lola may be given three opportunities to reach the same destination, but human life doesn't ordinarily offer such a privilege.

We have only one run.

And we don't know how much time remains.

The Magnificent Two (4 Stars)

I've always been a fan of Eric Morecambe and Ernie Wise, in particular their television shows. I've watched all of their cinema films, but "The Magnificent Two" is the only one I like enough to watch repeatedly. It's an entertaining adventure comedy, with a wonderfully absurd plot and, most importantly, a finale that I find irresistible.

Eric and Ernie play two British travelling salesmen who arrive in the fictional South American country of Parazuellia to sell toy soldiers. Unfortunately, their arrival coincides with a revolution, and things go wrong almost immediately. During their train journey, Eric accidentally causes the death of Fernando Torres, a returning British-educated revolutionary leader who happens to look remarkably like him.

When Eric arrives in the city, the revolutionaries mistake him for Torres. Once they discover what's happened, they decide that the best solution is to persuade Eric to impersonate the dead man. With Ernie alongside him, Eric is drawn into a conspiracy to overthrow the country's dictator, President Diaz. The alternative, rather less attractive, is to be shot.

The revolution succeeds, and Eric finds himself in a position of considerable authority. Unfortunately, he soon develops an inflated opinion of his own importance. During a televised speech, he loses his prepared notes and starts making promises to the population, including no taxes, a ten-hour working week and six weeks of paid holiday. His revolutionary colleagues are less than impressed. General Carillo, in particular, realises that Eric is becoming a liability.

The situation becomes increasingly dangerous when Eric is persuaded to sign what appears to be an ordinary state document. In reality, it authorises his assassination, together with the deaths of President Diaz's three children. General Carla, however, has other plans. She intervenes, helps Eric and Ernie escape their immediate predicament, and takes steps to protect the children. The rivalry between Carla and Carillo eventually leads to a final confrontation.

This is General Carla, beautiful but ruthless.

General Carla with General Carillo. Carillo is the leader of the men's army, while Carla leads the women's army. At the start of the film they're allies, but after unseating the former president they turn against one another.

Carla's second-in-command is Juanita. Her rank is never stated. What comes after a general? Is it lieutenant?

Juanita is played by the beautiful actress Isobel Black, who was probably the most famous actor in the film after Eric and Ernie themselves. She made several films, but she was better known for appearing in television comedies. Eric and Ernie compete for her attention, but they never get the girl in any of their films.

Juanita on horseback. When we see her ride it's obvious Isobel herself, not a stunt double.

Eric becomes President Torres. He looks confused because he's lost his notes for his first television appearance. Incidentally, Eric and Ernie use their real names in all of their films.

After his bumbled speech, the revolutionaries decide that "Torres" has to go, But presidents can't resign in Parazuellia, they have to be shot. Carla arranges for Eric to be assassinated at a public banquet, but she assures him the bullet will be a blank to fake his death. After his death the two generals argue about who will become the next president. Carillo seizes power, but Carla is determined to overthrow him.

Now it's time for the final battle. And what a battle!

Carla's forces are outnumbered and have no chance of success.

But she has a plan. Carla turns to Juanita and delivers the film's most memorable line:

"Now let's see what the men are made of".

I'll come back to the meaning of this line at the end.

The women remove their uniforms, revealing pink lingerie, and advance towards the enemy fortress. They walk slowly, calmly, confidently. It's a wonderfully provocative sight. The men, who had previously been so certain of an easy victory, suddenly find themselves confronted by a rather different sort of opposition.

What can the men do? They're so confused that they're unable to fight. Their hearts pound in their chests. They lower their weapons. And the women open fire.

The men, still aroused, are now terrified as they come under a hail of bullets.

The women charge. All the men can see is a flurry of pink bras and panties. Even worse, their breasts are bouncing as they run.

The women don't want to negotiate. They fire again and again. They run past the lines of dead bodies, still shooting the defenceless men.

The women are content as they eliminate their enemies. Many of them are smiling.

This is the last sight that the men see. They thought the women were timid sexual objects, but they're armed, determined and deadly.

It's all over within two minutes. Most of the men are shot during the initial assault, while the survivors retreat into the fortress. When the battle is over, General Carla comes to enjoy her victory. The remaining men raise their hands in surrender. Her response is uncompromising: "Take no prisoners". The women resume firing, and the remaining resistance is brutally extinguished. Carla has achieved more than a military victory. She has seized absolute power and becomes the first president of the Women's Republic of Parazuellia.

I find this entire sequence extremely sexy. It's not simply the sight of attractive women in lingerie, nor is it the shooting in isolation. It's the combination of the two. The men begin the confrontation supremely confident, expecting to overwhelm their female opponents. Then the balance of power changes completely. The women use their sexuality as a weapon, exploit the men's expectations and ultimately destroy them.

This reminds me of Valerie Solanas' SCUM Manifesto which she wrote in 1967, the same year the film was made. Solanas imagined a world in which women would overthrow society and eliminate the male sex. No compromise. In "The Magnificent Two" women are shown eliminating men, even if it's framed as a comedy. Her manifesto is an extraordinary mixture of revolutionary fervour, political provocation and advocacy of violence against men. She even suggested that death sexually excites men. I can verify this in my own reaction to the film.

There are four elements in the final battle:

Female power: The women aren't helpless victims of male abuse. They're the aggressors, and they're completely in control.

Sexual display: The pink lingerie makes their appearance deliberately provocative. Their sexuality is part of the theatrical deception.

Male vulnerability: The armed men, who presumably consider themselves powerful, are sexually aroused, which makes them helpless.

Death: The contrast between the women's glamour and the lethal consequences gives the scene its peculiar charge.

President Carla. The new ruler of the Women's Republic of Parazuellia. There's no idle talk of equality of the sexes. The women have the absolute power.

This subtle look shared by Carla says it all. 

I promised to come back to Carla's words to Juanita; "Now let's see what the men are made of".

There's a delicious irony in her words. The men were being given an opportunity to prove themselves. If they aren't excited by the lingerie-clad women, she'll mock them and say they're not real men. If, on the other hand, they're excited by the women, they'll lower their weapons, ready to have sex, and they'll be shot. Either way, Carla had them exactly where she wants them.

Blood & Gold (5 Stars)

"The love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10)

Never has a biblical quotation been more appropriate for a film. In the dying days of World War II, a fortune in 31 gold bars becomes the obsession of various groups of people, each convinced that the treasure belongs to them. Their greed will ultimately cost them their lives.

Heinrich, a German soldier who's deserted the army, has more important things on his mind. His wife and son have been killed in an air raid, but his young daughter has survived. All he wants is to get home to her. Unfortunately, he encounters a particularly nasty group of SS soldiers led by the fanatical and rather unhinged von Starnfeld. Left hanging from a tree, Heinrich is rescued by Elsa, a young farmer who has little love for the Nazis herself.

Meanwhile, von Starnfeld is obsessed with finding the 31 gold bars supposedly hidden beneath the ruins of a Jewish family's former home. He has no intention of letting anything, including the approaching Allied armies, distract him from his prize. His second-in-command, Dörfler, is rather more practical, but he too has an unhealthy interest in the treasure.

The villagers aren't much better. The mayor, a thoroughly despicable Nazi, and his accomplices have their own history with the gold. They were responsible for robbing the Jewish family during the Kristallnacht pogrom and burning down their home. The local priest, however, has a nobler motive. He's removed the treasure from the coffin where it was hidden, determined that the mayor and his associates should never get their hands on it.

As the hunt intensifies, the body count rises. Paule, Elsa's brother, becomes a victim of the SS's brutality. His desperate attempt to defend himself ends in tragedy when von Starnfeld shoots him. Heinrich and Elsa, meanwhile, find themselves caught up in an increasingly bloody struggle in which the gold changes hands, loyalties are tested and practically everyone seems prepared to kill for a few more bars.

The priest, the mayor, the SS officers and the villagers all pay a heavy price for their involvement. Even when the treasure is finally within reach, there's no shortage of people willing to betray and murder one another to get it. And the greed doesn't end with the Germans. When the Americans finally encounter the scattered gold, their reaction provides one last, rather amusing twist to the proceedings.

I don't normally enjoy war films, but "Blood & Gold" is a brilliant exception. It has the atmosphere of a grindhouse production, something that's already apparent during the opening credits. Director Peter Thorwarth delivers outrageous violence, dark humour, memorable characters and some wonderfully inventive action.

It's certainly not a conventional World War II film, and that's precisely what makes it so entertaining.

Iron Man 2 (4½ Stars)

This is the second film I've watched with my grandson Oliver in an attempt to help him learn English. It should have been his third film, but he made excuses last week. I intend to make it a regular fixture, a film in English every Sunday. I've picked the MCU films, all the way from Iron Man to the multiverse, but I'll allow him to pick anything he wants to watch, as long as it's in English. I'll let you know how I get on. Keep reading my blog.

The film started off badly. In the opening scenes at the Stark Expo people were arguing and talking over one another. I kept looking sideways at Oliver, hoping he wasn't getting disillusioned. But as it continued into the action scenes he was obviously enjoying it. This was a perfect film to encourage a 10-year-old child to learn English.

Success Rate:  + 1.1

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

Halloween [1978] (5 Stars)

Another year, another Halloween, another viewing of John Carpenter's masterpiece. I've now watched this film every year on 31st October since 2021, and it hasn't lost a single bit of its magic. There's nothing I can add to my previous reviews, except that I still love it just as much. Roll on Halloween 2027

Success Rate:  + 213.4

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

Star Trek 7: Generations (4 Stars)

There are actors who play a part, and then there are actors who inhabit one. Patrick Stewart belongs firmly in the latter category. His performance as Captain Jean-Luc Picard is a masterclass in acting, and "Star Trek Generations" provides an opportunity to appreciate just how extraordinarily good he is.

Stewart has a remarkable command of his craft. His voice alone is an instrument, capable of conveying authority, warmth, amusement, anger and vulnerability, sometimes within the space of a single sentence. His delivery is impeccable, but never feels rehearsed or artificial. Every word has weight, every pause has purpose, and even the smallest change in expression can tell us more than an entire page of dialogue.

What makes him so compelling is his ability to combine strength with sensitivity. He can be commanding without being overbearing, intellectual without appearing detached, and emotional without ever becoming sentimental. There's an unmistakable dignity about his performances, but he also knows when to let his guard down. It's in those quieter moments that his talent really shines.

The meeting of two generations of Star Trek captains may be the film's great attraction, but for me, Patrick Stewart is its greatest asset. He doesn't simply play Picard. He makes us believe in him.

A magnificent actor in every role that he plays.

"Star Trek Generations" offers the handover from Captain Kirk to Captain Picard that we never saw on television. It couldn't have happened, because Kirk and Picard lived about 80 years apart, in two different centuries. The film makes up for it by offering a temporal nexus to bring the two men together.

Patrick Stewart
13 July 1940 – 28 October 2026

Success Rate:  + 1.4

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

Scared Stiff (3 Stars)

After a near-death experience a young man finds he has supernatural powers. He has the power to move things with his mind, and he can enter the dreams of anyone who's sleeping.

I picked the film to get in the mood for Halloween, but I was disappointed. It contains the tropes of horror films, such as vampires, cemeteries and a serial killer, without actually becoming a horror film. It's an action comedy with fantasy elements.

Twinkle Twinkle Little Stars (4½ Stars)

The third film in the Lucky Stars series is the best. There's still plenty of comedy, but there's more emphasis on action this time around. The fight scenes are plentiful, beautifully choreographed and thoroughly entertaining. Jackie Chan gets more opportunities to show off his fighting skills, while Yuen Biao is particularly well served, with more fight scenes showcasing his incredible agility and acrobatics.

Sammo Hung is on fine form too, both in the comedy department and in the action. His tennis racket fight is an absolute delight!

The chemistry between the three martial arts stars remains excellent, and the film strikes a better balance between comedy and action than its predecessors. Great fun, and my favourite of the trilogy.