Night at the Museum 2 (3 Stars)

This is a good example of a poorly made sequel. "Night at the Museum" was a big success at the box office, so there was pressure to make another film. Some of the characters return from the first film, but most of them only appear in brief cameos. There's enough of the first film repeated to raise a smile, but not enough to make the viewer think he's in familiar territory.

The film takes place three years after "Night at the Museum". Larry Daley has given up his job at the American Museum of Natural History to pursue a career as an inventor. I like his idea of a fluorescent torch. When there's a power cut it's easy to find. I could have done with one of those when I lived in England. In Germany there aren't as many power cuts.

The museum is due to be modernised. The exhibits are to be replaced by AI-driven holograms. How dull!

The exhibits are shipped to Washington to be stored underground in the vaults of the Smithsonian. The magic tablet of Akmenrah that gives the statues life should have stayed in New York, but it's stolen by Dexter the monkey and taken to Washington. At the Smithsonian the wax figures come to life, including Kahmunrah, the evil older brother of Akmenrah. The tablet has other powers known only to Kahmunrah, including the ability to raise the army of the dead. Larry goes to Washington to retrieve the tablet and save the world.

The film is dull, and is only worth watching for the excellent performance of Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart. On the other hand, my grandson Oliver enjoyed the film. He liked the slapstick action and the airplanes. Maybe one day he'll write his own blog and give the film a better review.

Success Rate:  + 0.8

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

Smallville 1.07 - Craving

Click here to view the podcast.

The freak-of-the-week in "Craving" is Jodi Melville, played by Amy Adams. She's an overweight teenage girl who's bullied by the other kids in school. I'm trying to avoid using the word fat, but maybe I shouldn't. It's the word that she uses to describe herself the first time we see her.

She's tried many different diets, counting calories, but nothing helps. Now she adopts drastic measures. She only drinks a smoothie made from the vegetables in her father's greenhouse. Nothing else. That has to work, doesn't it? What she doesn't know, or blissfully ignores, is that the soil around her house, including the soil used in the greenhouse, is contaminated with meteor rocks. There are so many little green rocks in the soil that she hardly notices them when she collects the vegetables.

This fad diet has an immediate effect. After drinking her first glass, she stands on the scales and watches her weight drop from 168 pounds to 139 pounds. The digital display counts down before her eyes. The next day, after her next glass of the veggie meteor smoothie, she sees her weight rapidly decrease to 112 pounds. 56 pounds is a good weight loss in less than 36 hours, but it comes with a price.

Jodi has a ravenous hunger. She eats everything in the fridge, stuffing it into her mouth as fast as she can. But it's still not enough. That evening when she's driving to Lana Lang's birthday party she hits a dear. She rushes out of the car and devours the dead animal. She doesn't eat it by biting and chewing the flesh, she sucks the fat out of the body. That's the only thing that satisfies her.

But it's not just animal fat. She sucks the fat out of a fellow student, and she would have killed him if Clark Kent hadn't intervened.

In this episode Lex Luthor's doctor tells him he has an unusually high white blood cell count. Rather than rely on traditional medical tests, Lex seeks advice from Dr. Hamilton, an eccentric scientist who's dedicated his life to studying meteor rocks. Dr. Hamilton is played by Joe Morton, a prolific actor over the last 50 years, but I'll always remember him for his role as Miles Dyson in "Terminator 2". Dr. Hamilton is unwilling to help Lex, but Lex blackmails him, threatening to reveal that he lost his job because of an affair with a student.

Lex looks for more clues on Chloe's infamous Wall Of Weird.

And this is the episode in which he meets Chloe herself for the first time. I never thought anything of it when I first watched the show, but it is a bit creepy that the owner of the town's biggest factory is spending his time socialising with high school students in their mid teens. Chloe politely addresses him as Mr. Luthor, but he insists on being called Lex.

In the podcast Michael and Tom highly praise Amy Adams as their guest actress. It was the beginning of her career, but her talent was obvious to them, and they knew she would go far. This is what she looked like before her diet.

This is after her diet. More beautiful, more deadly.

It's been suggested in previous podcasts that the effects of the meteor rocks aren't random. The rocks give each person what he desires the most. I don't like this theory in principle, because it makes the rocks sound mystical, but it does seem to be the case.

Apart from the pilot episode, Tom Welling has been joining the podcast from home every week. He's a family man. He doesn't want to spend too much time away from home. If I understand correctly, Michael Rosenbaum makes the Talkville podcast in New York City, but Tom lives in North California.

It's taken them a few episodes, but Michael and Tom are no longer talking about their general experiences in the series. They concentrate on the episode itself. What fascinates me most is the things they remember and the things they'd forgotten. For instance, Tom remembers the scene when he was watching Jodi eat in the school cafeteria, but he'd forgotten the scene when Pete Ross threw a football at a boy's head in the school hallway. At least he isn't like the actor Phil Daniels, who says he can't remember a single thing about making "Quadrophenia", even when he watches the film today. That's strange. (He made that statement only 25 years after "Quadrophenia" was made).

I notice that Michael Rosenbaum always speaks of the freak-of-the-week concept as if it's something bad. I think it works. Most early television series, even classic series like the original Star Trek, followed a freak-of-the week pattern.

I enjoyed "Smallville" when I first began to watch it, about 15 years ago – yes, I started late! – but I'm enjoying it even more now. I'm getting deeper into each episode with the help of Michael Rosenbaum and Tom Welling.

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

Catch me if you can (4½ Stars)

True Stories #19

Name: Frank Abagnale

Lived: 27 April 1948 – still alive

Film dates: 1963 to 1974

Film made in 2002

From one con man to another. Steve Russell was a master con man, but Frank Abagnale was possibly the greatest con man who ever lived. His expertise was forgery, which he mastered at a young age. By the time he was 17 he'd gained $1.3 million by fraud, and by the time he was 19 it was $4 million. That was the 1960's. Allowing for inflation, you need to multiply those figures by nine.

Maybe he was too greedy. If he'd stopped stealing after his first million he would have had enough money to last the rest of his life, and he probably wouldn't have been caught. That's the trouble with money. If you love money, you can never have enough.

Frank Abagnale left home when he was 16, because he was traumatised by his parents' divorce. He paid for his rent by writing cheques, but he could never stay in one place long, because the cheques bounced and he was evicted. He had the idea to forge cheques issued by banks the other side of the country. In the pre-Internet days this meant that it took weeks for the cheques to be recognised as fakes. In order to cash cheques he needed credibility. He did this by wearing a pilot's uniform. Everyone trusts an airline pilot.

He forged university certificates to become a doctor, and then a lawyer. All the time he was writing cheques. The FBI detected him. Agent Carl Hanratty pursued Frank from one side of the country to the other. A bizarre relationship developed between the two. They had respect for one another, as if they were boxers duelling in the ring. Frank rang Carl every year on 24th December to wish him a Merry Christmas. Wasn't he afraid of having his call traced?

Eventually Frank was arrested in France and imprisoned in very unsanitary conditions. The film doesn't tell the whole story. According to Wikipedia, "At Perpignan he was held nude in a tiny, filthy, lightless cell that he was never allowed to leave. The cell lacked toilet facilities, a mattress, or a blanket, and food and water were strictly limited". Carl had Frank extradited to America so he would be treated better. While in prison in America Carl frequently consulted Frank for help catching other cheque forgers. Frank's assistance was so invaluable that after four years he was released and hired by the FBI. He became the FBI's top expert on cheque forgery.

This is an excellent film directed by Steven Spielberg. As I've said before, Steven Spielberg never makes a bad film. Tom Hanks is a phenomenal actor, and Leonardo DiCaprio also has great talent. They bounce off one another by their contrast between a humourless, uptight FBI agent and a flamboyant young man.

Success Rate:  + 4.8

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

Night at the Museum 2 (3 Stars)

There's some confusion about the title of this film. According to the DVD box, its name is "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian". However, in the opening credits the title screen simply calls it "Night at the Museum". There isn't even a number two to distinguish it from the first film.

The film takes place three years after the original film. Larry Daley has left his job as a night guard and gone back to being an inventor. He's now having moderate success with his Glow-In-The-Dark Flashlight. (I'm British, so I prefer to call it a torch). It's a better idea than it sounds. If there's a power cut and you need a torch, you might not be able to find it in the dark. If the torch's outer casing is fluorescent, it's easy to find. I wonder if these torches are on sale yet.

Larry visits the museum and finds that almost all of the exhibits have been packed in boxes. It's been decided that traditional museums are too old-fashioned. The new museum is to be made up of talking holographic displays. Larry stays the night in the museum to say farewell to his old friends. The Tablet of Ahkmenrah is to remain in the museum, so they won't come to life any more in their new resting place, the underground vaults of the Smithsonian Museum in Washington D.C.

The next evening Larry receives a phone call from Jedediah. Dexter stole the Tablet, so now all the exhibits in the Smithsonian Museum have come to life. Kahmunrah, the older brother of Akhmenrah, has attacked and imprisoned the new arrivals from New York. He wants the Tablet, because it has untapped powers that will help him conquer the world. Larry goes to Washington to save them.

I'm sorry to say that this film doesn't live up to the original. Too much is illogical. In the first film the exhibits were at war with one another, but now they're united, even before they have to face a common enemy. In the first film there were constant communication problems, but now they all seem to understand English, even if they don't speak it. We see all the exhibits from the first film, but several of them, including Sacagawea, shown above, only appear in brief cameos. The new exhibits aren't funny, except for their randomness. The only exception is Amelia Earhart, played by Amy Adams.

Amelia Earhart is comical in the way she's portrayed. She's an independent woman, who doesn't need a man to tell her what to do, but she goes to the opposite extreme, taking any man she wants. In this case, any man means Larry. While he's struggling to save the world, he has to fight off Amelia's attempts to kiss him. It's very hard for him, because she looks insanely sexy in her tight fitting flying outfit.

That's still not enough to make it a good film.

Success Rate:  + 0.8

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

Nocturnal Animals (3 Stars)

I missed this film when it was in the cinema two years ago. Normally I would go to see any film that stars Jake Gyllenhaal. I forget what the reason was. Probably there were too many other good films being shown at the time.

Edward Sheffield and Susan Sutton were students in New York. Edward studied literature, Susan studied art. Those are both creative subjects, but their career choices were different. Edward wanted to become an author, while Anne wanted to become the manager of an art gallery. The two got married, but the difference in their attitudes between wanting to create art and administer art is what eventually tore them apart. Susan couldn't relate to Edward's stories. When Susan met a handsome young businessman who had nothing to do with creating art she left Edward to be with him.

After the divorce Edward and Susan didn't see each other for 19 years. That's a long time. Now Susan's husband is having an affair, and she's beginning to think that she should have stayed with Edward. She's pleasantly surprised when Edward mails her the manuscript for a new novel that he's dedicated to her.

Over the next few days Susan sits reading the novel, and the story becomes more important to her than her real life.

The film tells three stories. The first story takes place in the present, Susan's relationship to her husband. The second story is told in flashbacks, and it concerns her romance and break up with Edward 19 years ago. The third story is the novel, in which she imagines Edward playing the main part, the family father Tony Hastings.

Supposedly Edward's marriage with Susan was the inspiration for the novel. She sees a connection, I don't. The film is too random for me. The opening scene with the naked women dancing in stars and stripes costumes is so thinly connected to the rest of the film that it seems to be nothing more than gratuitous sensationalism.

I watched "Nocturnal Animals" on Amazon Prime today. Amazon and Netflix are the two largest providers of streaming content, films and television series. They are mutually exclusive. Anything shown by Netflix isn't available on Amazon, and anything shown by Amazon isn't available on Netflix. Despite Amazon having less material than Netflix, it has several advantages over Netflix, especially in Germany.

1. Amazon Prime customers get free delivery of parcels from Amazon.

2. Amazon Prime is much cheaper than Netflix, 69 Euros per year instead of 11 Euros per month.

3. Amazon Prime members are eligible to a free credit card.

I need to say more about the third point. In England and America credit cards are usually free. That isn't the case in Germany. Almost all credit cards have a yearly fee of 30 to 50 Euros. The Amazon Prime credit card is very valuable to German customers, so the yearly Amazon Prime price is effectively only 39 Euros. Apart from this, the card has a cashback offer of 1% for normal purchases, 2% for purchases from Amazon. As far as I know there are no other cashback credit cards in Germany, which makes it Germany's best credit card by far.

Sign up for Amazon Prime, even if you're already a Netflix customer. It's worth it.

Success Rate:  - 0.6

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

Justice League (2 Stars)

I almost didn't go to see this film. I waited until its last week in the cinema. In the end curiosity got the better of me. I didn't expect it to be good, but it was even worse than I expected.

It's obvious what DC is trying to do. They saw the success that Marvel was having with its interlinked Marvel Comics Universe (MCU) films, so they thought they could do the same. First films about individual heroes, then a team film. An idea doesn't have to be original to work well, but DC doesn't have directors or producers of sufficient calibre to repeat Marvel's success. DC rushed into the team film too fast. Only Batman and Wonder Woman had appeared in individual films already. (I don't include Superman, because he was dead before the film started). The Flash TV series could have been used to build up to the team film, but DC messed it up by having a different actor play the Flash, alienating the audience. Green Arrow could have been added to the team after the preparation of the Arrow TV series, but they made yet another blunder by omitting him.

The film was a mess from beginning to end. The big baddie, Steppenwolf, was hardly introduced to the audience. In the Marvel films the villains are well rounded characters, often with an emotional depth that they don't have in the comics. Steppenwolf is just a bland, two-dimensional character that we don't care about.

"Justice League" tries to add a human element by showing a Russian family, but fails completely. The family is so far removed from the action that whenever they're shown they're just annoyances and we want them out of the way so the story can continue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Marvel makes the best films and DC makes the best TV series. DC should give up making films. There might be rare peaks of brilliance like "Wonder Woman", but on the whole the films are embarrassing. I'm already dreading the next Justice League film.

Arrival (3 Stars)

Today I've decided to add a CINEMA tag (in capitals) to all the reviews of films that I watched in a cinema. It's something I've been considering for a long time. At first I thought I would further specify which cinema it was, using tags like "Cinema: Cineworld" or "Cinema: Electric", but I don't think that's relevant. Today I'll go back and add the tag to all the films I've seen in the cinema since moving to Germany. When I have time I'll also add the tag to films that I watched in England, but there were so many in the last three years that I might forget a few. I'll do my best.

"Arrival" is a science fiction film that centres around Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams). 12 large spaceships arrive at different places on Earth. They don't seem to have hostile intentions, but the reaction to them varies from country to country. In America the army asks Dr. Banks, a university linguistics lecturer, to attempt to communicate with the aliens. In some of the other countries similar attempts are made.

It's not easy. The sounds are so unintelligible that Dr. Banks abandons verbal communication and uses written communication as an alternative. Even so, there are great difficulties. In their language the aliens write sentences in a circle.

The film has received great critical acclaim, and I admit that I was fascinated by the language aspect, but there are great weaknesses, which I'll try to describe without giving away too many spoilers. First of all, if the aliens are part of a race for whom "time is not linear", i.e. they can see the future, why didn't they just look at their visit to Earth in advance and learn English before they arrived? Much easier. That might sound like a temporal paradox, but there's a bigger one in the film. Spoilers!

Secondly, the idea that the aliens want all nations on Earth to work together -- 12 of them, at least -- is laughable. That sounds like a big brother, or rather mommy and daddy, coming down from the sky to bang our heads together and tell us to stop squabbling. Even if the aliens did want it, it's infeasible that it would actually work.

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

On The Road (3½ Stars)

I've noticed something over the last few years. It might have been happening longer, but it's only become apparent to me in the last five years. It's become customary for films to have the logos, usually animated, of several different studios shown at the beginning of films. This is in contrast to the good old days when only one film studio logo was shown. My assumption is that the logos advertise all the studios that contributed to the financing of a film. The smaller a film is, the more studios are displayed. For instance, "On the Road" begins with the following six logos.

Lionsgate, for 21 seconds.

Icon, for 13 seconds.

Sundance, for 8 seconds.

IFC, for 7 seconds

MK2, for 11 seconds.

Film 4, for 11 seconds.

That's a total of 71 seconds, more than a minute, that the viewer is forced to sit through the opening animated logos. I'm curious whether the length of the logos has any relationship to the percentage of the cash that each studio provided.

The book "On the Road", written by Jack Kerouac in 1957, is recognised as one of the most significant novels of the 20th Century. Considering its importance, it's amazing that the film was a failure at the box office, despite its abundance of famous actors. It tells the story of Jack Kerouac's friendship with the con man and thief Neal Cassady from 1947 to 1950. In the book the characters are given fictional names, although it's obvious who is referred to. Sal Paradise is Jack Kerouac, Dean Moriarty is Neal Cassady, Carlo Marx is Allen Ginsberg, Old Bull Lee is William Burroughs, etc.

The film shows Jack and Neal travelling across America on various occasions, usually accompanied by other friends or relatives. The main cities they visit are New York (Jack's home), San Francisco (Neal's home) and Denver (the city where Neal's father lived).

If the book has a message, it's lost in the film. I can only guess what Jack Kerouac was trying to tell his readers. Jack portrays himself as relatively reserved, carried along by the youth movement of the post-war generation rather than being a part of it. Neal Cassady is a reckless, carefree person. He's introduced as the man who stole 500 cars, which immediately makes him a hero among the New York anarchists. He's sexually promiscuous, despite his attempts to be faithful to his second wife, but he's sad to the core. His life is empty. In the end we see him clinging to Jack to find happiness, but Jack rejects him.

Batman vs Superman (3 Stars)

This film has been a topic of conversation among my friends for months. It was one of the most eagerly anticipated films of the year. What I mean is that my friends were eagerly anticipating it. I had a queasy feeling in my stomach that it wouldn't be such a good film. I expected something that would be average quality and overall forgettable. I was right.

"Batman vs Superman" doesn't really do anything wrong. It's just that it doesn't do anything right. Henry Cavill is very remote and lacking in charisma as Superman. This was already the case in "Man of Steel", but since he has less screen time in "Batman vs Superman" it seems more extreme. Ben Affleck is just as remote and unsympathetic. He's a boring character, with or without his mask. The only ray of light in the film is Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. He's such an attractive, charismatic character that I wanted him to crush the two annoying heroes beneath his feet.

To be honest, a battle between Batman and Superman is a no-contest. Superman has super-strength, super-speed and super-everything else, while Batman is just a normal man who works out. One punch from Superman should be enough to kill Batman. The only way the two can fight is by somehow giving Batman extra strength or by weakening Superman. This is what happened in "Batman vs Superman": Superman was weakened by being exposed to kryptonite.

At least I wasn't alone in my opinion when I walked out of the cinema tonight. My friends in the film group may have gone into the film with high expectations, but they walked out feeling that it was average at best. They were disappointed, but I wasn't. I got what I expected, nothing more, nothing less.

Leap Year (3½ Stars)

Call me sentimental if you must. I decided to watch this film because of today's date. After all, February 29th doesn't come around very often, does it?

"Leap Year" is a double genre film. It's a romantic comedy and a road movie. It's about Anna Brady, a successful career woman in Boston, the daughter of poor Irish immigrants. She's been dating her boyfriend Jeremy, a heart surgeon, for four years, but he's showing no signs of wanting to marry her. Some men enjoy their freedom too much. He travels to Dublin for a medical conference. Anna's father tells her about an old Irish tradition that women can propose to men on February 29th in a leap year, which is only three days away. Anna jumps on a plane to Dublin.

That's where her problems begin. First the plane is forced to land in Wales due to bad weather. Rather than wait two days for the next flight she catches a ferry to Cork, but the storm is still raging and the boat is redirected to Dingle. The only solution is to enlist the help of Declan, a local public house owner who offers to drive her to Dublin. His laid back small village mentality clashes with her big city efficiency, and they argue from the start.

Looking at the map, I have no idea how the boat ended up in Dingle of all places. How did a boat from Cardiff to Cork end up in Dingle? You can click the map to enlarge it. Anna and Declan have to struggle to make their way north-eastwards towards Dublin. As they travel the scenery becomes ever more beautiful and the comedy becomes ever more bizarre. I suspect that one of the intentions of the film was to overwhelm American viewers with the quaintness of Ireland.

As a romantic comedy, the film offers no surprises. The story follows a strict formula, and you can guess from the beginning what's going to happen. That doesn't make it a bad film. Despite my relatively low rating it's a film that I'll probably watch again, every leap year.

Catch me if you can (4½ Stars)

This is the true story of Frank Abagnale, one of the most successful con men ever. His criminal career began when he ran away from home at the age of 15. He forged cheques worth more than four million dollars before he was 19. The film is supposedly accurate as far as his crimes are concerned, but fictionalises the relationship with his father.

The film is directed by Steven Spelberg and stars Leonardo DiCaprio as Frank Abagnale. To get the fictional aspects out of the way first, it was important to present Frank's love for his father as his motivation for his crimes. This makes his character more sympathetic to the audience than if he had been shown as a selfish cold-hearted criminal. In 1963 (when Frank was 15) his father had lost money in his business and was facing bankruptcy due to IRS payment claims. I think this is something that could only happen in America. In England (and most other western countries), if a company loses money no tax is due. In America the Inland Revenue levies taxes on a company's profits, even if the profits are subsequently lost later in the year. This leads to the absurd situation that people with no money are expected to pay high tax bills. Young Frank felt that the government was robbing his father -- which is true, if it really happened the way the film portrays it -- so he swore to steal the money back from the government and give it to his father.

When his parents divorced Frank ran away from home rather than decide which parent to live with. His first attempts to cash cheques failed, until he had the idea of pretending to be a pilot. In a pilot's uniform he had no problems cashing forged cheques, because everyone trusts a pilot. Pilots have a reputation as being something special, even more than judges or doctors. It's a mixture of the responsibility and the uniform. Last year I visited a night club and met a group of American navy pilots who were stationed in Cosford, near Wolverhampton. They were in full uniform. They told me that it wasn't compulsory for them to wear their uniforms when off duty, but they did so "because English girls go crazy about the uniforms". It was true. Girls were practically fighting to get near the pilots. Maybe I should buy myself a pilot's uniform.

Of course, it wasn't just the uniform. Frank Abagnale was a skilled forger. As well as cheques he forged certificates, enabling him to work as a doctor and a lawyer. Throughout his short but highly successful criminal career Frank was pursued by the FBI agent Carl Hanratty (played by Tom Hanks), and the two developed a respect for one another.

After his arrest in 1969 he was given short prison sentences in France and Sweden. He was then extradited to America and sentenced to 12 years in prison. This sentence was cut short when he was offered a job in the bank fraud development of the FBI, where he worked for 26 years. No criminals were a match for his skills of fraud detection.

The real Frank Abagnale.

It's been a long time since I last watched this film. Maybe 10 years. I'm not sure why I waited so long. I have a great respect for Steven Spielberg as a director, but there are only a few of his films that really grip me. His films are too smooth, too perfect. "Catch me if you can" has enough of a rough edge to make it a thrilling film. I also consider it to be Leonardo DiCaprio's second best film, second only to "Titanic".

Frank's escape from police custody when being extradited to America seems so ridiculous that it couldn't possibly be true, but I've found out that it really did happen as shown. He jumped out of a moving plane while it was taxiing on the runway at JFK Airport. He managed to break through a fence and flee across country before finally being apprehended.

The prison in France was even worse than how it's shown in the film. According to Wikipedia, "At Perpignan he was held nude in a tiny, filthy, lightless cell that he was never allowed to leave. The cell lacked toilet facilities, a mattress, or a blanket, and food and water were strictly limited". That sounds disgusting. Were things really so bad in France in 1970?

Her (5 Stars)

This is the world we live in.

At work we sit in front of a computer.

At home we sit in front of a computer.

When we're on the bus we use our phone as a computer.

When we're with our friends we look at our phones instead of talking to one another.

So why shouldn't we fall in love with our computer? It's the next logical step. Computers have already replaced human interaction.

Smartphones (which I prefer to call computer phones) are the latest step in the decline of human culture. A few years ago they were expensive little toys for geeks. Now everybody knows how to use them. What people haven't yet learnt is how to stop using them. They've become an addiction. As a serious film fan it greatly annoys me that people can't stop using their phones in the cinema. It's so obvious to everyone. The theatre is dark, and then there are flashes of light when people pull their phones out. If the film is so boring they should leave. If it's not boring, why are they looking at their phones?

Two months ago I was at a concert of the (very good) glam punk band, Bonsai Kitten. After one of the songs the singer, Tiger Lilly Marleen, spoke to the audience:

"Do you know what turns people into zombies? Smartphones. Put them away and watch us. You'll enjoy it much more".

Very true. I never leave the house without my smartphone in my pocket, but I'm able to leave it in my pocket. Sometimes.

The Master (4 Stars)

Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is an American sailor in the Second World War. When the war is over he is traumatised by his experiences and is unable to settle down. After doing a series of jobs he stows away in a yacht one night. When he wakes up the yacht is at sea, and he meets the yacht's owner, Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Far from being angry, Lancaster offers Freddie work on the yacht, and he also invites him to his daughter's wedding. Freddie soon discovers that Lancaster is the leader of a cult called The Cause, and the other passengers on the yacht call him Master.

Freddie becomes a close friend of Lancaster and joins the cult, even though the other members warn Lancaster against him. They think that Freddie is unwilling to get over his alcohol addiction and become a better man. Freddie also has problems with aggression. Whenever anyone insults Lancaster or The Cause Freddie beats him up. Lancaster says that he doesn't approve of violence, but makes no attempt to stop Freddie doing it again.

The fictional cult, The Cause, is obviously based on Scientology. In The Cause people advance through psychoanalysis rather than meditation. It is taught that perfection can only be attained by remembering and dealing with things that happened in past lives. Apart from the similarity in the teachings, the film mirrors conflicts that Scientology's founder L. Ron Hubbard had with his son and other family members.

The film created controversy as soon as it was announced. The similarities to Scientology were enough to make many cult members angry. Legal proceedings were avoided by never claiming the film was about Scientology, even though everyone knew it was. Apart from this, the film isn't directly about the cult; the central character is Freddie Quell, and it follows his spiritual journey, while The Cause and its members remain in the background, sometimes helping, sometimes hindering him.

The powerful performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman won them Oscar nominations. The only thing I would fault is that the film has no resolution. Freddie drifts into The Cause, remains a while and drifts back out with almost nothing to show for it. He hasn't become a better man. On the other hand, I'm sure that this was intentional. Other films by Paul Thomas Anderson, which he both writes and directs, have the same style. One of the things that screenwriters learn is that the characters in their scripts should follow arcs. They should start the film as one person and end as another. In a typical character arc a person begins either as weak or morally objectionable, and then the film presents challenges, at the end of which the person is stronger or a better person. This might be good storytelling, but is it the way real life works? Not necessarily. There's nothing wrong with experimental films that do without character arcs, but to me personally I feel that something is lacking.

Her (5 Stars)

This is the best film I've seen so far this year. It was released in December in America, two months earlier than in England, so that makes it a 2013 film, the best film of 2013, knocking "World's End" down into second place. It's received five nominations for this year's Academy Awards, including best film. It sincerely deserves to win the best film award, but I expect something dull like "12 Years a Slave" will win. The judges at the Academy Awards are too old to see clearly. "12 Years a Slave" is a film that dwells on the past, "Her" is a film that brings the future close.

Theodore Twombly (played by Joaquin Phoenix) is a man who lives in Los Angeles in the near future. His job is to write letters for people who are unwilling or unable to write their own letters. His speciality is writing love letters when couples are separated. His computer software is very advanced, it even imitates the handwriting of the people he represents. He is a very romantic person, but he has nobody in his own life. He's been separated from his wife for over a year, and from what he says there were problems even while they were together.

He installs a new operating system, OS1, on his computer. It's the first fully configurable operating system with artificial intelligence that adapts itself to its user's needs. The operating system speaks with a woman's voice and calls itself Samantha. In fact, it would be more correct to refer to Samantha as a "she", not an "it". Samantha shows distinctly female traits, becoming first a conversation partner and friend to Theodore, and then his lover. At first he feels like a freak for being in love with a computer operating system, but after a while he finds out that a lot of other people are doing it too. It's become acceptable.

I won't give any more spoilers now. Maybe I'll say more about the plot after I buy it on Blu-ray. By then more of my readers will have seen it. I hope so, anyway. This is only the fourth film that Spike Jonze has directed. Two of the others were films written by Charlie Kaufman, namely "Being John Malkovich" and "Adaptation". I praised them both because of Charlie Kaufman's screenplay, but after seeing "Her", a film that Spike Jonze wrote himself, I realise that he contributed a lot to those two films.

It's a film about alienation. We see people, not just Theodore, living alone. Rather than social interaction they occupy themselves with videogames and Internet porn. When people are walking in the street nobody is talking to one another; everyone is talking on the phone, maybe to distant friends, or maybe to their phone's operating system, we don't know.

I read that the original version of the film was 60 minutes longer. Seeing the deleted scenes on the Blu-ray will be interesting. Or maybe there will be a Director's Cut. Let's wait and see what happens.

American Hustle (4 Stars)

I watched "American Hustle" in the cinema today. It's been in the cinemas a few weeks, so it was probably my last chance to see it. It's been nominated for 10 Oscars at this year's Academy Awards, including best film. 2014 seems to be a dull year for the Academy Awards. "American Hustle" is better than any of the other nominations, except possibly "Her", which I haven't yet seen. I doubt it will win the best film award though. The best film doesn't always win. Just look at "Argo" last year, which won the award for political reasons, although "The Life of Pi" was much better and everyone knew it. The Academy Awards are all about politics. My prediction this year is that "12 Years a Slave" will win, carried to victory by the white man's burden of guilt.

"American Hustle" is a cute but complex tale of love and deception in 1976. Irving Rosenfield is a small time conman working in New York City. Together with his partner, Sydney Prosser aka Edith Greensley, he is taking advantage of people in debt, because they are the ones desperate enough to believe in anything. He charges a non-refundable $5000 fee for getting them a loan, but of course he is never able to get them a loan. The FBI manages to bust his operation for fraud, but the ambitious young agent Richie DiMaso offers him a deal: if Irving can use his expertise to set up an operation that exposes four US politicians as corrupt he will drop the charges.

This is where the story gets complex. Carmine Polito, the Mayor of Camden, is trying to secure loans to rebuild Atlantic City after the recent legalisation of gambling. Irving is set up as a businessman to become Carmine's partner and bribe four US congressmen to give their assistance in the rebuilding project. But Irving doesn't trust Richie, so Sydney pretends to be in love with him to trick him. Irving becomes close friends with Carmine and begins to respect him when he realises that he's an honest man whose only wish is to serve the people, even if he sees bribes as an unfortunate necessity to help create new jobs in his city. Then the Mafia get involved in the deals, scaring Irving out of his mind. And did I forget to mention that Irving also has a wife who knows nothing of his dealings, even though she has her suspicions? As if this weren't enough, she falls in love with a Mafia boss. The chaos is complete.

This is a good film that I'll definitely watch again when I get a chance. Maybe I won't get so confused the second time round.

Man of Steel (4 Stars)

Last night I went out to see "Man of Steel". I've never been a Superman fan, but for me it was an excuse to get out of the house and spend time with other members of the Birmingham Film Club. I had a lot of fun, even though I was shocked to see that almost none of them have seen my favourite film, "Lost Highway". It's my favourite English language film, anyway; at the moment I like "Summer in Orange" more, but it hasn't been released in English, and probably never will be. It's far too German to be popular abroad.

My problem with Superman, the comic book character, is that he's too strong. He can do almost anything. At least "Man of Steel" toned this aspect down by not giving him super speed and letting him run around in a blur. I've read very few of his comics, but the ones I read all seemed to revolve around an excuse for Superman to be weakened to make his battles more credible. Imagine a fight between Superman and the Joker, or any of Batman's enemies. One punch and he's dead. It makes me wonder what the point of Batman is in the DC Universe.

"Man of Steel" is a slightly darker take on the Superman mythology. He lives as a drifter, afraid to reveal his powers, but unable to stand idly by when people need help. He's drawn into the open when a fellow exile from the planet Krypton arrives on Earth, General Zod, who has powers similar to those of Superman. The final battle is over the top action, in which most of Metropolis is destroyed. It was an enjoyable film, but my lack of sympathy for the Superman character makes it unlikely I'll want to watch it again.

Leap Year (3½ Stars)

Anna Brady is a successful career woman from Boston. Her boyfriend Jeremy is a heart surgeon. They've been dating for four years, but Jeremy still hasn't proposed. When he travels to Dublin for a conference, Anna hears about an Irish tradition that women can propose to men on February 29th in a leap year. She flies to Ireland to surprise him, but due to bad weather the plane lands in Wales. She takes a boat to Dingle, and a local inn-keeper offers to drive her to Dublin. On the way she starts to have feelings for the driver. And you can guess the rest. It's a standard romantic comedy with a road movie mixed in.

On the positive side, I love the Irish scenery in the film. On the negative side, I can't stand Anna's character. Her personality and her social image sum up everything I hate about America. "If you have money, flaunt it". The film received bad reviews from critics, but it was a box office success. Audiences are fickle. How did "Dark Shadows" and "Rock of Ages" flop while this weak film made a profit?

The film was made in 2010, but when does it take place? The last Feb 29th on a Monday before 2010 was 1988, but it couldn't have been that year because Anna has a Blackberry. So the year must be 2016. It's curious that the film was set so far in the future. Or maybe the writer just didn't think it through.

Click here to view the trailer, which gives a nice impression of Ireland's beauty but gets the calendar wrong. That shows Feb 29th on a Thursday, which would be 2024.

Underdog (3 Stars)

A beagle quits the police force after failing in his duties as a sniffer dog. He's captured by a scientist performing illegal animal experiments. He escapes from the lab, but in the process he's soaked with chemicals that give him superpowers. He can fly, he has super strength and he can speak English. His new owner gives him a cape, and he goes into action as Superdog! Oops, I meant Underdog.

This is a difficult film to rate. I wanted to give it 3 stars, then upped it to 4 stars, then finally dropped it back to 3. On the surface it's a children's film, but it's also a parody of Superman. When the beagle puts on his cape nobody recognises him any more. Fantastic! He changes in phone booths. There's a scene which mimics Superman flying over the skyscrapers with Lois Lane. And there's the pop culture line: "Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's Underdog".

Critics hate the film, but it was a huge box office success, so it must have been doing something right. Maybe I should put myself into the mind frame of a 10-year-old. The film is obviously aimed at a young audience. Did I enjoy it? Sort of. Will I watch it again? Probably not.

Click here to view the trailer.