The Banshees of Inisherin (5 Stars)

This is one of the favourites to win the Best Film Oscar at the 2023 Academy Awards. I can see why. It's an intense drama that takes place in a small community, arguably a community that's too small to contain such a large drama.

Colm (Brendan Gleeson) and Padraic (Colin Farrell) are two men who live on a small island on the Irish coast. In the picture above they're standing on the beach gazing at the mainland, which means it's not far away, a couple of miles at most. But however close they are, their lives are far removed from the activities on the mainland. It's 1923, and the Irish Civil War is raging, but not on the island. Nobody on the island, least of all Colm and Padraic, understand what the fighting is about. Everyone on the island gets on with everyone else. Colm and Padraic go to the pub every day at 2 pm, presumably staying till late. Doesn't anyone work? Probably not.

One day Colm decides he doesn't want to be Padraic's friend any more. Basically, Colm wants to achieve something in his life. He doesn't want to be forgotten when he dies. Instead of spending every day in meaningless conversations with Padraic, he wants to write a song that will be sung after his death. That's a noble goal, but Padraic doesn't understand it. He has no aspirations of being anything more than a poor man who lived and died on a small island. He wants to spend his time drinking with his friend.

So Padraic pesters Colm. He keeps going to him and asking why they can't be friends any more. Colm resorts to drastic measures. He says that every time Padraic speaks to him he'll cut off one of his own fingers.

Is the film a comedy? There are scenes that make people laugh, but I wouldn't call it a comedy, not even a dark comedy. It's more of a tragedy. While the Civil War is being fought on the grand stage, Colm and Padraic are arguing in a smaller environment.

Despite the calm life on the island, there doesn't seem to be any true happiness. We don't see any married couples. Colm lives alone, while Padraic lives with his sister in a house that's so small that they have to share a bedroom. It's possible that the other men on the island are married, but we never see them with their wives. It's a community of lonely people who live side by side.

I don't know whether the film has a deeper meaning. I need to watch it again. Even if it doesn't have a deeper meaning, I enjoy it for the atmosphere alone. And the scenery is beautiful. Ireland is a country I've always wanted to visit, but it's too late now. I should have gone while I was younger.

After Yang (4 Stars)

This is the 17th film in the Stuttgart Fantasy Film Festival.

"After Yang" takes place in the near future when domesticated androids have become commonplace. Jake and Kyra Fleming have adopted a Chinese daughter. Since they want her to become acquainted with her Chinese heritage, they buy an android called Yang who's pre-programmed with Chinese knowledge. After a few years with the family, Yang malfunctions and is no longer active. That's where the film begins.

First Jake attempts to get Yang repaired. Yang is still covered by warranty, but the company that sold him no longer exists. He makes further attempts, and he's told that the android's core has malfunctioned, so the only solution is to replace him. Even if his memory chip is put into a new android, Jake feels like it wouldn't be Yang any more. The rest of the film shows Jake examining Yang's memories, and he's surprised to find that Yang was keeping secrets from him.

This is a slow-moving film, emotional and philosophical. It might not be a film for everyone, but I highly enjoyed it.

The Batman (4 Stars)

Today's the spring equinox, one of the year's four high days. It's even more special for me as someone who was born on an equinox. The other one.

Today I celebrated the equinox by going to the cinema to see the new Batman film. I have a love-hate relationship with Batman and DC comics in general. I've always considered DC second best in comparison with Marvel. For me DC will always be the other comics company.

That doesn't mean that I don't have some appreciation for Batman. I sporadically read his comics in his camp era (1960 to 1975). I greatly enjoyed the stories written by Steve Englehart in the late 1970's which returned him to the dark style of the early comics. I've watched Batman's ups and downs on the big screen, although I don't think there's ever been a Batman film as good as the 1966 version.

Now there's yet another Batman reboot. It doesn't start with the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, but their deaths are frequently mentioned. It's two years since Bruce Wayne became Batman. We aren't told who his first enemies were. It's possible they were only normal crooks. Now he has to face his first costumed super-villain, though it's something of a stretch to call it a costume. The Riddler is wearing something that looks like a boiler suit.

There have been some very good incarnations of the Riddler in the past.

Frank Gorshin, who appeared in the Batman TV Series from 1966 to 1967, is considered by most Batman fans to be the best version of the Riddler. Newer actors are judged by how closely they resemble him.

Jim Carrey played the Riddler in "Batman Forever" in 1995. He's obviously mimicking Frank Gorshin, but he doesn't quite succeed. Why be the second best Frank Gorshin when you can be the best Jim Carrey?

Cory Michael Smith plays a laid back but surprisingly convincing Riddler in the "Gotham" TV series from 2014 to 2019. I would have picked him to play the Riddler in the new film.

But no, Paul Dano was picked, wearing a very different costume. It's nowhere near as gaudy as the costumes of his predecessors, and why does he wear a mask? Obviously the director Matt Reeves wanted to do something different, but it was unnecessary. In the film the Riddler has a certain sense of nobility, which is missing both from the comics and the previous screen versions. He's a vigilante, killing corrupt city officials. He even sees Batman as a partner, not an enemy.

I have mixed feelings about Zoe Kravitz as Catwoman. The character has been portrayed so badly in films since the 1980's that anything would be an improvement. Her looks don't completely match the character, but her personality aptly matches Selina Kyle in the 1990 comics. She's miles better than Michelle Pfeiffer, Halle Berry and Anne Hathaway. I'm still waiting for the perfect  portrayal of Catwoman on screen.

As for Robert Pattinson in the title role, I can sum him up in one sentence: He's a great Batman but a bad Bruce Wayne. He's the best dark Batman there's ever been. He's aloof and truly frightening. He earns the title Dark Knight more than Christian Bale ever did. He deserves to play the role for years to come. I've read that this is the start of a new Batman trilogy, but three films aren't enough. And yet, he doesn't capture the essence of Bruce Wayne. I had a bad feeling the first time I saw him in a trailer, and the film reinforced my feelings. On the other hand, we see very little of Bruce Wayne in the film. Even when he's not wearing his costume, he's talking about Batman stuff with his butler.

Some people have complained that the film's too long. I find it just right. The action is thrilling, making it one of the most exciting films of the year. And almost everything takes place at night. This intensifies the atmosphere. I look forward to watching the film again.

In Bruges (5 Stars)

Where's Bruges? It's in Belgium. It's a beautiful little town that most people have never heard of, unless they've seen this film.

Don't watch this film if you're easily offended. The characters are racist, homophobic and dwarfophobic, or whatever the word is for being prejudiced against dwarfs.

The film is about  two Irish hit men who've been ordered by their boss to hide in Bruges after an assassination was botched. Ken (Brendan Gleeson) is an older, experienced assassin. Ray (Colin Farrell) is a young man who's suffering from guilt after messing up his first job. Ken wants to spend time enjoying the sights of Bruges. Ray hates the town and can't wait to get back to England.

The language is foul throughout. Neither of the men is capable of speaking two sentences in a row that don't contain the F word. And yet we can't help liking the two characters. Their on screen charisma is overwhelming.

However, the film's main character isn't either of these magnificent actors, it's the city of Bruges itself. The director visited Bruges in advance and made a note of the tourist attractions. He put them all in the film. If you've never been to Bruges, watch this film as an alternative.

Success Rate:  + 0.3

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

Phone Booth (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #45

I forget exactly when I first saw this film or even why I bought it. It was released in 2003, but I probably didn't see it until a few years later. I'm sure that my review in November 2010 wasn't the first time I saw it. Amazon keeps a perfect record of the date when I bought films online since 2003, but in my early years of collecting DVDs I bought a lot of films over the counter at Virgin Records and HMV. I didn't keep my receipts, so I can only vaguely remember the dates. I really should have started my blog in 2003 when I bought my first DVD player. It was a mistake to wait seven years.

In my past reviews of this film I haven't written much about it because not much happens. I'll try to write more today. The plot and the location are minimalist, but the emotions are intense. Stu Shephard, a wheeling, dealing public relations man goes into a public phone box at the same time every day to ring his girlfriend. He has a cell phone, but he doesn't want his wife to see his girlfriend's phone number listed on his bill.

Someone rings the phone box, and Stu answers. It's a man who knows everything about him. The man is somewhere in a building looking down on the phone box, and he threatens to shoot Stu if he hangs up. The man says that he's already executed a paedophile and a crooked banker in the street, but it isn't obvious why he's picked Stu for his next victim. Stu has never done anything wrong except for cheating on his wife.

The frantic conversations continue. The man proves how serious he is by shooting a pimp who tries to make Stu leave the phone booth. The police arrive, suspecting Stu of murder, even though he isn't carrying a gun. Forest Whitaker plays one of the best roles of his life as the police captain talking Stu into leaving the booth.

I've always liked Forest Whitaker as an actor, but in this film he excels. He's fully credible as he portrays a man who is trying to make an arrest while plagued by emotional problems in his past. It's the subtleties in the portrayal of emotions that make the difference between good actors and great actors.

I only found out today that Jim Carrey was originally cast as Stu Shephard. He dropped out shortly before filming began. The more I think about it, the more I can see Jim Carrey being perfect for the role, but Colin Farrell can't be faulted.

The film was a box office success. I don't know how well it's known today. That depends on television broadcasts more than anything else. I'm not aware that it's available on any streaming services, which is a disadvantage. It's a film that's too good to be forgotten.

Success Rate:  + 5.5

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

Ava (4 Stars)

This is a film that was scheduled for cinema release in October 2020, but it was cancelled because of the Coronavirus lockdown. In Germany the cinemas were closed, at least. It's possible that some of my readers in other countries were lucky enough to see it on the big screen.

Ava Faulkner (Jessica Chastain) is an ex-soldier who now works for a shady group known only as the Organisation. I don't know whether to spell that with a capital O or not. The Organisation seems to be on the right side, but it's ruthless in the way it acts. It sends agents to assassinate money launderers, arms dealers and anyone else who's above the law, wherever they are in the world. This is illegal, of course, but they believe that the end justifies the means. This is the same sort of principle as in Luc Besson's "Nikita".

Ava is the Organisation's most efficient operative, and she's responsible for 41 kills. Two years ago she had a meltdown. It's not stated what happened or why, but we can assume it's because she developed a conscience. She got over it and she's back to work, but someone high up in the Organisation thinks she's a liability and wants to kill her.

That's a simple enough story, but there are a few subplots to complicate matters. Her ex-fiancé Michael, who's now married to her sister, has $80,000 gambling debts. That's a strange relationship. Evidently Ava walked out on him eight years ago without saying goodbye, so he married her sister on the rebound. Strange guy. Ava's mother is sick, close to death, but the illness is left unnamed. Overall, a lot of things are annoyingly left open, leaving the viewer to guess.

Jessica Chastain is a competent action hero. It's a joy to watch her taking out male attackers, either with a gun or with her bare hands. She just needs a better written screenplay next time.

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

Phone Booth (5 Stars)

"This is my booth, and I'm not coming out, all right? I like it in the booth. It's my world".

This film was made in 2003. Phone booths were already in decline, because of the convenience of mobile phones. The film states that the phone booth on 53rd and 8th is the last booth of its type in western Manhattan. How many are there now, in America and elsewhere?

This is a phone booth in Coventry Road, Small Heath, Birmingham, just outside Asda. It provides an essential service. It's used by drug addicts on Friday morning, just after midnight. That's when they receive their weekly welfare benefits. They don't want phone numbers to be stored on their mobile phones, so they ring drug dealers from this phone booth. The business itself is done in front of Asda. The dealers pull up in front of the cash machines, and the money changes hands through the car window. It's all very efficient. As a habitual midnight shopper I observed it many times. It's all made possible by the phone booth.

I watched this film today in remembrance of the director Joel Schumacher, who died yesterday at the age of 80. Most newspaper reports refer to him as "the Batman director", because he made two films about Batman in the 1990's. That's a shame, because they're not his best films (though they're not as bad as some critics say). He attempted to imitate the camp films of Tim Burton, but as I'm sure he later realised, there's only one Tim Burton. The films would have been better if he'd made them in his own action style. I'm not saying that the films should have been darker, I'm just saying they should have been more serious, though remaining the over-the-top action. The Batman films should have been more like "Falling Down", which he made two years before "Batman Forever".

"Phone Booth" has a lot in common with "Falling Down", as far as the style goes. It's a man pushed to the limit by forces working against him. The difference is that in "Falling Down" Bill Foster rises from the chaos to become an anti-hero, whereas Stu Shephard collapses under the pressure and becomes a nervous wreck.

The premise of "Phone Booth" might seem infeasible, a man being held hostage in a phone booth by an unseen sniper, but the action is so intense that the viewer soon stops asking questions.

It's a brilliant film. I only intended to watch one of Joel Schumacher's films this week, but after watching "Phone Booth" today I need more of his action; I'll watch "Falling Down" in the next few days. The Blu-ray disc is already lying on the desk next to my computer.

Success Rate:  + 5.5

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

Strangely, the film has only been released on DVD in England. If you're a high definition film fan, don't worry. The German Blu-ray is 100% English.

The Gentlemen (4½ Stars)

I almost didn't go to see this film. I have mixed feelings about the director, Guy Ritchie. His first two films, "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" (1998) and "Snatch" (2000) were works of genius, among my favourite films ever. After that he slumped. "RocknRolla" (2005) was awful, the Sherlock Holmes films were entertaining but average, and "King Arthur" (2017) was dull. Probably his worst film was "The Man from UNCLE" (2015), which is a stain on the memory of a wonderful TV series. "The Gentlemen" was scheduled for release in Germany two months later than in England and America, so I had time to decide if it was worth the price of a cinema ticket. The trailer didn't impress me, but critics and fans were calling it a "return to form" for Guy Ritchie, so I gave it a chance.

Wow!

From the opening minutes I was drawn in. The style of the storytelling is as enthralling as the story itself. An investigative journalist wants to blackmail an American drug lord operating in Britain, so he sits and relates what he knows. The drug lord, Mickey Pearson, wants to retire from the business of selling marijuana, and he's offered his operations for £400 million to a rival. The reporter, Fletcher, has uncovered secrets about him and offers to keep them out of the newspaper for £20 million.

The film's strength is less in the plot than in the richness of the characters portrayed. We see all levels of British society, from aristocrats to the middle class, workers and low-level drug addicts. They are credible characters, and they're amusing in the way they react to one another. I couldn't help laughing out loud at situations that were serious in themselves.

This is a must-have film for my Blu-ray collection. On the bus coming home I thought long and hard whether to give it a full five star rating. I decided against it, because it's not quite as good as Guy Ritchie's first two films. Almost, but not quite. It's possible that I'll rethink my rating after watching it again.

I expect most of my readers live in countries where the film is no longer running in the cinema. If you haven't seen it yet, wait for it to be shown on television or online. You won't be disappointed.

Dumbo (2019) (4 Stars)

This film is described as a remake of the 1941 animated Disney film with the same name, but it's so far removed from the original that I don't like to use the word remake. The only thing that is has in common with the 1941 film is that it features a baby elephant called Dumbo who uses his long ears to fly.

The film takes place in 1919. The horse performer Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) returns from the war to face several tragedies. He's lost his arm, but he considers himself still able to do stunts on his horses. However, the circus boss, Max Medici (Danny DeVito), has sold the horses because the circus was in financial problems. Added to this, Holt's wife died of pneumonia in the last winter. The only good thing in his life is that he still has the loving affection of his two young children, Milly and Joe. Since he has no horses to ride, Medici gives him the job of looking after the pregnant elephant Jumbo. That's not a job he wants to do, but it's either that or be unemployed.

When the baby elephant is born it's considered a freak because it has very large ears that drag on the ground. Medici insists on the ears being covered up when it first appears in the circus, but the covering comes off and the audience mocks it. Why? If I saw a baby elephant with big ears I would smile happily. It looks so cute.

The children share my feelings and sit fascinated with the baby, who's soon given the name Dumbo. Then they discover something amazing. If Dumbo sucks a feather into his nose he can fly for a few minutes. This makes Dumbo the biggest attraction of the circus.

That's not the end of the story, it's just the beginning. Entrepreneur V. A. Vandevere wants Dumbo in his new amusement Dreamland amusement park, which presents circus acts at a fixed location instead of travelling from town to town. He tricks the naive Medici into signing a contract that is against his best interests.

This is a beautiful film that made me feel like a child again. Circus is one of the finest old forms of entertainment that still exists in the world today. Unfortunately, circus is changing. We see this in the film. The old family circuses are dying out and being replaced by the more efficient large circuses. I personally prefer the small circuses. They don't have the same big acts, but there's a familiarity and closeness to the artists that the large circuses don't offer. In Germany there are still small circus families that travel from town to town scraping a living. They have six or less artists who do everything. The smallest circus I've seen had only three artists who appeared in different costumes in every act. That's real circus entertainment. If you have the chance to visit a small circus, please take it. You won't regret it.

At this point in time it's still unclear whether "Dumbo" will be released on disc. Amazon lists DVDs and Blu-rays that can be pre-ordered, but they may never be released. Disney is starting its own streaming service later this year, and it's expected that they'll take steps to encourage new subscribers, such as making films available exclusively on their web site. That's sad. Every new streaming company means a deterioration of the supply of available films, because they'll be spread thinly over more companies. What we need is a consolidation of streaming companies into one big company that offers everything. But as we know, governments don't like monopolies. The future is looking bleak for online film streaming, and when Disney withdraws its films from Netflix it'll be one more big step downhill.

Widows (4 Stars)

A thief called Harry Rawlings steals $2 million in cash from Jamal Manning, a gang boss in Chicago. After a police chase the getaway van is destroyed, killing Henry and his three accomplices and burning the money in a fire. The next day Jamal, who wants to go straight by being elected as alderman, threatens Harry's wife Veronica. He says he'll kill her if she doesn't pay him back the $2 million within a week. He tells her the police won't help her because they don't care. She's a black woman and they won't listen to her.

This is the biggest plot hole in the story. Why would a gang boss think that Harry's widow would have so much money lying around? In her position I would have run to the police regardless, and if they didn't help me I would have left town as quickly as possible. Even if she doesn't have $2 million in cash lying around Veronica is fairly affluent, so she could easily afford to rent a hotel room in another town, preferably somewhere where the police are less racist.

Veronica gives in. She promises to deliver the money that she doesn't yet have. In her husband's notebook she finds details of a crime he intended to commit, a robbery of $5 million in cash. She contacts the other three widows and asks them to help her. Two of them agree. Then they begin to make plans.

This is a complex story with many minor details, but I won't say any more about the plot. It's a tough, gritty film with harsh violence. Viola Davis puts on an Oscar winning performance as Veronica Rawlings. If she's not at least nominated for an Oscar I'll be severely disappointed. I was also greatly impressed by Colin Farrell as the alderman candidate Jack Mulligan. I've seen him in a lot of films, and this is a very untypical role for him. His face is easy to recognise, of course, but his stance and his mannerisms are so different from anything I've seen him do before.

This isn't a perfect film by any means, but if you want to spend two hours watching a good action thriller, you won't be disappointed.

Fantastic Beasts and where to find them (3 Stars)

I avoided this film when it was shown in the cinemas two years ago. My friends in England warned me against, telling me things like "It's not as good as Harry Potter". Today I spontaneously decided to watch it at last after it popped up as a Netflix recommendation.

I can see what my friends mean. What stood out in the Harry Potter films – I never read the books – was the complexity of the plot. So many interesting stories were interwoven into one another. In fact, I found the films too complex for younger children, but a friend of mine with a young daughter contradicted me. Her daughter was nine when the first film was released, and she sat on the edge of her seat throughout the film. Needless to say, she returned to watch all of the sequels.

I wonder if young children were just as enthralled by "Fantastic beasts and where to find them". If anything, I'd say that it's more suitable for children. More childish.

The film takes place in 1926. Newt Scamander is a young English wizard who travels to New York with a suitcase full of mystical animals. He's a conservationist. The possession of these animals has been outlawed in America because they're too uncontrollable. If they escape the possibility is too big that they'll be seen by non-magical people. It's a strict law everywhere that magicians should remain hidden from the normal population.

Newt's main reason for his visit to America is to release a large animal, a Thunderbird, into its natural habitat in Arizona. This is complicated when three of his animals escape from the suitcase in New York shortly after his arrival. It's a difficult time. There are rallies of an organisation called the Second Salemers, who preach the evil of witchcraft and want to kill all wizards and witches.

While in New York Newt is given board by two sisters, an ex-hunter of dark wizards and a mind-reader. Another important character is Jacob Kowalski, an aspiring baker who has no magical abilities.

The film was successful, with a success rate of +2.5, which is quite respectable, though not as high as the Harry Potter films, which scored between +4 and +8. Its success is probably due to the popularity of the Harry Potter films. The real test will be the success of the sequel, which is in the cinemas now.

Success Rate:  + 2.5

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

Daredevil (5 Stars)

Stan Lee's cameo in the 2003 film "Daredevil" is the opposite of his cameos in the first two Spider-Man films. Instead of rescuing others from danger, his life is saved when the teenage Matt Murdock prevents him walking into the road. It's a medium length cameo. The scene lasts nine seconds, of which his face is visible for four.

While the character Daredevil was created by Stan Lee in 1964, the person we see in the film isn't Stan Lee's Daredevil. What I mean is, in the late 1970's and early 1980's the authors Roger McKenzie and Frank Miller developed Daredevil's character in new ways not envisioned by Stan Lee. They didn't actually deny the canon status of the early comics, but they added new characters into Daredevil's youth that had never been shown before, effectively re-inventing Daredevil. The light-hearted character created by Stan Lee became dark and brooding, with similarities to DC's Batman.

In my posts on Marvel comics, my "Marvel Years" posts, I differentiate between what I call the canon and the post-canon years. This isn't a fixed point where I can say that from a certain month onwards Marvel's comics were no longer canon. Some of the ongoing Marvel series ceased to be canon earlier than others. If I continue with my Marvel Years posts into the 1980's I'll make a decision where to draw the line with Daredevil when I get to it.

The film is usually mentioned in the same breath as "Spider-Man", made in the previous year. It's useful to compare the two.

Peter Parker is a teenager (probably about 18 in the film), whereas Matt Murdock is an adult, presumably in his early 30's.

Peter Parker is awkward in dealing with girls, whereas Matt Murdock is experienced and has slept with many women.

Peter Parker shows no interest in religion, whereas Matt Murdock is a believing Catholic.

As Spider-Man Peter Parker is light-hearted, always cracking jokes, whereas Daredevil remains serious.

Spider-Man is a hero who values human life, whereas Daredevil kills those who deserve to die.

The differences between the characters are most visible in the film's cinematography. "Spider-Man" looks mostly bright and cheerful, whereas "Daredevil" looks dark and gloomy.

There has been a lot of criticism of Ben Affleck's performance in the film's title role. He was even awarded a Golden Raspberry for "Daredevil". That's just ridiculous. Was he really the world's worst actor, or even America's worst actor in 2003? I suspect he has a few enemies on the panel of the nominations board. I can't think of anyone who could have played the part better. It's not just his appearance with the prominent chin dimple, his acting is also appropriate throughout. Imagine the difficulty of the role. He has to play a man who is blind but nevertheless aware of his surroundings due to his other heightened senses. He fully succeeds in portraying this dichotomy.

Jon Favreau is also perfect in the role of Foggy Nelson. He's awkward in the knowledge that as a lawyer his skills only a fraction of his legal partner's. He blusters his way through life, trying to pretend he's more than he is. Jon Favreau returned to play a similar character, Happy Hogan, in the Iron Man films.

I'm also very impressed by the performance of Colin Farrell as the hired assassin Bullseye. His representation of the character seems to come directly from the comics, so realistically that we hardly notice he isn't wearing a costume.

As for Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin, I have mixed feelings. To put it bluntly, he has the wrong skin colour. This was a big problem for me when I first saw the film in the cinema, but after watching the film many times over the years I've come to accept him. He might not have the right skin colour, but in all other respects he personifies the comic book villain.

The film's only big casting mistake was Jennifer Garner as Elektra. Neither her appearance nor her mannerisms are suitable for the role. So many other actresses could have played the role better. I suspect she was chosen because of her popularity in the action series "Alias". Yes, she can fight, with the assistance of invisible wires, but she's missing the sleek sexuality of the comic book character. In her subsequent solo film, "Elektra", she attempts to be sexier, but she still doesn't succeed in capturing the essence of the comic book character. A sequel to "Daredevil" was planned, but it was cancelled after "Elektra" flopped at the box office (a success rate of -0.7). That's unfair.

But all's well that ends well. There's now a Daredevil series on Netflix that has run for three seasons so far. The stories and the action are worth watching, if you haven't seen it already. All I wrote about it so far was to point out a sloppy newspaper shown on camera. Is the film better in that respect? Check out this screenshot:

This page from the New York Post has three articles. They're quite well written, but if you click on the image to enlarge it you'll see that all three articles are identical. That's sloppy. But it doesn't end there. If you look at the last two paragraphs of the first article you'll see that it's written in Latin. That's even sloppier. Didn't the director think anyone would notice?

Success Rate:  + 0.3

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

The Lobster (4 Stars)

If there's one serious message that can be learnt from this deliciously absurd film, it's that extremism breeds counter-extremism. People who oppose an extreme political movement are in danger that they'll go too far in the other direction. For instance, Fascism arose in Germany after the First World War in order to combat Communism. In modern Germany groups are being founded to protest against racism (which they wrongly call Fascism because they can't tell the difference). These so-called anti-fascist groups are more violent than the ones they're protesting against. It's not just in the heat of the moment, some people even claim that violence against "Fascists" is justified. That shows that they've become incapable of clear reasoning. Extremism breeds counter-extremism.

If I describe the "The Lobster" to you you'll think it's a comedy. It's not. It's not even a dark comedy. It's a satire. It's also a love story.

In the brave new world presented in "The Lobster" it's illegal to be single. Everyone has to have a partner. People who are unattached, whether from choice or accidentally, are sent to a hotel where they have a chance to meet a compatible partner. They have 45 days to hook up with someone. If they're still single at the end of this time they're turned into animals of their own choosing.

Colin Farrell has just been divorced after 12 years of marriage. He's sent to the hotel to find a new partner. In the event of remaining single he chooses to become a lobster. For the first half of the film he plays by the rules, trying to find a partner. In the second half he rebels against the system and joins the counter-extremists, the loners. They live wild in the woods and forbid relationships. Anyone who flirts with another person is punished harshly. Kisses are punished by bodily mutilation.

Does anything stand out in this photo of a dating night at the hotel? Everyone is dressed the same. The women all wear the same flower dresses, while the men are dressed in the same suits and ties. It's a satire of dating rituals. People desperate to find a partner at short notice just see those of the opposite sex as identical candidates, as objects, as means to an end. In order to find the right person the hotel imposes laws of compatibility. Every hotel guest has to name one defining characteristic for himself, and he can hook up with someone who has the same characteristic. One woman's characteristic is beautiful hair – difficult for a man to match – while another's is that she suffers from frequent nosebleeds.

The leader of the loners is the cold and ruthless Léa Seydoux. I use her real name because none of the characters in the film are named. They're anonymous. In the hotel they're referred to by their room numbers.

There's one exception. The dog's name is Bob. It's noticeable that his name is used a lot in the film. He wasn't always a dog. He used to be Colin Farrell's brother. Maybe his name is used so often to tell us that people can only find an identity when they leave the human race? I don't know. That's a question I'd like to ask the director.

I know practically nothing about the director, Yorgos Lanthimos. This was his first English language film after making three films in Greek. I've noticed that one of his films, "The Favourite", is scheduled to be shown at the Stuttgart Whie Nights Festival in January. I'll make sure I don't miss it.

Does the film have a happy ending? Sort of. I don't want to say too much in order to avoid spoilers, but I'll say this much: Colin Farrell discovers that he can only find true love when he doesn't play by the rules. If he's forced to find a partner he'll find the wrong one, and if he's forbidden to find a partner he won't find anyone. He has to let love take its course and come naturally to him in its own time.

Success Rate:  + 1.5

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

In Bruges (5 Stars)

I mentioned recently that I've been looking through my DVD collection for films that I haven't watched since September 2010 when I started my blog. Surprisingly, this is one of them. How could I have forgotten this brilliant film? I don't know if "forgotten" is the right word. I could clearly remember the plot and many of the scenes, but I'd forgotten how good it is. I sat laughing out loud as I re-watched it this evening.

Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson are two of the world's best actors. I doubt many people would disagree with me. Their onscreen charisma is overwhelming. They play two Irish hit men who have been ordered by their boss to hide in Bruges after an assassination was botched. Ken (Brendan Gleeson) is an older, experienced assassin. Ray (Colin Farrell) is a young man who is suffering from guilt after messing up his first job. Ken wants to spend time enjoying the sights of Bruges. Ray hates the town and can't wait to get back to England.

"I grew up in Dublin, so I love Dublin. If I'd grown up on a farm and was retarded Bruges might impress me, but I didn't, so it doesn't".

I can't say much more without giving away the plot to those of you who haven't seen it yet. The scenery of Bruges is beautiful, but somehow sterile. It's easy to see how some could love it while others hate it. The placid appearance is in stark contrast to the subculture of drugs and violence.

The film was made in 2008 and directed by Martin McDonagh, who has recently become famous for his film "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri". That's doubtlessly a good film, but "In Bruges" is his greatest masterpiece so far.

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

Phone Booth (5 Stars)

I'm sure it's happened to everyone at some time in his life. You see a film that you think is great, so you tell a friend about it, but when you try to describe it he says "That sounds boring". This is one of those films. Let me tell you what it's about:

A man goes into a phone booth to call his girlfriend. The phone rings, and the caller tells him he will kill him if he doesn't do what he wants. The whole film takes place inside the phone booth.

If that doesn't sound boring, what does?

The film's strength is in the way a very simple scene can escalate into mayhem. It has similarities with "Falling Down", another film directed by Joel Schumacher. At times I feel like laughing, but a minute later I'm reminded that it's a very serious situation.

The film is original in the way it's filmed. With the exception of the introduction and the last five minutes the whole film takes place in real time. It's not a single take like "Victoria", but the time in the film runs at the same speed as in the real world while you sit watching it. I'm sure that this has been done in other films, but it's rare enough to make a big impression.

The cinematography is amazing. Split screens are used more effectively than in any other film I've seen. They're needed to maintain the real time, showing us what's happening in different places at the same time. Brilliant!

You might still think the film sounds boring. It isn't. Take my word for it.

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