Nobody 2 (4½ Stars)

As promised, today I returned to the cinema to watch "Nobody 2" again after re-watching the first film yesterday. I was presently surprised to see that the cinema was more than half full, despite the film being in its third week. It's good to see that films can make a profit in these rough days. It's true, a lot of films are poorly made and don't deserve to make a profit, but so many viewers are scared away from the cinema and fail to go to see excellent films like "The Life of Chuck". There needs to be more marketing to persuade people to go to see films in the cinema instead of waiting to see them on streaming platforms. What sort of marketing? If I could answer that question I'd be a millionaire advertising executive.

Today I hesitated to go to the cinema because the film was shown dubbed into German. I shouldn't have worried. The dubbing was excellent.

Once more, Hutch Mansell's adventures are a clone of the John Wick films. Hutch even loses his finger. That's the only spoiler you'll get from me.

Nobody (4 Stars)

I'm late. Last week I bought "Nobody" on Blu-ray, intending to watch it before going to see "Nobody 2" in the cinema, but I didn't have time. Now I'm making up for it, which is especially important, because I didn't clearly remember what happened in the first film. Apart from the fight in a bus.

It's a good film, copying a lot from "John Wick". They're both retired assassins who want to live a normal life. Let's concentrate on the differences. John Wick is a cool, calm killer, whereas Hutch Mansell is a man with a bad temper. When he's pushed too far he snaps. Apart from that, and more significantly, he isn't as invincible as John Wick. He gets stabbed and injured in fights. I have to ask how he survived so long in his business. Or maybe he's just getting rusty?

Now that I've finally rewatched "Nobody", I need to see "Nobody 2" again, to put everything into context.

Success Rate:  + 1.6

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

Nobody 2 (4 Stars)

When I reviewed "Nobody" in 2023, I said that a sequel is unnecessary. That's still my opinion, but I have to admit that "Nobody 2" is a good attempt to continue with the character Hutch Mansell. My only problem with the film is that the action is too unfeasible. Okay, I admit that the action in the John Wick films is also over-the-top, but Hutch Mansell is portrayed as anormal man, not a superhero, not a Baba Yaga, and yet he still triumphs against overwhelming odds. I need to make more of an effort to suspend disbelief next time I watch it.

I can recommend the film to anyone who wants to watch a good popcorn movie with a lot of action.

Nobody (4 Stars)

Netflix Thursday #30

This is an action thriller made in 2021. The nobody in the title is Hutch Mansell, a middle-aged man living a dull life with a dull repetitive job. One night thieves break into his home. Despite having the advantage over them, he lets them leave with his watch and a small amount of cash. His wife and son think he's a coward, but he actually had pity on the thieves because they seemed desperate.

As the film progresses, there's another incident which shows what he's really made of. While taking a bus home he sees a woman being harassed by a group of men. He beats them up, killing one of them. The dead man is the reckless young brother of a Russian crime lord. Hutch has a background as an assassin, and he engages in a war with the Russian mob.

"Nobody" isn't a bad film, but it has so much in common with "John Wick" that I have to accuse it of plagiarism. There's nothing wrong with films copying ideas from older films, but "John Wick" is too recent and the copying is too intense. I've read that a sequel is planned. It's unnecessary.

Success Rate:  + 1.6

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

London has Fallen (5 Stars)

Take a look at the film poster above. Can you see something wrong with it? It might not be obvious at first, so look for a while.

It's one of my pet hates with film posters. It's a mistake made so often that everyone has got used to it. Everyone except me. Most film posters put the faces of the film's biggest stars next to one another. That's good marketing. A lot of people go to see films based on the actors, not the director. They also print the names of the actors on the poster. And that's where the errors creep in. The names don't match the actors. Look at the poster again. Do you see what I mean? "It doesn't matter", you might say. "We know who they are anyway". If it's that trivial, think how easy it would be to put it right. The faces could be rearranged, or the text could be rearranged.

This is a sequel to "Olympus has fallen", which I watched yesterday. It's unclear how much time has passed between the films. The sequel was released three years later, but evidently more time has passed in world. In the first film the president's son Connor was 10 years old. In this film we don't see him, but we're told that he's about to go on his first date. Maybe, just maybe, he's a young starter and is going on a date at 13, but I doubt it.

The film starts with news reports of a major terrorist attack in the Philippines, with hundreds dead and wounded. The mastermind behind the attack is the Pakistani arms dealer Aamir Barkawi. America retaliates with a rocket attack on his private residence. His daughter is getting married, so there are many people present. Aamir survives, but his daughter is killed, as well as many of the guests. He swears revenge.

Seriously, what does Aamir expect? "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). This very wise Bible verse is just a different way of describing the law of Karma, which is found in many religions. If Aamir kills innocent civilians, he shouldn't be surprised if the ones he loves also die as collateral damage.

Aamir's revenge is spectacular. Two years later the British prime minister dies. World leaders gather in London for his funeral. Aamir's son leads a paramilitary force that attacks the politicians, killing many of them. However, his main target is the American president. He wants to capture him alive, so that he can execute him in a live broadcast.

Many innocent people are killed in the attack on London, but this film is less explicit than "Olympus has fallen". In the first film we see civilians being gunned down in the street, but in this film we just see the police and the terrorists shooting one another.

Once more, the president's personal bodyguard, Mike Banning, saves him. This time it's slightly more realistic. Instead of acting alone, he's backed up by an SAS squadron, in the last half hour at least.

"London has fallen" is another excellent film. It has the feeling of a disaster film, even though the destruction is man made. We never get to know the bad guys. We don't need to. They're like a force of nature. We're not intended to sympathise with them, we're intended to hate them and cheer when they get killed.

Success Rate:  + 1.4

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

Mortal Engines (2 Stars)

This is a post-apocalyptic action film. It takes place a thousand years after a catastrophe called the Sixty Minute War destroyed civilisation, splitting the Earth open and rearranging the continents. The survivors have developed rolling cities that chase and swallow other cities for fuel. The most aggressive predator city is London, which has travelled to Bavaria in search of old technology to build new weapons.

I don't like post-apocalyptic films, apart from very few exceptions. They all tend towards speculation and silliness. The idea of rolling cities is ridiculous, because the mechanical problems are insurmountable. This is a cute film with some nice special effects, but it can't be taken seriously.

One more matter: I always like to hear your thoughts on my blog posts. Most comments are left on my Facebook page, where I advertise my posts, but I would prefer to hear from you in the comments box below.

Success Rate:  - 1.2

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

London Has Fallen (5 Stars)

This 2016 film is a sequel to "Olympus has fallen", made in 2013. Once more the critics don't get it. It has a 25% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, a site based on the opinions of critics. It has an A- rating on Cinemascore, a site based on the opinions of cinema audiences, which is the second highest rating. It was also a huge box office success. Critics rate films with their pens, while the public rates films with its cash. Who would you rather listen to?

Okay, I'm a critic as well. I'm sitting here pounding the keys of my computer, semi-anonymously, but I'm not a normal critic. In most cases I take the side of the public. That's what I'm doing today by giving "London has fallen" a five star rating, my highest rating. The film is full of fast paced action, first class acting and spectacular special effects.

But what does my nemesis Mark Kermode say? In an interview with BBC Radio 5 he says the film is "utterly terrible", "very boring" and "meat-headed rubbish". He says the special effects are "shriek-inducingly cheap", but by this point he's built up momentum and can't stop piling on the exaggerations. He tells the person interviewing him, "You have played Gameboys that have better special effects". Wow! Was he watching the same film as me? Maybe he had a beer too many in the cinema lounge and walked into the wrong film, so he's really talking about "Carry on Sergeant".

Mark Kermode criticises the script writers because a news report in the film says "Most of the known landmarks in London have been decimated", as if there are unknown landmarks and only a tenth of the known landmarks have been destroyed. Hold on there, Mr. Kermode. First of all, the word "decimate" is used as a synonym for "destroy" today, even though the Latin origin of the word means to destroy a tenth. Secondly, "most of the known landmarks" is a stupid expression, but that's exactly the sort of words used on American television. The script writers got it right.

Some reviewers have criticised the film for whipping up an anti-terrorism frenzy. They have called the film terrorsploitation. That's a beautiful word! All I can say is that if anyone walks out of the cinema and starts to be afraid of terror attacks from every corner, something was wrong with him already. It's a film! If I watch "Night of the Living Dead" I don't get so scared that I'm afraid to leave my house in case zombies are waiting in the garden.

After the big success of the first two films there will be a third film in the series, "Angel has fallen". Los Angeles? I don't know. Don't listen to Mark Kermode, listen to me. Go and see it. You'll enjoy it.

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

Die Another Day (4 Stars)

"Die another day" is the 20th James Bond film, made in 2002. It's the fourth and last film to star Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. It's also the last of the classic James Bond films before the reboot of the franchise in 2006.

The villain in this film has a relatively small goal. He doesn't want to rule the world or become the world's richest man, he merely wants to reunite Korea under the control of the North Korean government. This was a topical subject in 2002, because Kim Jong-il was seen as a dangerous leader. Today it would be even more relevant with Kim Jong-un as the deranged leader of North Korea, expecting all the men in his country to make their hair look as ugly as his.

After the critical acclaim of Michelle Yeoh in "Tomorrow never dies" another action hero has been chosen as the good Bond girl. Halle Berry stars as Jinx Johnson, a CIA agent sent to do the same job as James Bond. There's evidently no communication between the CIA and MI6, but at least the two agents decide to work together when they meet one another in the field. Halle Berry's role is an obvious attempt to combine the fighting skills of Michelle Yeoh with the sultry sex appeal of the other Bond girls, in particular Ursula Andress.

While the plot and the acting is good, the film is spoilt by over-the-top special effects. The invisible car is ridiculous. The scene with the escape from the disintegrating plane is so implausible that it made me laugh to myself. There hasn't been such exaggerated action in a Bond film since "Moonraker".

The world is not enough (4½ Stars)

"The world is not enough" is the 19th James Bond film, made in 1999. It's the third film to star Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. Film critics have formed a consensus that this is the worst Bond film ever. I'm so glad that I'm a fan, not a critic. I find the film highly enjoyable, not least because Pierce Brosnan is excellent in the main role, almost up to the standard of Sean Connery.

Of course, if I deny this is the worst Bond film the question will be immediately thrown back at me which one I think is the worst. That's a difficult question to answer because I like them all. If I had to pick my least favourite film it would probably be "Live and let die". I've never really given it any thought.

As far as the Bond girls go, this film treads new ground. The good Bond girl is Dr. Christmas Jones, played by Denise Richards. What separates her from previous Bond girls is that she isn't an air-headed rich girl, she's a highly intelligent nuclear scientist. Of course, her intelligence isn't enough to prevent her falling helplessly into James Bond's arms in the final scene. However, the biggest departure from previous Bond girls is the bad Bond girl, Elektra King, played by Sophie Marceau. All of the Bond films have either two or three Bond girls as well as a power-mad villain. This is the only film in which the villain is the Bond girl herself. Elektra King has inherited an oil company after murdering her father, and she intends to detonate an atomic bomb to ensure that her own pipeline is the sole supply of oil from the Middle East. She might not be the scariest of Bond's adversaries, but she's certainly the most seductive. After all, we never saw Ernst Blofeld writhing on James Bond's lap while strangling him to death.

"Do you know what happens when a man is strangled?"

It's a well known but little understood fact that when a man is being strangled he has an erection and sometimes even an orgasm. There is uncertainty about whether this is caused by the blocking of the air tunnel, the restriction of the flow of blood to the brain or a combination of the two. Whatever may be the case, the effect is to relax the muscles in the groin area and facilitate the flow of blood into the penis. This phenomenon has been most commonly observed in American style hanging. In English style hanging, practised in England until the 1960's, the hanged man falls rapidly and breaks his neck, dying almost immediately. In American style hanging there is no rapid fall, so the hanged man is gradually choked to death over a period of minutes. The erection during his struggles adds to his humiliation during the execution.

Women react to strangling in the same way as men, but the effect is less visible, for obvious reasons.

Some couples use this as a form of sexual play. They take turns in suffocating one another to sexually arouse one another. This is usually done merely by restricting oxygen, not by hindering blood flow, so it's called "erotic asphyxiation". Whether the sexual arousal is caused by the lack of air alone is unclear, because these games are played in a sexual context where the participants are already sexually excited. Apart from this, there is often additional sexual stimulus from one person sitting on the other. We see that when Elektra King sits on James Bond's lap while strangling him.

Tomorrow Never Dies (4½ Stars)

"Tomorrow never dies" is the 18th James Bond film, made in 1997. It's the second film to star Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. I was particularly excited when it was made because it starred Michelle Yeoh as the film's Bond girl, Wai Lin. Actually there are two Bond girls. In the photo above Teri Hatcher is shown on the left as Paris Carver, while Michelle Yeoh is shown on the right. There are frequently two good Bond girls, of whom one is killed early in the film. That's Paris Carver in "Tomorrow never dies". Wai Lin is the girl who survives to the end so that the film can close with her lying in Bond's arms.

So what's so exciting about Michelle Yeoh? From the first time I heard she would appear I knew she would be different to all the Bond girls before her. The Bond girls are eye candy for the viewer and sex toys for James Bond. Their sole purpose is to act as damsels in distress for the mighty hero to save, so that they can jump into his arms and his bed. That's not Michelle Yeoh. Ever since her early films, such as "Magnificent Warriors" and "The Heroic Trio", she was an action hero. It was expected that as a Bond girl she would be a martial artist on a par with Bond himself. This was the case. In the film it isn't just about James Bond saving her; they fight side by side and take turns saving one another.

In "Tomorrow Never Dies" there's a power-mad villain, as always, but in this film he isn't attempting to conquer the world. The villain is only the head of an international news corporation. He wants his newspapers to be the most read and his television stations to be the most watched, so he resorts to underhand tricks. He creates an international incident between China and Britain, threatening to make the two countries go to war. He does this so that he can be the first one to report the news. Step by step he causes the situation to escalate, always standing on the front line with his news report planned before the events have even occurred.

This is where Wai Lin fits in. The British secret service sends James Bond to investigate, and the Chinese secret service sends Wai Lin. The two agents each want to protect their own countries, but to do this they have to unite against their common enemy.

The public loved Michelle Yeoh. They were tired of James Bond's sexist attitudes and wanted a woman who could stand up to him. After the film there was talk of Michelle returning, making her the first Bond girl to return in a second film. I had mixed feelings. about it. On the one hand Michelle Yeoh was a fantastic actress that I wanted to see again. On the other hand, one of the key elements of the Bond formula was the appearance of a new girl in every film, showing that he had no interest in romance. As it was, the film studio decided not to bring her back. The next film returned to the usual damsel in distress girl. Almost. The next girl was actually a highly intelligent and independent scientist, but that's a topic for my next review.

London Has Fallen (5 Stars)

This is a film that pushes all the right buttons. A Pakistani arms dealer plans an intricate terror attack on London. He uses the funeral of England's prime minister to lure the world's top leaders to one place, intending to assassinate them all with a maximum of collateral damage. The American president is one of the few survivors, and he has to go underground, unable to turn to the police for help because the police have been infiltrated by traitors up to the highest levels. Only his personal bodyguard Mike Banning stands between him and the terrorists.

The special effects are awe-inspiring. The action is fast, hardly allowing a breather from beginning to end. In spite of a few attempts to demonise the USA's drone strikes, it's a clear us-versus-them scenario, in which the western powers are all good and the terrorists are all bad. In the cinema there were visitors who cheered whenever important terrorists were killed. Some people might criticise the film for its pro-western chest-beating rhetoric, but that's what makes it so good. Even since 9/11 there's been an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty in the West. This film tells us that whatever happens we shall win.

The film shares several of the main characters from "Olympus has fallen", made in 2013. "London has fallen" deals with similar themes, but there are no references to the previous film.

GoldenEye (4½ Stars)

"GoldenEye" -- I absolutely hate words with a capital letter in the middle -- is the 17th James Bond film. It was the first to star Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. It was also the first James Bond film that I saw in the cinema. As I remember, I arranged to see it with a friend who never turned up, so I went to see it by myself. It was in a German cinema, and as is usual in Germany it was dubbed into German, but I enjoyed it greatly. Of course, it wasn't the first Bond film I'd seen. I already knew most of the previous films from seeing them on television.

Pierce Brosnan was the last of the classic Bonds before the film series was rebooted with Daniel Craig. He was the fourth after Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton. Before anyone corrects me and says he was the fifth, I don't count George Lazenby because he was a Sean Connery clone. He was a new, inexperienced actor in his first ever film, and his method of playing the character was to imitate Sean Connery as closely as he could. Apart from that, he never had any dedication to the role, unlike all the other actors. He was offered a seven-film contract, but he insisted from the beginning that he would only make one film. What a fool he was! How could a young actor, only 29, at the beginning of his career, have turned down a recurring role that would have made him a millionaire and one of the world's best known actors? The highlight of his subsequent career was that he starred in seven Emmanuelle films with Sylvia Kristel.

"GoldenEye" was the second time a new direction was taken with the films. The first 14 films formed a unit, with hardly any break between Sean Connery and Roger Moore. Timothy Dalton's takeover as Bond heralded a new style, a grittier, less humorous Bond. I regret that Timothy Dalton didn't stay longer. If he'd had a chance to grow into the role he could have become the greatest Bond. Nevertheless, Pierce Brosnan was a capable replacement. This was another new beginning after the Cold War. New days had arrived. The new head of MI6 was a woman, and she told Bond to his face, "You're a sexist, misogynistic dinosaur". Pierce Bond was the Bond who had to prove that he was still relevant in the modern world, a theme that's frequently repeated in conversation in "GoldenEye".

I have to ask though: was the end of the Cold War really a factor for James Bond? The real world British secret service spent years spying on Russia and the East Block countries, but that isn't what Bond dealt with, at least not in most of his films. Bond had to deal with megalomaniac villains like Ernst Blofeld or Francisco Scaramanga who stood above East-West politics and threatened both sides. In that respect I disagree with the new M (Judi Dench) that James Bond had become a dinosaur. The rest of her criticism is valid.

One subject that James Bond fans like to argue about for hours on end is "Who's the best Bond?" Opinions vary widely on the subject, but the majority seem to say that Sean Connery was the best, Roger Moore was the worst, and the rest are in the middle. I'm surprised that so few fans respect Roger Moore. He was a magnificent actor. I think the problem is that he was so unlike Sean Connery, in his looks and mannerisms. He brought his own ideas into the character, unlike George Lazenby. What many people don't know is that Sean Connery was the second choice for the character. He was only given the role after Patrick McGoohan had turned it down. There's more of a similarity between Patrick McGoohan and Roger Moore, so I believe that if McGoohan had been the first Bond Moore would have been accepted as his replacement.

So who do I, Mike Hood aka Dansator, think the best Bond was? It's impossible for me to give a one word answer. On acting ability alone I'd rate Timothy Dalton highest, but I'd still put Sean Connery first. As the first Bond he made the role. Everyone who follows is judged by Sean Connery's high standards. Roger Moore did an excellent job following him, but he was let down by lesser quality scripts that were too over-the-top, the peak being "Moonraker". Then there's Pierce Brosnan. Somehow he captures the essence of Sean Connery's Bond without being a mere clone, so I have to put him in second place. After that comes Timothy Dalton, then Roger Moore, followed by George Lazenby and Daniel Craig. Yes, I put Daniel Craig at the bottom of the list, even though it's not customary to talk bad of the current Bond. Let's wait and see how critics review Craig's career when the next actor takes over. I don't think his tenure as Bond will be judged so favourably in hindsight. We'll see.

There's something about the James Bond films that disturbs serious film critics, but the fans love it. As my readers already know, I don't consider myself to be a serious film critic, so I'll take the side of the fans. The James Bond films all follow a strict formula, with only slight variations from film to film. There's a pre-title action sequence. After the title sequence James Bond returns to MI6, where he's given a new mission from M, who frequently criticises Bond for creating too much havoc in his previous mission. Then he receives new equipment from Q, who criticises Bond for losing equipment on his previous missions. Then he flirts with Miss Moneypenny, who criticises Bond for standing her up on previous dates.

Then comes the mission itself, which somehow involves the legendary Bond Girls. There are always at least two Bond Girls: one is on Bond's side as an ally and companion, one is on the side of the villain. Sometimes there is a third girl on Bond's side who gets killed early in the film, adding a revenge element. Somewhere during the mission there's a car chase (ever since the Roger Moore films). The mission ends with a large explosion, destroying not only the villain but also his secret lair.

I usually prefer the bad Bond Girl to the good Bond Girl. Bad girls are so much more interesting. The good girls fall helplessly into Bond's arms after offering only token resistance. The bad girls run around killing people, also attempting to kill Bond, and look sexy while they do it. An example is GoldenEye's Famke Janssen, shown above, who plays the assassin Xenia Onatopp. The film shows her having an orgasm whenever she kills someone. Cute. She's one of the new wave of bad Bond Girls. In the older films the bad girl eventually succumbs to Bond's charms.

Resident Evil (4 Stars)

Today is the first time I've seen this film since it was shown on television shortly after being released, about ten years ago. I couldn't remember much about it, except that it's a zombie film, and I don't like zombie films. Or at least, usually I don't. Ten years ago I used to hate zombie films, but now I'm more open-minded, and I judge each film on its own merits. This is in contrast to vampire films, which I love. Vampires are much sexier than zombies.

The film is based on a video game made in 1996. I've never played this game, but while watching the film I could get a sense of game-playing logic being applied, suggesting that the film follows the game closely. What I mean is that it was apparent that puzzles were being solved to progress deeper into a virtual labyrinth, a typical feature of strategy games.

A woman called Alice wakes up in a mansion suffering from amnesia. She is attacked and overpowered by an unknown man who enters the mansion, claiming to be a policeman. Before they can talk a group of soldiers come who capture the man and free Alice, saying that she is one of them. Together they venture into an underground lair, The Hive, in which the computer system has "gone homicidal" and killed everyone. With some effort, including loss of life, the soldiers manage to shut down the computer system, only to learn that it was not malfunctioning after all; it had attempted to kill everyone in The Hive in order to prevent the spreading of a deadly virus. The foolish action of the soldiers results in the unleashing of the virus.

Enter the zombies.

Watching it a second time today, the film made a good impression on me. I enjoyed the fast action, which rarely let up. I know the film has been criticised for the lack of character development. In particular, the lead character Alice, played by Milla Jovovich, walks around with the soldiers as a seemingly superfluous hanger on, looking like she is only in the film as eye candy. When her memory begins to return the film has progressed too far to be slowed down so that we can get to know her. This doesn't bother me much. I enjoyed the action, and even though I don't find Milla overly attractive her red dress is a welcome splash of colour in the otherwise dark scenes. For me the outstanding actors are Colin Salmon and Michelle Rodriguez, the soldiers One and Rain. Colin is one of the best actors I know, who never fails to bring quality and distinction into every role he plays. Michelle is a skilled actress, and she also makes it into my revised list of the world's most beautiful actresses.

I've already decided to watch the other Resident Evil films. Watch this space.

TV Series: Arrow

Now that my favourite television series, "The Almighty Johnsons" and "Dexter", have finished I need to pick a new favourite. Just in case someone asks. It's not really necessary to have a favourite, but it's good to have an answer ready when someone asks me what my favourite film or tv show is, rather than indecisively mumbling around. To me it's very unsatisfying when I ask someone what his favourite film is and the reply is "I like a lot of things". Sure, I like a lot of things as well, but I like to have a quick answer ready so that people can make a quick impression of me and my tastes. After they get to know me better they'll realise that I'm more complicated.

After watching about half of the first season, I have to say that "Arrow" stands head and shoulders above every other current television series. It's much better than "Agents of SHIELD", which I admit is good, but it doesn't live up to the high expectations I had of it. Why is it that Marvel makes the best films, but DC makes the best tv series? The recent "Man of Steel" film looks pale in comparison with most of the episodes of "Smallville", despite their smaller budget. None of the Batman films since the 1980's live up to the Batman tv series. In my opinion DC should give up making films altogether and concentrate on what they do best: television. The excitement and suspense of "Arrow" is incredible, and the action scenes match and even excel most current films.

Nevertheless, take a look at the screenshot of the legal blurb from the end of the "Arrow" episodes. It's embarrassing, isn't it? They should learn how to spell. Another issue is the final paragraph, concerning the authorship. In the last few years it's become common for films to name a company as their author rather than the real screenwriter, in an attempt to extend the coverage of the Berne Convention. In the case of films and motion pictures there might be some validity, because the copyright expires 70 years after the author's death. I say "might", because some legal experts doubt that the transfer of legal authorship to a company is recognised by the Berne Convention. However, television broadcasts are treated differently to films under the Berne Convention; the copyright expires 50 years after the first broadcast, so the question of authorship is irrelevant. The USA has formally signed the Berne Convention, but in practise it tries not to apply it, especially in recent years when the copyright for many films and television programmes has officially expired. The film and television studios want to retain the ownership, even though they are legally in the public domain. I predict that if the Berne Convention is not overhauled in the next few years the USA will formally leave the treaty, causing chaos in the film world.