Asteroid City (2 Stars)

What is the director Wes Anderson trying to do? Does he want to entertain the audience or just provoke us? I honestly don't know. I felt provoked. There were two young women sitting in front of me who felt just as provoked. Every time something strange happened in the film they turned and looked at one another. About half an hour from the end one of them put on her jacket and wanted to leave, but her friend tugged at her and told her to stay. It's a film that I almost walked out of. As it was, I was the only person in the cinema who remained seating to watch the bird hopping around during the final credits.

It's a film within a film, or rather a play within a film. It's about a playwright who writes, casts and directs a play about a group of people, mostly stargazers, who come together in a fictional city in the desert. While being told about an asteroid that fell in the desert thousands of years ago, an alien arrives and takes the asteroid away.

It's deliberately left unclear what's part of the play and what's really happening. It's possible that a real alien arrives while the play is running.

Wes Anderson has put a lot of work into the visual effects of the film. That's the only reason I haven't given the film a one star rating. I didn't enjoy it, and I have no intention to ever watch it again.

See How They Run (4 Stars)

I said I'd do a mini-marathon of John Carpenter films, but I never said that it would be uninterrupted. Tonight I watched the film "See How they Run" in the cinema. Maybe I should say that without an article, i.e. I watched the film in Cinema, because the Stuttgart cinema is called Cinema. That's a very generic name.

The film takes place in 1953 and is wrapped around true events, featuring characters who lived at the time. It's the 100th performance of "The Mousetrap", a play written by Agatha Christie. That was a big deal for a play, but nobody realised just how long it would run. It ran non-stop from 1952 to 2020, and was only interrupted by the Corona pandemic. After a break of 14 months, it's now being performed again. There have been over 28,000 performances. I don't know what the exact number is, but if you visit the play a counter is displayed in the lobby.

At the 100th performance a film director is murdered who was campaigning to be allowed to direct "The Mousetrap" as a film. Everyone in the cast and crew are suspects. The case is handled by a drunken police inspector and an inexperienced young policewoman. The film is a comedy, frequently parodying "The Mousetrap" and whodunnits in general. One frequent theme is that whodunnits aren't worth watching because they're all the same.

I'll refrain from spoilers. If you want to know what happens, it's still in the cinemas. And it's still in Cinema.

King Kong (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #28

King Kong has appeared in at least 12 films over the last 90 years, either as the lead character or one of a group of monsters. In my opinion, there have only been three real King Kong films. These three all tell the same story, in different forms, of King Kong's discovery and his journey to America. All three films have the same name: "King Kong".

The first film was made in 1933, and is rightly considered to be a masterpiece.

The second film was made in 1976, following the original story, with a few significant changes. The story is told in the present day (i.e. 1976) instead of the 1930's, and the final battle takes place on top of the newly built World Trade Centre instead of the Empire State Building.

This is the third film, made in 2005, and it closely follows the 1933 version. It even takes place in 1933, with a great amount of care taken in portraying the Great Depression of the 1930's.

The film's strength is less in the action than in the emotional depth. Look at Kong's eyes as he stares lovingly at the actress Ann Darrow. Has computer animation ever been so emotional?

This is one of the most beautiful scenes ever filmed, full of artistic merit. Sunrise over Manhattan at the top of the Empire State Building.

But the peaceful serenity doesn't last. The enemies are coming.

Kong has to make his last stand, on top of the world's highest building.

The film's casting is superb. Nobody else but Naomi Watts could have played the beautiful actress Ann Darrow. Her large eyes and toothy smile perfectly portray her naive innocence.

Naomi's large eyes make her look like a 1930's film star. All that's missing is the black eye liner. Or would that have been pushing it too far?

Her face is repeatedly framed against beautiful scenery. The screenshots from this film could be used for a Naomi Watts pin up calendar.

Or maybe there should just be six photos of Naomi Watts in the calendar, and six photos of Kong in alternation. Beauty and the Beast.

Ann Darrow does her Titanic scene.

It's a much smaller boat, but the sorrow is just as intense.

Don't jump!

The film crew captures this moment.

The director Carl Denham is almost moved to tears.

Jack Black was picked to play Carl Denham because of his physical resemblance to Orson Welles. Never mind his looks, his acting is superb! Another perfect choice.

So is Adrien Brody as the brooding playwright Jack Driscoll. I'd go as far as to call this his signature role.

I wanted to watch the film in a single sitting, but I was interrupted by my ex-wife. There were loud shouts in my village, so she wanted to know if there had been a goal in the Euro 2020 Germany-France match. Yes, there had just been an own goal. We didn't know what television channel was broadcasting the match, but after a few trial-and-error attempts I found it for her. She asked me to watch the second half with her, which I did. It was an interesting game. Two very good teams, equally matched, but with no outstanding players. By that, I mean there were no players like Pele or Maradonna with magical flair that set them apart from the others. The final result, 1:0 for France, was fair. Either team could have won.

Then I rushed back to "King Kong" to watch the last half hour. I enjoyed it with a glass of LSD in my hand. If my readers don't know what that is, they should follow the link.

Success Rate:  + 0.7

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

Grand Budapest Hotel (5 Stars)

This is a remarkable film. It received nine nominations for the Academy Awards, of which it won four. It failed to win the Best Film award because of "Birdman", a film I greatly liked at the time, but when I look back, "Grand Budapest Hotel" was by far the better film.

The film is about a hotel concierge and his lobby boy. The concierge is wrongly accused of murdering Madame D, an old rich woman. In her Will she's left him a valuable painting, "Boy With Apple". Madame D's son hires an assassin to kill the concierge, who's assisted in his flight by the faithful lobby boy.

The story in itself is good, but it's all about the cinematography. The colours are bright and dazzling, giving the impression that it's a fairy tale. In addition, every scene is perfectly framed like a piece of art, giving the impression of hyper-reality.

The concierge and the lobby boy. Do you see what I mean about the colours?

So this is the painting that people were willing to kill for? I don't understand art.

I've never seen Edward Norton looking so amart. It doesn't suit him. He's a jeans and t-shirt man, like me. But just look at the perfectly framed scene.

There are close-ups of newspapers several times during the film. The articles are all well written, albeit with American spelling. Very few films make the effort to use good texts in newspapers. However, there's one small error. Look at the date of the newspaper: Friday, October 19th, 1932. Wrong! It was a Wednesday.

Here's another edition of the Trans-Alpine Yodel, dated Tuesday, October 28th, 1932. That's wrong again. It was a Friday. But there's another error. The dates aren't even consistent with themselves. If the 19th had been a Friday, the second newspaper, printed nine days later, would have been printed on a Sunday. That's sloppy.

Success Rate:  + 4.9

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

Predators (3½ Stars)

This is the best of the Predator films so far. I can't quite bring myself to give it four stars, mainly because I can't feel any empathy with the alien creatures, but the film stands out above the others because of its outstanding cast. Finally there's a Predator film with people who can act! Another advantage is that the original script was written by Robert Rodriguez.

Unlike the first two films, "Predators" doesn't take place on Earth. The film opens with eight people from different backgrounds who don't know one another falling from the sky into a jungle on an alien planet. There are others, but not all of them survive the fall. They have parachutes, but at the moment they begin to fall they're still asleep, so not all of them manage to open their parachutes in time.

What the eight survivors realise when they meet is that they're all experts in their respective fields of fighting skills. There are four elite soldiers, two criminal enforcers and a serial killer who was waiting on death row. The eighth is a medical doctor who doesn't seem to fit into the group.

As they find out from a human survivor they meet in the jungle, the planet is a type of safari park. Humans are brought to the planet ten at a time. Three creatures hunt them in the jungle. When the hunt is over another ten humans are dropped from the sky and another three creatures come to hunt them, in an endless cycle. Usually the hunt ends when the humans are all dead, but on rare occasions humans manage to kill the creatures and are left on the planet to participate in the next cycle.

At the beginning I said that I feel no empathy for the creatures. Maybe that's not the right way to describe my feelings, but I can't think of a better word than "empathy". The viewer isn't expected to like the creatures, the Predators, but I always want to get inside the head of the bad guys in any film I watch. I want to understand why they do what they do. The best villains, like Loki in the Marvel films and Blofeld in the James Bond films, are charismatic and likeable. Even villains like the Terminators are easy to understand: they've been programmed for self-survival, i.e. they want to kill John Connor before he kills them. I can understand that. I can even relate to it on an abstract level. But the Predators? They kill for sport. That's all.

I know that people kill for sport in the real world. There are safari parks in Africa, but for me they're barbaric. They bring out the worst in humanity. When I was working Bosch in Homburg I had a colleague who went on safari trips. He boasted about all the animals he had killed. He once told me that it's no fun shooting elephants. "They're stupid animals. They just walk straight towards you and don't try to avoid you when you shoot them in the head".  My initial reaction was one of disbelief. I looked at him like he was crazy. Once it sank in my feelings turned to rage. I wasn't really angry with my colleague; for me he was just an idiot who didn't know better. I was angry with owners of African game parks that offer rich Europeans a holiday killing for money. He told me that he had to pay a fee for each animal he killed. Barbaric. That's the only word to describe it.

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

King Kong (5 Stars)

After watching "Kong: Skull Island" in March I decided to re-watch Peter Jackson's epic version of the film, but I've only just got around to it. So many films, so little time. While the new version does have a lot in its favour – after all, I gave it four stars – it just doesn't have the greatness and grandeur of the 2005 version.

Peter Jackson has made different types of films, from "Lord of the Rings" to "Braindead" and "Heavenly Creatures", but they all have one thing in common: his fastidious attention to detail. Let's forget the big monkey for a moment. The first 20 minutes of the film that take part in New York are a glorious depiction of the Great Depression. It's a nice touch showing a run-down zoo with the even more run-down huts of poor people in the background. The subject of the two jungles is a recurring theme in the film. Both jungles are difficult places to live, each with their own dangers.

The animals are living in squalid conditions, but their circumstances are better than those of the people in the huts.

The homeless and unemployed have to queue up for food. Today the food queues in Birmingham (England) are even longer.

The casting choices made for the film are nothing short of inspired. If I had been casting the film the last actor I would have chosen to play the film director Carl Denham. After all, he's a comedian, isn't he? That's why I'm not in the film business. Peter Jackson himself picked Jack Black for the role, supposedly because of his physical similarity to Orson Welles.

Naomi Watts is also perfect as the former vaudeville performer attempting to be an actress. Her open-mouthed toothy gaze of wonderment wins over the audience. It's strange that when Kristen Stewart imitates the same gaze she just looks silly. I can't explain why the same look works for one actress but not for another. Maybe it's because of Naomi Watts' natural beauty, which very few other actresses have.

"King Kong" received high critical acclaim when it was released. I have the impression, based on conversations with friends and passing remarks in magazines, that it's no longer rated as highly. I know films come in and out of fashion – just look at "Titanic" – but I don't understand how anyone could dislike "King Kong". I've included it in my list of  30 films to watch before you die, and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

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

King Kong (5 Stars)

30 films to watch before you die, #28

I've already written detailed posts about "King Kong" in the past, so I'll just point out one thing here. When you watch a film, always be on the lookout for books used as props. I don't mean in a bookcase, I mean individual books seen lying on a table or a chair, anywhere in the picture. This is a common method for a director to let the audience know what influenced him when he made a film. It's a not so subtle hint about a film's meaning. If a character is seen reading a book this makes knowing the book essential to understanding the film.

Here we see young Jimmy reading Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" as the ship approaches Skull Island. The main theme of the book is the comparison of savages in the jungle with urban savages. Neither is less primitive than the other. We saw that yesterday at the annual Black Friday sales. People were rolling on the floor punching one another because they wanted a cheap flatscreen TV. Mankind hasn't evolved since leaving the jungle, has it? We're all still the same.

Here is Ann Darrow after returning to the ship's crew on Skull Island. The giant monkey, Kong, has been risking his life to save her. Now she realises that Carl Denham and the others want to capture Kong. Her shocked expression as she looks at Carl and the others say everything, especially in the context of "Heart of Darkness". She realises just how primitive the men around her are. Back in New York she's offered large sums of money to appear on stage with the chained monkey, but she refuses.

If you want to watch other films directed by Peter Jackson, I can recommend

• Braindead (1992)
• Heavenly Creatures (1994)
• The Lovely Bones (2009)

The Darjeeling Limited (3½ Stars)

Three brothers (Adrian Brody, Owen Wilson and Jason Schwartzman) reunite after their father's death to take a spiritual trip across India.

Bill Murray missed the train.

The brothers lose their luggage on the way home.

King Kong (5 Stars)

Today was the first time I've seen the extended version of "King Kong". The theatrical version shown in the cinemas is 187 minutes long, the extended version is 200 minutes long. The most noticeable addition is a battle against sea monsters on Skull Island. There are also other battles in the jungle that last longer in this version.

In my last review I praised the film unconditionally. Let me now tell you what I don't like about it. The jungle action on Skull Island is over-the-top, totally unrealistic in its excesses. There is no way that Carl Denham and his colleagues could have run between the legs of rampaging dinosaurs without being squashed. It's true that a couple of the minor characters are trod on, but the important cast are all spared. Just about every battle against the prehistoric monsters on the island is logically too much to survive.

Nevertheless, these small faults aren't enough to stop me considering this one of the best films ever made. It's a masterpiece.

Grand Budapest Hotel (4 Stars)

This is a film that's worth watching for the cast alone. I don't think I've seen so many big stars in one film since "Mars Attacks". Some of the stars only have small roles, such as Tilda Swinton, who only appears for a few minutes and is barely recognisable. The main characters are Ralph Fiennes and Tony Revolori.

The story is interestingly nested, starting in 1985, then a flashback to 1965, where a story is told that takes place in 1932-1933. Ralph Fiennes is Gustave H., the concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel in the fictional country of Zubrowka. (The film was actually shot in the German town Görlitz, also used as one of the main locations for "The Book Thief"). Gustave is a casanova and has had affairs with many guests, including the old widow Madame D. When she dies he is invited to the reading of her will. In a recent addendum to the will, drafted on the day of her death, she leaves to Gustave the only item of great value that she owns, a painting called "Boy with Apple". The will's executor says that he will have to wait until the authenticity of the addendum is checked, but seeing the hostility of the family Gustave grabs the painting and runs. This leads to him being framed for murder. With the help of the hotel's lobby boy Zero (Tony Revolori) Gustave breaks out of prison. The two are pursued across central Europe by the family assassin J. G. Jopling (Willem Dafoe).

The film has been described as "all style and nothing else". That's unfair. The film has an interesting plot and great actors who perform the story. But I agree that it's all about the style. From beginning to end we have almost absurd colours in every scene. The whole film has an overwhelming fairy-tale atmosphere to it.

After the film I went to Scruffy Murphy's, a pub in the centre of Birmingham which is now Birmingham's only remaining rock club. I used to be a regular visitor from 2002 till 2007. I'm not sure why I stopped going. I probably just got lazy and relied on YouTube for live music. But it's not the same. Far from it. Apart from that, by going to Scruffy Murphy's I support local bands, since most of the performers are based in or near Birmingham.

There were three groups playing tonight. The opening act were Glass Bullet, a Canadian rock band. They reminded me of Green Day in their early years, before they became famous. I hope they don't read this, they might take it as an insult. Very good, medium hard rock songs. They had the traditional 4-piece rock band line up: drums, bass, lead guitar, rhythm guitar/singer.

The second act was a duo called Needle Poppets. They had a difficult time winning the crowd over. They're not really the Scruffy Murphy type. It was noticeable that a lot of the fans left the concert room after Glass Bullet, heading to the main pub room upstairs, but those who remained were in for a treat. They're a duo from Birmingham, and although the texts were often dark and gloomy they were sung in a singer/songwriter style. They're a curious group.

The main act, also from Birmingham, was a punk band called Drag, short for "DRessed like A Girl". I don't know why they picked this name. The singer and guitarist were definitely real girls. They are a high energy punk group with a style reminiscent of the late 1970's. The crowd loved them, and they're obviously a band with a big future ahead of them. It was a night to remember.

King Kong (5 Stars)

People associate the name Peter Jackson with Lord of the Rings. Understandably. Between them the three films in the trilogy earned $2.9 billion at the box office, and the third film was awarded 11 Oscars, winning every category it was eligible for. And yet I consider "King Kong" to be his true masterpiece. The first time I saw the Lord of the Rings films (in the cinema) I loved them, I was wildly enthusiastic. The second time I saw them (on DVD) I still liked them, but I was cooler in my opinion. The third time I watched them I felt bored. Spectacular scenery, great special effects, interesting characters, but somehow it seemed empty, it didn't have the heart and soul that Tolkien's novels have. I doubt I'll watch the DVD's again. With "King Kong" the opposite is the case. I enjoyed it greatly the first time I saw it, and every time I watch it I like it more.

The first version of "King Kong" was made in 1933. The original screenplay was written by Edgar Wallace, based on a 1932 novel by Delos Lovelace. Some editions of the novel incorrectly name Wallace as the author. In the 1930's it was easier to cheat to make books more saleable. If tricks like that were attempted today there would be massive lawsuits. Edgar Wallace died before the film was made, and the screenplay was modified by various other writers including Ruth Rose. The film shows the influence of German expressionism. In my opinion it was the best film made in America in the first half of the 20th Century.

There was a remake of the the film in 1976. At the time it was very successful, but over the years critics have turned against it, saying it relied on special effects -- the best special effects available at the time -- rather than believable characters. It's been many years since I last saw it, so I won't give my own opinions.

And now to Peter Jackson's remake that was released in 2005. He was also critical of the 1976 version, and his goal was to get back to basics. He remade the original 1933 version without borrowing anything from the 1976 version. He also made the decision to set the film in 1933, not bring it up to date. This was the right decision. As a period film this is a masterpiece, even before the ship sets sale and leaves New York behind. Apart from the old-fashioned streets and cars we see the suffering of the Great Depression and hints of Prohibition. The attention to detail is meticulous.

The casting is so perfect that it's difficult to imagine anyone else in the major roles. Naomi Watts has a face that breaks into a gaze of star-struck innocence when she looks upon the monster. In her case this isn't acting, this is her natural expression that I've already seen in "Mulholland Drive" and "The Ring". Nobody else could have played Ann Darrow. Jack Black, who plays Carl Denham, fits into the era perfectly. He has the facial appearance of the early silent movie actors. If anything he reminds me of Gustav von Wangenheim. Adrien Brody is perfect as the sad-faced writer Jack Driscoll. Again, this isn't acting skill, Adrien has very distinctive facial expressions that are exactly what the film needs. Kyle Chandler plays the deliciously bland film star Bruce Baxter, who I don't believe was in the original film. A welcome addition to the story. Thomas Kretschmann was an inspired choice as the cool Captain Englehorn. And I could continue with all the other supporting actors. Has any other film ever been cast so perfectly?

The story? I'm sure everyone knows it already. A third-rate movie director, Carl Denham, gathers a small group of actors to make a film on a remote island. While there they find and capture a giant gorilla they call King Kong. They bring him back to New York, where he escapes, goes on a rampage and is killed. The story is made more poignant by the monkey falling in love with the film's leading lady, Ann Darrow.

Click here to view the amazingly dull trailer. At least it shows Naomi Watts' beautiful gaze.