Asteroid City (2 Stars)

What is the director Wes Anderson trying to do? Does he want to entertain the audience or just provoke us? I honestly don't know. I felt provoked. There were two young women sitting in front of me who felt just as provoked. Every time something strange happened in the film they turned and looked at one another. About half an hour from the end one of them put on her jacket and wanted to leave, but her friend tugged at her and told her to stay. It's a film that I almost walked out of. As it was, I was the only person in the cinema who remained seating to watch the bird hopping around during the final credits.

It's a film within a film, or rather a play within a film. It's about a playwright who writes, casts and directs a play about a group of people, mostly stargazers, who come together in a fictional city in the desert. While being told about an asteroid that fell in the desert thousands of years ago, an alien arrives and takes the asteroid away.

It's deliberately left unclear what's part of the play and what's really happening. It's possible that a real alien arrives while the play is running.

Wes Anderson has put a lot of work into the visual effects of the film. That's the only reason I haven't given the film a one star rating. I didn't enjoy it, and I have no intention to ever watch it again.

Grand Budapest Hotel (5 Stars)

This is a remarkable film. It received nine nominations for the Academy Awards, of which it won four. It failed to win the Best Film award because of "Birdman", a film I greatly liked at the time, but when I look back, "Grand Budapest Hotel" was by far the better film.

The film is about a hotel concierge and his lobby boy. The concierge is wrongly accused of murdering Madame D, an old rich woman. In her Will she's left him a valuable painting, "Boy With Apple". Madame D's son hires an assassin to kill the concierge, who's assisted in his flight by the faithful lobby boy.

The story in itself is good, but it's all about the cinematography. The colours are bright and dazzling, giving the impression that it's a fairy tale. In addition, every scene is perfectly framed like a piece of art, giving the impression of hyper-reality.

The concierge and the lobby boy. Do you see what I mean about the colours?

So this is the painting that people were willing to kill for? I don't understand art.

I've never seen Edward Norton looking so amart. It doesn't suit him. He's a jeans and t-shirt man, like me. But just look at the perfectly framed scene.

There are close-ups of newspapers several times during the film. The articles are all well written, albeit with American spelling. Very few films make the effort to use good texts in newspapers. However, there's one small error. Look at the date of the newspaper: Friday, October 19th, 1932. Wrong! It was a Wednesday.

Here's another edition of the Trans-Alpine Yodel, dated Tuesday, October 28th, 1932. That's wrong again. It was a Friday. But there's another error. The dates aren't even consistent with themselves. If the 19th had been a Friday, the second newspaper, printed nine days later, would have been printed on a Sunday. That's sloppy.

Success Rate:  + 4.9

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

Alita Battle Angel (4½ Stars)

This is a film based on a Japanese manga series. It takes place in the year 2563, 300 years after a global war which led to "The Fall", the collapse of society. A small elite lives in a floating city called Zalem, while the majority of mankind lives on the ground in a slum-like society called Iron City. Humans still exist, but the majority of the population are cyborgs, with more or less of their bodies replaced by artificial parts.

The film begins with a scientist scavenging a junkyard for spare parts. He refers to himself as a doctor, because he repairs or replaces damaged cyborg limbs. He finds the upper half of a female cyborg in which the heart and the brain are intact. Based on the technology of the heart he surmises that the cyborg was built before the Fall. He rebuilds the cyborg using parts that he had intended to heal his daughter's crippled body before she was murdered. He wants to know who the cyborg was, but she has no memory of her past. He calls her Alita, the name of his daughter.

Maybe Alita has no memory of her past, but her instincts show that she's a highly skilled fighter. She fights and defeats other cyborgs much bigger than herself. As the mystery of her origin is unravelled she discovers love and she begins to stand up for what she considers unjust in the world.

I greatly enjoyed "Alita Battle Angel", despite my aversion to post-apocalyptic films. The film was directed by Robert Rodriguez, but it has more in common with the films of James Cameron, who wrote the screenplay. Even though James Cameron was only the producer, the film shows so much of his handiwork that I suspect he shared the work as director.

The new sport of Motorball is typical for post-apocalyptic films. It's an extremely violent game played by cyborgs on motorised roller skates which frequently leads to the players being injured or killed. For me this is the weakest part of the film. It's such a cliche that I groaned as soon as it was shown. It's an integral part of the plot, unfortunately, because only the champion of this sport is allowed to ascend to Zalem.

What the film has in its favour is action, action, action. If you want a good night out at the cinema to see a film without a lot of deep philosophical baggage, this is a good choice.

The Incredible Hulk (3 Stars)

This is the second film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in June 2008. It features an amusing 15-second cameo by Stan Lee. It's unique among all his cameos, because what he does is relevant to the plot. We see him opening his fridge from a fridge's eye view. He drinks a bottle of Guarana soda that was contaminated by Bruce Banner's blood in the opening scenes. We don't see what happened to Stan, but it must have been something big, because the US army finds out about it. They trace Bruce Banner's location by going to the manufacturer of the bottle drunk by a "man from Milwaukee".

Lou Ferrigno shared a cameo with Stan Lee in "The Hulk". In "The Incredible Hulk" he has his own cameo, a 30-second speaking role as a security guard who likes pizza.

Unlike the non-MCU Hulk film, there's no origin story in this film. We just hear that Bruce Banner became the Hulk five years ago, and he's now in hiding. That's a missed chance. In the other film the Hulk's origin story was completely messed up. It was a completely different story to the one we know in the comics, where Bruce Banner rushed out into the test site of a gamma bomb test to save the life of the teenager Rick Jones. This film could have told the correct story, but it didn't. But then again, it could have been worse. Based on casual conversation in the film, we hear that Bruce Banner became the Hulk after testing a super-soldier serum on himself. That would have been yet another false origin story.

"The Incredible Hulk" isn't a bad film, but it isn't a particularly good film either. It benefits from having better actors than "The Hulk". Edward Norton is a better actor than Eric Bana, William Hurt is a better actor than Sam Elliott, and Liv Tyler is a much better actress than Jennifer Connelly. The film also features Tim Roth, one of my favourite actors, as the Abomination. He would have been a good choice to play Bruce Banner. He might have stayed on for a few films, rather than abandoning the ship like Edward Norton.

It was unnecessary to upgrade Betty Ross by turning her into Dr. Elisabeth Ross. That's a modern trend. Women today are supposed to be strong and intelligent. I have no problems with films being made about intelligent women. The more the better. However, "The Incredible Hulk" isn't a film being written on a blank slate. It's an adaptation of stories written 50 years ago. Why change her now?

I suspect that more Hulk standalone films were intended within the MCU, but none were made. Even the much anticipated "Planet Hulk" storyline ended up being incorporated into "Thor Ragnarok". What not many people noticed, except for Marvel fanatics like me, is that the Leader was introduced in preparation for an upcoming Hulk film. In the film he's called Mr. Blue, though his real name is Dr. Samuel Sterns. He receives an injury to his head, and when he's lying on the floor a sample of Bruce Banner's blood drips onto his wound. That doesn't match his origin in the comics either. A sequel featuring the Leader was never made because "The Incredible Hulk" wasn't a box office success.

The Hulk's CGI appearance is improved over Ang Lee's film – it could hardly be worse – but it still isn't perfect. I have the impression that the film was visually based on the Hulk TV series, not on the comics.

The story is adequate, but the battle with the Abomination is too brief. His appearance was unnecessarily changed in the film. This is what he should have looked like.

"Iron Man", which I reviewed two days ago, shows a lot of respect for Stan Lee's original material. I can't say the same of "The Incredible Hulk". Whenever changes are made, the result is inferior. Always. It's about time the film producers at Marvel Studios learnt that. If they'd made a film closer to the original stories it would have made more money. I can say that with absolute certainty.

Success Rate:  - 0.2

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

The Dictator (4 Stars)

I decided to watch this film again today because my first review, written in 2013, has crept into my top 10 most popular posts list again. As I write this post it's in 10th place. By tomorrow it will either have climbed a few places or fallen out again.

My readers are fickle. Not all of my posts are good. I know that. What surprises me is that the posts I consider below average quality often have more readers than my best posts. It shouldn't really surprise me. Let me explain what's happening on my blog below the surface:

The top 10 list that I publish in my sidebar is the most read posts of the last 30 days. That's the most meaningful list, in my opinion. I also have lists available of the most read posts of the last 24 hours and the most read posts of the last seven days. Those lists are less significant because they're very volatile. When I publish a new post it usually has a lot of hits over the first 48 hours. This is because I have a lot of followers who read my new posts on a regular basis. That's not just the 22 blog followers listed on my page, I also have followers in Google Plus and Facebook. Almost all of my new posts enter my top 10 posts of the week, but they drop out of the list again after a week and are replaced by newer posts. Maybe one post a week generates enough interest to make it into my top 10 posts of the month. If it's popular enough it might stay in the list for a few months before disappearing again.

Then there are the posts that I call Dauerbrenner, the German word for perpetual flames. Some of these posts, like the Femme Fatales TV series, remain in the list for a year or longer. Others, like my first review of "The Dictator", are in my list for a few months, then disappear for a few months, then come back again. My Dauerbrenner (the German word sounds much better than the English translation) are the result of search engines sending readers to me. It's possible to deliberately use keywords to attract readers, but I don't do that. I write normal prose at all times. However, it sometimes happens that the combination of the words in my normal prose attracts a mass of readers who are looking for something else. For that reason many of my Dauerbrenner get a lot of hits out of pure luck.

There's one other problem in the way that Google sets up its searches. There's a process which Google calls canonicalisation (sic). That's a horrible word. What it means is that if two pages on a web site have either identical content or identical names only one of them is considered "canon" and included in search results. There's an HTML flag for search engines that can determine that a page is to be treated as the important page among a collection of duplicates or near-duplicates, but if this flag is included in more than one of the duplicates the search engine crawler can get confused and exclude the wrong one. Just include <link rel="canonical" href=http://www.example.com/original-url/> in the header. If this flag isn't used the newest page is usually treated as canonical. That might be useful for an online catalogue which replaces old products with new products that have the same name, but it makes things awkward for my blog as a film diary. If I review a film three times it's common for the first (i.e. the oldest) review to be the best because I have less to say on repeated watchings. That also means that writing this review today will stop my old review getting as many hits.

Which are my best and which are my worst reviews? That's a subjective opinion, but I'm an honest judge. It's not just about the length. Sometimes I write a post and even as I'm writing it I think to myself, "This isn't very good, but I've got to finish it now I've started". Other times I write something and I think, "Wow! I really expressed that well". As a rule of thumb I tend to write better reviews of films that I don't like than the films I like. Take this review, for instance. I've written six paragraphs and I still haven't said anything about the film.

Sacha Baron Cohen plays Admiral-General Aladeen, the dictator of a middle eastern country called Wadiya. This is a strongly satirical film from beginning to end, mocking both dictators and America's reaction to dictators. Aladeen is based primarily on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, but there are touches of other dictators in his mannerisms. Most apparent is that Aladeen surrounds himself with beautiful female bodyguards, just like Gadaffi used to do.

I want to be surrounded by women like that. Where do I sign up to become a dictator?

The bodyguards might all be beautiful, but the most attractive is the head guard Etra, played by Busty Heart. Her fighting style can only be described as Boob Fu. She uses her breasts as weapons. She can knock men unconscious with her breasts, and she can suffocate men between her breasts.

There are worse ways to die. I wouldn't try to defend myself. This isn't just something shown in the film, it's a real life ability. Busty Heart has appeared on talent shows smashing thick planks with her breasts.

In between the humour serious messages are contained, so ironical in their directness that we have to stop laughing for a moment. In a speech before the United Nations General Aladeen says:

"Why are you guys so anti-dictators? Imagine if America was a dictatorship. You could let 1% of the people have all the nation's wealth. You could help your rich friends get richer by cutting their taxes, and bailing them out when they gamble and lose. You could ignore the needs of the poor for health care and education. Your media would appear free, but would secretly be controlled by one person and his family. You could wiretap phones. You could torture foreign prisoners. You could have rigged elections. You could lie about why you go to war. You could fill your prisons with one particular racial group, and no one would complain. You could use the media to scare the people into supporting policies that are against their interests".

The film is also a love story. Aladeen goes into hiding after an unsuccessful assassination attempt, and he meets the owner of a biological food store. I'll let her describe it in her own words:

"This is my store. This is the Free Earth Collective. We are a vegan, feminist, non-profit cooperative operating within an anti-racist, anti-oppressive framework for people of all or no genders".

In other words, she doesn't know what she's fighting for. She's against everything and for nothing. Aladeen falls in love with her when he sees her shouting at a policeman. Opposites attract.

The newspaper shown above looked correct at first, until I saw the error. The words "scouring the rubble, investigators found" are repeated at the bottom of the first column and the top of the second column. That's just sloppy.

One thing that I regret about the Blu-ray release is that it doesn't have enough extra features. When Sacha Baron Cohen was promoting "The Dictator" he made several controversial appearances, for instance at the Academy Awards, the Cannes Film Festival and on television talk shows. I've seen these on YouTube, of course, but it would be better to have all the videos gathered together in high definition on the Blu-ray disc.

This is a hilariously funny film, but obviously not everyone has a sense of humour. The film was banned in several eastern European countries. In Italy a reference to the Italian prime minister had to be removed. Interestingly, even though "The Dictator" was shown in German cinemas it has never been released on DVD or Blu-ray.

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

Isle of Dogs (4 Stars)

I don't often watch animated films, but this stop-motion animated film directed by Wes Anderson is an exception. I heard about the film months ago, and I could have watched it at the Stuttgart Nights Festival, but I decided to skip it. I only found out last week that Wes Anderson is the director, after which I immediately added it to my must-watch list.

In the introduction we're told of a feud that has been going on for millennia. Japan was once ruled by dogs. The Kobayashi clan fought a long battle to gain control. After defeating the dogs they introduced a system of dog training, so that dogs would be obedient and never again take control.

In the present day a canine flu breaks out. Mayor Kobayashi of Megasaki City (a fictional city located on a Japanese island) uses this as a pretext to end the cohabitation with dogs. He signs a decree to deport all dogs to Trash Island, a nearby artificial island created by dumping garbage in the sea. In their new home the dogs become wild and unhealthy, dividing themselves into gangs.

After two years Atari Kobayashi, the adopted son of the mayor, steals a plane and flies to Trash Island to search for his dog. What he doesn't know is that his father is about to implement a Final Solution to kill all the dogs on Trash Island.

Despite scattered comic interludes I wouldn't call the film a comedy. On the other hand, it would be going too far to call it a parable. In that respect it's typical for Wes Anderson's films. He doesn't make it easy for the viewers. We're never sure whether he wants us to laugh or not.

The voices for the animated characters are provided by some of Hollywood's leading actors, in particular Bryan Cranston and Scarlett Johansson. Technically it's unnecessary to hire big name actors for voice-only roles in animated films, but it's become common in order to boost the box office takings. I already knew who the actors were before I went to the cinema, but I had difficulty recognising them.

I enjoyed the film, but I doubt I shall watch it again.

When I left the cinema there was a lot of noise on the street. I soon figured out that it was due to Stuttgart's football team, VFB Stuttgart, beating Bayern München, the league champions, 4 – 1 in the last game of the season. That's good news for the Stuttgarters. After being in the premiere league since 1977, VFB Stuttgart was relegated to the second division in 2016. The club was promoted back to the premiere league in 2017, and this year the club has finished in 7th place out of 18. That's an average position, but the honour of a big win over the seemingly unbeatable Bayern München makes them feel like the real winners.

The Incredible Hulk (3 Stars)

I didn't intend to watch this film again so soon. The reason I watched it today is that I've recently watched two videos about the upcoming "Avengers Infinity War" film, and both said that fans should prepare themselves for it by re-watching all the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe films, even "The Incredible Hulk". They both named it explicitly. It's the least popular of the MCU films, not without reason. It's considered part of the MCU, but only because of the appearance of Tony Stark in the final scene. Apart from that it's like a standalone film. Let me give you my reasons.

"The Incredible Hulk" has a different actor playing Bruce Banner, Edward Norton instead of Mark Ruffalo. In all the other films the actors are consistent.

The Hulk's CGI character looks different to his appearance in "The Avengers" and later films.

There's no origin of the character, which makes it seem more like a sequel to "The Hulk" (2003) than a reboot as part of the MCU.

Instead of the Hulk's love interest Betty Ross returning he's been flirting with other characters, in particular the Black Widow,

There's a fifth reason that I should add as well: it's just not that good. It's the lowest rated MCU film in my blog. I can't understand why I gave it four stars when I watched it three years ago. I was being far too generous. It was probably a sympathy vote because I like the character so much. There were too many Hulk-vs-soldiers fights. One would have been enough. The Abomination was introduced into the film far too late, practically as an afterthought. A better film would have been 25% origin story, 25% Hulk-vs-soldiers, 10% origin of Abomination, 40% Hulk-vs-Abomination.

The greatest strength of "The Incredible Hulk" is Edward Norton as Bruce Banner. He's the best person ever to play the role. He fits the role best because he's the puniest. Even Mark Ruffalo looks too tough. Supposedly Edward Norton quit because of differences with Marvel. He wanted more creative control over the character. He rewrote the script for "The Incredible Hulk", but his rewrite was turned down. I'm sure that whatever he wrote would have been better.

I'd rather forget about "The Incredible Hulk" and not consider it part of the MCU, but I'll wait for "Infinity War and see if there are any tie-ins.

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

Moonrise Kingdom (4 Stars)

This is a film that I would never have watched under normal circumstances. Nothing about it appealed to me. However, a friend of mine gave it me as a gift last year. It's been lying on my shelf ever since, and I wasn't sure whether I would watch it or not. I'm glad I did. I'm also glad that I watched it on Valentine's Day. However, I'm still not sure I understand what I've just watched. It's a film that is somehow surreal, and I'm sure that that the director wants to give us a message, but I have no idea what it is. Maybe I should watch the Blu-ray extra features to hunt for clues.

The film takes place in 1965 on a fictional island off the coast of New England called New Penzance Island. A group of boy scouts is camping. One of the boys disappears, and it turns out that he's run away with a local girl. Both of them are 12 years old, and both are social outcasts.

The romance between Sam and Suzy is poignant and quaint, but painfully awkward. Isn't 12 too young for a couple to elope? Anything under 14 is hard for me to take seriously. Even when I was 14 I wouldn't have run away with a girl, I would just have sneaked away with her for a few kisses in private.

Eventually the couple are found. That's when the film gets really strange. Sam is an orphan, and after his escapade his foster parents don't want him back, so he's told that he'll be put in an orphanage. Due to his alleged violent tendencies he's threatened with electric shock treatment. Even though he's always been unpopular among his fellow scouts they rally behind him to protect him. One of the scoutmasters performs a marriage ceremony, although he warns the couple that the marriage might not be recognised in most American states. I could have guessed that myself.

So the couple go on the run again, this time with the assistance of the boy scout community.

I was never a member of the boy scouts, so I have to ask: are they really such a well disciplined group? The scout camps seem like paramilitary organisations.

This is a sweet film, even though I don't really understand it. The colour contrasts are typical for Wes Anderson's films, and the high quality supporting cast make the film even more enjoyable.

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

Collateral Beauty (4½ Stars)

Here we go again. It's another one of those films. I mean the films that prove that the critics have lost touch with the public. This is a wonderful film, deeply moving in its romantic moments. It's a box office success. The public loves it. I love it. But the critics hate it. I shan't even bother trying to explain to you what they don't like about it. I'll just say that they're wrong.

The film is about Howard Inlet, the founder of a highly successful New York trading company. He has three business partners, but it's his genius and his charisma that carry the company. His life changes when his six year old daughter dies. His marriage breaks up. He becomes depressive and unable to work any more. After two years his partners lose their patience and want to have him declared mentally incapable of running the company. They find out that he's written letters to Love, Time and Death, complaining about what they've done to him. The partners hire three actors from a small theatre company to pretend to be these entities. They also hire a private detective to film him when he meets and argues with these three people, in the hope of making him seem unbalanced.

I shan't say anything else about the plot. You can already imagine that as soon as Howard is convinced that they're who they're pretending to be they have a profound effect on him. Unexpectedly, the three actors also connect with the three partners, helping them deal with their respective problems.

For years I've never liked Will Smith as an actor. That's beginning to change. He's no longer typecast as the brash kid from the ghetto. As he's getting older he's playing more serious roles, like this one. The film features several of my favourite actors, but Will Smith stands above them.

I repeat once more. This is a wonderful film, so don't let anything the critics say put you off watching it.

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

Birdman (5 Stars)

"I don't exist. I'm not even here".

Michael Keaton plays Riggan Thomson, a Hollywood actor who had a string of successes in the 1980's playing a superhero called Birdman. He refused to make a fourth Birdman film because he wanted to be known as a serious actor. That didn't work. 30 years on he's spent all the money he made, and he still craves to be recognised as a serious actor. Now he's making one last attempt. He has adapted a play by Raymond Carver, "What we talk about when we talk about love". This is a return to his roots. Back in 1972 Riggan starred in a high school play. Raymond Carver was in the audience, and he wrote a note on a napkin for Riggan praising the honesty of his performance. This was what convinced Riggan to become an actor.

"Birdman" is a film with many different levels of meaning, but I'll concentrate on one thing. Riggan Thomas is a man playing a part. I don't just mean the part he's playing on stage. He spent part of his life as a Hollywood actor, and now he's a Broadway actor. He was the same man inside, but he was attempting to present a different part of himself to the world.

Everyone goes through phases in his life. That's normal. However, I doubt many people have undergone as many drastic changes as me. In part it was because of the big moves in my life, from England to Germany to America to England to Germany, in one big circle. However, there are signs of change at other points in my life. There were deliberate breaks with my past that were unnecessary, if judged objectively. I have always been driven by the urge to make a new start and re-invent myself. Like Riggan Thomas, I've always been the same man inside, but I chose different cities and different stages to reveal different parts of myself.

I lived my first few years, until I was eight, in Little Aston. I grew up surrounded by parks, the old grounds of Little Aston Hall before they were split up. I grew up with nature. I knew the names of the birds and the trees. When my family moved to Walsall I made no attempt to keep contact with my old friends. I made new friends in my new street and my new school. I even presented myself differently. My interest in nature and wildlife was gone. I was soon known as someone who was interested in science and science fiction. I was a very modern boy.

At the age of 11, almost 12, I went to grammar school. This coincided with my family moving again, this time to Aldridge. Once more I broke contact with my old friends. There was one boy, Richard Lee, who went to both my junior school and my grammar school, but in grammar school we drifted apart. In junior school we had a bond because we were both fascinated by science. In grammar school I was different. I concentrated on learning foreign languages, and in my spare time I immersed myself in religion and philosophy. I read the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita and the Bible (in that order). I was fascinated by Norse mythology and Roman mythology. I read books by Franz Kafka, Friedrich Dürrenmatt (a more spiritual author than most people assume) and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Some of my different personas overlapped with one another, temporally. I lived in Aldridge but went to grammar school in Walsall. This gave me the opportunity to lead a double life. At the age of 16 I began to date girls. With very few exceptions, the girls I went out with lived in Aldridge, not Walsall, so my school friends knew nothing about them. At school I was the brilliant pupil who finished top of his class in every subject. Today I would be called a nerd, but in my school days I was called a swot, which was an awful insult. I tried to hide this when I was dating. I never let my girlfriends know how intelligent I was. I deliberately dumbed myself down to be popular with girls. In retrospect I think this was foolish, but it must have succeeded, because I had a long string of girlfriends in my mid to late teens. They weren't the smartest, but they all looked pretty hot.

When I went to university at the age of 18 it was another break with the past, or at least a partial break. I went to university in Birmingham but carried on living with my parents in Aldridge, a 40 minute bus journey from the university. This was supposedly in order to save money, but another advantage was that I could keep up my double life. I carried on dating girls who lived in Aldridge, but university was a new life for me. I broke off all contact with my previous school friends. At university I had many friends, or at least many people who wanted to be my friends. I never opened up to them. They looked upon me with awe, because I was so much better in my course than any of them. Surprisingly, they respected me for it. In school the other children despised me as a swot, but in university the other students admired my intelligence.

I spent the third year of university in Berlin. This was perhaps the most drastic period of self-reinvention in my life. All my life I had been a good boy, someone who obeyed rules and regulations down to the letter. In Berlin I wanted to be bad. I admit that I wasn't very good at it. Basically it boiled down to me telling people I was bad, but there was nothing behind it. I told people that I often got into fights with people I didn't like, but it was all lies. I didn't just change my personality, I changed my name. I introduced myself as Frank, modelling myself on Frank Cornelius in Michael Moorcock's novels. It was a weird year.

When I returned to Birmingham for my fourth and final year of university my double life became a triple life. I got a job with a local radio station, Radio Wash, and I was a DJ called Eric Bloodaxe. The shows were broadcast from 10pm to midnight, but they were pre-recorded earlier in the day. I played punk rock. I did my best to imitate John Peel, my favourite DJ at the time, by speaking with the same deep voice as him. Ironically, my shows were broadcast at the same time as his, so I was luring listeners away from him. None of the students at university knew I was Eric. Nobody in Aldridge, not even my parents, knew I was Eric. Sometimes I was with a girlfriend in the evening listening to the radio and she would say, "Mike, that DJ sounds like you". I would reply something like, "Not really. My voice isn't that deep".

After university I moved to Germany. It was a brave thing for me to do. Maybe foolhardy is the more correct word. I had a job waiting for me, but when I stepped off the train in Stuttgart I had nowhere to live. As was typical for me, I broke off all contact with my friends at university and in Aldridge. It was a completely new start. I lived in Germany for 19 years, which was a long time for me to stay in one place. I married. I settled down. I played the role of a good husband and family father to perfection. I also became the highly efficient manager of a small electronics company, a role I greatly enjoyed. But after 19 years I had itchy feet and needed to move on again. It's true that the main reason for my departure was problems in my marriage, but my departure followed the pattern of my earlier moves. When I left my wife I didn't just get an apartment in the next street or even the next town I moved all the way to America. Yet another new start.

I'm not sure what sort of image I projected in America. At work I was a hard-working computer programmer, but I had very few friends. When I left America I can't really say that I left everything behind, because I had nothing to leave behind. My three years in America were too short to re-invent myself. I was a bland, uninteresting person. It's doubtful that anyone even remembers me.

Back in England I played my most demanding role of all. It's true that I was suffering from depression when I returned to England, but when I began to feel better I pretended that I was still unwell. I fooled everyone. I could turn the tears on and off at will. Over a period of 15 years psychiatrists repeatedly judged me unfit for work. If I had wanted to work I could have done, in the early years at least. As time progressed I grew increasingly comfortable with my life of inactivity, and as a result I really became the person I was pretending to be. I didn't receive much money in sickness benefits, but I didn't spend much either, so I always had enough. As a famous man once said, "The man is richest whose pleasures are cheapest". During this time I re-invented myself as a film fan. This started in 2003 when I bought my first DVD player. Being able to watch films in high quality stored on shiny little discs was incredible to me. After years of watching fuzzy video tapes DVDs seemed miraculous. This was when I became fanatical about films. At first I simply bought and watched many DVDs. In 2010 I began to write this blog. In 2013 I joined a film group, of which I later became a host. My friends in England knew me as a film fan. If they'd known me any time before 2003, in any of my previous lives, they would have described me a different way.

Last month I returned to Germany again, after a long absence. I'm back in Münchingen, the small village just outside Stuttgart where I lived until 1997. It's unusual for me to return to a place that I left. What's also unusual is that I intend to hold on to my friends in Birmingham. I'm certainly not the same man that I was 19 years ago, but I don't yet know who I am. I need time to create a new identity. All I can say is that I'll always be the same person inside. I'm a deep thinker. I analyse everything, whether it's religion or politics. I'm tolerant of everyone else's opinions, in fact I'm more tolerant than anyone I've ever met. I love intensely, but unfortunately too intensely. I give so much that people feel uncomfortable with me, they think that someone who is so self-sacrificial must be faking it, he must be doing it to hide his greed.

In "Birdman" Riggan's critic was Tabitha Dickinson, a writer for the New York Times who hated him simply because he was different. I have had a few critics in my life, commenting on my performances. My biggest critic was Brigitte, my wife from 1982 to 1997. She didn't understand me at all. My love overwhelmed her. She couldn't accept such an intense love as genuine. She was certain that I was being unfaithful and had other lovers, even though she never found the slightest proof of her suspicions. The more I loved her, the more she hated me in return. If she had been able to love me I wouldn't have left Germany in 1997. My life would have taken different turns. I wish I could have stayed with her, but I have to accept a lot of my personal developments since leaving her as positive. Now I'm in the awkward position that she wants me back, but she still doesn't understand why I left her. What should I do? Should I re-invent myself as the self-sacrificing lover once more, accepting the fact that I might be abused all over again?

Birdman (5 Stars)

We all know what we have when a super-hero movie is made. We see a man pretending to be a super-hero. Or more accurately, we see an actor playing the part of a super-hero who has a secret identity, so it's a man pretending to be a super-hero pretending to be a man. "Birdman" takes us a step deeper into the maze. We see a man who thinks he's a super-hero pretending to be a man who plays a super-hero who pretends he's a man. But what if he isn't a normal man after all? What if he's really a super-hero who's become schizophrenic and sees the super-hero as being a separate person? In that case Michael Keaton is playing a super-hero who thinks he's a man who used to play the part of a super-hero. Whichever way you unravel the wool there will be knots.

The plot: In the 1980's Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) made a series of films about a hero called Birdman. Now he has fallen into obscurity. He's making a comeback by writing, directing and acting in a play based on Raymond Carver's story "What we talk about when we talk about love". His troubles with the cast, which I won't go into here even though they are significant to the film's plot, are dealt with by talking to Birdman, who speaks in his head when he's alone in his dressing room.

The film's cinematography is amazing. It's a series of long takes which are glued together, so that when a new event begins it starts at the same location and camera angle where the last one ended, so the film makes the impression of being made in one giant single take. Almost the whole film. When Riggan has to go into hospital the wool breaks. There are a series of short takes, before we go back to one extended take for the rest of the film.

The film is a work of genius. I feel tempted to see it a second time while it's still in the cinema. Maybe next week, if I have time.

The Incredible Hulk (4 Stars)

Of the actors to play the Hulk in recent years, Edward Norton was the most suitable. Eric Bana looked too tough. Mark Ruffalo looks a bit better, but he isn't quite timid enough. Only Edward Norton has the whole "puny Banner" air about him. I can imagine the Hulk remembering him and hating him.

Some people call "The Incredible Hulk" a reboot after Ang Lee's disastrous film in 2003. That isn't correct. The film doesn't re-invent the Hulk or give him a new origin. It continues where the first film left off. It just makes the Hulk look better. And the totally screwed up origin in the first film is simply forgotten.

Tim Roth is perfect as the Hulk's nemesis, the Abomination. My only regret is that the battle between the Hulk and the Abomination is too brief. The film is good, but it missed a lot of opportunities to make it better.

Grand Budapest Hotel (4 Stars)

This is a film that's worth watching for the cast alone. I don't think I've seen so many big stars in one film since "Mars Attacks". Some of the stars only have small roles, such as Tilda Swinton, who only appears for a few minutes and is barely recognisable. The main characters are Ralph Fiennes and Tony Revolori.

The story is interestingly nested, starting in 1985, then a flashback to 1965, where a story is told that takes place in 1932-1933. Ralph Fiennes is Gustave H., the concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel in the fictional country of Zubrowka. (The film was actually shot in the German town Görlitz, also used as one of the main locations for "The Book Thief"). Gustave is a casanova and has had affairs with many guests, including the old widow Madame D. When she dies he is invited to the reading of her will. In a recent addendum to the will, drafted on the day of her death, she leaves to Gustave the only item of great value that she owns, a painting called "Boy with Apple". The will's executor says that he will have to wait until the authenticity of the addendum is checked, but seeing the hostility of the family Gustave grabs the painting and runs. This leads to him being framed for murder. With the help of the hotel's lobby boy Zero (Tony Revolori) Gustave breaks out of prison. The two are pursued across central Europe by the family assassin J. G. Jopling (Willem Dafoe).

The film has been described as "all style and nothing else". That's unfair. The film has an interesting plot and great actors who perform the story. But I agree that it's all about the style. From beginning to end we have almost absurd colours in every scene. The whole film has an overwhelming fairy-tale atmosphere to it.

After the film I went to Scruffy Murphy's, a pub in the centre of Birmingham which is now Birmingham's only remaining rock club. I used to be a regular visitor from 2002 till 2007. I'm not sure why I stopped going. I probably just got lazy and relied on YouTube for live music. But it's not the same. Far from it. Apart from that, by going to Scruffy Murphy's I support local bands, since most of the performers are based in or near Birmingham.

There were three groups playing tonight. The opening act were Glass Bullet, a Canadian rock band. They reminded me of Green Day in their early years, before they became famous. I hope they don't read this, they might take it as an insult. Very good, medium hard rock songs. They had the traditional 4-piece rock band line up: drums, bass, lead guitar, rhythm guitar/singer.

The second act was a duo called Needle Poppets. They had a difficult time winning the crowd over. They're not really the Scruffy Murphy type. It was noticeable that a lot of the fans left the concert room after Glass Bullet, heading to the main pub room upstairs, but those who remained were in for a treat. They're a duo from Birmingham, and although the texts were often dark and gloomy they were sung in a singer/songwriter style. They're a curious group.

The main act, also from Birmingham, was a punk band called Drag, short for "DRessed like A Girl". I don't know why they picked this name. The singer and guitarist were definitely real girls. They are a high energy punk group with a style reminiscent of the late 1970's. The crowd loved them, and they're obviously a band with a big future ahead of them. It was a night to remember.

The Dictator (4 Stars)

This is the fourth character film made by the British comedy actor Sacha Baron Cohen. Though weaker than the preceding films, it's still riproaringly hilarious. He invites people to laugh at things they're normally too polite to consider funny.

Admiral General Haffaz Aladeen (Cohen) is the evil but naive leader of the fictional North African country Wadiya. He visits the USA to hold a speech to the United Nations affirming his intention to further suppress human rights. While there his uncle Tamir (Ben Kingsley) attempts to kill him, and thinking he has succeeded he replaces him with a body double, a simpleton under his control. The real Aladeen is forced to get a job in a health food store in Brooklyn while he tries to find a way to get his kingdom back.

The film's best scene is only present in the extended version. This is the battle between Aladeen and his busty bodyguard Etra, played by the American stripper/model Busty Heart. It's amazing that he managed to avoid being crushed by her killer breasts. It's even more amazing that he wanted to avoid it.

The Illusionist (4 Stars)

This is a fascinating story that takes place in Austria at the end of the 19th Century. The story starts in Hungary, where a young boy called Eduard, a carpenter's son, meets a travelling magician and begins to learn conjuring tricks. He meets the Duchess Sophie von Teschen while she is riding, he shows her his tricks, and they fall in love. But in those days a romance between a pauper and a noble was not allowed, so he leaves to travel the world, studying magic at the feet of the world's greatest magicians.

15 years later he returns and appears in Vienna using the stage name Eisenheim. He dazzles audiences with tricks, and the police inspector becomes a fan of his, watching closely at all times to discover the secret of his tricks. Prince Leopold, a man with ambitions to become ruler of Germany, visits the performances, and we see that his fiancee is Duchess Sophie. The romance flares up again, leading to retaliation from Prince Leopold.

For me the real stars of this film aren't Edward Norton and Jessica Biel, who play Eisenheim and Sophie. Rufus Sewell and Paul Giamatti, who play Prince Leopold and Inspector Uhl, are the ones who dazzle with their on-screen presence. Rufus Sewell, though not so well known, is an outstanding actor. I first saw him in "Dark City", but I find him most suitable when playing a bad guy, such as King Agamemnon in "Helen of Troy". Very few actors are as skilled at playing evil characters. Maybe Gary Oldman, I can't think of anyone else at the moment. Paul Giamatti excels as the police inspector who means well, but has to do what the prince says if he wants to keep his job.

Click here to view the trailer.

Red Dragon (4½ Stars)

A thrilling film from beginning to end. My only criticism is that having been filmed later it assumes that the viewer has already seen "Silence of the Lambs". This is another film that Dino De Laurentiis should be remembered for.