Clash of the Titans [2010] (4½ Stars)

It's taken me a long time to get round to watching this film. It was strongly recommended by my guest writer Kaylena in her review, but I was still reluctant to watch it. The problem is that I love Ray Harryhausen's version so much. For me it's perfection that can't be improved upon. On the other hand, the new version stars Gemma Arterton in one of her early films before she quit Hollywood, which is a reason to watch any film. It's not just her beauty and grace. She has acting skills which set her far above her peers.

Any doubts I had about the quality of the film were washed away within the first five minutes. The cinematography and special effects are perfect, as realistic as computer graphics can make them. Forgive me if it sounds blasphemous, but my first thought was "This is the sort of film Ray Harryhausen would make if he'd been born 50 years later". The flying horse, the Djinn, the winged monsters -- whatever they're called -- they all looked perfect.

Unfortunately, I found that the final scene was a letdown. I don't know what happened, why the portrayal of the Kraken was so disappointing. Maybe the special effects budget had run out by the end of the film. Maybe the director thought that an overpowering, invincible monster would be better portrayed by close ups with only a few complete  shots. Whatever the reason was, I'm disappointed. Compare the two Krakens:

Ray Harryhausen's 1981 Kraken.

The 2010 Kraken.

Do you see what I mean? Even though the older version is obviously a model, it looks more terrifying. It looks more real. Surely today's computers could have done a better job.

I think I detected something of a message in the film. Some of the dialogue seemed to be referring to religion in general, including today's Christianity, not just to the ancient Greek Gods. I'm not certain. Next time I watch it I'll pay attention to this aspect, and I might write something about it.

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

Spartacus (5 Stars)

When the blazing sun hangs low in the western sky,
When the wind dies away on the mountain,
When the song of the meadowlark turns still,
When the field locust clicks no more in the field,
And the sea foam sleeps like a maiden at rest,
And twilight touches the shape of the wondering Earth,
I turn home.

Through blue shadows and purple woods
I turn home.

I turn to the place where I was born,
To the mother who bore me and the father who taught me,
Long ago, long ago, long ago.

Alone am I now, lost and alone in a far, wide, wondering world.
Yet still when the blazing sun hangs low,
When the wind dies away and the sea foam sleeps,
And twilight touches the wondering Earth,
I turn home.

This is the greatest epic film ever made. It stands above all the other epic films made in the late 1950's and early 1960's, such as "Ben Hur", "Lawrence of Arabia", "Cleopatra" and "The Ten Commandments". After watching it today I'm wondering whether I should have included it in my list of 30 films to watch before you die. If I were composing my list today I'd definitely include it, but it's too late to change the list now.

I watched this film over and over again as a child. I remember it being frequently repeated on television, and I couldn't resist watching it. It was a favourite to be shown at Easter, probably because of the crucifixion scene. It has nothing to do with Christianity, of course. Crucifixion was a common form of execution practised by the Romans, mostly used for political crimes. The story of Spartacus contains the biggest mass crucifixion in history: 6000 slaves were crucified side by side for 120 miles on the road from Rome to Capua. In contrast to the usual practise of removing the bodies after death, they were left on the crosses for months, creating an unbearable stench.

The film's release was surrounded by controversy. The film was written by Dalton Trumbo, who was blacklisted in Hollywood because of his Communist views. Stanley Kubrick later distanced himself from the film for different reasons. He claimed that he hadn't been given full artistic control as director, and he complained that the script made Spartacus appear faultless. The film was made at the beginning of his career in Hollywood, so it's possible he wasn't given as much freedom as he had when he was regarded as an experienced director. However, the film won four Academy Awards and was a huge box office success, so it's strange that he doesn't want to be associated with it.

Roman history is fascinating, especially the first Century B.C, which is when this film takes place. The final scenes take place in 71 B.C. If you watch the film you might become curious what happened next, how the world's greatest republic turned into the world's cruellest dictatorship within a few years.

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

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (4½ Stars)

I almost gave this film five stars. The action is breathtakingly fast for most of the film. I love the blending of Chinese and Egyptian culture displayed by Imhotep's Club in Shanghai. The martial arts action is subdued, but whenever it breaks out it's amazing. It's definitely more thrilling than "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom", which it resembles in many ways. So what's the problem? It's simple. There's no Rachel Weisz. Rick O'Connell's wife Evelyn is played by a different actress.

Supposedly Rachel Weisz decided not to appear in the film because of "problems with the script". That's her prerogative, I suppose. No actor or actress is ever compelled to take part in her film. So what should have been done?

1. The problems could have been addressed, and the screenwriter could have been asked if a partial rewrite was possible.

2. Failing that, Rachel Weisz could have been offered more money.

3. Failing that, a forced rewrite would have to take place. Evelyn O'Connell should have been written out of the film. She could have been dead and replaced by a new wife.

The worst possible solution was to replace her with a new actress. It spoils the credibility of the film. It might have been acceptable, barely acceptable, to pick an actress who looked similar and talked similar, giving her a minimum of screen time. That's not what happened. The new director, Rob Cohen, completely messed it up. Not only did he pick a new actress, Maria Bello, who looked nothing like Rachel Weisz; he allowed her to act in a way that gave her a completely different personality. She's a different character in every aspect except for her name.

Let this be a lesson for all other film directors in future. However good your film might be, you'll never earn a full five star rating from me unless you get the casting right.

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

Phone Booth (5 Stars)

I'm sure it's happened to everyone at some time in his life. You see a film that you think is great, so you tell a friend about it, but when you try to describe it he says "That sounds boring". This is one of those films. Let me tell you what it's about:

A man goes into a phone booth to call his girlfriend. The phone rings, and the caller tells him he will kill him if he doesn't do what he wants. The whole film takes place inside the phone booth.

If that doesn't sound boring, what does?

The film's strength is in the way a very simple scene can escalate into mayhem. It has similarities with "Falling Down", another film directed by Joel Schumacher. At times I feel like laughing, but a minute later I'm reminded that it's a very serious situation.

The film is original in the way it's filmed. With the exception of the introduction and the last five minutes the whole film takes place in real time. It's not a single take like "Victoria", but the time in the film runs at the same speed as in the real world while you sit watching it. I'm sure that this has been done in other films, but it's rare enough to make a big impression.

The cinematography is amazing. Split screens are used more effectively than in any other film I've seen. They're needed to maintain the real time, showing us what's happening in different places at the same time. Brilliant!

You might still think the film sounds boring. It isn't. Take my word for it.

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

Thelma (4 Stars)

Thelma is an 18-year-old girl who comes from a small community on the coast of Norway. She's a Christian, she's never drunk alcohol and she's still a virgin. She's a good girl from a good family. When she goes to university in Oslo her life is turned around. She has to try out alcohol to see if it's as bad as people say. As for sex, she finds herself being more attracted to girls than to boys. This gives her strong feelings of guilt, because she knows that homosexuality is evil. It's what she's been told all her life.

At the beginning of her first year at university she has epileptic seizures. At least, the seizures have the form of epilepsy. The doctors tell her that it's something different, something stress-related. Unknown to the doctors, it's much more than stress. When the seizures occur birds are attracted to her, flying against windows to get to her.

The mystery slowly unfolds. Her parents have known that Thelma possesses supernatural powers since she was six, and they've relied on Thelma's Christian beliefs to suppress the powers. When she wants something to happen it happens. Now that Thelma's beliefs are growing weaker the powers are returning.

"Thelma" was Norway's submission for the Best Foreign Language Film at the 2018 Academy Awards, so I knew it would be a high quality film before I went to the cinema. It has the typical traits of Scandinavian supernatural films. It moves slowly, relying on the atmosphere and a slow buildup of  suspense to impress the viewer. I greatly enjoyed it, but I can't say that everyone felt the same way. A couple sitting a few seats away from me were laughing whenever something happened. They didn't get it. I agree, Norwegian films aren't for everyone, but they should have made a bit more effort.

Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home (4 Stars)

The plot of this film is undoubtedly the most ridiculous of all the Star Trek films. It's so unfeasible that it sounds like a parody.

The Earth is being destroyed by an unmanned alien vessel. Spock deduces that the only way to save the Earth is to travel back to the 20th Century to find whales able to talk to the vessel.

Did Nichelle Nichols ever dream she would have to deliver a line like that? No wonder her face looks so horrified.

But let me go out on a limb. However ridiculous the plot sounds, it works. I've watched this film a few times, and the plot never bothers me. Within the parameters of the Star Trek universe it's credible. It's a lot better than any of the films made since the franchise was rebooted with new actors in 2009. I could imagine this story having been made as an episode of the original series 20 years earlier. That's the highest compliment I can give it.

Nevertheless, I can't help wondering how the story was sold to the studio bosses who probably weren't Star Trek fans. Didn't the plot outline make them throw their arms in the air in dismay? Maybe the story was acceptable as a conservationist epic. In 1986 humpback whales were in danger of becoming extinct. The film assumes that by the 23rd Century they will already be extinct. This is short-sighted, because only humpback whales can save humanity. Save the whales! That's a slogan the screenwriters had to keep chanting to drown out the complaints from the studio bosses.

Somehow I always feel sad when I see Leonard Nimoy in a Star Trek film. He's not the only one of the original cast who's died, but he's the one I miss the most.

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

I, Tonya (5 Stars)

What a film! What a performance by Margot Robbie! The advertisements for the film describe it as a dark comedy, but it isn't really funny. If anyone laughs it's to overcome a feeling of unease in his stomach. We feel the emotional turmoil of Tonya Harding in her life, and it's amazing that Margot Robbie could portray her so well. This is the performance of her career, so far.

The film's style strengthens the narrative. It's made in a pseudo documentary format, with fake interviews interspersed with the action. This pulls us deeper into the story, letting us know the feelings of the characters.

I'm old enough to remember Tonya Harding, as probably most of my readers are. It's a story from recent history, only 25 years old. It's not usual to film a true story so soon after the events, although it's not unique. Last year's "Queen of Katwe" was filmed only 10 years after the events it portrays. I remember the controversy that surrounded her, because I lived in America while she was still a topic of interest. What the news reports of the 1990's didn't tell me was the background story to her life. That's what the film concentrates on, rather than the ice skating itself.

The skating was in total contrast to her life. When women or young girls are on the ice performing figure skating it's not just about the acrobatics of the event, it's about the image, as the film itself emphasises in its early stages. They are ice queens in magnificent clothing. If a girl doesn't express the image that's required she can never win a contest, however skilled she is. The trouble is that you need money to equip yourself for this.

Money is one thing Tonya didn't have. She had to sew her own dresses, because all the money her mother could give her had already been spent on her training and her ice skates themselves. She came from a poor family, a mother who spent most of her life as a single mother. She'd actually been married five times, but the men didn't stay long. If the mother was half as bad as she's portrayed in the film it's not surprising that they didn't want to stay.

Tonya's life was characterised by abuse. Her mother abused her. Her husband Jeff abused her. It was a cycle of abuse that she couldn't escape from. Tonya managed to get away from her mother, but it meant living with a man who was even worse. Tonya's mother only stabbed her. Her husband shot her. But she still kept returning to him. She was unable to make a new start. How could she be a queen on the ice if she was a battered woman at home?

This is the contrast shown throughout the film. As a viewer I was crying for Tonya. I wanted to take her in my arms and drag her away from her life. It's the strength of Margot Robbie's acting that made me feel emotionally for Tonya. However, I have to admit that if I'd known her at the time I could never have saved her. Abused women are addicted to their suffering. If she'd had a good man she would never have been happy with him. After being told by her mother all her life that she wasn't good enough, she needed a man to tell her the same. I could never have done that. I would have put her on a throne and told her that she was in her very essence a Queen, in every facet of her life, not just on the ice. That's not what she wanted to hear. She wanted to be told she was worthless.

I walked out of the cinema feeling numb and horrified. What had I just seen? Do families like this really exist? Evidently they do, and even big celebrities can come from such a background.

Assault on Precinct 13 (5 Stars)

I can usually remember when I first saw my favourite films. Even if I can't remember where I first saw them, I can say approximately what year it was. This is an exception. Did I see it in the 1980's, the 1990's or the 2000's? I have no idea. The only thing I can say to narrow it down is that I bought the DVD that I watched today on 3rd March 2005. I have an infallible record of when I bought films from Amazon. Unfortunately, I didn't buy all my films from Amazon. I bought a lot of DVDs from stores in Birmingham, such as Virgin, HMV and Zavvi. I didn't keep my receipts. I threw them away after the first time I watched the films and knew that the discs were okay.

If I had to guess, I'd say I first watched "Assault on Precinct 13" between 1997 and 2003 on television. It impressed me immediately. I believe that for a short while I called it my favourite film. It's not so high in my list now, but I still include it in my list of 30 films to watch before you die. If you're one of the few people who still hasn't seen it, I can't recommend it highly enough. Just don't get it mixed up with the poor quality 2005 remake.

The film was made in 1976 with a budget of less than $100,000 which was a small amount even for the time. When it was released it was hardly noticed, but it's gained high critical acclaim over the years. It has a 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, to which my reaction is "Why not more?" The film is so simple, but it's perfect in its simplicity.

The film takes place in Los Angeles. 12-year-old Kathy is shot by a gang member when she's buying an ice cream. Her father manages to shoot the man in revenge. God bless America! God bless guns! He flees from the other gang members into a nearby police station. What he doesn't know is that the police station has already closed. There is just a lieutenant and two secretaries waiting for everything to be cleared out the next day.

A bus passing through deposits three prisoners in the cells while waiting for a doctor. But then the gang arrives, wanting to kill the girl's father in revenge. It's a big attack, at least 30 gang members, maybe 50. The police lieutenant can't hold them off by himself, so he gives the prisoners guns and asks them for help.

I can't fault the film. None of the actors are famous, and some of them made hardly any other films, but they all put on excellent performances. For instance, Kim Richardson, the child actress who played Kathy, is still an actress and has progressed to playing minor roles in films like "Sharknado 3". That's hardly an outstanding career, but she was in the right place at the right time and was simply perfect in this film.

This is probably the best action film of the 1970's -- I'm willing to argue with everyone who says differently -- and it's definitely the best low budget film ever made.

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

Cruel Intentions (3 Stars)

This is one of the many film adaptations of Pierre Choderlos de Laclos' 18th Century novel, "Dangerous Liaisons". It's a tribute to the power of the novel that it's always relevant, whether it's set in 1960's Paris, in 1930's Shanghai or as in this film, in 1990's New York. What's common to every version is that we see the idle rich spending their time with sexual encounters and revenge schemes.

In this version Kathrynn Merteuil and Sebastian Valmont are brother and sister in name only. They live in the same house after their parents married, but there's no connection by blood. Sebastian is a womaniser who has slept with many girls, mostly the daughters of rich families in New York, but the girl he desires the most is his sister. That's hardly surprising, considering Kathrynn is played by Sarah Michelle Gellar. Kathrynn knows what Sebastian wants and uses it to control him. She flirts with him, partially exposing herself in front of him and rubbing her body against his. He's helpless in her hands.

Kathrynn was recently dumped by her boyfriend in favour of an innocent young girl, Cecile. She asks Sebastian to seduce Cecile to break up the relationship. He's reluctant to do this because he wants to seduce Annette Hargrove, the daughter of his school's principal, before the next term starts. Kathrynn can't wait that long, so she turns up the pressure. She writhes on her brother's lap and promises him he can sleep with her after he succeeds in his task.

The story has several twists and turns as it progresses. In the early parts of the film Sebastian seems like the bad guy, but as it progresses we see that he's the victim of his manipulative sister. She's playing other games that aren't apparent at first. The tagline of the German release of this film is

"Love is a game in which there are no winners".

That's very cynical, but it fits this film.

This is a sleek, sexy adaptation of "Dangerous Liaisons". The music and the atmosphere give it the feeling of a teen comedy. For me that's the film's greatest weakness. It's difficult to accept teenagers as being so evil and manipulative.

In the film we see an article in the magazine Seventeen in which Annette Hargrove praises the values of celibacy. She begins with admirable words:

"With teenage pregnancy on the rise and the growing concern of teens contracting HIV, one would think that my virgin status would be the norm, not the exception. However, as I enter my senior year at Manchester Prep, I am all too aware that many of my peers may view me as weird because I haven't had sex yet. It's not that I can't get a date. In fact I have a terrific boyfriend. We just feel that people our age are too young to actually understand what love is, and therefore we are waiting until we reach a more mature stage of our relationship. Most teens I know live their lives day to day, without a care in the world, and that's the way we should be during adolescence. But when you add sex into this carefree lifestyle the consequences can be devastating for both the individuals and the relationship".

Those are wonderful words. But how does she continue?

"Now is the likda dihaindj jasion doi ths kifop Imcha vitme sando wital cuartc juccly onma caucl woiml kichr".

She repeats the same gibberish for two pages. If you don't believe me, click on the photo above for a closer look. If she's run out of things to say she should just stop talking. Maybe she isn't serious about waiting till marriage after all. The magazine should never have interviewed her. It's all very sloppy.

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

Star Trek: Beyond (3 Stars)

Some of my readers might be wondering why I'm giving the latest Star Trek film the same rating as the trashy sci-fi film that I watched yesterday, "The Interplanetary Surplus Male and the Amazon Women from Outer Space". That's an easy question to answer. I rate films in the context of what they're attempting to achieve and whether I think they succeed. "The Interplanetary Surplus Male" -- I have to shorten its name -- is a low budget film made for laughs. I laughed, but I didn't laugh a lot. Three stars. Average. "Star Trek: Beyond" is a big budget motion picture, intended to excite and thrill the viewer. I was excited, but not a lot. Three stars. Average.

I just can't relate to the new Star Trek films made since 2009. They're not right. How can they cast actors who weren't in the original series? I mean, just look at Zoe Saldana. She's a beautiful woman, nobody could deny that, but she's not Nichelle Nichols. Not even close. The same is true of all the other cast members. Chris Pine isn't William Shatner. It's tantamount to sacrilege to allow him to play James T. Kirk. Maybe if I'd never watched the original series I could appreciate the new films more.

Why couldn't they have made the films about another star ship and its crew who were active at the same time as Captain Kirk? That would have been better.

Idris Elba is the film's villain. Normally that would have excited me, because he's one of my favourite actors. However, I feel that he's wasted in his role as Krall. For most of the film he's unrecognisable. It's not just his face, even his voice isn't recognisable. It was a waste hiring such a magnificent actor for this role. They could have saved money by putting a random stunt man inside the costume for the film.

The battle in the final scenes looked very much like something taken from "Star Wars". That's my main criticism of the film: it's too Star-Wars-ish.

Supposedly a fourth Star Trek film will be made with the new actors. I'm dreading it. I thought that computer technology is now far enough advanced to recreate actors on screen. Bring back young versions of William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelly and Nichelle Nichols. That's the only way to make a good Star Trek film again.

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

The Interplanetary Surplus Male and the Amazon Women from Outer Space (3 Stars)

The planet Venus is inhabited by a race of females who are only able to have female offspring. Once every hundred years they visit Earth to find a man who can impregnate them. He has to be a perfect specimen with high intelligence, strong muscles and above all else great sexual stamina. After all, he's expected to have sex with thousands of women. They pick a university astronomy professor called Harvey Kirk and take him back to their planet. That's where the fun begins, or at least it should begin. Harvey is caught up in a revolution.

The film stars mostly women, and they're divided into two categories. Most of them are beautiful blondes, but the planet's leaders are played by female body builders.

This is Andrulla Blanchette. I think I'm in love!

Or maybe I prefer Lauren Powers?

But Jayne Trcka is so beautiful as well!

And then there's Valentina Chepiga, who plays Valkyr, the Queen of the Amazons. Luckily for Harvey he doesn't have to choose. He can have them all, but only once each. He has a lot of women to deal with, and it's business, not pleasure.

Harvey has to work hard. He's warned that if he fails to perform he'll be executed and another man will be chosen. It's no good saying he has a headache.

What I like about the film is its alienation technique. Harvey frequently stops and yells at the director, complaining about the poor lines he's been given. The director, off-screen, replies by telling him the lines are good but David (the actor's real name) is a bad actor. In another scene Harvey meets an Amazonian and says, "Aren't you a student in my university?" to which she answers, "No, I'm having to play two roles to cut costs". In yet another scene Harvey yells, "Cut! I'm not doing a scene with this woman. She scares me". The director tells him to shut up or he'll never get a role in another film. This was prophetic. This was David Rabius' first and last film.

What I don't like about the film is that there's no nudity. The whole film is about sex, and we see nothing? That sucks.

The only actor of note in the film is Michael Dorn, who appears as a bartender in a university bar. He must have been short of work between Star Trek episodes.

This isn't a good film, but it's good fun for what it is. Watch it once and have a laugh.

Place Beyond The Pines (2 Stars)

I've known about this film for a few years and had only heard good about it. After watching it today I don't understand why the critics unite in praising it. Rather than being a consistent narrative it rambles on from one story to another, changing the lead character in the style of a soap opera. For the first 90 minutes I had difficulty maintaining interest and almost turned it off. It was only in the last 45 minutes when Dane DeHaan's character was introduced that I began too enjoy the film.

The story is about a policeman who shoots a bank robber in the line of duty. He's plagued by guilt and leaves the police force to enter politics. 16 years later his son becomes friends with the son of the man he killed, not knowing about their connection.

The film takes place in three stages, like a play in three acts, with different characters who come and go:

1. The bank robber and his life.
2. The policeman and his moral struggles.
3. The policeman's son.

Maybe the film could have been made better, but I don't know how.

The seemingly random film title is the English translation of Schenectady, the name of the town in upstate New York where the film takes place.

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

Sorceress 2 (3 Stars)

This is a film that makes me sad. It's supposedly a sequel to "Sorceress", made two years earlier in 1995. I say supposedly because it's a completely different story with new characters. The only connection is that Julie Strain appears in both films. That isn't bad in itself, but what disappoints me most is that "Sorceress 2" uses footage copied from the first film. Why? For me that's the ultimate in bad filmmaking. When I first saw "Sorceress 2" I thought the opening scenes were a flashback to the first film. I could have accepted that. Then I realised that it was a new story using old footage, and I clenched my fists in rage. "So maybe Julie Strain wasn't available for this film", I assumed. That was another error. As the film progressed I saw Julie in newly filmed scenes, so why didn't she film a new scene for the beginning of the film? It's inconceivable.

The film has a plot typical for supernatural erotic thrillers. A witches' coven is ruled by three sisters who have lived for centuries by absorbing the life essence of men that they seduce. Now they want global domination by marketing cosmetics which will turn other women into witches. That's a ridiculous plot, but I could have swallowed it. What I don't like is that there's a man, Deacon John, who is controlling the witches. He seems irrelevant to the story. Couldn't the sisters just absorb him and carry on without him?

The film also stars Julie K. Smith as one of the three sisters. Usually, seeing the two Julies together in a film would be a guarantee for quality, but not this time. At the end a third film is announced, "Sorceress 3: The Sweet Spell of Success". It was never made. I'm glad.

I bought this film on DVD in 2005. It's now out of print. "Sorceress" has been remastered for Blu-ray. Don't expect to see a new release of "Sorceress 2" any time soon.

Drive (4 Stars)

After watching "Neon Demon" last week I decided to watch a few more films directed by Nicolas Winding Refn. Luckily several of them are available on Netflix. I'm beginning to get a feeling for his style now. He and his films have never been nominated for Academy Awards, but he's a favourite at independent film festivals, most notably at the Cannes Film Festival. His two most highly praised films so far have been "Neon Demon" and "Drive".

First of all I'll state my biggest criticism of "Drive": it's too short. The plot is complex, so 100 minutes isn't enough. A running time of 150 minutes would have done more justice to the subplots, as well as further developing the characters. Is there a director's cut lying in a draw somewhere?

Ryan Gosling is the film's unnamed hero. He's moved to Los Angeles to make it big, like so many other anonymous faces in and around the film industry. His job of choice is as a stunt driver. Nobody can crash a car like him. Aren't stunt men the most anonymous of all film stars? They're paid to remain unseen.

His relative success in Hollywood isn't enough to pay the bills. He works as a car mechanic. He also does freelance work as a getaway driver for robberies. It's all very impersonal. He doesn't want to make friends, he just does his job. He doesn't even speak to the crooks that he drives to and from crime scenes. They respect him for his driving skills, not for his personality.

He becomes romantically attached to his neighbour, a woman whose husband is in prison. It's a very underplayed romance. He's a decent man and respects the woman's marriage. When the husband is released from prison they make friends, and he offers to help him pay off debts to other criminals. He offers his services as a getaway driver to rob a pawn shop, but the robbery turns out wrong. Instead of the relatively small takings the Italian mafia is using the shop to store over a million dollars. The innocent driver gets caught up in a mob war in which he's the designated scapegoat. Or is he so innocent? That isn't clear. He might be a quiet person whose casual attitude makes other people think he doesn't know what he's doing, but he's more than able to handle himself in a fight.

The film is characterised by two features: bright colours and extreme violence. The style is very much like Quentin Tarantino's films, or at least it would be if there were more conversations. That's why "Drive" needs an extra 50 minutes. And, of course, Tarantino's films don't have such dazzling colours.

I can't help feeling that Nicolas Winding Refn is still slowly developing his style. His big masterpiece is yet to come. I can hardly wait.

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

Tomb Raider (2018) (4 Stars)

The rebooting of the Tomb Raider film franchise puzzled me. Didn't the original films, made in 2001 and 2003, say it all? From my vague remembrance of the films they were action-filled adventures, good fun to watch once but with no outstanding qualities. They were both moderately successful at the box office, and they were the breakthrough films for Angelina Jolie. I would have been happy if a third film had been made in 2005, but instead of that we've waited another 13 years, and now we have a new actress stepping into the shoes of the adventurer Lara Croft.

A review on the BBC's web site says that putting the 2001 and the 2018 films together is like comparing a Terminator with Postman Pat. That's amusing, but it's obvious what's meant. In 2001 the film began with Lara Croft already at the peak of her fighting powers. She was a virtually indestructible killing machine, every bit as powerful as the character in the video games on whom she was based. The 2018 film shows Lara earlier in her development, so it could be called a prequel. She isn't given her iconic twin guns until the final scene, which is when she first begins to look like Lara Croft.

There have been some complaints about the casting of Alicia Vikander from video game fans who say that she's too flat-chested to play the role. Other fans have answered that the character is more flat-chested in the recent video games. I've never played any of the games, so I've had to rely on fan pages that show comparisons of her appearance over the years. It seems to me that she started in 1996 with large breasts, her breasts were shrunk in the mid 2000's, but since then they've been growing again. Her breasts looked larger in the early games because her waist was unnaturally narrow, but that has been corrected over the last few years.

My opinion is that Alicia Vikander is slightly too flat-chested, but she's acceptable as the character. It's nothing that a good push-up bra can't put right in the next film.

Having said that, Alicia Vikander is an excellent actress, and she fills the role well. I don't know how old she's supposed to be in the film, I'd guess 22 or 23, but she's made up to look very young. In most of the early scenes she looks 18 at the most.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Walton Goggins appear as the film's main villain. He's an underrated actor that not many film fans know. I hope this film will boost his popularity. He has the skill to go a lot further in his career.

I feel tempted to watch the original Tomb Raider films again for the sake of comparison. Maybe.

The Paperboy (5 Stars)

In 1994 the Canadian horror film "The Paperboy" was made. In 2018, 24 years later, it still hasn't been released in England, America or even Canada. If you were lucky you might have been able to buy a copy of the Australian DVD release ten years ago, but it's now out of print.

Despite its practical non-existence, if you search online you'll find a lot of reviews. It's an insider tip for fans of horror films. They recognise its quality and speak about it in hushed tones. One of the film's most vocal advocates has been Joe Bob Briggs. When he presented it on Monstervision he called "The Paperboy" the most underrated horror film ever. His recommendation is enough to make anyone sit up and pay attention.

Today I watched "The Paperboy" with my son Benjamin, who's visiting me for a few days. He loved it, of course. He has good taste in films, and if anything he's easier to please than I am. He says of almost every film that he watches with me, "Will you give it five stars?" In this case the answer is a clear Yes. It's is in the list of my 50 favourite films.

What I like about the film is that I can relate to the main character, 12-year-old Johnny McFarley. I've never killed anyone, neither when I was 12 nor when I was older, but I can see myself in him. Maybe if I'd been tipped by tragedies in my life I could have turned out like him. There's a madness in him that I can see in myself. He wants a family. He wants to be loved. He's frustrated that his good deeds are misinterpreted by others. He lusts for his 16-year-old neighbour Brenda – as I also used to lust for older girls who were out of my league – but when she rejects him his feelings turn to hate. That's a step that I never took in my youth, because my intellect and my moral standards protected me, but how close was I to following a path of evil? I don't know. Probably a lot closer than I think.

Or maybe that's just the quality of the film. Maybe it's not just me. Maybe it would speak to the heart of any man who remembers what it was like to be young and confused, too hormonally imbalanced to make the right choices in life.

This is a film that I can recommend to anyone and everyone. I hope that it will eventually be remastered for Blu-ray. It deserves it.

The Mummy Returns (4½ Stars)

After watching "The Mummy" earlier today I had to watch the sequel as quickly as possible. It was made two years later in 2001, but the film's story takes place nine years later. Rick O'Connell and Evelyn Carnahan met in the first film; now they're married and have a precocious young son who's inherited his mother's intelligence and his father's reckless lust for adventure.

The back story is fleshed out in the sequel. In the first film the Mummy Imhotep mistook Evelyn for his lover Anck-Su-Namun, but now we find out that she's really a reincarnation of Nefertiri, Anck-Su-Namun's slave. That's an easy mistake to make. After 3000 years in the grave you can get people mixed up.

This is a very good film, but not quite up to the standard of the original. One of its weaknesses is in the use of CGI. In the first film the computer effects were used discreetly to add awe to the film whenever needed. In the sequel the computer effects are over-used and dominate the imagery.

I recommend the film strongly, especially if you're able to buy the trilogy as a box set in America and England.

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

The Mummy [1999] (5 Stars)

The last time I watched the 1999 version of "The Mummy" I said that it was "a great film that I should watch more often".  That was five years ago. I don't know why I've waited so long. There's no logical reason. After watching it today my first thought was "Wow! I should watch this again as soon as possible!" Some films are just perfect. By "some" I mean very few. "The Mummy" has everything in perfect proportions: action, suspense, humour and romance. Compare it with the 2017 version, which isn't bad in itself, but it isn't that special either. I can't remember why I gave it four stars. There must have been something I liked about it when I watched it, but whatever it was I've forgotten it now. It just wasn't memorable.

If you live in America or England you can buy the trilogy of Brendan Fraser's mummy films on Blu-ray for a very cheap price. Click the links below. In Germany it's cheaper to buy the films individually.

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

Ip Man 3 (5 Stars)

Here's a photo of Mike Tyson and Donnie Yen at the American premiere of "Ip Man 3" in Los Angeles, four weeks after I saw it in Birmingham. Donnie Yen might be a magnificent actor and an incredible martial arts fighter, but dress sense isn't his skill. Doesn't he at least have a wife who can tell him that neon green suits aren't in fashion?

In my opinion this was the best film of 2015, despite being slightly weaker than the two previous films. The filming for "Ip Man 4" began this month. I can hardly wait!

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