Perfume (5 Stars)

This is the latest film in the Best Of Cinema series. It's unique among the 24 films already shown or announced so far, as the only film that's less than 20 years old. Is that a mistake? Maybe it is, but it's a welcome mistake. It's a brilliant film, and it's already included in my top 100 film list. It's in 94th place at the moment, but I think it should be higher. I'll think it over next time I review my list.

Tonight I spoke with a few people in the cinema, and they'd all seen the film before. I've watched it four times since I started my blog, probably twice before. I wish I'd started my blog in 2003 when I first became a serious film fan. This is the first time I've seen it on the big screen.

One thing I didn't mention in my previous reviews is my shock at French executions in the 18th Century. Most countries used to hang criminals, and I thought that France used the guillotine, but not in this film. Is it historically accurate? The person is bound to a pillar and the executioner hits him with a hammer in eight places on his arms and legs, breaking his bones, after which he's left to die. Is it really necessary that the person should die in such pain, whatever he's done?

I expect to be writing less, if at all, for the next two weeks, because I'm going on holiday: one week in Borkum and one week in Karlsbad, on the northern tip of the Black Forest. I'll be looking after my grandchildren, so I doubt I'll have much time to write.

Success Rate:  + 0.3

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

Die Hard (5 Stars)

The Stuttgart Nights festival begins tomorrow. What better way to get into the mood than to watch "Die Hard" yet again?

The last time I watched it I couldn't think of anything new to write about it. This month I'll just give the film's death count.

Twelve of the terrorists die. We only see ten of them die on screen, but we're told that two others die in the explosion that John McClane causes in the elevator shaft. Of the 13 terrorists, the only survivor is the hacker, Theo.

Four civilians are killed. That's two security guards and two hostages.

We don't see any policemen die, but I assume the death count is six. That would be four FBI agents in a helicopter crash and two other policemen when their car is destroyed by a rocket.

That's a total of 22 deaths. The official Die Hard fan site says there are 23, because one additional terrorist dies. I'll have to check carefully next time I watch it. The error is probably mine.

Success Rate:  + 3.6

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

Die Hard (4½ Stars)

Merry Christmas!

Ho, ho, ho!

Success Rate:  + 3.6

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

Die Hard (4 Stars)

It's almost Christmas. It's time to watch Christmas films, so the cinema EM (Eugen Mertz) showed "Die Hard" today. Is it a Christmas film or not? The answer isn't impartial. People who like the film say Yes, those who don't like it say No. I like it.

It's been four years since I last watched it. Today I went into the film with a bit more knowledge. The opening scenes have the feeling of a television film. Despite the relatively large budget ($25 million) it has the feeling of a low budget film. The film was slammed by the critics, but it was a surprise success at the box office. From what I've read, the critics gradually woke up to the film's quality. Recent critical reviews praise the film for the depths of philosophical and religious meaning that the critics missed the first time round. If renowned film critics make mistakes, what chance does an amateur like me stand?

That's not to say the film is perfect. I watched the film in a theatre that was packed with Germans. The bad guys (the terrorists) are supposed to be Germans, but not all of the actors playing them are Germans. Snippets of dialogue are in German, and there was loud laughter in the audience when the accent was awful or there were grammatical errors. The film should be corrected by dubbing the actors when they speak German. There evidently wasn't enough money left for such luxuries in the budget. Or maybe the studios never expected "Die Hard" to be shown outside of America.

This was Bruce Willis' breakthrough role. He was previously best known for appearing in the comedy series "Moonlighting". What would have happened to him if he'd never been offered the role in "Die Hard"? It was a close call. Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger both turned down the role before it was offered to Bruce. If not for "Die Hard" he might have spent his career playing family comedy films like "Meet the Ukrainians" and "My Horny Grandfather".

Which leads to the question: is Bruce Willis a good actor? That's a difficult question to answer. Based on this film alone, he looks like an inexperienced actor at the beginning of his career. He's doing his best, but he's not great. He improved as he went along. He's a better actor than Arnold Schwarzenegger, but that's not saying much. "Die Hard" was made in 1988, and he was soon typecast as an action hero. Over the next 30 years his career went up and down. There wasn't always a market for action heroes in Hollywood. His last 26 films were low budget films that went straight to video. That's a sad end to the career of a successful actor.

In Germany the film is called "Stirb langsam", i.e. "Die slowly". In German "Die hard" ("Stirb hart") sounds more sexually suggestive than it does in English. I put it to the test. When I bought my ticket in the cinema I said I wanted to see "Stirb hart", and the woman behind the counter chuckled.

Success Rate:  + 3.6

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

Perfume (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #80

For me every actor has a signature role. That's one role that defines him, and it's the role that people think of whenever his name is mentioned. If there's an actor who doesn't have a signature role, it's either because I don't know enough of his films or because he hasn't yet made the film with his signature role. To give a few examples:

Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature role is the Terminator.

Bela Lugosi's signature role is Dracula.

Tom Hanks' signature role is Forrest Gump.

Nicolas Cage's signature role is Seth in "City of Angels".

Bruno Ganz's signature role is Adolf Hitler.

Keanu Reeves' signature role is John Wick. This is an interesting one, because I used to think his signature role was Neo in the Matrix films, but I've changed my mind. John Wick expresses more accurately who he is.

Beverly Lynne's signature role is Tanya X.

And Ben Whishaw's signature role is Jean-Baptiste Grenouille in "Perfume". I don't care how many times he plays Q in the James Bond films, he'll always be the brooding serial killer Jean-Baptiste.

I can't write about this film without mentioning Karoline Herfurth, the stunningly beautiful actress who plays the plum seller. It was intended to cast an English or American actress for the role, but after a long fruitless search Karoline was picked, a German actress who had already worked with the director Tom Tykwer.

The film has epic proportions, despite its seemingly banal plot: it's about one man's quest to create the perfect perfume. 5,200 extras were used in the film, and the final orgy scene holds the record for the largest orgy on film, with 750 extras taking part. According to the director's commentary, they had to rehearse a whole week eight hours a day in order to feel comfortable with being naked.

These are just a few of the participants. It wasn't an easy scene to film, because the extras were all packed together in a cramped space. Amusingly, Tom Tykwer says that after making the film a large number of the naked extras still meet on a regular basis to reminisce about the film. Rolling naked in a courtyard with 750 other people must be a unique bonding experience.

Karoline Herfurth also appears naked briefly, though not in the orgy scene. She was already dead, Jean-Baptiste's first victim.

So many naked bodies, and yet Alan Rickman has to keep his clothes on. I bet he wishes he could have been one of the extras.

This is a magnificent film. It doesn't neatly fit any genre. It's a masterpiece.

Success Rate:  + 0.3

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

Perfume (5 Stars)

Most people know Ben Whishaw for his role as Q in the recent James Bond films, but I can't look at him without remembering him as the cold killer Jean-Baptiste Grenouille in "Perfume". It's a role he plays to perfection. Even though he's a serial killer, we can't help feeling for him and wishing him good fortune in his quest to find the perfect perfume. He's a charismatic psychopath who draws us in and charms us in with his faraway stare.

I can't think of any other film with a plot vaguely like this. Perfume as the motivation for a murder spree is a bizarre concept, but it seems so natural in the context of the film.

Maybe one of the reasons that we can so easily relate to Jean-Baptiste is the vicious brutality of 18th Century France. Torture is the answer to everything. If someone is suspected of a crime, torture him and he'll confess; just make sure you accurately describe what the crime is, or he'll confess to the wrong crime. If someone is sentenced to death, torture him first, just for the fun or it.

The last time I watched this film I claimed that we don't empathise with Jean-Baptiste. I don't know why I wrote that. It's obviously what I thought at the time. Maybe I needed to watch the film a few times for him to grow on me.

Success Rate:  + 0.3

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

Sweeney Todd (4½ Stars)

If you'd asked me 10 years ago, I would have said that Johnny Depp was my favourite actor. He made some fantastic films in the 1990's and 2000's. I was irritated by his performance as Captain Jack Sparrow in the Pirates Of The Caribbean films. The films themselves were quite good, I just don't think that he's funny. He has a lot of talent without acting like a buffoon. He's better as a serious actor, or at least he used to be. In his recent serious roles he tends to shuffle around and mumble. There's no passion in his acting. Sweeney Todd was probably his last great role. He's dramatic and awe-inspiring in his madness.

I haven't read the 19th Century stories on which the film is based, but the musical as presented is full of pathos and tragedy. Benjamin Barker, who changes his name to Sweeney Todd to avoid detection, doesn't start out as a bad man. He's a loving husband and father who's mistreated by an evil judge who abuses his position. He sings a tail of woe:

There's a hole in the world like a great black pit,
And the vermin of the world inhabit it,
And its morals aren't worth what a pig could spit,
And it goes by the name of London.
At the top of the hole sit a privileged few
Making mock of the vermin in the lower zoo
Turning beauty into filth and greed. I too
Have sailed the world and seen its wonders
For the cruelty of men is as wondrous as Peru,
But there's no place like London.

Maybe I wouldn't call London the worst place on Earth, but it's certainly a place of evil. Those who are rich trample on those who're poor, believing there's a natural order that gives them the right to do so.

The film's imagery backs up the evil character of London. People walk the streets in suits and top hats. They're the fine gentlemen. Benjamin's friend Anthony is a young sailor who dresses in scruffy clothing. Nobody thinks of him as a gentleman. That's something I recognised years ago. Being a gentleman isn't about being kind to others, it's about how you dress. If you dress well, you're seen as one of the elite. It's assumed that you know how to behave. A gentleman doesn't start a fight on the streets; he beats up poor people in the back yards and alleyways where nobody can see him.

Benjamin Barker himself isn't a gentleman. He's a tradesman, a barber. He returns to London after 15 years at sea, sentenced to banishment for a crime he didn't commit. He wants revenge on the judge who did him harm. Nobody can blame him for that. This wish for revenge is strengthened when he finds out that his daughter Johanna has been adopted by the judge. I still have sympathy with him.

The problem is that the hatred in his heart grows. It starts off with him believing that the judge deserves to die, but it progresses to the point when he looks out of his window at the gentlemen in the street and says that they all deserve to die. Maybe they do deserve to die, but what right does he have to judge them?

The real monster in the film is Mrs. Lovett, played by Helena Bonham Carter. Sweeney Todd's excuse for killing is revenge. Mrs. Lovett's excuse for killing is love. She loves Sweeney Todd and dreams of marrying him. She keeps him happy by supporting him in his quest for revenge. When his lust for killing grows out of hand she doesn't hold him back, she supports him, thinking that if she shares his passion for killing he'll love her too. She's the one who helps him dispose of the bodies. Mrs. Lovett doesn't kill a single person, but she's more than an accessory to the crime, she's a motivator.

The two are a perfect pair in their path of destruction. Are they insane? I'm always slow to call anyone mad, because insanity can be used as an excuse for evil. A lack of morality doesn't mean you're mad, it just means you're a bad person. I would call Sweeney Todd insane, driven mad by the pain of losing his wife and his daughter. He could have been cured if he'd had an understanding lover at his side. Mrs. Lovett isn't mad, she's just cold-hearted and evil. Whatever a court of law might say, she's the real criminal.

Success Rate:  + 1.1

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

This excellent film is only available on DVD in America and England. You can buy it on Blu-ray from Germany. I did.

Die Hard (4 Stars)

Do you know what's worse than having a pain in your leg that's so bad you can hardly walk? It's having a pain in your leg that's so bad you can hardly walk and not knowing why. This morning everything was fine. Then I lay down and had a nap after dinner. When I woke up I had a stabbing pain in my leg every time I tried to walk, on the inside of my left calf. After I watched this film tonight it still hurts, and it's even worse now.

You must think I'm a cry baby. John McClane has it much worse than me in "Die Hard". He had to walk barefoot on broken glass, so he had a reason for his pain. He didn't sit and moan about it to his friends on the Internet, so he's a bigger man than me.

Let me stop whining and tell you about the film. I'd never seen it before today. My good friend Michael McAuley mentioned on Facebook that it's a family tradition for him watch it at Christmas. I'd heard of the film, but I didn't even know it's a Christmas film. It's on Netflix, so I decided to ignore the pain and watch it tonight. I was pleased to see that the whole film takes place on December 24th, today's date, so it's appropriate.

The film was made in 1988, and we can assume that's when it takes place. Bruce Willis plays John McClane, a New York cop living in separation from his wife Holly. She was offered a top job in the Los Angeles office of a Japanese corporation, and she decided that her career was more important than her marriage. We can read between the lines that John's career was also more important than his marriage, or he would have gone with her. Maybe he was just too macho to ask for a transfer because of his wife's job. In our patriarchal society it's acceptable for women to move when their husbands find a new job, but men who move when their wives find a new job are considered to be weak and henpecked.

John flies to Los Angeles on December 24th. That evening there's a big Christmas party at Holly's place of work, a tower building belonging to the Nakatomi corporation. While he's cleaning himself up, having a wash after his long flight, the tower building is invaded by a group of terrorists under the leadership of a German called Hans Gruber. Even though they're terrorists, the intention of attacking the building isn't a terrorist plot. They merely want to steal $640 million worth in bonds stored in the building's safe. (That's $1,340 million in today's money).

As the only person not taken hostage John McClane fights against the terrorists, picking them off one by one.

As far as action films go, this is a pure popcorn movie. My heart was pumping with excitement from beginning to end. "Die Hard" is considered one of the best action movies ever made, and I can see why. I've rated it as a good film (4 Stars), but I don't think it's a film I want to watch again, or at least not for a long time. The four sequels are also on Netflix, and I've already added them to my watch list. It's just a question when I'll get round to them, among the dozens of films I intend to watch or re-watch over the next few months.

Success Rate:  + 3.0

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

Galaxy Quest (4½ Stars)

It's difficult to write something about this film that can do it justice. Let me just describe the premise, so that if you belong to the 0.1% of the world's population who hasn't yet seen it you'll want to run out and buy it.

There was a highly successful television series called Galaxy Quest. After it was cancelled none of the actors had much success, so they remained known for their Galaxy Quest roles. After 18 years they're still travelling from one science fiction convention to another, wearing their old costumes and repeating their old catchphrases to adoring audiences full of sci-fi geeks. They're getting sick of it, but as has-beens it's the only way they can make any money. The only exception is Jason Nesmith, the former ship's captain and main star of the TV series. He loves the adulation of the fans at the conventions, which alienates him from his co-stars.

Then they're approached by four people who look like typical cosplayers, but they're beings from the planet Thermia. They've watched the television episodes, including the reruns, for the last 20 years. The Thermians don't have a concept of fiction being used as entertainment, so they think it was recordings of things that really happened. They've come to Earth to ask Jason and his crew to save their planet.

A plot like that might fall flat on its face in the wrong hands, but look who's in the film: Sigourney Weaver, Sam Rockwell and the late, great Alan Rickman!

The film is a parody of Star Trek. Maybe the word parody is too strong. There isn't a one-to-one relationship between Star Trek and the Galaxy Quest crew, apart from Jason Nesmith himself, who's easy to recognise. The others are composite characters who have traits of different characters from the original Star Trek series and The Next Generation.

Admittedly, you'll appreciate this film most if you're a Star Trek fan or are at least well acquainted with it, but I still think that anyone will enjoy the humour.

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

Sweeney Todd (4½ Stars)

This is my second film for today starring Alan Rickman. In it he proves that he isn't just an actor, he can sing as well. That's not something that can be taken for granted. Have you ever heard Pierce Brosnan try to sing, for instance in "Mamma Mia"? It's embarrassing. Then there's Alyson Hannigan. When a musical episode was written for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" parts had to be re-written because she wasn't able to perform all her songs. I don't understand this, because the few lines she does sing in the broadcast episode are adequate. She's not as bad as Pierce Brosnan, and nowhere near as bad as Richard Gere.

Of course, Alan Rickman's singing is over-shadowed by Johnny Depp, who is a magnificent singer. If he had never become an actor he could have embarked on a singing career. Another first class singer is Anthony Head. Those are the only two actors I can think of who are excellent singers. Most others are okay, but they're not good enough to give up their acting.

I enjoy this musical, especially because of the dark humour, but it doesn't live up to other musicals in my collection. I prefer "Tommy", "The Wall" and "Evita".

Alan Rickman plays an evil character in the film, Judge Turpin. I've heard it said that only the best actors can play bad men. That's certainly the case here. It takes an actor of Alan Rickman's stature to portray the nuances of the evil judge. We almost feel sympathy for him, because however bad he is all he wants is to be loved. Almost. We still cheer when Johnny Depp slashes his throat.

Perfume (4½ Stars)

Following the death of Alan Rickman yesterday I've decided to watch two of his films. He doesn't appear on screen until halfway through the film, but from that moment on he takes his rightful position dominating the film with his Shakespearian acting. This is in part due to the relative vacuum around the film's main character, Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, played by Ben Whishaw. This is, as far as I can see, deliberate. Jean-Baptiste is a man like no other who has ever been born, so no attempts are made to help us empathise with him.

The film takes place in France in the 18th Century, in the years before the Revolution. It was a time of great poverty for the masses, while the small ruling elite lived in luxurious excesses. Jean-Baptiste was born in the fish market of Paris. His mother had no intention of keeping the baby, so he was sent to an orphanage. At the age of eight he was sold to a tannery, where boys had a short life expectancy in the unsanitary working environment.

But as I already mentioned above, Jean-Baptiste Grenouille was like no other man. He was gifted with a sense of smell that was phenomenal. He could accurately recognise people and objects by their smell, even at long distances. On the other hand, he had no emotions at all. He was incapable of feeling love, and he didn't even have feelings of lust. For him the only thing that mattered was being able to smell the most beautiful of scents.

If Jean-Baptiste had been content with smelling what was around him he could have lived his life in happiness and anonymity. This changed when he met the beautiful red-haired plum seller, played by Karoline Herfurth. First he was intoxicated by her smell, but then he accidentally killed her, and he was fascinated to realise that immediately after her death she smelt even sweeter. He revelled in this odour, but it faded after a few minutes.

This leads to a life-long obsession. He wants to find a way to preserve the scent of a dying woman. He begins an apprenticeship as a perfumer to learn how to preserve smells. After mastering this skill he sets out to create the ultimate perfume by mixing the scents of 13 dead women. This brings him into conflict with the wealthy nobleman Antoine Richis, played by Alan Rickman, because he needs his daughter for the perfume.

Why does Jean-Baptiste have such an obsession with red-haired girls? Do they really smell better than anyone else? I don't know, because my sense of smell isn't as well developed as his. However, my eyesight is good enough to verify that both Karoline Herfurth and Rachel Hurd-Wood are stunningly beautiful. I'm sure my readers will agree with me.

Perfume (5 Stars)

Dying flowers smell best.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (4 Stars)

It all ends here.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (3½ Stars)

This is Harry Potter's seventh year of school. This would be the upper sixth form, the last year of school for him, except that he's dropped out of school. He's gone underground after the events of the last film. Now he's on a mission to find parts of the Dark Lord's souls hidden in mystical objects called "horcruxes". From the previous film I understood that there were seven horcruxes, but now Harry only speaks about five. Maybe I missed a detail somewhere.

The film moves very slowly. I can't help feeling it would have been better to make one film out of the seventh Harry Potter book instead of two. Why was it split into two films? Was it for artistic or commercial reasons? I suspect the latter, but I haven't read a reliable answer anywhere.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (3½ Stars)

Though visibly the most appealing film so far, very little seems to happen. Rather than being packed with action like all the previous films it moves slowly. And what happened with the blossoming romance with Cho that we saw developing in the last two films? I have a feeling that the film has omitted something that the book explains.

I was also disappointed to see Severus Snape take the side of the Dark Lord. Until now he was my favorite teacher at Hogwart's. I liked to see him as being strict and unfriendly, but on the side of good. Just like a normal teacher! In contrast, I found Dumbledore's familiarity with Harry Potter alienating.

Getting back to the maturing of the characters, just look at Tom Felton in the poster above. He's no longer a child, he has the facial features of a man.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (4½ Stars)

A storm is coming.

Harry Potter is coming of age. I don't just mean the character, I mean the film series as well. I'm glad that the swearing has been toned down since the last film. It's restricted to one exclamation from Ron's lips.

Harry is now 15 and in the 5th form (commonly called Year 10 to align it with the school systems in other European countries). He has his first kiss with Cho. Ah, that brings back memories. I had my first kiss when I was in the 5th form as well, though I was already 16 at the time. It was a clumsy kiss with Mandy Stickland, a friend of my sister's, outside her house in Aldridge after I walked her home. It was nowhere near as romantic as Harry's first kiss. My second kiss, a few days later, was better. Not as hurried, and more passionate. And yet it's the first kiss that I'll always remember. In fact, even though my relationship with Mandy lasted three months it's that one kiss that I remember more clearly than anything else.

Non-Americans probably don't realise that Dolores Umbridge is based on Mary Whitehouse, the bigoted anti-immorality and anti-progress campaigner of the 1970's and 1980's. History will remember her as a person who did evil in the name of good. If she were alive today she would be campaigning to ban the Internet because of its adverse effect on morals. When I was young she scared me; I thought that she would harm the society I was growing up in. Fortunately my fears were unfounded. She faded into obscurity after an injury in 1988 and died in 2001, having failed to bring about changes in any of the issues that meant so much to her.

This is the darkest of the Harry Potter films so far, and contains hints for the following stories. I'm glad that I'm watching them at last. But I'm still not tempted to read the books.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (4 Stars)

Both the characters and the story are maturing, as I suspected when I watched the previous film in the Harry Potter series. Most noticeable to me was the introduction of swearing to the film, all spoken by Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint). I almost jumped up in shock when he told Harry to "Piss off", and he used the exclamation "Bloody Hell" several times in the rest of the film. I personally found this unpleasant, and I hope that the bad language won't get even worse in the remaining films.

The film is characterised by a darker element than the previous three films. Death is now a reality, as we see in the case of Cedric being killed only a short time after he became Harry's friend and companion. Harry, Ron and Hermione are now 14, and they are beginning to have teenage angst, not knowing who to invite to the dance. I'm enjoying the films as a series; together they're more than the sum of their parts.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (4¼ Stars)

I've been criticised for calling the first two Harry Potter films silly. First of all, I never called the films themselves silly; I just said they contained random silliness. To take just two examples, I thought the flying keys and the flying car which came and left of its own volition were silly. However, maybe the word "silly" is too strong. Maybe a better word would be "childish", which I don't mean in a negative way. Both the books and the films were intended for children, so childlike elements were appropriate. Children laugh when unexpected random events happen. So I apologize for my use of the word "silly".

Having said that, the third film doesn't contain any such childish elements. I have the feeling that the films, as well as the books they are based on,  are growing up with the characters. If "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" was written for 11-year-olds, this is a story for 13-year-olds.

Speaking of the characters themselves, Ron's face is now finally showing signs of maturing. Hermione's figure is showing the first hints of womanhood. But for me the biggest shock is Harry's Slytherin nemesis, Draco Malfoy, played by Tom Felton. He looks so different in this film that I at first doubted he was being played by the same actor.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (4 Stars)

An enjoyable film, especially the final showdown. On the other hand, the film still has some of the silliness of the first film. Maybe the problem is that I'm not putting myself into the mindset of the targeted age group? Maybe, maybe not. When I was 13 I was reading novels by Somerset Maugham and poetry by Rod McKuen. I don't think I would have liked J.K. Rowling's books.

It's interesting to me to see the physical development of the main characters from the first film to the second. It fascinates me to see the changes as children mature into adults, so I'll be paying attention to it over the course of the next films. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) himself has changed the most. Between the first and the second film his face became less round. He's lost his baby fat. Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) has shot up in height, but his face looks the same. Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) hasn't changed at all.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (4 Stars)

This is the first of the Harry Potter films, based on the book of the same name. In America both the book and the film are called "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". The name was changed because the publisher thought that American children were too stupid to understand the original name of the book. They would think that the book is about philosophy, not magic. Since this statement was made by an American who obviously knows best I shan't argue with it.

The casting of the three main characters, Harry and his two friends Ron and Hermione, was either an act of inspiration or genius. It must have been immensely difficult to pick three children aged 11 who could be expected to act proficiently for the next eight to ten years. 12 years have now passed since the original film, and the success speaks for itself. Over the course of the eight films the three children developed into young men and women with enormous talent.

Of the other actors I'll just mention Maggie Smith. I was especially happy to see her in the role of Professor Minerva McGonagall. She already proved herself to be the perfect schoolteacher in "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie", made 30 years earlier. She now seems to be reprising her role.

Over the next few weeks I shall review some, maybe all of the Harry Potter films. I haven't read the books, so I'm in no way biased by having to compare the films with them. What I enjoyed most about the film I watched today was the school atmosphere. The concept of a traditional English school being used for teaching magic is splendid, and it was well realised. What I enjoyed least was the random silliness, such as the flying keys.