Flowers of War (5 Stars)

Directed by Zhang Yimou, "The Flowers of War" is a large scale historical drama set during the Nanjing Massacre of 1937. The story follows an opportunistic American undertaker, played by Christian Bale, who takes refuge in a church as Japanese troops overrun the city. Inside the church, a group of schoolgirls and a group of prostitutes find themselves forced into an uneasy alliance as they struggle to survive the occupation.

The film combines brutal wartime imagery with a melodramatic narrative typical of Zhang's style. The opening sequences depicting the fall of Nanjing are chaotic and frightening, capturing the terror of civilians caught in a collapsing city. At the centre of the story is Bale as a reluctant protector, a cynical outsider who gradually assumes responsibility for those sheltering with him. While the character arc is predictable, Bale gives the role enough humanity to keep the film emotionally grounded.

Visually, the film is striking. Zhang contrasts the devastation outside with the candlelit interiors of the church, creating moments of quiet beauty amid the horror. At times the stylised presentation risks softening the historical brutality, yet the film still conveys the moral desperation of people trapped in an impossible situation.

"The Flowers of War" may not be a subtle war film, but it's emotionally powerful. By focusing on sacrifice and solidarity among unlikely companions, it turns a vast historical tragedy into an intimate story about courage and survival.

Success Rate:  - 1.0

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

The Bride (5 Stars)

Many people mistakenly call Frankenstein's monster Frankenstein, as if it were the name of the monster and not his creator. That's always annoyed me. However, in "The Bride" it's justified. The film takes place in 1936, long after the death of Victor Frankenstein, and the monster has travelled to America calling himself Frankenstein. So this time it's okay.

The film completely surprised me. It's been filmed as a surreal framework story, with Mary Shelly herself telling the story. It's beautiful. It's the best film I've seen so far this year.

Thor: Love And Thunder (3½ Stars)

This is the 29th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). I gave it a lukewarm review when I watched it in the cinema last year. Now that I can finally watch it on Blu-ray I wanted to like it, I made a real effort to appreciate it more than last year, but the best I could do was increase the rating by half a star. The film's biggest problem is the main character, Thor himself. He's portrayed as being arrogant and a fool. I can put up with the arrogance. That's something we see at times in the comics. But foolish? Never! He was always a noble God, with or without his arrogance. I can see what Taika Watiti wanted to do as director and co-writer. He wanted to pull Thor down to our level, so we can relate to him better. That's a mistake. He's a God, so there should be a distance between him and the viewer.

But there are also questions about his godhood which remain unanswered in the film. In the comics we read that he's the God of Thunder. That's it. No explanations. He's a God, the same God that the people in northern Europe used to pray to. When Thor was introduced into the MCU the studios were nervous about insulting people, so it was expressly stated (in words spoken by Phil Coulson) that Thor isn't really a God, he's an alien. I'm not happy with that, but in "Love and Thunder" we meet a character called Gorr who claims to be a God killer. So Gorr disagrees with Phil Coulson and says that Thor is a God after all?

It's all a matter of definition. What is a God? Can we make a definition which isn't specific to just one religion? Is a God the person who created the universe? That would exclude Thor. Is a God someone that people pray to? That would include Thor. Is it someone who's immortal? That's a tricky one, because it's conceivable that human medicine can one day promise immortality. Is a God someone who lays down teachings to live by? Maybe, but some religions would call that person a prophet. I don't have an answer. Gorr could evidently tell the difference. For Gorr anyone is a God if he says he's a God and has followers who agree he's a God. That's a very simplistic definition, with obvious problems, but it works for Gorr in the film.

Let's say, for example, that I stood in the street and told people I'm a God (with an article). The first reaction would be that people say I'm mad. But let's get past that. Let's say that people who disagree want to discuss it with me. In order to convince me that I'm not a God, they first have to know what a God is. Many cults begin with a person claiming to be a God and others believing him.

In "Love and Thunder" Jane Foster carries Mjolnir and possesses the power of Thor. She even calls herself Mighty Thor (without an article). Does this make her a God? Maybe not, because the hammer is also killing her. That's one of the things that doesn't make sense in the film. In a book of Norse legends Jane reads that Mjolnir promises health. She's suffering from terminal cancer, so she travels to Tonsberg (New Asgard) in Norway to take the hammer. It gives her the power of Thor on a temporary basis, but it's actually sucking the strength from her body, speeding up her death. Mjolnir should do better. The problem lies with Marvel Studios, in particular Kevin Feige. He wanted to be modern and present a female Thor, but he wasn't brave enough to do it permanently, so he had to kill her off.

There's a passionate kiss between Thor and Mighty Thor. How passionate is the kiss? Are they using tongues? It looks like they aren't. Maybe Gods don't use their tongues. Or maybe Natalie Portman agrees with Kristin Kreuk that it's not professional.

Here's a small feature that was introduced in the previous Thor film, "Ragnarok". There's a play about the events of previous films. In this case Melissa McCarthy is playing Hela. She looks good, but I still prefer Cate Blanchett. Melissa is only pretending to be the God of Death.

How the mighty have fallen! In the comics Thanos claimed to be God (without an article), although he doesn't say this in the films. Nevertheless, he was all powerful. A few years have passed, and now an imitation of his Infinity Gauntlet adorns an ice cream parlour. I wonder if it tastes good. I'll have to try it the next time I'm in Tonsberg.

Success Rate:  + 1.0

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

Thor: Love and Thunder (3 Stars)

I'm writing this review with a very heavy heart. I'm a Marvel fan. I always have been. I started reading Marvel comics when I was six and bought the comics regularly until I left university. (After that I moved to Germany, and the comics were less easily available at that time). The Marvel films made in the 1980's and 1990's were disappointing, but in the 2000's high quality, big budget films based on the comics were finally made. "X-Men" was the turning point in 2000, and the films have kept up momentum ever since.

But what's happened now? The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is producing flop after flop. They should have quit while they were ahead. "Avengers Endgame" should have been the last Marvel film, but corporate greed caused Marvel to take more and more risks.

The first three Thor films were good. They weren't perfect, but they were highly enjoyable action romps. So what went wrong with the fourth film, which I saw in the cinema this evening? Too much CGI. Too much humour. Too many characters. Too much humour. Or did I mention the humour already?

I like comedies. Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows that already. But Marvel isn't about comedy. Maybe there can be occasional jokes, but the repeated humour in "Love and Thunder" just got on my nerves. The cinema was packed, and the audience was laughing at the silly little monsters in the early scenes. Most of the audience, that is. I was groaning.

I can't say too much without giving away spoilers. All I'll say for now is that the film is a failure. It's tempted me to never watch another Marvel film.

Flowers of War (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #58

This is an untypical film for Zhang Yimou, who's one of my favourite directors. Usually I associate him with lavish historical films that take place in the ancient days of China. This is a true story set in Nanking in 1937. He's made other films set in recent times, such as "Under the Hawthorn Tree", but they're always visually beautiful films. This is an ugly film, necessitated by the terrible circumstances portrayed. It wouldn't be appropriate to show noble warriors fighting in beautiful fields offset against hills and valleys. Here we have Japanese soldiers slaughtering innocent civilians in the ruins of a once magnificent city.

Or maybe there is beauty in the film, even if it's not immediately apparent. The film is called "Flowers of War". That signifies beauty in the middle of ugliness. The beauty is supplied by the elegant prostitutes from the Jade Paradise brothel.

Or maybe it's supplied by the young convent schoolgirls. The girls have a different type of beauty, based on their natural looks, not makeup and expensive clothing.

Which do you prefer? I don't think it's necessary to choose. What's more beautiful, a rose or an orchid? I don't want to choose. I want to have both flowers side by side.

I consider this to be Christian Bale's best film. I know that many of his fans will disagree with me. To them I suggest that they watch their personal favourite back to back with this film. It's not just about the story. I think he displays a fascinating depth of emotions in his development from an immoral, selfish man to a noble hero.

That's the film's theme. It shows how a bad man can learn to do good things. Christian Bale plays John Miller, an undertaker who visits a Catholic cathedral in Nanking to bury the priest. When he finds that there's no money, he refuses to do his job. He plans to leave the city as soon as possible to save his life. The next day, Japanese soldiers break into the cathedral and try to rape the schoolgirls. He pretends to be a priest and orders the Japanese to leave. From then on it becomes his mission to help the girls to escape unharmed.

The story is complicated by the arrival of a group of prostitutes. After the destruction of their brothel they seek refuge in the cathedral. The schoolgirls hate the prostitutes as evil women, while the prostitutes look down on them as silly little girls. John has to mediate between them.

"No matter what wars or disasters happen in history, what surrounds these times is life, love, salvation and humanity. I hope those things are felt in this story. The human side of the story was more important to me than the background of the Nanjing massacre. Human nature, love and sacrifice – these are the things that are truly eternal. For me, the event is the historical background of the film. But the enduring question of the story is how the human spirit is expressed in wartime". (Zhang Yimou, 2011).

Success Rate:  - 1.0

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

The Machinist (3 Stars)

This is a film that I've avoided for years because I found the photos of lead actor Christian Bale in his emaciated state distasteful. Today I finally took the plunge.

Trevor Reznik is a machine worker in a factory. I'm not familiar with the word machinist. I don't know whether it's an Americanism or a technical expression that I've never encountered. He's suffering from extreme insomnia and looks so bad that his work colleagues are disgusted by him. His only friend is a prostitute whose company he buys. I mean the word company. He doesn't just want sex with her, he also pays her for the time they spend talking.

Trevor is harassed by a man called Ivan, at work and elsewhere. Nobody else can see Ivan, and they tell Trevor he doesn't exist. Is he imagining it? Or is it part of a conspiracy against him.

Christian Bale reduced his weight from 82 Kg (180 pounds) to 54 Kg (119 pounds) for the role. He did this by a daily diet of water, an apple and a cup of coffee, with an occasional glass of whiskey. That's crazy. He could have killed himself. Is it worth risking your life for a film?

"The Machinist" is a disturbing film, and not just because of Christian Bale's appearance. The director succeeds in drawing us into the mind of a sick, paranoid man. Some might praise this effort, but for me it's not something I can enjoy. I find it impossible to relate to the main character, despite Christian Bale's superb acting. The general public shares my opinion, making the film a box office failure.

Success Rate:  - 0.4

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

Hostiles (4 Stars)

This is a powerful drama set in America in 1892. The lines between good and bad are unclear. There are many different ways the film can be studied, but the way I looked at it today while watching it in the cinema was the personal development of one man, the soldier Captain Joseph Blocker, played by Christian Bale. His development is all the more intense by being underplayed. He's a man who never shows his emotions, but the emotions are there, bubbling beneath the surface. I can't think of any other actor who could have played the role so effectively.

Captain Blocker is a highly efficient Indian hunter, as we see in the opening scenes where he captures an Apache family. He's very brutal in his actions, but he's just following orders. I know that expression has come to be despised after being used as the defence of the German officers at the Nuremberg trials, but let's look at it without prejudice. Anyone who becomes a soldier isn't expected to have a conscience. He signs up to serve his country, which means following the orders of his senior officer. Any soldier who questions the right and wrong of what he's told to do is a bad soldier.

This is never more apparent than in Captain Blocker's last mission before his retirement from the armed forces. The Cheyenne chief Yellow Hawk has been in prison in New Mexico for seven years. Now he's dying of cancer, and the American president has decreed that he should be released to return to his tribal lands in Montana. That's a long distance, over 1000 miles, so an army team has to escort him and his family. Captain Blocker is ordered to lead the team, which is an unpleasant task for him because Yellow Hawk was responsible for the death of four of his friends.

The soldiers head slowly north, and the battle lines are obscured. They pick up a woman on the way whose entire family has been slaughtered by Comanche Indians. She finds it difficult to accept Yellow Hawk's family because all Indians look the same, but she grows to love and accept them.

Later on the team picks up an American sergeant, Charles Wills, who has been sentenced to death for slaughtering an Indian family in revenge. He's an old comrade of Joseph Blocker, and he appeals for mercy, arguing that Blocker has done worse things. That's true, but the difference is that Captain Blocker was following orders, Sergeant Wills wasn't.

Captain Blocker and his soldiers forge an uneasy alliance with Yellow Hawk and his family. Together they fight against attacks from both Indians and white settlers. It's only too obvious what the message is. Race and skin colour don't matter, it's a question of right and wrong.

The Indians had been living in America for thousands of years before the white men arrived from Europe. After a few hundred years of battles the white invaders defeated the Indians and forced them to live in reservations, stripped of their rights. Defenders of the rights of the native Americans say that the white men should never have been allowed into their country, but it's not that simple. In the 15th Century the north American continent was sparsely populated. There was more than enough land for the European settlers and the American Indians to live side by side. If everything had been done diplomatically agreements could have been reached on who could live where. Eventually a united government could have been formed with political equality for the old and the new inhabitants of the land.

That's not how it happened. The Indians began to attack the European settlers. The Europeans retaliated with counter-attacks. In the ensuing battles only one side could win: the more highly developed Europeans. If the Indians hadn't been so fast to attack the Europeans they wouldn't have to suffer the lack of liberties that they have today. The problem is that the Indians weren't a homogeneous unit, they were tribes scattered across the continent. That doesn't mean that the Indians were solely to blame. The Europeans had an overbearing arrogance, considering themselves superior to the Indians. The Europeans were Christians, which proved their moral superiority, didn't it?

This is a very good film. It's slow moving, which makes it all the more intense. Whenever action breaks out it's a shock. The musical score is subtle but effective in underlining the film. This might be a western, but it's a modern take on the western genre, different to anything made in the last 60 years.

---

A funny thing happened to me on the way to the cinema.....

This evening I was waiting at the bus stop for my bus to take me to the cinema. There's an open area behind the bus stop. There was a girl, probably in her late teens, standing a short distance away. She was wearing a very short skirt, which attracted my attention. Normally I wouldn't stare, but she was very hot, and she was busy typing on her phone, so she didn't notice me looking. I casually leaned against the bus shelter so I wouldn't attract attention to myself.

Then a second girl arrived, just as attractive, wearing tight yoga pants. They hugged each other, pulling the first girl's skirt up even higher. It was an incredible sight.

The girls walked away, so I turned around, just in time to see my bus leaving. I was so entranced by the girls that I hadn't even heard it. I felt like such a fool. Fortunately for me I was able to catch a train 15 minutes later, so I arrived at the cinema barely in time. It could have been worse. On Saturday, when the trains don't travel as often, I would have had to call a taxi.

This is where it happened, with a photo courtesy of Google Maps. I've marked my position with XY and the girl's position with XX. As you can see, I was standing with my back to the road. I doubt that the other people waiting for the bus realised that I wanted to catch it. That would have been even more embarrassing.

Will I learn from my mistake? Probably not.

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

The Promise (4½ Stars)

This is a film that takes place in the Ottoman Empire (modern day Turkey) at the beginning of the First World War, from 1914 to 1915. We see the country as a place of beauty, peace and prosperity, especially Istanbul.

Mikael Boghosian, a young Armenian apothecary from Sirun, in the far south east of the empire, goes to Istanbul to study medicine. He lives with his uncle, a rich merchant. At university he makes friends with Emre, the son of a high ranking Turkish official. Emre has no talent as a student and will almost certainly fail to graduate, but his father has told him that if he doesn't study he will have to join the army.

Mikael's uncle has a private teacher for his children, Ana, an Armenian who has spent many years in France. Mikael falls in love with her, even though he's already engaged to Maral, a woman in his village. Ana already has a lover, Chris Myers, an American journalist, but this doesn't dissuade Mikael from pursuing Ana. At this point I already hated him.

Then the problems start. The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire declared a holy war against the Christians in his country. This began on 24th April 1915. The able-bodied Armenian men in Istanbul were conscripted into the army. For their so-called military service they were sent to work camps where they were treated like slaves. Men who were too old to work were shot. Women and children were sent on marches into the desert, where they were left to survive without food and water.

After Istanbul was cleansed of Armenians, the army moved eastwards, killing Armenians wherever they were found. There were long columns of refugees fleeing from the army who didn't know where they were going. Sometimes refugees from the East met refugees from the West, and the refugee groups told each other there was no point in continuing in their direction.

Mikael escapes from his labour camp and manages to walk back to Sirun. He's persuaded to marry Maral. Together they live in a hut in the mountains, but the army comes and they have to flee.

In the meantime Chris and Ana are at a Protestant orphanage caring for Armenian children whose parents have been killed. They have plans to take the children to the coast, where boats will be waiting to evacuate them. Before they get there the army has destroyed the boats. All Armenians must die.

I admit to knowing very little about the Armenian genocide, except that 1.5 million Armenians were killed. The film shows the sheer brutality of it. It wasn't just the army that did the killing. An evil government persuaded its population that it was their duty to Allah to kill Christians. They had probably been racists for years, but as soon as the government said it was okay to kill Armenians they rushed into the streets with their torches and fancy headgear. Isn't it remarkable how racists look the same, whatever country they come from, whatever their religion is?

Not all Turks are bad. Emre uses his father's influence to assist Mikael and Chris on more than one occasion, but when it's discovered he's executed as a traitor.

The film shows that the Turks were very sloppy with their genocide. The Germans were efficient in World War Two. The Jews were sent to camps, they were killed in the showers, and their bodies were burnt in ovens. All very clean and tidy. The Turks simply shot the Armenians and left their bodies piled up on the road or in the woods. They didn't even attempt to bury them. Didn't they consider that the rotting corpses could start diseases?

After watching the film tonight I read the Wikipedia article on the Armenian genocide. It was depressing. It was even worse than what was shown in the film.

Notably, the Turkish government still denies that the Armenian genocide ever happened. President Recep Little Prick Erdogan is too busy killing his present day opponents to listen to allegations that his predecessors committed mass murder.

I enjoyed the film as a presentation of the Armenian genocide, but I couldn't relate to the love triangle (actually a love square, if you include Marla). I disapproved of Mikael being unfaithful to his fiancée, and Chris wasn't a very pleasant person either. At least they were both heroic in trying to save the Armenian orphans when they finally met again.

Public Enemies (3½ Stars)

This is the 28th film starring Leelee Sobieski, made in 2009. Unfortunately she only has a small role and doesn't appear until the last 15 minutes. She plays Polly Hamilton, an escort girl accompanying John Dillinger at the time of his death.

The film is the true story of the bank robber John Dillinger in the last year of his life, 1933 to 1934. It's said that he was the most notorious bank robber in the Depression era. I confess to never having heard of him before I watched the film. He isn't part of my general knowledge, so whatever I write is based on what I saw in the film. I'll leave it to others to embellish my words and add remarks concerning the historical accuracy.

The film calls the early 1930's the golden age of bank robbing. I can understand it. It was an age of mass poverty. People were sleeping on the streets. The banks were considered the enemy, so gangs arose to take back the money they thought was rightfully theirs. John Dillinger had respect in the eyes of the public. He never robbed people in the banks, only the banks themselves. He never killed people while committing crimes. Maybe he wasn't as popular as Andreas Baader, who was admired by more than 25% of the German population, but he was still considered to be a hero by many suffering Americans.

Something that made it easier for criminals in the 1930's was that the laws on crime weren't as clear cut as they are today. A robber could escape punishment by crossing into another state where he was still innocent. It wasn't until 1934 that a law was passed that anyone who committed a crime in more than one state could be arrested in any of the 50 states. The FBI (called the Division of Investigation at the time) was still in its formative years, with limited resources, and its authority was repeatedly under question in court.

Eventually Dillinger was found and killed, due to the determined efforts of Special Agent Melvin Purvis. He carried out his mission calmly, without emotion, because he considered it the right thing to do.

The film has first rate performances by Johnny Depp as John Dillinger and Christian Bale as Melvin Purvis. Leelee Sobieski is wasted in her role. She's an insignificant background character and isn't able to display her full acting ability. She would have been better cast in the leading female role of Dillinger's girlfriend, Billie Frechette. That would have greatly improved the film.

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

The Prestige (4½ Stars)

Yesterday I loved you. Today I don't. Tomorrow I'll love you. Next week is too far away to decide, but I can love you till Tuesday.

David Bowie is very calm and dignified in his portrayal of the inventor Nikola Tesla, the only real person in this film. He's a man I know very little about. He worked together with Thomas Edison in finding means to distribute electricity, but they didn't always share the same goals. Edison's aim was to distribute electricity by wires, which is the method taken for granted today. Tesla wanted to distribute electricity without wires, but this was too difficult to achieve in his lifetime (1891-1943). Maybe this is a project that could be tackled by scientists today. It's something we need to keep our mobile phones fully charged at all times.

Nikola Tesla was also critical of the striving of women to gain equality with men, because he believed that it's the destiny of women to be superior. He was a very wise man.

The Big Short (4 Stars)

This is an interesting experiment. Can a good film be made about a boring subject? The answer is Yes. The film succeeds in making intricate details of the American stock market fascinating. On the other hand, I can't honestly say that I understood everything in the film. It was especially difficult for me to understand the first 20 minutes when Dr. Michael Burry persuades the banks to create bonds for him to invest in.

The film begins in 2005. Everyone trusts the housing market. "Safe as houses" is a well known slogan. Only one man, an eccentric fund manager called Michael Burry sees that the American housing market is being propped up by dodgy loans. He predicts that the whole system will come crashing down. And the following years proved him right. When everyone lost billions of dollars he and those who trusted him became very rich.

The film's main weakness is a result of it being a true story. Even though it's one single story, it's separated into different segments that run in parallel. The main four characters never meet one another. They act independently after hearing, directly or indirectly, about Michael Burry's plan.

I need to watch the film again. Maybe I'll enjoy it even more when I can better understand the financial issues involved.

Terminator: Salvation (3 Stars)

In 2003 Marcus Wright, an inmate on death row, donates his body to science after his death. He's executed. Then 15 years later he finds himself walking around in a world run by machines. He's in the world after Judgement Day, which took place in 2004 at the end of "Terminator 3". But how did he get there? Maybe the resistance leader, John Connor, can give him an answer.

This isn't a bad film. It's not a bad film at all. It's a sci-fi action thriller with a dash of mystery as mankind battles against an overwhelmingly powerful foe. So what's wrong?

The problem is that the film stands in the shadow of the previous films, especially the first two. The Terminator film series could have ended with "Terminator 2". The loose ends of the first film had been tied up, and the world had been saved. Then "Terminator 3" was made in 2003 to milk the cow. Why end a series if it's making money? Though not reaching the heights of the first two films, "Terminator 3" has an appeal that I appreciate more every time I watch it. Then there was a diversion with the TV series "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" (2008-2009), which took place between "Terminator 2" and "Terminator 3". The series contained some very good ideas, but it was cancelled after the second season, in the middle of a mind-bending cliffhanger. In my opinion, it would have been a good idea to make a film concluding the story started in the TV series, but it was simply ignored, and "Terminator: Salvation" (which I prefer to call "Terminator 4") was written to continue the story from "Terminator 3".

There's something that the first three Terminator films and the TV series have in common: mind-twisting temporal paradoxes. These aren't the paradoxes of the Marvel Universe, in which every time the past is changed a new time line is created, so there are multiple pasts and multiple futures. In the Terminator Universe there is only one past and one future, so if you go into the past and start changing things you might return to the future and find yourself in a different world. That's a problem for quantum physicists and sci-fi writers to deal with, while the rest of us just sit and scratch our heads. This head-scratching is what made the Terminator films and TV series great. It's missing from "Terminator 4", apart from the matter of John Connor having to find and save his father Kyle Reese, who is still a teenager. "Terminator 4" is only a sci-fi action thriller with a dash of mystery.

The studios still want to milk the cow. "Terminator 4" has an open end. It would be easy to make a sequel or a series of sequels where it left off. "Terminator 4" made a huge profit at the box offices, over $170 million, so it would make financial sense to continue. But the studios have listened to the fans, most of whom are disappointed with "Terminator 4". There will be a new Terminator film released later this year which will use the end of "Terminator 4" as a hook to travel back in time and reboot the series. This isn't a stupid reboot, like "The Amazing Spider-Man", in which a story is retold just because the old director has been fired and replaced by his inferior. In the case of the Terminator films time travel rewrites the past, so we can expect a Terminator reboot in every generation. It's a shame I won't live long enough to see "Terminator 25 3D Holographic" in 2115. But it might never happen. Instead of a fictional Judgement Day, Vladimir Putin, the President of Lies, might have destroyed the world by then.

"I vant to destroy the vurld, and nobody vill stop me".

Exodus: Gods and Kings (4 Stars)

2014 has marked the return of the Biblical epics to Hollywood. First "Noah", now "Exodus". The screenwriters had the opposite problem in the new film. The problem with the story of Noah is that very little is said about it in the Bible, only four chapters of Genesis for a momentous occurrence that destroyed the world. The problem with the story of Moses is that a lot is written about him, four whole books of the Bible. This meant that the film about Noah was puffed out by adding new elements, which (in my opinion) totally destroyed the story. The film about Moses has to rush through the events, shortening some and omitting others, even though it concentrates on the first half of the Biblical book of Exodus. 150 minutes is too short to tell the full story.

Let me point out a few of the major changes in the story and give my opinion on whether they are justified.

1. God is portrayed as a young boy who only Moses can see.

While it's not what we read in the Bible, it's an interesting way to portray the unportrayable. In the book of Exodus God is described as being so terrible in appearance that anyone who sees his face will die. As God speaks to Moses on the mountain when Moses asks to see God, "You cannot see my face, for no-one may see me and live. There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back, but my face must not be seen". (Exodus 33:20-23).

Showing God as a child is, in my opinion, an acceptable compromise. The alternative would have been a dazzling white light and a booming voice, which would have looked comical rather than awe-inspiring.

2. Aaron plays an insignificant role in the film.

In the Bible God speaks to Moses, but Aaron speaks to the Pharaoh on Moses' behalf. The two brothers go to Pharaoh together to plead for the Israelites to be freed. This is because Moses claims to stutter. Moses said to God, "Since I speak with faltering lips, why would Pharaoh listen to me?" To this God replies, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country". (Exodus 6:30-7:2).

This is a deliberate simplification of the story, a conscious decision made in order to let the film be about the man Moses. Giving his brother a bigger role would have detracted from the character development.

3. Moses leaves his family behind in the film.

The Bible is very clear that Moses returned to Egypt with his family. "Moses took his wife and sons, put them on a donkey and started back to Egypt". (Exodus 4:20). Yes, there were two sons, Gershom and Eliezer, not one as in the film.

I'm not sure why this was changed. Maybe it is because very little is written about Moses' wife Zipporah in the Bible, and having her shown at Moses' side would have made it necessary to develop her character.

4. Only 400,000 Israelites left Egypt in the film.

The actual number, though not explicitly stated, was much higher. The people were counted in the desert, and according to Numbers 1:46, there were 603,500 men over the age of 20 who were able to serve in the army. This number does not include the women, children or old men. Based on this we can estimate that the full population was at least two million, maybe as many as four million.

There was no need for the film to minimise the population in this way. Telling us the full numbers, even if it had been as vague as to say "millions", would have made the exodus all the more overwhelming. This would have made the crossing of the Red Sea all the more impressive. How much time would it take for two million people to cross the sea?

5. The miracle of the parting of the Red Sea is minimised.

In the film the water level goes down overnight, so that the Israelites can wade through the low water on the next day. The Bible describes this much more spectacularly. "Moses stretched his hand over the sea, and all that night the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left". (Exodus 14:21).

The film has the strange episode of Moses running back into the sea to save Pharaoh when the water comes back. The waves wash Moses back onto the shore, while Pharaoh gets back to safety on the opposite shore. This scene is intended to show the poignancy of the relationship between Moses and Ramses, two men who had grown up as brothers. It's a cute story, but inaccurate. The Pharaoh died along with all his army, and Moses would never have risked his life to save him.

Apart from these major changes, there are other subtle changes that are suggested without being explicitly stated. Moses seems relatively young at the time of the exodus, but he was actually much older. "Moses was 80 years old and Aaron 83 when they spoke to Pharaoh". (Exodus 7:7).

There is also the aspect in the Bible that God was influencing the Pharaoh to make him Moses' enemy. We read several times that God himself hardened Pharaoh's heart to make him oppose Moses, for instance, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will not listen to you". (Exodus 7:3-4). These verses cause problems for Biblical scholars, but the best explanation I can offer is that Pharaoh had already been an evil man all his life -- he was probably in his 70's at this time -- and God's patience with him had run out. It's common for Christians to say that it's never too late to turn from evil, but these chapters of the Bible say the opposite. Pharaoh had probably had repeated chances to act well towards the Israelites all his life, but at this time God said "No more", and brought the ten plagues as a judgement over Pharaoh and all of Egypt. I think all ten plagues were shown, although they happened very quickly in the film, running swiftly into one another.

Moses frequently pleads with God during the film, asking him to show mercy. This is an accurate portrayal of Moses' personality. During the time in the desert God repeatedly said he would destroy the Israelites because of their unbelief, but Moses pleaded with God to change his mind. Moses was a man who stood up to God, not just accepting everything he was told.

The Passover feast is totally ignored in the film. That's a shame. This is the thing that I most missed. Maybe it was a matter of pacing. It might have been difficult to make a pause between the first nine plagues and the tenth plague for Moses to make long explanations to the Israelites how they should spend the night when their houses would be passed over. Maybe Ridley Scott, as the film's director, was afraid that any discrepancies would have been savagely attacked by Jewish reviewers, because the Passover Feast is the most important celebration of the Jewish year.

The presentation of the so-called "Ten Commandments" is rushed in the film. This could have been left out completely. The tablets were actually written twice. The first tablets were created by God, (Exodus 31:18), but after Moses destroyed them in a rage he had to make the replacement tablets himself. (Exodus 34:1). The film shows Moses writing the words, but this is wrong, because God wrote the words on both sets of tablets. It would have been better to omit this altogether. The final scene shows Moses being carried in a cart (the ark of the covenant) with the stone tablets. This is also wrong. It was God himself who was carried in the cart. But that's going too deep into Biblical exposition.

At least the film didn't show Moses arriving in Israel. That was the one thing I feared would be shown wrong, but the film ends on the journey. Moses was punished for his anger in the desert. "Because you did not trust in me enough to honour me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them". (Numbers 3:12). In fact, of all the men who left Egypt, only two entered Israel, Joshua and Caleb. All the rest died during the 40-year journey through the desert. Only their children, the ones born on the journey, and the ones who had been under 20 arrived at their destination. (Joshua 5:4).

Overall, the film makes a good impression. The inaccuracies can be overlooked. I can recommend it to my readers, whatever they think of the Bible.

Flowers of War (5 Stars)

This was the second film that I watched in my Chinese film evening last night. It takes place in 1937, 12 years after "Legend of the Fist", and the situation in China has greatly deteriorated. It's a sadly underrated classic. It was only shown in a small number of cinemas in the UK and America, despite starring Christian Bale, who was one of Hollywood's biggest stars at the time after appearing in "The Dark Knight". I'm not sure what the problem was. Maybe the Anglo-American film studios didn't know what to make of it. It doesn't fit the pattern of the usual Chinese films shown in the West, i.e. martial arts epics. It's a dirty, gritty war film, which doesn't pull any punches in showing the horrors of war.

Maybe another problem is the Japanese lobby in the West. In the film the Japanese are portrayed as absolute monsters with no redeeming qualities. This was the reality of the 1937 "Rape of Nanking", as it is known today, but it's not something people like to talk about. After all, Japan is now a democratic ally of the West, whereas China is a single-party socialist state with a history of human rights violations. (The Chinese government doesn't like to be called Communist, but that's what it really is).

The film has also been criticised for focusing on the plight of the schoolgirls in the convent, rather than the war itself. This is deliberate, and for me it's what gives the film its character. It's a story of redemption and salvation. It's often said that war brings out the worst in people, but this film shows that it can also bring out the best. A godless undertaker can rise to selfless deeds of heroism. Vain prostitutes can give their lives to save others. The film is deeply moving, and several of us had moist eyes when the final credits rolled.

Flowers of War (4½ Stars)

Prostitutes never care about a falling nation, they sing and dance while others are dying.

This quote from the film is probably true. It doesn't matter who is in charge of a country. Men always need sex, so skilled prostitutes are never short of work. This is especially true in wartime, when the invading soldiers have been separated from their wives and children. It's true that they can resort to rape, but the willing embrace of a woman who won't fight back is preferable.

When the Japanese army invaded Nanking in 1937 they slaughtered over 300,000 people. After all, the Chinese were Untermenschen who didn't deserve to live. A group of prostitutes take refuge in a Catholic convent run by American missionaries. The priest is dead, killed by a bomb that fell in the courtyard, and the only American left is John Miller, a drunken undertaker sent to bury the priest. Initially he only cares about himself, but as the situation worsens he unites the prostitutes and the Catholic schoolgirls to fight for survival.

This is a powerful film, and it's an untypical role for Christian Bale. He's a despicable bad guy who finds himself forced to commit heroic deeds.

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.

The Dark Knight Rises (4½ Stars)

This is the final film in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. Rachel Dawes was killed in the second part, so she doesn't need to appear in this film. That's just as well. Christopher Nolan might have chosen Whoopi Goldberg to play her this time.

The Dark Knight (5 Stars)

This film grows on me more every time I watch it. The only weak part is the episode with the two ships in the last half hour. Sure, I know why it was included, and it's significant for the plot, but at that late stage in the film we needed fast action, not slow lingering soul-searching.

Nevertheless, the statement in the film poster that I used for this post is very depressing. I wouldn't like to live in a world without rules. Whether it's the rules set by society or rules that I have created for myself, I need rules. Rules mean stability. Rules mean order. Without rules there is chaos. That's the goal of the Joker in this film. He doesn't want to get rich, he wants to see the city burn.

"Everything burns".

At the end of the film, and I apologise for the spoiler, Batman goes a way towards accepting this.

"Sometimes the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes, people deserve more".

That's an extremely negative attitude. If knowledge isn't based on the truth, what good is it? Indeed, if rules aren't based on the truth, what good are they?

It was an embarrassing blunder to cast Maggie Gyllenhall as Rachel Dawes in the film. She's no Katie Holmes. In some cases switching actors from one film to the next works, such as the transition from Jodie Foster to Julianne Moore in the Hannibal Lecter films. Those two actresses look relatively similar, and Julianne Moore did a good job at imitating Jodie Foster's mannerisms. But in the case of Maggie Gyllenhall, she's so unlike Katie Holmes that it's a shock when watching the two films back to back. To be fair to Maggie, I can't think of any actress who could have stepped into Katie's shoes. The mistake lies squarely with Christopher Nolan as the writer and director. When he found out that Katie Holmes wasn't available he should have written Rachel Dawes out of the film altogether.

Batman Begins (4 Stars)

"It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you".

It must be obvious that this is the film's main quote, even to people who don't watch out for film quotes. It's repeated twice in the film for emphasis. It's a Biblical principle. In Matthew 7:15-16 we read, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them". Even though this verse speaks specifically about prophets, Christians apply it to all people. It's impossible for us to look into a person's heart and see if he's good or evil, but we can see what he does and make a judgement. Many people claim to be good. Many people are called good by others, whether they are politicians, religious leaders or philanthropists. In cases like that we need to take an unbiased look at the person's deeds to decide whether it's true or not.

I promised in my last review that I would watch this film again. It's taken me 18 months to get round to it. It is a good film, although I still think that it's really Daredevil wearing a different costume.

I offer my congratulations to Katie Holmes, who plays Bruce Wayne's childhood friend Rachel Dawes in this film. In 2005, when the film was made, she began to date Tom Cruise and became a member of the Scientology Church to please him. She has now seen the error of her ways and renounced her connection to Scientology. It's wrong to even call Scientology a "church", it's just a pseudo-scientific self-help organisation that calls itself a religion to get tax breaks. It's a shame that she couldn't persuade Tom to leave as well, so she had to divorce him.

The Dark Knight Rises (4½ Stars)

Thank you, Cineworld, for having "catch up" presentations in your cinemas. I missed this film when it was shown in the cinemas last year, so I jumped at the chance to see it on its one day only showing today. Films like this deserve to be seen on the big screen.

This film wraps up Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, or maybe I should call it his Dark Knight Trilogy. It's far removed from the campy Batman films of the 1980's, and even further from the 1960's television series. Batman's enemy this time is Bane. He's not identical to the Bane that we know from the 1990's DC comics, but at least he's not the mentally backward character who appeared as Poisin Ivy's henchman in "Batman & Robin". The back breaking scene was accurately copied from the comics.

At the beginning of the film Batman has retired. He returns to action after he finds out that Bane has devised a plan to bring Gotham City under his personal control. But it's even worse than this. The city will not just be controlled by him, it will be completely destroyed.

The film's imagery is spectacular, and the action is breathtaking. In itself the film deserves 5 stars, but I have to deduct half a star because Catwoman doesn't carry a whip. Sorry, that's the rules, blunders like that have to be punished. I admit that Anne Hathaway looks sexy in her costume, but the gun is so out of place. Unless I'm mistaken, she has never carried a gun in the comics. What is it with film directors and guns? They even gave Captain America a gun in his solo film.