Hamnet (5 Stars)

My main reason for going to see this film is its recent nominations for the Academy Awards: eight nominations, including Best Picture. I wasn't disappointed. For the first half of the film I was thinking to myself "a typical four star film", but as it progressed I was more and more impressed.

The film is about William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway, who's called Agnes in the film. It begins with love at first sight. Shakespeare is teaching Latin in a village church. He looks out of the window and sees Agnes, so he abandons his class and goes out to talk to her. They get married despite the objections of her family.

Fast forward 18 years. Shakespeare is spending most of his time in London, leaving Agnes at home in Stratford-On-Avon with her three children. Their eleven-year-old son Hamnet dies. Agnes is bitter than Shakespeare wasn't with him in his last hours. A short while later the play "Hamlet" is announced in London, so Agnes travels with her brother to see it. Though not explicitly stated, this seems to be the first performance she's seen of one of his plays.

Very little is known of Shakespeare's private life, so I don't know if all the smaller details are historically accurate. The film is based on a novel, whose author may have invented things to make the story more interesting. That doesn't bother me. As long as the known facts aren't contradicted, I don't care how much is added.

The focus of the story is on Agnes, not Shakespeare.

A Royal Night Out (4½ Stars)

This is an absolutely delightful film that I have to keep returning to. It's about the Queen I've known and loved all my life, and her precocious little sister. The film is fictional, but wrapped in a series of true events. It's best enjoyed if you don't try to work out what's true and what isn't. Just accept the whole film as it is.

I wonder if one day there will be a film of King Charles' teenage antics. That would be amusing.

I've been having problems with the temperature the last few days, especially today. I don't understand it. Earlier today it was 28 degrees, which was too much for me. Anything over 25 makes me sweat. But now the temperature is only 18 degrees, and I'm still sweating. I need to go to bed with my fan turned up.

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

A Royal Night Out (4½ Stars)

When an actor or actress dies, I watch one or more films in which he/she appears. Three days ago my beloved monarch Queen Elizabeth II died. She's not an actress, so I don't have any films in which she appears, but I do own one film about her: "A Royal Night Out". It's a film that treads a fine line. Any fictional film about the Queen could be insulting and irreverent, but "A Royal Night Out" has been filmed so carefully and respectfully that it avoids any pitfalls.

The film begins on VE Day, 8th May 1945, and continues into the morning of the following day. It was the day the War in Europe ended. It was a time of great rejoicing for all of Britain, but the film concentrates on the rejoicing in London. King George VI was due to hold a speech at midnight to be broadcast on the radio. His daughters Elizabeth (19) and Margaret (14) wanted to witness the celebrations from the other side of the palace walls. Margaret in particular wanted to visit nightclubs where she could enjoy the latest dances, especially the Lindy Hop. I wonder how she knew it in the days before television. Maybe newsreels were shown in the palace?

The girls are allowed to go to the Ritz, accompanied by army officers as their chaperones. Margaret doesn't like being controlled, so she slips away as soon as possible. Elizabeth is slightly more sensible, but she also leaves the Ritz to look for her sister. The soldiers guarding them are laughably incompetent. The streets of London are a confusing world to young Elizabeth, but she makes contact with an airman called Jack who guides her around.

The film shows Elizabeth's sorrow as not being able to lead a normal life. She's forced to carry out official duties, and unknown to her she'd have to carry out ever increasing duties for the next 77 years. The film shows a romance develop between Elizabeth and Jack, but she's wise enough to know that it could never be. At the end of the film they go different ways, never to see one another again.

The actress Sarah Gadon has been in several films that I've watched, but I've never noticed her. Maybe that's a good thing. A good actor shouldn't stand out, he should disappear into his role. Nevertheless, I'll watch out for her in future.

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

Angela's Ashes (5 Stars)

True Stories #13

Name: Frank McCourt

Lived: 19 August 1930 – 19 July 2009

Film dates: 1935 to 1949

Film made in 1997

In 1996 the Irish American author Frank McCourt wrote an autobiography of his early years in Ireland. It was hugely popular with critics and the general public. Notably, it started a new literature genre: the misery memoir. Despite the happy ending – Frank returning to America – the autobiography is a string of one unhappy event after another. In fact, the situations and events that he portrays are so miserable that he was accused of exaggerating his childhood misery. He denied these accusations.

I haven't read the book, but I've read a brief summary, and it seems like the film closely follows the book, with the exception of a blunder at the end. Frank McCourt returned to America in 1949, but a calendar on the wall of the travel agent where he buys his ticket says it's 1946. Yes, I'm pedantic enough to notice things like that!

The film begins in Brooklyn, New York. Frank is the oldest of five children. The misery begins almost immediately. Three minutes into the film Frank's sister Margaret dies. His father leaves the apartment to go on a drinking binge. His mother Angela suffers from depression and can't get out of bed. The remaining children have no food and run around the house naked and hungry. This is the impetus for the family to return to Ireland, where Angela's family can help to take care of them.

They move into a house in Limerick where the ground floor is flooded after every rainfall. Frank's twin brothers die within the next 20 minutes of the film. The whole of the film shows the family fighting with hunger and poverty. It also shows Frank's religious development. He grows up as a strict Catholic, the same as all young boys in Ireland in the first half of the 20th Century. He does many things that he knows to be wrong, but he feels guilty and regrets them.

One of Frank's reasons to feel guilt is that he paid Peter Dooley for the privilege of peeking through the window when his sisters were taking a bath. Only a shilling. What a bargain!

It's only today that I realised this is part of the misery story. Frank visited Peter's house with two friends and paid to see the girls, but the first boy to look through the window made a noise, and they were chased off. Frank never got to see the naked breasts. Poor Frank paid for nothing.

Something that's dreadful is the Irish bigotry. Frank's father comes from Northern Ireland, or as they call it, "the North of Ireland". He's a Catholic, but they still criticise him for his place of origin. They repeatedly refer to him as a Protestant, even though he was a Catholic who had fought for the IRA. (Note: in the film nobody believes that he'd been in the IRA, but recently uncovered records reveal that it's true). The idea that all northern Irish are Protestants is bigotry, nothing less.

That's not to say that Frank's father was a good man. He was an alcoholic all his life. However hungry his family was, he spent the little money that he had on beer and whiskey. This put young Frank in a dilemma. He loved his father, but he hated his father's drinking.

Frank's father walked out on a Christmas Day and never came back. The autobiography was named after his mother, but the main emphasis of the film is Frank's relationship with his father. I can understand how a son can love his father regardless of his faults. My own father was a very complicated man. In most ways he was a very good man, but he was emotionally cold. This coldness hurt me a lot when I was growing up, but now that he's dead I only think about his positive traits.

The three Franks

The film is excellent. There are stunning performances by Robert Carlyle and Emily Watson as the parents, as well as the three actors who play the part of Frank McCourt. I don't understand why the film wasn't a box office success, especially after the book's commercial success.

Success Rate:  - 1.9

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

A Royal Night Out (4½ Stars)

Today is VE Day. It's 75 years since the end of World War Two, as far as Europe was concerned. VE stands for Victory in Europe. The last enemy, Japan, didn't surrender until 2nd September 1945, but as far as Britain was concerned the war was already over. Nobody was dropping bombs on London any more.

The distinction between the two dates, 8th May 1945 and 2nd September 1945, is essential to the film. Airman Jack Hodges has flown more than 50 missions over Germany. He'd like to think the war is over, but for him it isn't. He's just received news that he'll be reassigned to Japan. He signed up to defend his country against Germany, but what does a faraway enemy like Japan mean to him? He just wants to go home to his mother.

One thing that strikes me about the film is the level of patriotism 75 years ago. People were British and proud to be British, and being British meant standing behind their King. The very few who refused to toast the King – and Jack was one of them – were beat up and thrown into the streets.

How did we lose that? When did we lose that? In 1977 there were street parties throughout the country to celebrate the 25-year anniversary of Queen Elizabeth. In 2002 the 50-year anniversary went by unnoticed apart from television broadcasts. I didn't see a single street party. People didn't care.

In 2012 it was slightly different, in Birmingham at least. The annual Gay Pride celebration fell on the same date as the Queen's 60-year anniversary, so the two celebrations were combined. The event's slogan was "Proud to be Gay, Proud to be British".

I was present at the Gay Pride Parade almost every year while I lived in Birmingham, but the 2012 celebrations were by far the most overwhelming. There was magic in the air, more than any of the years before or afterwards.

Being proud to be British means being proud to have a monarch. It's a contradiction to be anti-Royalist and pro-British. The monarchy, and for me that means the Queen, sums up everything about Britain. Maybe it's easy for me to say that today, because the Queen of England is such a noble, distinguished person. It's easy for me to shout "God Save The Queen". Will it be just as easy for me to shout "God Save The King" when her son or her grandson takes over? I don't know. If I live that long you can ask me. I expect I shall always respect the King, even if I have personal reservations about his character. I have no reservations at all about the Queen.

Today most of my friends are anti-Royalists. They complain about the wealth of the Royal Family in comparison to the poverty of the lower classes in England. They don't realise that the Queen isn't the richest person in Britain; she's not even in the top 50. If we really want to redistribute wealth, the Queen isn't the person to start with.

What do we need to win back support for the monarchy? Another war? That would be cynical. A prime minister who's so wretched that people beg for a king to save them? That's unlikely to happen. If a woman who's as wonderful as the Queen can't maintain the affection of her people, what chance do future monarchs have?

The subject matter of "A Royal Night Out" has been handled delicately. It could easily have turned into something tasteless. Sarah Gadon puts on a fine performance as the 19-year-old Princess Elizabeth. She's a young woman who shows immaturity due to having being locked away from the world all her life, but she has an air of dignity in the midst of the common people. All the wealth at her fingertips doesn't make her happy. She's a prisoner of her destiny. She has feelings for Jack Hodges, but she knows that their relationship can never be.

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

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (4½ Stars)

I haven't read the comics on which the Kingsman films are based. Maybe I should. The films are so good. They're like the James Bond films, but so exaggerated that they're almost a parody. They also seem to borrow ideas from the "Man from UNCLE" television series.

A surprise guest star in this film is Elton John, playing himself. In a film with exaggeratedly evil megalomaniacs and over-the-top secret agents, all that's needed to round it off is an excessively extravagant pop star. Was this the first time that Elton John met Taron Egerton, who would go on to play him in "Rocketman"? It's possible. If this was the beginning of their friendship, it must have influenced the development of the musical.

It's a different sort of role for Halle Berry as the American secret service computer expert. She doesn't have any of her usual sex appeal. Instead, she has a nerdy appearance that's very appropriate for her role.

Mark Strong is just Mark Strong. He's good in every role he plays. Whether he's a good guy or a bad guy, he's the quintessential tough guy. Mess with him at your own peril!

They make a good pair, don't they?

I've read that several Kingsman films are planned, not just a third film in the series. There will also be a prequel and a spin-off film. That's good news for everyone who likes crazy action films.

Success Rate:  + 2.0

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

Angela's Ashes (5 Stars)

This is a film that was pushed upon me at a certain point in my life. It was one of the favourite films of my girlfriend Leslie when I lived in America. We watched it more than once. It was also one of the favourite films of my second wife Nicola. We also watched it a few times. It's not the sort of film I would have watched, at least not at that time in my life. It was during my marriage to Nicola (2002 to 2006) that I first became a film fan. I bought "Angela's Ashes" on DVD to please her rather than for myself. As far as I remember I didn't watch it again after since splitting up with her.

Not until today. Over the last few weeks I've felt the urge to watch it again. I can't explain why.

The film is based on the autobiography of Frank McCourt, about his childhood in Ireland. It's not accurate to call him an author. He only wrote three books, and all three were about stages in his own life. He never wrote books about other topics.

Frank McCourt was born in Brooklyn in 1930. In 1935 his family moved to Limerick in Ireland. In 1949 he moved back to America. The film starts shortly before moving to Ireland and ends with his return to America. His family lived in dreadful poverty. They rented a house, but they only used the upstairs rooms because the lower floor was flooded every time it rained. In Limerick it rained a lot, so we frequently see Frank and his brother Malachy running into the house and kicking water at one another. It was a way of life.

Frank was the oldest of seven children. Three of his younger siblings died as children. That's something that's disturbing about the film. There are three deaths in the first 25 minutes, the first after only three minutes. We only see things like that in true stories. No screenwriter would have written a film that starts on such a tragic note.

It's fascinating to see Frank's relationship with his father. He was a drunk, spending whatever little money the family had available on beer and whiskey. Frank was disgusted by his father, but he couldn't help loving him because he always told such interesting stories. I can relate to that. My own father had many faults, and at times I felt that I hated him, but deep down I wanted to share my life with him. Today when I talk about him I present his faults as cute, denying the negative feelings I had about them while he was still alive.

Why does the film appeal to me so strongly now, even though I only grudgingly watched it 15-20 years ago? Probably it's because my tastes have matured as a serious film fan. I can appreciate true stories now, more than I used to. The anti-English sentiments in the film bothered me when I watched it in the past, but now I can laugh at them. I don't need to take them seriously because they're so ridiculous. The film offers a window into another time, a picture of Ireland during the war years, when it remained neutral. The war is mentioned, but why should Ireland have taken sides, because the Irish hated the English and the Nazis equally?

"Angela's Ashes" was a box office failure. I don't understand that. There's a lot in the film that should appeal to audiences. Maybe the subject matter was just too foreign and detached from the lives of anyone who wasn't Irish.

Until today I always assumed that the film's title refers to the ashes of Angela's dead children who were buried in quick succession. That's not correct. Today I read that Frank McCourt called his book "Angela's Ashes" in reference to the cigarette ash from her constant smoking. That doesn't come across in the film.

Success Rate:  - 1.9

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

The Book Thief (4½ Stars)

After watching this film today I had a rough idea what I wanted to write. Before starting my review I reread the first review that I wrote after seeing it in the cinema in 2014. Guess what? I'd written it all the first time. I don't like repeating myself, so I had to think of something new.

I'll concentrate on the book-burning. In 1939 the Nazi government decided that all books should be destroyed that were damaging to German society. These might be books written by Communists or Jews, but they also included any book that anyone didn't like for any reason at all. The book that Liesel Meminger  saves from the flames is "The Invisible Man" by H. G. Wells. He wasn't a Communist, he wasn't a Jew, and as far as I can remember there's nothing in the story that would contradict the political system of Germany. The book was only thrown on the fire because some stupid fanatic wanted everyone else to see that he took the book-burning seriously.

This is censorship at its worst. When a book is burnt it's gone. It can't be read again.

Today censorship is practised at different levels. The Internet isn't as free as it ought to be. People in power want to stop Internet content from one country being available in another. For instance, I bought Blu-ray discs in England with Ultraviolet codes. I want to watch the films that I bought online, but I can't because the Ultraviolet codes are invalid in Germany. They call it copyright, I call it burning books. Germany has learnt nothing since 1939. I want to watch the BBC News online, but England prevents BBC programmes from being viewed in Germany. The BBC is burning books.

On another level, the recent court cases over people's right to be forgotten is sickening. Google can be asked to remove search results if a person doesn't like web pages being suggested that say negative things about him. For instance, if a businessman was imprisoned for fraud but years later creates an honest and successful company, he might not like his shady past being visible online. It's wrong to hide your past. We all make mistakes, some of us bigger mistakes than others. There are things in my own past that I wish had never happened, but if they were published online I wouldn't deny them, I'd publicly apologise for them.

I've written a life story of my first 44 years. It isn't public yet, but it can be found by search engines. I've named a lot of people from my past, mostly good people, a few bad. The third part of my life story, from age 45 onwards, will be the most controversial, because I shall write about murderers and drug dealers. If any of the people I name have gone straight since then, I'm glad, but I'll still name them because of their past deeds. I've already received a request from one person who doesn't like being named in the first part of my life story. He claimed something I'd written about him was inaccurate and asked me to remove it. After checking the passage I could see that what I'd written could be misinterpreted, so I rewrote a few paragraphs. He's asked me another twice to remove all mention of his name. The answer is a clear No. I shan't burn books for anyone.

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

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (4 Stars)

This is a sequel to the 2015 film "Kingsman". If you liked the first film you'll love this film as well. Don't expect anything different. You get more of the same: ridiculously exaggerated action and a barely credible plot about a megalomaniac who threatens the world's safety.

In this case, it's arguable whether the threat to the world is really a threat. A woman called Poppy Adams has a monopoly of the world's supply of illicit drugs, everything from marijuana to heroin. She's laced the drugs with a deadly poison that affects its victims in four phases.

(1) They get blue marks on their faces.
(2) They can't stop dancing -- Is that a bad thing?
(3) They're paralysed.
(4) After a few days they die.

Most of the Kingsman agents are killed in a deadly attack by Poppy, but the survivors travel to America to team up with Statesman, an American spy organisation, to save the world's drug addicts. I'm sure Donald Trump would have let them die.

The Kingsman films target audiences who want to forget the world outside, put their brain on standby and laugh for two hours. The critics hate it, which is no surprise to anyone, but I love it. Now I can hardly wait for the third film.

Watch out for Elton John parodying himself. He must have a big sense of humour to accept this role.

You're probably wondering why Colin Firth is in the film poster, because he was killed in the first film. That means that the film poster is a spoiler.

A Royal Night Out (4 Stars)

This was one of my top 10 films that I saw in the cinema in 2015. To be honest, I don't know why I'm only giving it four stars. Maybe I'm ashamed to say how much I like it? It's such a beautiful story of a day in the life of the two princesses, Elizabeth and Margaret, one of whom has since gone on to be the longest ruling British monarch.

I can't help wondering if the director approached the Queen to ask for permission to make the film. After all, it seems to be taking quite a liberty, telling false stories about the ruling monarch. Nevertheless, she's portrayed respectfully. She makes mistakes in her childish innocence – she was 19 at the time, but immature due to being sheltered from the world – but she always conducts herself as a lady. Her 14-year-old sister Margaret acts wilder, but that's what the real Margaret was like in her younger years. I wonder if Margaret really called herself P2 ("Princess Two"). That's amusing.

The film shows that the worst of rogues, such as the owners of a Soho brothel, treat the royal family with the greatest of respect. To be British is to respect the monarchy. That's something that the current leader of the Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn, has never learnt. He disrespectfully refuses to sing the national anthem, "God save the Queen". He doesn't deserve to lead a political party. He's a traitor who doesn't even deserve to live in our country. He should be beat up and dumped in an alley where he can reconsider his opinions.

Everest (4 Stars)

This film tells the story of the multiple expeditions to reach the top of Mount Everest in 1996. In the first few minutes we're told about the problems. In the past the mountain had been scaled by very few elite, highly skilled climbers. Now Everest had become commercialised. Different companies were offering tours to the top of Everest for people who may have been fit, by normal standards, but certainly weren't the elite climbers who should have been attempting such a dangerous ascent. At a price of $65,000 per customer it was good business.

The film focuses on the leaders of two tours, Rob Hall and Scott Fischer, who decide to pool their efforts and lead their teams together, despite their different styles. Rob is a hand-holder, whereas Scott demands that his customers do as much as they can themselves, otherwise they don't deserve to be on Everest. We briefly see other teams at the beginning of the film. Rob especially is shocked by the crowds at Everest's Base Camp and predicts that they will be getting in one another's way.

Five people died trying to get back down from the peak. Five people shown in the film, that is. On the same day another three people died in another team not shown in the film. Was it worth it? Was it worth taking commercial tours to the top of the most dangerous mountain on Earth? It could be asked whether it's worth climbing Everest at all, but there will always be adventurers who put their lives at risk to achieve extraordinary feats.

The film is spectacular. The actors themselves tend to fade into the background. The film's real star is the mountain itself. Some scenes were shot on location, at Everest's Base Camp (5335 metres) and Camp 2 (6400 metres). Those are presumably the highest locations on the mountain accessible to normal people. The higher scenes were filmed in Pinewood Studios, England. The end result is breathtaking. This is also one of the few films I've seen in recent years that profits from 3D.

Despite the big publicity that the 1996 "Mount Everest Disaster" received, it's been pointed out, somewhat cynically, that it was a good year. Only 3% of the climbers who ascended higher than Base Camp died, compared with the previous yearly average of 3.3%. Was eight deaths in a single day exceptional? Not at all. For instance, on April 18th 2014, while the film was being made, 16 sherpa guides setting up equipment for the climbing season were killed in an avalanche. This never made the news. They were only poor local people, not rich westerners.

A Royal Night Out (4 Stars)

This is a delightful little comedy inspired by true events. The story is highly speculative, bearing little resemblance to the official records of this event, but it plants a seed of doubt in our mind at the end, when Elizabeth says, "Don't let the truth come out. If anyone asks we were at the Ritz".

The story is about the two English princesses, Elizabeth, 19, who has since become Queen Elizabeth, and her 14-year-old sister Margaret. The Second World War is over, in Europe at least, and they want to go out and celebrate with the people of London on VE Day, May 8th, 1945. After pleading with their parents they are allowed to go out with two army officers as chaperones, but there are strict instructions that they should return by 1 am.

Of course, girls will be girls, and the two princesses soon escape from their boring chaperones. The two girls are separated. Elizabeth finds company with Jack, an airman who is a perfect gentleman and protects her wherever they go, even though he doesn't recognise who she is. Margaret is less lucky and gets together with a rather creepy naval officer who obviously has sexual intentions with her, despite her young age. He gets her drunk and takes her to a brothel, but she runs away from him and finds protection from the brothel's owner when she reveals her identity.

The forbidden romance between Elizabeth and Jack is both touching and amusing. They both know it can never come to anything, so the most they share is a single kiss, which is discreetly off camera. I wonder. If the story really were true, would Elizabeth regret giving Jack up for Philip of Greece?

The Book Thief (4 Stars)

After my disappointment with "A New York Winter's Tale" today I felt the need to watch a better film. I needed to go home on a good note, so I stayed at the cinema to watch "The Book Thief". After all, I have a Cineworld Unlimited Card, so I can watch as many films as I want all month long. "The Book Thief" is based on an international best selling novel and has a cast that includes many leading American, English and German actors, so I had high hopes.

Liesel is a 12-year-old girl whose parents give her up for adoption in 1938. On the journey to her new parents her younger brother dies and is buried in a cemetery at the side of the railway. Liesel sees a book that someone has dropped and takes it with her, even though she can't read. No explanation is given why she can't read at this age. When she arrives at her new home in Malching in Bavaria her new father teaches her how to read, and the first book she reads is the one she has stolen, "The Gravedigger's Manual".

The following year books are burnt in the marketplace that the Nazi regime considers to be immoral or harmful to German society. She secretly steals a book from the flames, "The Invisible Man" by H. G. Wells. This is the second book that she reads.

After this Liesel meets the mayor's wife when delivering laundry that her mother has washed. The mayor's wife allows Liesel to sit and read in her library for a few weeks, until the mayor objects and forbids her to come back. After this Liesel gets into the habit of climbing through the window and stealing books.

The film continues until 1945, with Liesel's thefts taking place against the background of the Second World War. Liesel becomes a good Nazi and joins the Hitler Youth, whereas her father refuses to join the Nazi party and even hides a Jew in his cellar. Strangely, the story is narrated by Death, who revels in the destruction of war.

It's a curious film. I'm not sure what the message is that the writer wants to put across. Maybe it's more obvious in the novel than in the film. It's an interesting picture of a young girl's life in wartime Germany.

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.