Jojo Rabbit (5 Stars)

"Jojo Rabbit" is such an evil film that I'm surprised it was ever made. It's a comedy, but so much of it is a portrayal of things that really happened. You need to have a twisted sense of humour to enjoy what's shown. That explains why I like it so much, but it doesn't explain the film's huge box office success.

Johannes Betzler, nicknamed Jojo, is a 10-year-old boy who lives in Germany during the Second World War. Based on the events, it probably starts in autumn 1944 and continues into May 1945. As a blue-eyed Aryan boy he loves the Führer. He's a member of the Hitler Youth and loves going to their outdoor camps. It's just like the boy scouts, except that the boys shout "Heil Hitler".

Another difference is that there are girls at the camps. Jojo is at the age where he's beginning to tell the difference.

One... two... three... all together now! "Heil Hitler!"

Jojo sits next to his best friend Yorki, who doesn't look quite as Aryan. Don't worry about it. Hitler didn't look Aryan either. But what are they listening to so attentively?

The beautiful Fräulein Rahm is showing the children what a Jew looks like. On another occasion she tells the girls that she's had 18 children for Germany. And yet she's still a Fräulein, not a Frau? I wonder if the children were from 18 different men.

Before the children go to bed, they indulge in exciting activities like burning books.

Then comes Jojo's big test of manhood. He's told to pretend that a rabbit is a Jew and snap its neck. He can't do it. Everyone has his limits. He lets the rabbit go, and everyone laughs at him. The camp leaders give him the name Jojo Rabbit, and it sticks.

But there's one thing that makes Jojo special: he has an imaginary friend. It's not just any imaginary friend, it's Adolf Hitler himself. Adolf appears to him and gives him advice on how to be a good Nazi.

I've been told that it's common for young children to have an imaginary friend. It's not a mental illness, it's a normal part of growing up. I can't relate to this, because I personally never had an imaginary friend. Is it normal to speak aloud to the friend, as Jojo does? I don't know. It's something I need to read about.

Jojo's world falls apart when he finds out that his mother is hiding a Jewish girl in the house. She looks nothing like the Jews described by Fräulein Rahm. She doesn't have horns or fangs. Jojo falls in love with her. His friend Adolf is furious, telling Jojo that Jews have the power to mesmerise their victims.

"Jojo Rabbit" is a comedy. It's a coming-of-age drama. But it's also a picture of what life was like in Nazi Germany. What would I have been like? Would I have been a Nazi? Probably. I've never had to live in a country where I'm subject to propaganda every day. Only a beautiful Jewess could change my ways.

It wasn't just about the society. Hitler himself was overwhelming. Ernst Hanfstaengl said of him, "What Hitler was able to do to a crowd in 2½ hours will never be repeated in 10,000 years. Because of his miraculous throat construction, he was able to create a rhapsody of hysteria". There have been many populists over the centuries, but none as powerful as Adolf Hitler.

Let this scene from the film be a stark warning of the dangers of a Nazi ideology. "Never again!" That's what people say. And yet Russia has become a Fascist country, led by a dictator called Vladimir Putin. He holds speeches against the Nazis in order to hide the fact that he's one himself. He's brainwashed his people to believe that he's only invaded Ukraine to protect Russia from NATO. When we hear them giving interviews they sound stupid, but don't be so fast to criticise them. If I lived in Russia and were subjected to Fascist propaganda 24 hours a day, would I be any different to them? I hope I would, but I can't guarantee it.

Success Rate:  + 4.5

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

Smallville 3.12 - Hereafter

Click here to watch the podcast.

The episode was first broadcast on 4th April 2004. Maybe I should have named the broadcast date for all the episodes, but I'm not going to go back and add it to the 55 previous episodes. It's too much hard work.

Most of the Smallville episodes have a main story, accompanied by one or more subplots. This episode is made up of two stories that have almost equal screentime. The first story follows the typical freak-of-the-week format. It's about Jordan Cross, a teenager whose mother was struck by a meteor while he was still in the womb. His mother died a few days after he was born. Ever since he was born he has the gift of seeing a person's death when he touches him. This was first noticed by his father when Jordan was six. Since then he's been home-schooled, but now he's said he wants to enrol in Smallville High School as a normal teenager. That's not a good idea, because he can't control his power. Even an accidental touch in the hallway gives him a vision.

First Lana touches him as he picks up a cup of water, and he sees her dying peacefully as an old woman. Then the cross-country coach, Joseph Altman, congratulates him on his running, giving him a friendly tap on the arm, and Jordan sees him being run over by a car. A few minutes later the coach walks into the road and deliberately places himself in the path of a car that's out of control. Jordan cries for help. Clark super-speeds to the rescue and saves the coach. Strangely, nobody spotted Clark using his powers. The coach is depressed that he's had to shut off the life support of his daughter Julia, who was injured by a hit-and-run driver a few years ago. This is the first time that Jordan's seen a death which didn't happen.

When he touches Clark he sees a cape flying through the sky towards the stars. This makes him think Clark will never die.

Coach Altman is taken to hospital. While he's asleep he's visited by Lana and Megan, who used to be Julia's best friends. The accident happened while they were walking home together. Megan blames herself for not preventing the accident. Lana tells her there was nothing they could do. Coach Altman isn't really sleeping, and he hears the conversation.

After accidentally touching Megan, Jordan sees that she's going to die in a fire. He knows that this will happen soon, so he tells Megan he wants to accompany her home. She finds this creepy, so there's a big argument. Megan leaves alone, but she doesn't get home from school, so Sheriff Nancy Adams questions him as a suspect.

Jordan's father now wants to withdraw him from the school, so he hides in the school building after dark. Lana finds him and touches his arm to comfort him. He has a vision of Lana dying in flames, a different death to the one he saw before. He deduces that by saving the coach's life Clark has changed the future. Then he's knocked out by an unseen assailant, and Lana is kidnapped.

Jordan tells Clark about his visions. Clark deduces that the two girls have been captured by Coach Altman. He wants to deal with it alone, but Jordan insists on going with him. They drive to the coach's house and fins it in flames. The coach blames the girls for his daughter's death, and he wants them to die with him. Clark rescues the two girls. Jordan wants to rescue the coach, but when they touch each other he has a series of visions. Clark pulls Jordan out of the flames, but the coach dies.

Jordan had seen his own death, but Clark saved him. As a result, Jordan no longer has visions.

Clark was foolish to take Jordan to the coach's house. If he'd gone by himself, he would have arrived before the fire started and saved everyone. By taking Jordan with him, he had to drive in a truck. This mistake led to the coach's death.

The second story is about Lana's new love interest, Adam Knight. In the last episode he moved into a small apartment above the Talon. While cleaning up after work, Lana hears shouting. She rushes into the apartment and finds Adam in the middle of a nightmare which is making him scream and knock things over. He refuses to tell Lana what he was dreaming about.

The next day at school, Chloe finds Adam in an empty classroom injecting something into his arm. She's so shocked by what she saw that she doesn't even ask why he was in the school. She rushes to the Talon to tell Lana what she saw. 

Lex, who doesn't yet know about the syringe, invites Adam to his mansion to ask him about his past. Adam sits at the piano and begins to play a tune from memory. Lex is amazed at his skill, because "it's one of Rachmaninoff's most complicated pieces". Those are Lex's words. Piano is piano to me. Adam was an ace student who had straight A's across the board. Lex had also questioned the teachers, and they said he was "a fine pupil and a joy to teach". Curiously, they'd all used exactly the same words, as if they'd been told to say it.

Lana confronts Adam about the needle, discreetly asking if it's diabetes, but he gets angry and storms off. Chloe sneaks into Adam's apartment and finds a vial of clear fluid. She's interrupted by Lex, who's also investigating Adam. They're both amazed at Adam's skills in different areas, such as piano playing, martial arts and computer hacking.

The next day, Lana visits Lex to tell him about Adam's reactions to her questions. Lex tells her to give him a chance, because he's found that he's part of a clinical trial to test a new drug.

The day after Jordan's rescue from the flames, Lana visits him to help him catch up with class. He tells her that he'd touched Adam in the school, and his vision told him that Adam was already dead. 

There's an epilogue in which something dramatic happens. Clark takes his father cookies in the barn, and he finds him on the floor, barely conscious.

Is this Jonathan Kent's death? I shan't give any spoilers. This incident was discussed at length in the podcast. One of the few things I remember about Superman lore is that Clark's father died when he was a child. I don't remember if the age was mentioned, so it could have been any age between six and sixteen. I just remember reading Superboy comics in which Jonathan was already dead. I didn't know if "Smallville" would follow Superman lore precisely, but I was prepared for something like this to happen.

Neither Tom Welling nor Michael Rosenbaum knew that Jonathan Kent would die. They weren't well versed in the comics. They should have asked Jeph Loeb as the series consultant.

In the podcast Michael Rosenbaum is is usual crazy self. We wouldn't have him any other way. He has to become serious after a question from Annie from Ocala:

"This episode deals with a lot of questions about predestination and free will. So what do you guys personally think of these questions? Do you think that our lives are governed by destiny, free will or a combination of the two?"

Ryan Tellez could only say "Oh damn!" Michael attempted a reply, rambling on without really answering the question. His cousin died of cancer. Was that his destiny? Michael doesn't know. When put on the spot, he said that things are random.

Tom's words were wiser: "Does everything happen for a reason, or do we find reasons for things that happen?" But it's still not an answer.

I don't want to criticise Michael or Tom. They were caught off guard. Annie's question is too much for a simple podcast. It's the subject for a 600-page doctoral thesis. Don't expect an answer from me either. Not in the real world. In "Smallville" there's a clear answer. Everything is predestined, unless Clark Kent intervenes and changes destiny.

Tom Welling looks different in this podcast. It's a mixture of the glasses and the new headset that shows off his hair.

Always hold on to Smallville

and...

Bring back the Blu-rays.

Napoleon (4 Stars)

I was excited about this film ever since I saw the first trailers. I'm fascinated by Napoleon Bonaparte, even though I've never taken the trouble to read about his rule. He's a character who has hardly ever been dealt with in films, apart from being a minor character, shown in passing. Is Ridley Scott the director who would finally introduce us to Napoleon, the man and his legacy?

The film disturbed me immediately by showing Napoleon as nervous and clumsy in his personal life. Maybe this is accurate. I don't know. It just doesn't seem fitting as a portrayal of one of Europe's most powerful leaders. Maybe Ridley Scott wanted to put this in contrast with his ruthless efficiency on the battlefield.

The film seems rather staccato, especially in the first hour. It rushes through Napoleon's early successes. Maybe this will be put right in the director's cut. I'll have to wait. I was especially disappointed that the film doesn't show Napoleon's forces entering the Vatican and kidnapping the Pope. That would have been an iconic scene. Once again, I need to wait for the director's cut. It isn't until the post-Elba scenes that the film slows down and shows a battle in more detail.

A large portion of the film is about Napoleon's relationship with Josephine. She was an important part of his life, maybe a factor in his downfall. It was interesting to see her looking bored when they had sex. One of the commonly told stories is that he was inadequate at sex. Is that true? Ridley Scott seems to have been convinced enough to show this in the film.

One thing that I did know about Napoleon is shown almost in passing. He wasn't a conqueror like Alexander the Great, or even Hitler. Napoleon wanted peace. He wanted prosperity for France. He only waged war when he was attacked or threatend by other countries. He's often compared with Hitler, and it can't be denied that many soldiers were killed in battle. But he wasn't a tyrant. He only wanted to rule because he considered the alternative leaders to be incompetent or corrupt.

Is the film worth watching? If you're looking for a historical account of Napoleon's life, probably not. I see it more as light entertainment. I doubt I'll watch the film again, at least not the theatrical version. I'll wait for the director's cut.

Force Majeure (2014) [Guest Writer] (5 stars)

Curzon’s August 2023 blu-ray collection release of Ruben Östlund’s six feature films is heavily discounted on Amazon UK’s Black Friday sale at the time of writing (only 1000 numbered copies exist). The beautiful box set includes a darkly comical card game and some wickedly amusing mini-posters. 

Having thoroughly enjoyed ‘Triangle of Sadness’ through streaming, I was eager to check out other works of the Swedish director. Force Majeure is considered one of Ruben’s best films on the fan forums. The film follows the day-by-day ski holiday of a Swedish family on vacation at the French Alps. Each day is its own chapter heading.

Seamless green screen trickery produces one of the most memorable and visually spectacular scenes of an approaching avalanche (an intentional selling point), but the film is not an action film, nor a power fantasy with spontaneous Hollywood heroism. Expectations are subverted by instead quietly exploring the existential aftermath of the unwelcome triggering of “unmanly” survival instincts. 

Whereas conscription for armed forces relies on selling young men the romantic ideal of fearless warriors who give up their lives for family and fatherland, the biological reality is different: on board the sinking Titanic and Estonia, men trampled on the corpses of their female and child compatriots to get out fast enough to survive. Evolution favours effective survival, not sentimentality nor societal duties of protection.

Tomas, the devoted father of two children, instinctively flees a restaurant terrace (picking up his mobile phone and wallet) when it seems that a controlled avalanche is about to wipe out himself and his family. This is a split-second reaction that is not malicious nor premeditated. He is innocent of any conscious wrongdoing. Without much discussion, the lunch is resumed once the snowy dust settles and panic is averted. However, internally something has irrevocably changed in Tomas’s relationship with his wife, Ebba, who is surprised by the difference between her instincts and his.

Upon later confronting the husband’s mishap via the levity of humour during a lunch with friends, the husband finds himself deeply humiliated and in primordial denial of reality : “You are entitled to your opinion, but I just don’t agree with that particular interpretation at all”, he says. The different interpretations of reality get hashed out in the hotel corridor, trying in vain to hide the tensions from the kids, Vera and Harry. The comically blank stares of a male cleaner descend upon them in the modern wood-laden open-plan hallway. Ebba would be willing to forgive the issue if only Tomas were to own up to his cowardice openly (to prevent a mismatch of realities) — but such an admission would destroy Tomas’s societal masks, and he is too afraid of what he might find beneath his own skin.

A second couple, Mats and Fanni, witnesses Ebba’s worsening emotional breakdowns, with some awkwardness and feelings of superiority/pity, over a cosy dinner. Ebba proceeds to mortify Tomas by proving his guilt with video evidence. The glibness of Mats and Fanni (who just assume that Tomas and Ebba need a forgiving wider perspective with a dash of psychotherapy) is short-lived : as if by contagion, they soon find themselves compulsively debating all night about hypothetical comparisons of their own flawed relationship to that of Tomas and Ebba. They disagree on whether one generation of men would behave differently than another. All humans are flawed, with a more sinister vulnerability reserved for those people who arrogantly assume that they are less flawed than their peers.  

A different friend, Charlotte, has gone on holiday without her kids and husband, under an arrangement of ‘open marriage’ — she is there to look for short-term male attention to take a break from the responsibilities of family life. Ebba cannot begin to understand Charlotte’s carefree lack of prudence in family matters. 

The friends and fellow couples serve as a mirror and yardstick for Tomas and Ebba to compare, contrast and confess their incredulities, looking (in vain) for simplistic validation of their damaged thoughts. 

Tomas is eventually forced to confront his hidden, subconscious features, to his own disgust — literally exposing his weaknesses to himself in third person : “I can no longer live with a man who has such instincts”, he cries in undertones of Shakespearean melodrama, melting into a sobbing puddle on the hotel room floor. In Freudian terms, his ego ideal (within the superego) has been challenged, causing dramatic damage to his ego. Meanwhile, the kids misbehave and rebel in silly ways, fearing an imminent divorce. They command the parents to leave them alone and to allow them enjoy ice cream for breakfast. 

In the funniest scene of the film, Tomas and Mats are enjoying a beer by some sun-loungers (some viewers may suspect that a homoerotic bonding will occur between the two disgraced male leads — although this aspect only gets mildly hinted at, and then gets abandoned). A beautiful young woman tells Tomas that her female friend considers him the best-looking man at the hotel. A few minutes of ego-repair pass by, until the same lady comes back to apologise that she got the person wrong : the compliment was actually intended for another man. The only way to repair one’s ego is by one’s own decisions and one’s future actions.

The film is a dry, sarcastic, and awkward black comedy, with an extremely consistent and realistic style. The acting is superbly natural (reminding me of that in Asghar Farhadi’s ‘A Separation’ (2011)). Behind-the-scenes footage on the blu-ray extras reveals that the director kept gently motivating the actors for better takes (over several days of rehearsal) until scenes felt truly organic and natural.

Ominous classical music (Vivaldi’s Four Seasons) and dreamy close-ups of controlled slopeside explosions work together with painting-like compositions of mountains to blend psychological landscapes with the physical. The familiar world takes on an alien look — the introduction of a family-operated drone toy is done without explicit explanation, with the viewer seeing an alien spaceship hovering over the inky stillness of the Alps. 

The conclusion of the film is both comically and existentially satisfying, while remaining open-ended about what is happening. It gives the audience plenty of scope to debate about truth and meaning (as with The Burning (2018) by Lee Chang-Dong). Force Majeure has a more generous outlook and a clear message of hope.

I know that Force Majeure has a poorly reviewed remake called ‘Downhill’ (2020) starring Will Ferrell (rated at 36% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, as opposed to the 93% of the Swedish original). Apparently the trailer is a scene-by-scene copy of the original trailer. I assume that this edition of the film is utterly redundant, as with the Korean film ‘Oldboy’ and other unnecessary Hollywood remakes. Another explanation for the poor ratings would be that the Hollywood target audience expects raucous and brainless popcorn entertainment (sorry for the generalisation), and bounce off a slow, thoughtful and ‘boring’ art film. Expectations matter.

If you enjoy ‘microcosm’-movies, where the drama lies in the disillusionment of minds rather than external action and events, then you will love Force Majeure. A great comparison is to ‘Banshees of Inisherin’ : both films have an incredible sense of style and purpose from start to finish, with the real conflicts being the existential ones (misalignment of private realities leading to interpersonal breakdown). If you are easily bored with films that are quiet and philosophical (Polanski’s dialogue-heavy films that use a limited number of sets), you will probably be bored out of your mind here too. I absolutely loved Force Majeure, and I was forming theories of my own (about our species) throughout the watch.

In the blu-ray extras, the film-makers camp at the Trump hotel in 2015, in anticipation of an Oscar nomination for best foreign film. When it does not arrive, they descend into a state of man-sobs and swearing (it is ambiguous whether this clip is a truthful documentary or merely a darkly comedic skit, self-referential to the ego-themes of the film itself). Another great film, the Argentine gem ‘Relatos Salvajes’ (Wild Tales), won the Oscar that year. It’s tough work trying to get public forms of recognition sometimes.

Ruben Östlund’s later films did receive Oscar nominations (Best Director and Best Original Screenplay for Triangle of Sadness in 2023, and Best International Feature Film for The Square in 2018). In the brief ‘making of’, the director is unusually forthcoming and transparent about the thematic motivations for his film (he is refreshingly unpretentious — however, his answers do diminish the delight that can be garnered from open interpretation and mystery, so please consume with caution). 

The picture quality on the blu-ray is excellent (stunning hues of white and blue), and the sound is an absolutely incredible DTS 5.1 HD for the home theatre (with soul-stirring explosions and background hums), however English subtitles are baked into the image with no customisability-options (English-language scenes are not subtitled).

- Nicholas Korpelainen

Smallville 3.11 - Delete

Click here to watch the podcast.

This episode features the return of Adam Knight, played by Ian Somerhalder, who we first saw two weeks ago in the episode "Asylum". His relationship with Lana Lang is simmering, but hasn't yet become serious.

Chloe is packing up her personal items to leave the Daily Planet. Her editor, Max Taylor, remarks that she must have enemies in high places to be thrown out so soon. Her enemy is Lionel Luthor, of course, so high that he can influence the Daily Planet, but Chloe doesn't admit it to him. She wants some stories that she's written to be published after she leaves. Max says it isn't possible, but Chloe suggests they should be published using a pseudonym, such as the name of her cousin, Lois Lane.

Chloe Sullivan isn't someone who ever appeared in DC comics, but this links her to the Superman universe.

Lex is working late at Luthorcorp and needs help with his computer. A girl called Molly says she's the late night tech support guy. She gives him a CD with a program to scan for viruses. When Lex leaves we see that she's taking the hard drive out of Chloe's computer.

Back at Smallville High School, Chloe finds that all the computers donated by Luthorcorp have been confiscated. She leaves, and a truck almost runs her over. It's Clark Kent driving. He can't remember what happened or even how he arrived at the school. Sheriff Nancy Adams gives him a breathalyser test. Chloe covers for him by saying he lost control of the car.

The next day Chloe visits Clark to ask him if he's remembered anything. He says he was writing a school essay on his laptop. She checks his laptop and finds that he stopped writing in the middle of a sentence. The last thing that happened was that he received an email from someone called Brainwave. The email can't be opened a second time.

A short while later Lana is showing Adam around her school. That's a strange thing to do. She receives an email on her mobile phone, and when she opens it she sees flashing green lights. She looks for Chloe, and she attacks her. It's a vicious fight scene, in which Lana knocks Chloe down the stairs, then from room to room. Lana even attacks Chloe with an axe.

There's something that doesn't make sense. We already know that Lana is a skilled fighter, but why is Chloe able to defend herself? We've never seen her use any fighting skills.

Lana knocks Chloe into the girls' locker room, then into the showers. Finally Adam arrives and overcomes Lana with impressive martial arts skills. In the girls' shower? I hope he got a good view.

The email received by Lana also came from Brainwave, but she can't read it again. Adam says that he can trace the IP address of the sender. He finds that they were sent from Chloe's computer at a Luthorcorp IP address.

Adam tells Lana he wants to stay in Smallville. She offers to rent him the apartment above the Talon which used to be the projectionist's booth. I thought that she still showed films. She's suspicious how Adam knows so much about computers and fighting. He says that he learnt everything from reading books while he was in hospital. And she believed him? Nobody can learn martial arts from books. Nobody.

Lex is told that there's no Molly who works at Luthorcorp. He looks at security camara footage and makes a photo of her, which he gives to Clark. Clark shows the photo to Chloe, and she recognises Molly as a brilliant computer programmer who spent time in Summerholt Institute after a mental breakdown. The institute is under the control of Lawrence Gardner, a devious doctor that we saw in the episode "Ryan". One of articles Chloe gave to her editor was about Dr. Gardner's malpractices. It all fits together. Molly found the article on Chloe's computer, and she's trying to kill Chloe to defend Dr. Gardner. After finding out that Max Taylor also has a copy of the article, she sends someone to kill him as well. When Clark and Lex challenge her, she gives up without a fight.

Lex returns the computers to the Torch office. Chloe is happy again.

In the final scene Lex approaches Dr. Gardner and asks for his help. He wants to be treated so that he can remember the seven weeks that were wiped from his memory.

In the podcast Michael Rosenbaum says that he finds the whole episode ridiculous. He shouts the word. I agree with him. "Delete" is the weakest of the 55 episodes so far. Emails that hypnotise people? Emails that can only be read once? And even if it were technically possible, why restrict it so a single reading? If a person didn't succeed in killing Chloe, reading the email would make him try again.

Tom Welling says that he's known Ian Somerhalder since he was 19. They met in Barcelona when they were modelling. They didn't meet again for a few years, until Ian suddenly appeared on the set of "Smallville". It's a small world.

There's not much more I can write about the podcast. It was mostly Michael, Tom and Ryan complaining about the episode. The only part they appreciated was the fight scene.

Always hold on to Smallville

and...

Bring back the Blu-rays.

Cliff Walkers (3 Stars)

Zhang Yimou is one of my favourite directors. That makes this film all the more disappointing. It's a spy thriller that takes place in Manchuria in the 1930's. Four special agents, trained in Russia, are trying to smuggle an escaped prisoner over the border. There was a notorious Japanese prison, in which the inmates were tortured. Japan wanted to make a good impression to the international community, so the prison was demolished and all the inmates were murdered. Except for one escapee. The special agents want him to testify to the Japanese atrocities.

My trouble with the film is that I don't really know the characters. There's very little character development. The male characters are interchangeable, which is intensified by their identical clothing. I wanted to sympathise with the female agent who wanted to rescue her children, but she just isn't interesting enough.

What struck me is how difficult it is to be a spy. There are double agents on both sides, so nobody knows who he can trust.

The film hasn't been released in England or America. There's a German Blu-ray which can be watched with German subtitles or dubbing. I recommend the dubbing, because the subtitles are awkwardly placed, on the bottom edge of the picture. It makes them difficult to read, especially when snow is lying on the ground.

The Outfit (3 Stars)

It's 1956. Leonard Burling is an English tailor in Chicago. At least, everyone calls him a tailor. He insists that he's a cutter. He says that anyone can be a tailor, but a cutter is someone who needs years of training. For me as a layman, it seems like the difference is that a cutter designs outfits, whereas a tailor sews them. This would mean that a cutter is also a tailor, but a tailor isn't necessarily a cutter.

It must be unusual to see a refined English gentleman in Chicago, because everyone calls him English. Leonard's first customer when he arrived in Chicago a few years ago was Roy Boyle, the head of the Irish mob, so he's had a close connection with the mob ever since. After all, mobsters always wear the finest suits. The mob has a drop box in his back room, in which they store money and exchange messages.

One night Roy Boyle's son bursts into the shop with a gunshot wound. He's been in an altercation with a rival gang. Leonard is asked to look after a box with something that the other gang wants.

The film is a slow burner, building up to a violent climax. It suffers from the modern trend of having too many plot twists in the final scenes. Why is this necessary? Have directors forgotten how to make predictable gangster films?

Success Rate:  - 1.3

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

Phantom Thread (2 Stars)

Reynolds Woodcock is a dressmaker who lives and works in London. His company, which he calls the House of Woodcock, makes dresses for upper class women, including countesses and princesses throughout Europe.

While visiting a restaurant he's fascinated by Alma, a foreign waitress. Her nationality isn't stated, but it's a name popular in Spain and Hungary. Her accent sounds eastern European. She moves in with him, expecting a romance, but they sleep in separate rooms, and she has to share Reynolds with his sister Cyril, the woman he loves most. She fights in vain for his attention and a closer relationship.

The film was nominated for six Academy Awards, which I find remarkable. The pace is painfully slow, resulting in a dull movie. I can't relate to any of the characters. Reynolds is pedantic, Cyril is harsh and unfriendly, Alma is a girl who's too stupid to leave while she has a chance.

The film flopped at the box office. Obviously most film fans agree with me.

Success Rate:  - 0.6

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

Smallville 3.10 - Whisper

I like this scene at the beginning of the episode with Clark Kent standing below an American flag. It's very appropriate. Despite not being human and only being an American by an illegal adoption, Superman is always considered a symbol of American patriotism.

He's standing looking through the window of the Smallville Jewellers. It's a shame that Americans have never learnt how to spell correctly. There are two L's in jewellery. Don't forget it.

Oops! I almost forgot something as well:

Click here to watch the podcast.

Now to the rest of the review. This episode returns to the freak-of-the-week format. Clark goes into the shop to buy a gift for his mother. The friendly jeweller – note the spelling! – recommends a pendant made of green meteor rock. Not a good idea. Clark backs away. At this point there's a robbery. A young man called Nathan Dean enters the store, while his partner, Walt Masterson, waits outside. Nathan has the ability to create a sonic boom which deafens everyone and shatters the showcases. Even Clark is momentarily stunned. Walt walks in and threatens everyone with a shotgun. Clark fires heat beams at Walt's gun in small blasts. Walt drops his gun, but the green pendant is flying through the air, and one blast is reflected back at Clark's eyes, blinding him. The jeweller pulls out a gun, and Walt surrenders while Nathan slips away unnoticed.

Everyone is pessimistic about the blindness. Clark's parents assume he'll be blind for the rest of his life. Clark isn't willing to see an eye doctor, for obvious reasons.

When Clark returns to school something strange happens. Everything around him is loud, deafening him. But he can hear a telephone call by Chloe with Lionel Luthor in the Torch office, so there's some differentiation of the sounds, even if Clark can't control it. Back at the farm, Clark can practise. He turns on all the farm equipment to make a racket. His father whispers words to him from a few feet away. Clark hears him.

This isn't just a temporary compensation for his loss of sight. It's a new power, super-hearing, which has been triggered by the blindness.

Clark goes for a walk in the fields. Pete finds him, and they begin to talk, but they're interrupted by the arrival of Nathan. Nathan does his sonic boom, stunning both youngsters. He kidnaps Pete.

Sheriff Nancy is called to the farm to discuss the incident. Clark can't identify the assailant because of his blindness.

In walks Abigail Ross, Pete's mother. She's also Smallville's judge. We've never seen her before this episode, but she's often been mentioned. She says that she's received a phone call telling her that Pete will be killed unless she dismisses the charges against Walt.

The next day Jonathan and Clark go to the Talon to ask if there's any news about Pete. Clark waits in the truck while his father goes in. Lana sees Clark and gets into the truck. She tells him that she'll always be around if he needs a friend. Clark misunderstands her. He says that he's always pushed her away because he was dangerous for her, and he puts his hand on hers. Not cool. What he's saying is "I didn't want you before, but now that I'm blind I need you to look after me". She pulls her hand away and tells him that she's met someone else. She's referring to Adam Knight, who she met in the clinic last episode.

Clark recognises the sound of the tow truck that Nathan drives. He climbs onto the back, and it drives to the scrapyard where Pete is being held prisoner. As a blind man he's no match for Nathan. Nathan knocks off Clark's sunglasses and waves a blowtorch in his face. Clark collapses, and Nathan takes Pete to another location. When he recovers, Clark finds that his sight is returning, probably as a result of the heat in front of his eyes.

At the courthouse, Clark overhears a telephone conversation between Walt and Nathan. He says that Pete will be a piece of junk after the trial. There was never any intention to free him. Clark races to the scrapyard, finding Pete in the trunk of a car in the crushing machine. Nathan stuns Clark, who falls back against a pile of cars. The cars fall onto Nathan, killing him. This gives Clark a chance to rescue Pete.

The next scene is Pete in the Talon boasting about how he escaped. I'm assuming that he rang the courthouse to say he was out of danger. We don't need everything to be explained.

Subplots? "Smallville" always has them. Almost always. In the above mentioned phone call with Chloe and Lionel Luthor we heard Lionel saying that Lex would be given a job at Luthorcorp, but his only authority would be sharpening pencils. Clark told Lex what he'd heard, without naming the source. Then Lex challenged his father about this, also not naming the source. So the information was going round and round. Lionel calls Chloe to his office and accuses her of telling Lex about the conversation. She denies it, but Lionel takes revenge on her. She's sacked from the column she writes for the Daily Planet, and her father is sacked from his job at Luthorcorp.

Unlike the last two episodes, I didn't get much out of listening to the podcast. There wasn't anything Michael and Tom said that I didn't know already. There's just one small thing: Tom said that he watched the episode on a plane. That means he watched it on his phone. That's not the way to watch "Smallville". He should be sitting at home on a comfortable sofa watching each episode on a large screen.

Always hold on to Smallville

and...

Bring back the Blu-rays.

Videodrome (3½ Stars)

This is the first time I've seen "Videodrome". I can't write much about it, for the simple reason that I don't understand it. There are many unusual occurrences, such as a man slotting a videotape into his stomach, but there are also hallucinations. I wasn't able to tell whether something was really happening or not. If there was any doubt I assumed that things really happened, but I read two reviews afterwards, and it seems that some of my assumptions were wrong. Or maybe I was right and the other reviewers were wrong. I don't know.

I'll try my best to give a short synopsis. The film takes place in 1983, at the peak of the videotape boom. Max Renn is a senior executive of Cable 83, a small television station in Toronto. The programmes range from softcore pornography to hardcore violence. One of his engineers hacks into broadcasts with torture scenes that last for hours. All he knows is that it's being broadcast from a station called Videodrome in Pittsburgh. Max wants these programmes for his own channel. 

When Max travels to Pittsburgh, he finds out that Videodrome is more than just a rival station. At a homeless shelter the homeless persons are sat in cabins watching the torture scenes. Brainwashing? Videodrome's producer tells him that television is the new reality. Whatever people see with their eyes is real. But the broadcasts also send a hidden signal that causes a brain tumour in the viewers. At this point I lost track. My understanding of Videodrome's motives differs from what others have written.

It's a film that I might return to. I haven't decided yet. Maybe I'll understand it better next time.

Success Rate:  - 2.8

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

Irreversible (1 Star)

Before watching this film I knew it was controversial. It's won a series of awards, but when it was shown at film festivals in 2002 many people walked out. It's a film people either love or hate. I hate it.

In the film two men and a woman go out together. Marcus and Pierre are both in love with Alex. Pierre and Alex used to be lovers, but she left him three years ago, and he's never moved on. She's now living with Marcus.

At the party Marcus gets high on cocaine and behaves badly, so Alex leaves early. On her way to get a taxi, Alex is raped. Marcus and Pierre try to find the rapist and get revenge.

That's a simple enough story, but it's told very extravagantly. The scenes are shown in reverse order, which works well, because it gives an air of mystery. It starts with violent scenes, and we gradually find out what caused them. There are philosophical statements thrown into the conversations about the future already being written. Alex even has a dream about what will happen to her, the things that we've already seen.

So what don't I like? The cinematography in the opening scenes annoys me. The picture is constantly rotating from side to side, even upside down. But the worst part is the rape scene. It's too long and too realistic. Supposedly the director gave the actress Monica Bellucci the artistic freedom to let the scene be as long or as short as she wanted. He says that she directed it herself. It's too much. I almost turned the film off.

The film ends with totally unnecessary flickering lights. It hurt my eyes.

I have one piece of advice for anyone who wants to watch the film. Don't use subtitles. Let it be dubbed into English or whatever language is available. It's a very colourful film, sometimes dark, sometimes bright. The white subtitle text disturbs the viewing experience.

Success Rate:  - 0.7

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

Bikini Drive-In (4 Stars)

One of my pet hates is Wikipedia's film reviews. They don't shy away from giving spoilers, even for newly released films. I've followed for and against arguments in the talk pages, and the consensus is that Wikipedia is a dictionary, so it should contain all the relevant information about a film. If anyone doesn't want spoilers, he shouldn't read the Wikipedia article.

There's no need to worry about "Bikini Drive-In". The Wikipedia page says:

"A girl inherits a drive-in movie theatre".

That's all. It goes to the other extreme. It says almost nothing about the film. The only additional information is a cast list.

When I reviewed "Bikini Drive-In" three years I only included screenshots of Nikki Fritz, because she had recently passed away. She's only one of many beautiful women in the film, despite appearing as a Plain Jane who slowly steps up and realises she's beautiful.

This is what she looks like on the DVD.

And this is what she looks like on the remastered Blu-ray. I managed to make a screenshot of the exact frame on both discs. The picture isn't perfect, considering it was a low budget movie made in 1995, but I'm sure you'll agree that it's an improvement.

There's something I didn't mention about Nikki when I wrote about her films in 2020. In 1998 she was the first woman to make a website with photos of herself, and only herself, for paying customers to look at. The URL was www.nikkifritz.com, but the site has long since ceased to exist. It might sound like nothing special today, but it was revolutionary at the time. There were already sites such as www.playboy.com (founded 1996) which contained photos of lots of different naked women, but Nikki made the first site dedicated to one woman.

Here are the photos from the free area of her site in 1998.

That's the original size. I expect that the nude pictures in the members area weren't any bigger. Remember, in the 1990's almost everyone had a dial-up connection, so large photos weren't acceptable. I was one of the early birds. In 1995 I had my first Internet account, with a 14,400 bits/sec modem. The telephone costs in Germany were phenomenal. This dictated my work. When I wanted to write an email I logged out, wrote the email, then logged in again to send it.

At some point I bought a 28,800 bits/sec modem. In 1999 I had my first taste of speed. I had a modem with 1.5 Mbit/sec, and it was on a dedicated phone line for which I paid a monthly flat rate. It still wasn't enough to display large photos at an acceptable speed. Today my Internet speed is nominally 1000 Mbit/sec, although I rarely get more than 200 Mbit/sec, because I'm connected by Wifi, not directly to the modem itself.

"Bikini Drive-In" is best known for the appearance of Michelle Bauer. What a woman!

She's the sort of woman who makes men stand and stare. Not necessarily in that order.

And she even signed the back of my Blu-ray. No, I won't sell it on Ebay. I'll hang on to this disc for the rest of my life.

And there are other beautiful women. The woman on the left isn't listed in the credits. but it's Becky LeBeau. She's not only beautiful, she sings most of the songs used in the film.

She's also an expert with a whip.

I still haven't said what the film's about. A girl inherits a drive-in movie theatre. She finds out that it's $25,000 in debt, and if she doesn't repay the money within three days the bank will possess it. So she has a brilliant idea. She'll have a film evening where she and the rest of her female staff will be dressed in bikinis. Even Susan the concessions girl, played by Nikki Fritz, is encouraged to show what she's got.

It helps that the projectionist has a good selection of classic films lying in his booth.

Here's a question for my readers. Three of the films are fictional. One is a real film. Which film really exists?

I can't resist the temptation to show two more before and after photos of Nikki Fritz.

Now you know why I prefer Blu-rays.

The Blu-ray I bought this week is a limited edition. It's not sold by Amazon, but with a little luck you can buy it from Makeflix.