28 Years Later: The Bone Temple (3 Stars)

Netflix Thursday #48

"The Bone Temple" is an improvement on "28 Years Later", but that's not saying muxh. There are fewer zombies, which suits me perfectly, but the film still has an unpleasant post-apocalyptic atmosphere. I dislike post-apocalyptic films almost as much as I dislike zombies.

12-year-old Spike is the main hero in the film series, but he spends most of the film as a member of the Jimmies, disguised by a ridiculous blond wig.

The film's saving grace is Ralph Fiennes. Whenever he appears on screen, things immediately become more interesting. He's eccentric, funny and wonderfully watchable, bringing some much-needed personality to the grim proceedings.

And then there's the highlight: Fiennes dancing to Iron Maiden. I was slumping back in my chair for most of the film, but when "The Number of the Beast" started playing I sat up with a jolt. For a few glorious minutes "The Bone Temple" became exactly the sort of film I wanted it to be.

Then they killed Ralph Fiennes.

He was the best thing in the trilogy, but he won't return for the last film. Is there any reason left for me to watch it?

Success Rate:  - 1.1

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

Anna (4 Stars)

When I first watched "Anna" in 2019 I wrote "This is a good movie, but it's not the sort of film I could watch more than once". Don't trust anything I say. Today is the third time I've watched it.

Anna is a cool, sexy spy who lives in a world where the Internet existed in 1985 and USB drives in 1990. Other web sites call these anachronisms mistakes, but the director Luc Besson isn't stupid. His choices were made deliberately.

In the course of the film Anna kills 62 men and 0 women. So much for equality. Valerie Solanas would be proud of her.

Success Rate:  - 0.9

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

Oppenheimer (5 Stars)

I'll watch any film made by Christopher Nolan, despite my disappointment with his last (almost) true film, "Dunkirk". Before going to see "Oppenheimer" I was tempted to read up on Robert Oppenheimer. I'd heard his name and I knew he had something to do with the first atom bomb, but I knew nothing about his life. Eventually I decided to watch the film first and inform myself later.

Imagine my shock when the film started as a courtroom drama. Almost a courtroom drama. It's repeatedly emphasised that it wasn't a court, it was a senate committee. The difference is subtle. If found guilty, Robert Oppenheimer wouldn't be sentenced to prison, but he'd lose his security clearance and his ability to work for the government.

The film shows three phases in his life: before the Second World War, during the war and after the war. They're easy to tell apart from the cinematography, with the post war scenes being shown in black and white. A slight criticism is that I only roughly know when they happen. I would have appreciated the dates, or at least the years, being flashed on the screen.

So far I've only skimmed the Wikipedia page on Oppenheimer. It's late at night. I'll read more about him tomorrow. All I'll do is give a very brief summary of his life. It's not spoilers, because people with more knowledge than me would have known it already.

Before the war Robert Oppenheimer was an internationally renowned expert in quantum mechanics. He wasn't a Communist, but he kept an open mind, and he attended informal meetings of Communists. During the war he was made the leader of the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb. After the war he was an adviser to the American government on the further development of atomic bombs, but his past history with the Communist party was dug up to discredit him, until he lost his security clearance and was no longer allowed as an adviser.

It's a powerful film. It's not exactly a pacifist film, although it could be interpreted that way. Oppenheimer built the bomb, and he was proud of his work, because it saved millions of lives. In 1945 America was planning to invade Japan, but every Japanese child from the age of 12 upwards had been given a rifle. It was estimated that at least nine million Japanese civilians would die in the invasion. In comparison, less than 300,000 died as a result of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, in the following years Oppenheimer had a What-Have-I-Done feeling, and he tried to persuade America not to make even bigger bombs.

Despite being shown in English, the film was almost sold out in Gloria, a cinema that has two large screens. The other screen showed "Barbie", also almost sold out. This made me happy. It's Gloria's most successful day since the Corona pandemic started in 2020. Cinema isn't dead, it just needs the right films.

Inception (5 Stars)

In my opinion, this is Christopher Nolan's best film. It has mind-bending concepts of being in a dream inside a dream inside a dream inside a dream, and yet the story is never difficult to follow. That is to say, it isn't difficult to follow until the final scene. When Dom Cobb finally wakes up from his nested dreams and returns to his children, is he really awake, or is he still in a dream above all the other dreams?

Dom uses a spinning top to check whether he's in reality or a dream. In dreams the top spins indefinitely, in reality it stops spinning after a while and falls over. He spins the top at the end of the film, and the film cuts out before we see whether it continues spinning or not. Many fans of the film have asked Christopher Nolan whether the top stops spinning or not. His responses are always evasive, and rightfully so. If he'd wanted there to be a clear answer, he'd have put it in the film.

The answer is that it doesn't matter. Dom wants to be back with his children, and when he's with them it doesn't matter whether it's reality or a dream. All that matters is that he's happy. But what most viewers don't notice is the way Dom spins the top. Usually he spins it, then sits and watches the result. This time is different. He spins the top, then walks away. He doesn't want to see the result. What the director is saying is that Dom himself doesn't want to know whether it's a dream or not. If it doesn't matter to him, why should it matter to us?

Do I personally have an opinion whether he's in reality or a dream? No, I don't. There's evidence to support both answers. The main evidence for reality is the complexity of the architecture. Dom flies from one country to another, whereas the manufactured dream architecture is always a confined area. The main evidence for a dream is the way his children are dressed. They have the identical clothes to the ones in his dream, and they're playing in the same garden. I'm sure that Christopher Nolan planted these contradictory clues to keep us guessing.

Success Rate:  + 3.2

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

A Quiet Place 2 (5 Stars)

Wow! I'm finally back in the cinema again! The Coronavirus has done more to destroy the cinema than television, videos, DVDs and streaming together. There was a brief period when the cinemas in Stuttgart were open between the first and second lockdown. I managed to see six films between 24th June and 14th September last year, but "A Quiet Place 2" is my first film this year; my first film in nine months. That's sad.

The release of "A Quiet Place 2" (which has since been renamed "A Quiet Place Part 2") has been delayed by the Coronavirus lockdowns. It was originally planned for March 2020. I took this photo on 19th January 2020, the second day of the Stuttgart White Nights Festival. A contest was announced for the festival attendees: the best photo of a person attempting to remain quiet would win two free tickets for the film.

This was Benjamin's entry for the contest. No, he didn't win.

As you can see from the first photo, the planned German release date was 19th March 2020. It was finally released last week.

The film is divided into two parts. The first part takes place before the opening credits. It shows the day of the arrival of the aliens. Nobody was prepared for their arrival, and it was a quick slaughter. The monsters rush around killing everyone they can find.

The motivation of the alien invaders hasn't yet been revealed, if they have a motivation at all. They run around killing as many humans as they can, but it isn't for food. They kill for the sake of killing. It's also uncertain how they arrived on Earth. They don't seem intelligent enough to pilot a space ship. We can still only guess how they arrived. My personal theory is that a still unseen intelligent race wants to conquer the Earth, so they've unleashed wild animals to weaken the Earth's resistance. They (the intelligent aliens) know how to control or eliminate the wild beasts when they arrive. That's just a theory. If anyone has a different idea, write your idea in the comments box below. Don't forget to tick the "Notify Me" box.

The second part is the rest of the film. It begins on Day 474, the day after the end of the first film. The Abbott family is still reeling after the death of the husband and father, Lee Abbott. They see a fire in the distance, which they interpret as a sign that someone else is alive. Evelyn Abbott takes her three children to the location of the fire, and they find a solitary man, Emmett. He used to be a friend of Lee. At first he's unwilling to help, but he feels sympathy when he sees Lee's young baby.

A coded radio message suggests that they should travel across the sea. Only the daughter Regan is willing to take the risk and leaves by herself. Emmett fears for her life, so he catches up with her.

That's enough spoilers for now. This is a very good film which relies on suspense for effect. I'm proud of my fellow German cinema visitors. The theatre was absolutely silent. Not one rustle of a crisp bag or the pop of a beer bottle. Silence. This intensified the atmosphere.

The first film's main character was the mother, Evelyn Abbott, played by Emily Blunt. In the second film the main character is the daughter, Regan Abbott, played by Millicent Simmonds.

Inception (5 Stars)

"Inception" is an incredible film, and I'll start off by saying that it should have been included in my top 100 films list. It's unforgivable that I forgot it. It was directed by Christopher Nolan, who has a certain cult status today. He's well known for making films that show mind-bending views of reality. I own 10 of the 11 films he's directed. Many of his fans are so devoted to him that they buy all his films unquestioningly. I'm more selective, in his case anyway. The only directors whose films I buy without needing to see them first are Sion Sono, Zhang Yimou, Quentin Tarantino and Alex de la Iglesia. They're directors who have never disappointed me.

"Inception" is about a group of extractors, as they're called in the film. They enter a person's dream to extract knowledge that the person would never reveal while awake. This would be an interesting enough story in itself, but Christopher Nolan further complicates it by inroducing the concept of dreams within dreams.

The film follows the team as they try something more difficult. Instead of retrieving something from a person's mind, they want to implant a thought that will influence his decisions when he wakes up.

But getting back to my initial statements, blunders like this omission show how difficult it is to make a top 100 film list. I'll never attempt another list like this again.

Success Rate:  + 3.2

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

Anna (4 Stars)

When I watched this film in the cinema last year I accused it of being a second rate copy of "Nikita". I have to take that back after watching it again. The two films begin with the same premise, but they develop in completely different directions. That didn't become obvious to me until I got to the last half hour today. Maybe I should watch it a third time to fully appreciate it.

The year is 1987. Anna is a drug addict in Moscow who applies to join the Russian navy. Her application is intercepted by the KGB, who think she would be more suited to work as a spy. She's told that the training will last one year, after which she'll have to work for four years. After that she'll be free to do whatever she wants. We don't see her training period. The story jumps to her first assignment, and we see that she has exceptional skills. She keeps her cool, killing with calm precision. The next time I watch "Anna" I'll be sure to count the number of kills.

Halfway through the film she becomes a double agent for the CIA. She becomes the lover of both of her handlers, both the Russian handler (Luke Evans) and the American handler (Cillian Murphy). She's playing a dangerous game.

One of the biggest differences between Anna and Nikita (the characters) is that Anna is self-confident. Nikita was a skilled killer, but she was insecure in her dealings with her colleagues and her bosses. That makes Nikita more accessible as a character, but it makes Anna sexier.

The film was a box office failure, as you can see from its negative success rate. That's unfortunate. It's a film worth seeing.

Success Rate:  - 0.9

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

Anna (4 Stars)

Anna is a Russian drug addict who's recruited by the KGB as an assassin. On joining she's told that she'll be given one year training, after which she'll serve for five years. Then she'll be free to return to her normal life. She's highly successful in her new career, killing her victims just as calmly and efficiently as John Wick. Maybe more efficiently, because she needs less bullets. When she asks about the schedule for her discharge from the KGB she finds out that it was a lie. She was only told it was five years because she wasn't expected to live that long. The only way she can leave is death.

Does the story sound familiar? It should. It's a variation of "Nikita", which Luc Besson made in 1990. A beautiful woman trained to be a killer who wants to get out. It's difficult to review "Anna" without comparing it with "Nikita".

"Anna" doesn't show the training period, which was an important part of "Nikita". We jump straight into her life as a successful killer. She's given a job as a fashion model in Paris, the perfect cover for her activities. In the glamour world of modelling she mixes with the high society and is able to make contact with the men she has to kill.

Unlike "Nikita", "Anna" makes use of non-linear narrative to spring surprises on the viewer, jumping backwards and forwards months or years. We see something happen. In the next scenes the results aren't as expected. Then we go back to the initial event to see what really happened, the things we missed.

The film takes place towards the end of the cold war, between 1987 and 1990. The KGB are definitely the bad guys, but the CIA are also ruthless, in different ways. Both organisations are active in France, in a country that's not their own. They're both using foreign territory as their playground.

One thing that annoyed me about the film was the computer technology. Anna seems to be making an online application to join the Russian army in 1985. She downloads data from a laptop to a USB stick in 1990. What was Luc Besson thinking? Was this deliberate?

My overall impression is that this is a good movie, but it's not the sort of film I could watch more than once. I greatly enjoyed it in the cinema, but rather than watch it again I'll go back to "Nikita".

The Party (5 Stars)

This is a short film made in 2017. I say "short film" in the technical sense. A full length film is considered to last at least 70 minutes excluding the final credits. This film lasts just under 66 minutes. In the early days of cinema the line between short films and full length films was set lower, but today it's 70 minutes. Some organisations have their own definition, for instance to compete as a short film for the Best Short Film Oscar the maximum length is 40 minutes including the final credits.

The film is almost a Kammerspiel. All the action takes place in one house, though not in one room. Maybe the film is meant to take place in real time. That isn't 100% clear when cuts are made from scenes in one room to another, but even if the film doesn't take place in real time it's certainly not much longer than 66 minutes.

I watched the film today because it stars Bruno Ganz. He isn't the main character, but in a Kammerspiel all the actors appear in almost every scene together.

Janet has just been appointed the health minister for the opposition party. She and her husband Bill have invited six friends to a celebration party, though only five arrive.

Bill is Janet's husband, a former university professor who's given up his career to support his wife. Reading between the lines, he greatly regrets giving up the job he loved.

April is Janet's best friend, a political activist who has a leaning towards anarchy.

Gottfried is April's husband. He describes himself as a Life Coach, which involves self-healing. He doesn't trust western medicine.

Martha is a university professor who was once Bill's student and lover.

Jenny is a young woman who was once Martha's student, but is now Martha's wife. She's undergone artificial insemination and is now pregnant with triplets.

Marianne is Janet's personal secretary. She sends a message that she'll arrive late because she's busy. Even though we don't see her she's an important character and is a constant topic of conversation.

Tom is Marianne's husband, a successful investment banker. He arrives at the house noticeably nervous and repeatedly disappears into the bathroom to snort cocaine.

The film's strength is in the character relationships. There are conflicts of different types between them. As the shadow health minister Janet supports the NHS, but her husband has been seeing a private doctor behind her back. Gottfried claims that people only become sick when a doctor tells them they're sick. Martha doesn't support any political party, but she politely congratulates Janet on her promotion. There are other conflicts which develop as the film progresses.

This is an intelligent film without being difficult to understand. I recommend that you sit and watch it with a friend, then discuss it afterwards.

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

Free Fire (5 Stars)

I missed this film when it was in the cinema last year. One of my friends – a friend whose opinion I value – told me it was one of the best films of the year, so I bought it last week. Wow! I see what he means. It would probably have made it into my top ten film list for 2017 if I'd seen it.

The film takes place in real time, i.e. the 87 minutes of the film run without interruption. There aren't many films like that. "Phone Booth" is another example.

Four IRA members meet with illicit gun salesmen in an abandoned factory in Boston. Despite mutual mistrust the deal is almost completed, when two of the trading partners recognise one another. The previous evening one of the Irishmen had hit the 17-year-old cousin of one of the gun runners over the head with a bottle, scarring her for life. Despite pleas to remain businesslike the two start shooting at one another, leading to an all out war between the two groups.

There are obvious similarities with "Reservoir Dogs". The two films are close enough to look similar, but not close enough for "Free Fire" to be accused of plagiarism. The films are equally claustrophobic, but "Free Fire" is more violent, elevating the carnage to a level of surreal beauty.

After seeing it today I already feel the need to watch it again. Soon.

Success Rate:  - 1.8

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

Inception (5 Stars)

The last time I watched "Inception" in October 2014 I said I would probably write a longer review the next time I watched it. I'm sorry. Maybe next time. This is an excellent film, one of my favourite films ever, but it's difficult to write about.

Success Rate:  + 3.2

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

28 Days Later (4½ Stars)

"28 Days Later" was made in 2002 by the consistently excellent director Danny Boyle. He was brave enough to make a zombie film at a time when zombie films were out of fashion. Referring to my comments in my review of "Ready Player One", that's a risk Steven Spielberg wouldn't have taken. Unexpectedly, it was a massive box office hit, earning back more than 10 times its budget. It's had a big influence on the modern zombie genre. For instance, the TV series "The Walking Dead" borrows strongly from its ideas.

The title takes its name from the speed of the infection. The film begins with animal activists freeing a monkey from a laboratory where it's being used as a test subject. The monkey bites a female activist, who then bites her colleagues. The speed of the infection is devastating. Within 10 seconds of being bitten a person becomes a ravenous monster and bites others. 28 days later more than 99% of the UK's population has been turned into monsters.

The film follows the struggle of the young man Jim to survive, aided only by a few others that he meets on his journey northwards from London to Manchester. At first he naively believes that he can trust all the other survivors, but he finds out that he's wrong. Bad people don't become better when they're put under pressure, they get worse.

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

In Time (3½ Stars)

This film took me a long time to get into. For the first 45 minutes I was sitting shaking my head at how silly the premise was. Finally I began to get it. I still think that the premise is ridiculous, even by science fiction standards, but it's a good vehicle to put across valid social arguments.

"In Time" was made in 2011 and takes place more than 200 years in the future, but society has a retro look. There are no mobile phones. There's no Internet. Looking at the film without being told when it's supposed to take place I would have guessed the late 1980's or early 1990's. It's not an alternate universe. This is supposed to be our own world, but society has been dumbed down, along with the vast majority of the people in it.

We don't know the exact date, but we know when the change happened. 188 years previously scientists discovered a cure for ageing, which together with other medical advances meant that nobody needed to die of natural causes. Everyone on Earth became potentially immortal. After the initial euphoria the sad truth sank in that this wasn't a blessing, it was a curse. The world's population would exceed the planet's capacity to house it. Emergency meetings were held to decide who deserved to live and who deserved to die. The scientists devised an ingenious method to limit people's life. First of all, everyone would be allowed to live 25 years. That's supposedly the age at which people stop ageing. After that a person is given a clock determining how long he has left to live, initially set to one year. He can earn more time by working. Time is the legal currency, so everything a person buys is deducted from his account. For instance, a phone call costs one minute, a bus journey costs two hours, and a good car costs 59 years. Time can be given to someone else by holding arms. It can also be stored in boxes called time capsules, to be sent to people in other places. When the time in a person's account runs out his heart stops beating and he dies.

You see what I mean about the ridiculous premise? Try to accept it, then you can enjoy the film better. Don't bother yourself with questions like "How does that work?" As far as the technology goes many questions are left unanswered. The film tells us all we need to know.

As any economist knows, if a new currency is introduced the circulation has to be controlled. That's relatively easy when the money is made of paper; banknotes just have to be printed. In the film's Brave New World time vaults have been set up with enough time for everyone, based on assumptions about how many people the planet Earth can sustain. This vault is used to pay everyone their initial one year. Effectively it's a loan, not a payment, because the clock is ticking every second of the day, and if the clock runs down to zero the currency is reclaimed by the banks.

Now for the social consequences. This system of allocated lifespans almost seems fair, as long as everyone has equal opportunities. However, we see that America (and presumably the rest of the world) has been divided into zones. Travel from one zone to another is permissible, but it's so expensive that only the rich can afford it. The toll for crossing a zone border can be up to two years, and a person on a long trip might need to cross a lot of borders. This means that most people stay where they're born, rather than shorten their lifespan to reach a better place.

The film is a love story between two people from different zones. Will Salas comes from Dayton, Sylvia Weis comes from New Greenwich. The people in Dayton have an average remaining lifespan of less than 24 hours, while the people in New Greenwich have an average remaining lifespan of 347 years. There isn't much hope for improvement in Dayton. Will works long hours in a factory. Eight hours work earns him an extra day, so he needs to work overtime if he wants to buy food. He's caught in a vicious circle of virtual slavery. He works to earn time, but his time is needed to work, and very little is left over for "luxuries" like a drink in the bar.

Sylvia is the daughter of the man who owns the largest bank in New Greenwich. She has over 1000 years left, and her father is a millionaire. There's no reason why he should ever die, and he wants to extend the same privilege to the rest of his family. He doesn't care if the people in Dayton fall dead on the streets every day when their time runs out. It's fair, in his eyes. Everyone is born with equal opportunities, he claims, so if they die it's their own fault. This is a lie that rich people always tell themselves. Will was born to a poor single mother who had nothing to give him when he turned 25. Sylvia's father gave her hundreds of years.

I shan't tell you anything about the plot itself. The film's background, as described here, should tell you all you need to know. Incidentally, the Blu-ray has an extra feature called "The Minutes", a 16-minute pseudo-documentary about the future world. The actors are interviewed in-character about their opinions of the world they live in. I strongly recommend that you watch this feature immediately after the film. I found this feature better than the film itself.

Justin Timberlake plays the lead role. I've only seen him in a few minor roles before now. This is his first leading role, and I have to say that I'm impressed. I hate his singing, but he's great as an actor. He should stick to this new career.

I was surprised to find out that the film was a huge box office success. I never heard of it at the time, and it doesn't seem like the sort of film that would appeal to sci-fi fans (too silly) or superficial popcorn munchers (too cerebral). Maybe people just went to see it because of Justin Timberlake?

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

Dunkirk (3 Stars)

I've been hearing so many good things about this film for months. "Brilliant". "Christopher Nolan's best film". "Incredible music". This excited me. I've been a fan of Christopher Nolan's films for years, but I was disappointed with his last film, "Interstellar", so I hoped that he's back on form.

I'm sorry to say that I'm disappointed with "Dunkirk". It's slightly better than "Interstellar", but I still rate it as the second weakest film in his career.

The problem is that Christopher Nolan became known very early in his career as someone who writes mind-bending stories, such as "Following", "Memento" and "Inception". I'll add "Interstellar" to that list, even though I consider its concept a failure. Now he's making a film about a true story which doesn't lend itself to temporal paradoxes, real or perceived, but he still wants to do something similar to please his fans.

"Eureka!" he cries. "I'll tell three overlapping stories at the same time, the evacuation of Dunkirk seen from the land, the sea and the air, but I'll run the stories at different speeds. That will make my fans happy".

Not this fan. I'm not happy at all. The film's asynchronous narrative is a gimmick for the sake of it. There are some exciting sequences in the film, but they're exciting despite the gimmick, not because of it. It would have been a better film with a traditional linear narrative.

---

Addendum on Saturday, 12th August, 2017

As expected, I have received complaints about the low rating I gave this film yesterday. Unfortunately the complaints were made on my Facebook page, not in the comments section of my blog. Never mind. My friends praised the film's cinematography and soundtrack. Those are two factors I didn't mention in my review, so I'll make up for it now.

The cinematography is excellent. The scenes are breathtaking, whether they're on the land, on the sea or in the air. For me the cinematography is the best thing about the film. Faultless!

As for the soundtrack, I'm not sure what my friends are talking about. It's good but not great. I love the droning of the planes, which is scarier than in any other aerial attacks I've seen in film. The dramatic music is also stirring in the tense moments of the film, but that's what I'd expect of any film that's worth the price of a cinema ticket. If you want to hear a brilliant soundtrack, watch "Baby Driver".

The Party (4 Stars)

Don't let the splash of colour in the poster fool you. The film is in black and white.

Janet has just been appointed the health minister in the UK's shadow cabinet. It's never stated which party that is. It's probably the Labour Party, but it doesn't matter. I assume that the director Sally Potter, who also wrote the script, wants the film to remain relevant to viewers whenever they watch it. Today the Labour Party is the opposition party, five years from now it might be the Conservative Party. What's important isn't Janet's political party but the party at her house which she's holding to celebrate her promotion.

One party, seven people.

Janet is the centre of attention.

Bill is Janet's husband, a retired university professor. He says that he's given up his own career to support his wife's political career, suggesting that he retired early.

Alice is Janet's best friend, a political activist with left wing views.

Gottfried is Alice's husband. He describes himself as a Life Coach. He encourages people to be happy and enjoy life by reciting pseudo-mystical slogans which none of the other party guests take seriously.

Martha is a university professor who was once Bill's student.

Jenny is a young woman who was once Martha's student, but is now Martha's wife.

Tom is a successful investment banker, the husband of Janet's personal secretary Marianne. Tom and Marianne were invited as a couple, but he arrives at the party without her.

Once the guests arrive the party can begin. There are multiple intrigues. I'm afraid to say anything about them because I don't want to give away any spoilers.

The film's strength isn't in what happens, it's in the conversations. All seven of the actors put on first class performances. There are subtle hints of a battle of the sexes, although the topic isn't overplayed. Bill is certainly the most intelligent person in the room, but he's chosen to live in the shadow of his wife. Jenny is a man-hater who claims that all men are rapists, but her wife Martha insists that not all men are completely evil.

Usually Germany shows films later than in England, anything between two weeks and three months, but this is an exception. "The Party" is a British film, but the German release date is two months before it will be shown in England. I strongly recommend that my English friends go to see it in the cinema in September.

---

Click here to listen to "Party über alles", recorded by Sturmgeist. If you understand German you'll enjoy the irony of the song. If not, just tap your feet and enjoy the beat.

Party eins, Party zwei,
Party drei, Party Sturm,
Party vier, Party fünf,
Party sechs, Party Geist,
Party sieben, Party acht,
Party neun, Party Sturm,
Party zehn, Party elf,
Party zwölf, Party Geist.

Party, Party über alles,
Party Sturm, Party Geist.
Party, Party über alles,
Party Sturm, Party Geist.

Party Fritz, Party Helga,
Party schnell, Party Sturm,
Party ich, Party du,
Party ach, Party Geist,
Party hier, Party jetzt,
Party hard, Party Sturm,
Party ihn, Party sie,
Party geil, Party Geist.

Party, Party über alles,
Party Sturm, Party Geist.
Party, Party über alles,
Party Sturm, Party Geist.

Party eins, Party zwei,
Party drei, Party Sturm,
Party Fritz, Party Helga,
Party schnell, Party Geist,
Party frech, Party frisch,
Party stark, Party Sturm,
Party hübsch, Party Deutsch,
Party geil, Party Geist,

Party frech, Party frisch,
Party stark, Party Sturm,
Party Ordnung, Party muss
Party sein, Party Geist,
Party hübsch, Party Deutsch,
Party Sex, Party Sturm,
Party Thor, Party Fricka,
Party Siegfried, Party Geist.

Party, Party über alles,
Party Sturm, Party Geist.
Party, Party über alles,
Party Sturm, Party Geist.

Party eins, Party zwei,
Party drei, Party Sturm,
Party vier, Party fünf,
Party sechs, Party Geist,
Party sieben, Party acht,
Party neun, Party Sturm,
Party zehn, Party elf,
Party zwölf, Party Geist.

Party, Party über alles,
Party Sturm, Party Geist.
Party, Party über alles,
Party Sturm, Party Geist.

Inception (5 Stars)

I can't believe that it's been three years since I watched this film. Why did I wait so long? It's brilliant. The action is amazing, but the mind-bending plot is so complex that you need a scorecard to keep up. Wonderful. Maybe I'll write a longer review next time I watch it. I shouldn't wait another three years.

Transcendence (3¾ Stars)

I must admit that I'm rather disappointed with this film. When I saw the trailers I expected a lot more. The trailers (which gave away about as much of the plot as I'll describe in this review) made it look like a brilliant, thought-provoking film. It is a good film, but it's not great. And it could have been made a lot better.

Johnny Depp plays Dr. Will Caster, a scientist working on creating artificial intelligence. A terrorist group calling itself RIFT (Revolutionary Independence From Technology) attempts to kill him. He is left with only a few weeks to live. During this time his colleagues upload his brain impulses to his super-computer. After his death his consciousness lives on in the computer, but aided by phenomenal processing speed. Over the next two years he makes great medical advances. He can cure people from any illness, from broken legs to blindness. But he also networks together everyone he heals, so that he can give instructions directly into their brains. This doesn't just scare RIFT, it also turns the American government against him.

The story, the plot and the concepts behind the film are fascinating. The problem is the film's pacing. When the film began I forgave the slowness since it was preparing the background and introducing the characters. But it remained just as slow when things started happening. The film seemed stretched out and could easily have been compressed into 60 minutes. Alternatively, it could have remained the same length if there had been more action. It's the first film directed by Wally Pfister, who has previously worked as a cinematographer for various films directed by Christopher Nolan. If Nolan had directed this film himself it would have been much better.

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.