Black Hawk Down (3 Stars)

Netflix Thursday #20

This is a 2001 film directed by Ridley Scott about a mission by the US army in Somalia in 1993. It's based on true events, though simplified in parts for the big screen. The Somalian rebel leader Aidid was deliberately starving the population in order to become more powerful. The Americans had tried in vain to capture or kill him. On 3rd October 1993 an operation was launched to capture two of the most senior men in his group.

Was the operation successful or not? That depends how you look at it. The two Somalians were captured, so the mission was technically a success. On the other hand, 19 American soldiers were killed and 73 were wounded, the highest number of casualties in a single day since the Vietnam War.

The slogan on the poster is "Leave no man behind". It's something that the American armed forces are proud of. But is it a good military strategy? Based on the evidence of this film I'd say No. The problems begin when an American private falls out of a helicopter. A team is sent to rescue him, which leads to a Black Hawk helicopter being shot down. More troops are sent to rescue the soldiers from the helicopter crash, but many of them are cut off from their comrades and need to be rescued.

What I'm trying to say is that if the private had been left to die, the day's casualties would have been one dead and zero wounded. "Leave no man behind" is a proud slogan to chant among servicemen, but does it make sense? Was it worth sacrificing 19 lives to save one man? If I'd been the man lying on the ground I'd have yelled at my comrades to leave me to die.

As my regular readers know by now, I've been on holiday for the last four weeks. I'm in England with my daughter Fiona and her family, and I'm staying until 12th December. It's my first visit since the pandemic, so I wanted to make it a longer visit. This has an effect on my viewing habits. Fiona doesn't have a DVD player and relies on Netflix for entertainment. This is frustrating to me, but I'll talk about her and her family in this post.

Fiona watches Netflix every day. She doesn't watch films, she watches reality shows and true crime series. I have to admit, if that's what someone wants to watch, Netflix is sufficient. Good luck to her.

My grandson Samuel (two years old) also watches Netflix every day, closely supervised by his parents. He watches "Masha and the Bear" and "Cocomelon". Sometimes I put on other children's series for the sake of variety. He enjoys these for a while, but then he says "Bear, Bear", so I put "Masha and the Bear" on again. Okay, Netflix is all a small child needs.

But what about my son-in-law, Mehdi? With the exception of "The Walking Dead", he only watches films. He watches a film every day, more at the weekend. He likes mostly action and horror movies. I've been observing his habits closely. Every day he clicks through Netflix's new movies and recommendations. Sometimes he immediately spots a film that he'd like. Sometimes nothing attracts his attention, so he either re-watches a film he's already seen or he picks a film that he might like. He's at Netflix's mercy. He can only watch what's being thrown at him.

A few days ago I watched "Forest of Love" with Mehdi. He loved it, and he said he wanted to watch more films made by Sion Sono. Oops! There aren't any more of his films on Netflix. In my opinion, Mehdi has the inclinations to be a real film fan. Not everyone watches seven or more films a week. He's suffering from having to rely on Netflix, but he doesn't realise that he's suffering, because he's never owned a DVD player. He doesn't know what he's missing.

I'm not saying Netflix is bad. It's good for my daughter. It's good for my grandson. But it's bad for anyone who's a serious film fan, except as an additional extra to a DVD or Blu-ray player.

Success Rate:  - 0.1

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

I love you, Phillip Morris (4 Stars)

True Stories #17

Name: Steven Russell

Lived: 14 September 1957 – still alive

Film dates: 1966 to 1998, mostly 1990 to 1998

Film made in 2010

Jim Carrey says that it doesn't feel right to play someone in a film who's still alive. If you look at the previous 16 films in my true stories marathon, you'll see that five of them were about people living when the film was made, so it's not so unusual.

Steven Russell supposedly has an IQ of 163. Having a high IQ doesn't necessarily mean you'll have great success in life, as I know from my own experience, but it usually results in the person having extraordinary abilities. In Steven's case, he set a record for escaping from prison four times, including two escapes from maximum security prisons. One of his escapes was by faking his own death. You need to be a genius to do something like that.

Like many geniuses, his high IQ wasn't obvious to those around him. He was a policeman, and he played piano in church. He was happily married, and a good Christian. There was only one dark secret in his life: he was having a gay relationship. That must have been easy to hide, because as a policeman he could always make excuses about being away from home at all hours.

Eventually Steve comes out of the closet. He confesses everything to his wife and leaves her to live with his boyfriend Jimmy in Miami. What I find strange is that his Christian wife so easily accepted his homosexuality. She never divorced him. Maybe it's because divorce was against her Christian beliefs. Nevertheless, she doesn't understand his homosexuality. After Steve's first arrest for fraud she asks a policeman whether homosexuality and stealing go together.

Steven Russell was a con man. That's something he excelled at. Despite never having gone to college, he read the law books in the prison library and was able to pretend to be a lawyer. Is it usual for prison libraries to have so many law books?

It's in the library that Steven Russell met Phillip Morris, who was presumably interested in other books. It's love at first sight. Phillip was in prison for a minor offence, not returning a rental car. After his release Steven had to escape to be with him.

Phillip Morris was Steven Russell's downfall. Steven escaped repeatedly, but the police could easily arrest him, because they knew he was heading straight to Phillip. If Steven hadn't been in love he'd still be living happily in anonymity somewhere.

After four escapes, the prisons aren't taking any chances. He's been sentenced to life imprisonment (to be precise, 144 years), and he has to spend 23 hours a day in his cell. In his one hour outside his cell he's closely observed. Nobody knows what sort of tricks he'd play next.

My only criticism of the film is that it's too short. The film rushes through his escapes, only showing his faked death in detail. I would have liked to see more.

I'm annoyed by the packaging of the UK Blu-ray. The front cover quotes magazines that call the film "Outrageously funny" and "Hilarious". Did those idiots even bother to watch the film? It's not a comedy. It's a love story. Just because Jim Carrey began his career as a comedian, it doesn't mean that all his films have to be funny.

Success Rate:  - 0.4

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

Zoe (3 Stars)

Netflix Thursday #4

This film was strongly recommended to me by one of my friends. I read a brief synopsis, and it sounded thrilling. It was a last minute choice for my Thursday viewing.

The film takes place in the near future, when human-like robots have become commonplace. Maybe the word "robot" is incorrect. They're not made out of metal. They have soft skin which looks and feels human. They're called Synthetics, and they're programmed with skills such as gardening, housekeeping or dog walking. They can even carry out difficult tasks like driving buses.

Cole (Ewan McGregor) and Zoe (Léa Seydoux) work for a company called Relationists. They've perfected an algorithm for matching compatibility in romantic relationships. Their method can be used to assist dating apps, but it's more commonly used by couples who are already together to find out if their relationship will last. If the compatibility value is above 75% they should remain together for the rest of their life.

Cole and Zoe work in a department in Relationists that takes their technology to the next level. After analysing a person they program a Synthetic to have a compatibility value of close to 100%. The perfect partner. It's not just a sex toy. The Synthetic is a romantic counterpart, so realistic that a man can take her home to meet his parents without them suspecting anything.

Assisting in the laboratory is a Synthetic called Ash. He says he's in love with Zoe, but she turns him down because he's only a Synthetic. She has feelings for Cole, who turns her down because he's only recently broken up with his wife.

Then the shock comes. Cole tells Zoe that she's a Synthetic as well. Cole created her as perfectly compatible with himself. She's on the same technological level as Ash, but Cole experimented by not telling Zoe that she isn't human.

So the film is a love story. Zoe is programmed that she finds Cole irresistible, and she's also the perfect partner for him. If the story had been left at that, it would be a good film. The trouble is that other things are thrown in that make the film too complicated. They disrupt the main plot.

Another department in Relationists has developed a drug called Benysol. It releases the hormones that inspire the feelings of true love. Some people use it to intensify the excitement of a one-night stand, while elderly married couples use it to re-experience the feelings they had when they first met. What does that have to do with Cole and Zoe's love story? Nothing. It's linked in to their story, but it's just an annoyance.

There's also a sub-plot about Zoe meeting a Synthetic prostitute who's about to be destroyed because she's an older model whose skin is now decaying. Zoe wants to save her. Again, that's all irrelevant to the main story. It would have improved the film to leave it out.

Other things could have been added. Ash's jealousy of Cole is underplayed. Ash politely accepts that Zoe doesn't love him in return. Intensifying the love triangle would have made the film more interesting.

At present "Zoe" has only been released on disc in Germany. It's available on Amazon Prime in America and Netflix in Germany.

Birds of Prey (4 Stars)

Netflix Thursday #3

I just read my first review of this film from 18 months ago. I wrote that Harley Quinn was trying to be a hero. Obviously, I didn't get it. I need to watch some films more than once before I properly understand them. In "Birds of Prey" she isn't trying to be a hero at all. She's just being selfish and looking after herself. If she can better herself by teaming up with a (suspended) policewoman to fight a crime lord, it's what she does. She doesn't do it out of noble motives.

"Birds of Prey" shows Harley Quinn's life without the Joker. That's just as well. In "Suicide Squad" he was a millstone around her leg. With the Joker at her side she could never achieve her full potential. I can see why she liked him. They're both insane, so they have a lot in common, but she's still better off without him.

As in "I Tonya", Margot talks into the camera to explain her life as Harley Quinn. This is something she does very well. It draws the viewer into the story, helping them to relate to whatever's happening. Even if you're not someone like me who likes crazy girls, you can't help loving Harley Quinn.

I shan't write any more now, because I don't have the time. I'm going to the cinema tonight, so I need to rest. DC this afternoon, Marvel tonight. It's a comic book Thursday! Let's see which film is better.

Success Rate:  + 0.5

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

Birds of Prey (4 Stars)

If you read the small print on the poster above, you'll see that the film's full title is "Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of one Harley Quinn". That won't bother most people. They'll just call it "Birds of Prey". So will I, for convenience, but I would rather the film had been made without the first half of the title. In "Suicide Squad" Harley Quinn was such a delicious character, perfectly portrayed by Margot Robbie, that I felt she was hampered by having the other team members around her. Now we have her without the Suicide Squad, and she's even split up with Joker, so what does the film do? It gives her another team!

Admittedly, it takes more than half of the film before the team is gathered. "Birds of Prey" starts off telling the story of the one Bird of Prey that we're interested in. The more we see of the other team members in the later parts of the film, the less we see of Harley Quinn, and that's a loss.

The film is about emancipation in the sense of female emancipation. Harley Quinn complains that she's been under the control of a man, the Joker. Now that she's split up with him, she can do her own thing. She doesn't need a new man for protection.

We also see her trying to turn over a new leaf. She wants to be a good girl, a hero rather than a villain. It's not that easy, because however good she wants to be she's still insane. There's so much depth in her character.

Is "Birds of Prey" better than "Suicide Squad"? Most people seem to think so. My initial feeling is to rate them equally. I quite enjoyed "Suicide Squad", and I need to watch it again soon. Maybe even tomorrow. The fight scenes in "Birds of Prey" are enjoyable, often comical. DC still doesn't make films as good as Marvel, but this is a good attempt.

Doctor Sleep (4 Stars)

I went to the cinema today with low expectations. How could a sequel made almost 40 years later be anywhere near as good as "The Shining"? As expected, the film doesn't reach the level of "The Shining", but it's still a good film.

One of the things that worried me is articles I read in the press that the film would be based on a Stephen King book as well as being a sequel to the Stanley Kubrick film. I didn't see how that could happen. It's well known that Stephen King was very unhappy with "The Shining" after the film was completed. Has he finally accepted it to the extent that he can allow it to referenced in future films? I need to read more about Stephen King's views today.

The early scenes of the film made me groan. It seemed like the director was deliberately packing information into the film to convince the viewer that it really was intended as a sequel to "The Shining". What I mean is, the references seemed forced and overdone. It wasn't until the film settled into its own story that it improved.

The film follows the life of Danny Torrance, the young boy from the first film. 31 years later he's in a mess, struggling with an alcohol addiction. He's lucky enough to meet Billy, a former addict who has faith in him. Eight years later (39 years in total) he's clean.

In the first film Danny had an invisible friend called Tony. Now Danny says that Tony didn't exist, it was just the Shining manifesting itself in him. That's not how I understood Tony in the film, but it might be what the book said, or at least left open to interpretation. Danny encounters Abra, a 13-year-old girl whose Shining is even more powerful than his. She says that she considered Danny to be her imaginary friend for years, before discovering that he really existed. She wrote messages on his wall, and he wrote back.

A group of beings, all of whom have different manifestations of the Shining, feed on others who have the Shining to give themselves long life. They're not actually immortal, but they can live for thousands of years if they feed well, as they like to say. The Shining leaves the body as steam at the moment of death, so they've been killing a lot of people, mostly children. When they discover Abra they're excited, because her Shining would be enough to lengthen their lives for centuries.

I enjoyed the film a lot today. I need to watch it again, because a lot of things happened in the last half hour which weren't completely clear to me. I think I know what was happening, but I have to watch again to make sure.

Christopher Robin (4 Stars)

After "Goodbye Christopher Robin" this is the second film in quick succession that shows the life of Christopher Robin Milne. Whereas the first film showed him as he really was, this is a fictionalised version of his life that strongly diverges from the facts. More of that below.

The cinema today was full mostly of young children with their parents. When I sat down with my friends, all of them adults, I overheard a young boy in the row behind me, probably about five years old, ask his mother, "What are they doing here?" Her reply was, "They want to see Winnie the Pooh as well". "Christopher Robin" features children's characters, and the posters make it look like a children's film, but it's actually a film that has a message only adults can understand:

"However old you are, always remain a child".

That's an easy message to understand, and many adults might smile and accept it in theory, but it's a very difficult philosophy to put into practice. Society expects adults to act like adults. Anyone who doesn't is considered either foolish or insane. Children have great imagination. Children can dream. I sometimes watch my grandson playing with a simple toy, and I can see from the concentration on his face that he's totally involved in what he's doing. Any adult who can't do this has lost something.

The film begins with Christopher Robin saying farewell to Winnie the Pooh, Tigger, Eeyore, Piglet and his other friends. They're his stuffed animals, brought to life by his imagination. He has to leave to go to boarding school. He promises Winnie that he will never forget him, even when he's a hundred years old. That's an easy promise for a child to make, but it's a tough promise for an adult to keep. 25 years later he's an executive for a suitcase manufacturing company in London. He doesn't even have time to spend with his wife and daughter, so how can he find time to sit and remember his childhood friends?

Christopher Robin might have forgotten his fantasy friends, but they haven't forgotten him. Winnie the Pooh comes to visit him in London, and Christopher Robin returns to his childhood home in Hundred Acre Wood.

I have a personal attachment to the life of Christopher Robin and can relate to him more than most of my readers. He grew up in a remote house in the woods, where he had no friends of his own age, and he spent his time with his father and his stuffed animals. I grew up in a house on the grounds of Little Aston Hall, and there were no other children around me. I spent my early years walking alone through the fields and meadows, alone with my dreams and my fantasies. In retrospect, I'm surprised that my mother wasn't worried about me when I was gone for hours. When I was eight years old my parents moved to a large town (Walsall), and I changed. I was no longer the same person.

After watching "Goodbye Christopher Robin" two months ago I read up on the life of A. A. Milne and his son Christopher Robin, so I was jolted in the early scenes when the character's biography was changed. To name the things that I noticed:

Robin wasn't his surname, it was his middle name. His correct name was Christopher Milne.

The names of Christopher's wife and daughter are changed, from Lesley to Evelyn and Clare to Madeline respectively. Maybe that's because Lesley Milne is still alive and doesn't want her real name to be used. I wonder what she feels about Hayley Atwell's portrayal of her.

Christopher's father didn't die when he was a child. A. A. Milne died in 1956. The early death in the film puzzled me more than any other change to his life story.

Christopher is shown meeting his wife before the Second World War and leaving for war while she was pregnant, so he didn't see his daughter until she was six. In reality, he got married in 1948 and his daughter wasn't born until 1956.

These are Christopher Milne's stuffed animals, on display in the New York Public Library.

"Christopher Robin" is a very good film, especially if you're old enough to appreciate it. The acting by Ewan McGregor and Hayley Atwell is impeccable. I didn't get a chance to talk to the boy sitting behind me. If I'd spoken to him I would have said, "Remember this film and watch it again when you're 50".

Brassed Off (5 Stars)

Like "Tamara Drewe", "Brassed Off" is a film about a woman who returns to her home town after a long absence. As in "Tamara Drewe" the woman's looks have improved greatly while she was away. In both films the woman drives the men crazy when she returns. That seems to be a popular theme in British films.

Tara Fitzgerald plays Gloria Mullins, a woman who left the north England industrial town Grimley to go to university. After that she took a job at British Coal as an administrative worker. In 1994, after an absence of 10 years, she's sent to Grimley to write a report on the profitability of the Grimley Coal Mine. The Tory government has already decided to close the mine, so her report will never be read. It's just something that has to be done so that British Coal can't be accused of being unfair.

Even though the government has made the decision, the miners are given a chance to vote on it. If they vote to close the mine they'll be paid £23,000 severance pay. If they vote to keep the mine open the executives will decide, and if they decide to close the mine the miners will only receive £15,000 severance pay.

When I was younger I couldn't care less about coal mines. To me they were big dirty pits whose workers die young. Now that I'm older I have a sentimental attachment to them. Both of my grandfathers were miners. My father's father was a miner all his life. My mother's father was a miner in his early years, but he changed careers after the Second World War. First he owned a betting shop. After that he trained to be a nurse, and he worked in a mental hospital for the rest of his life. I regret that I don't know more about his life. I visited my grandparents a lot when I was a child, and he was a nurse all the time I knew him. I should have asked him more questions. My grandfather died when I was 16, my grandmother died when I was 22. Years later I asked my mother about them, and all that she said was, "Your grandfather was a very good man, but your grandmother was a wicked woman". That was it.

"Brassed Off" is a more complex film than "Tamara Drewe". There are different plots intertwined. It's a love story. It's a political story. It's a social drama. It's a film about music. All four factors are of equal importance, which is what makes the film so powerful. The film's title refers to the Grimley Colliery Brass Band. It's an all-male brass band made up of miners that has been in existence since 1881. In exceptional circumstances women and non-miners are allowed to be members, but only if they were born in Grimley. Gloria Mullins is such an exception. She's the granddaughter of Arthur Mullins, the best trumpet player who was ever in the band. As the only woman in the band she's the centre of attention.

All everyone talks about in Grimley is the closing of the coal mine. It's a poor town, and the mine is the only large employer. Nobody wants the mine to close, but they're afraid it will close anyway and are too afraid to vote against the closure. The only exception is the band's conductor, Danny Ormondroyd. For him music is all that matters. He says that even if the mine closes the band will continue to bring joy to the people of Grimley. His opinion isn't shared by the people who have difficulty putting food on the table.

I consider this to be the best film of Pete Postlethwaite's career. His naive enthusiasm for music is moving.

The film has so many other strengths. Apart from the perfect acting the scenery underlines the story. It's all about England, the working class England that I grew up in. I grew up in Walsall, not south Yorkshire where the fictional town of Grimley is located, but it's a similar town with similar streets. (The film was shot in Barnsley). Maybe the town is too English, which could be alienating to foreign viewers. I love it! I'm amazed that it was a box office failure. How could anyone not like this film?

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

Beauty and the Beast (4 Stars)

This is a fairy tale that can warm the hearts of young and old alike. A beautiful young woman is held captive by an ugly looking beast, but she sees the tenderness in his heart and learns to love him. While not strictly a romantic comedy, it follows the rules of romantic comedies. There's no suspense in the film. Everything is predictable, we know from the beginning that there will be a happy ending, but does it matter? Of course not. In the magical world of fairy tales we always know that the heroes will live happily ever after.

Maybe I have a twisted sense of aesthetics, but I didn't find the beast ugly at all. He might have been non-human with an animal-like face, but to me he wass a very handsome looking beast with a lovable expressive face. In contrast, when he finally assumed his human form at the end of the film I found he looked silly and unattractive. There was laughter in the mostly female audience when he was transformed. Did they think the same as me?

This is the must-see film of 2017. It's the year's most successful film so far, and it will be difficult for other films to out-perform it at the box office. It's considered a women's film because of the romantic elements, but that's unfair. Any man who doesn't enjoy it must have a heart of stone.

I love you, Phillip Morris (4 Stars)

"Did I forget to mention I'm gay? Yeah, I'm gay. Gay, gay, gay, gay, gay. I have been as long as I can remember".

This is the amazing true story of Steven Jay Russell, the con man who became famous for escaping from prison four times, more often than anyone else in America. Two of his escapes were from maximum security prisons. His most spectacular escape was by faking his own death. He might still be walking free today, if not for his love for Phillip Morris. Whenever he escaped he headed straight to Phillip's house, which is where the police were waiting for him. Love makes the smartest of men do crazy things.

He's now serving a 144 year prison sentence in Texas. He's locked in his cell 23 hours a day, and he's only allowed out to shower and exercise under strict supervision. This is unique in America's prisons. Normally only murderers and other violent criminals are dealt with so harshly. No other criminal who has only committed fraud is treated like this. After the experiences in the past this is deemed necessary, because it's the only way to be sure that he won't escape again.

What do children see when they look at the clouds?

Is that cloud a bat?

What about that cloud? It's a dog's head.

I have no idea what this cloud looks like.

On a general note, I'm surprised to see that all three of my recent James Bond film reviews are in the list of my 10 most popular posts. That's today, June 19th. If you're reading this post next month or next year they might no longer be in the list, which is shown on the right. All three of the films feature Pierce Brosnan. I'm not sure whether this is because of a general interest in James Bond or in Pierce Brosnan himself. Currently "The world is not enough" is in fifth place, "Tomorrow never dies" is eighth, and "Die another day" is ninth. Only "GoldenEye" isn't listed, although I remember that it spent a few weeks in my top 10 after I wrote the review in January.

Miles Ahead (3½ Stars)

This is a biopic about the legendary jazz musician Miles Davis. It takes place in 1980, when he re-emerged to perform after a five year hiatus. There are frequent flashbacks to his earlier years and his relationship to his wife Frances. Though not explicitly stated, it's suggested that the break up of his marriage was a contributing factor to his retirement from music in 1975. Over the following five years he spent all his money on drugs and parties. In 1980 we see him as an emotional wreck, behaving more like a gangster than a serious musician.

Don Cheadle's performance as Miles Davis is nothing less than awe-inspiring. My problems with the film are its non-linear narrative. I knew nothing about Miles Davis' life before I went to see the film, and it wasn't clear to me how much time was elapsing between the events. After reading about him it seems like the film's flashbacks take place from 1958 to 1968. This was only a short time in his career. He performed as a jazz musician from 1944 to 1991, apart from his five year break.

I have to say, after watching the film, that I still know very little about Miles Davis. The film focuses on his relationship with his wife and less on his music. What influenced his musical development? What made him change his style over the years? Those are questions left unanswered.

Haywire (3½ Stars)

Mallory Kane is employed by an unnamed private company that does jobs for the American government. It's an organisation that does things America isn't allowed to do itself, things it would like to deny responsibility for. In this case Mallory travels to Spain to free a Chinese informer who is being held by Basque separatists. Unfortunately Mallory is set up. The informer is killed, and she is given the blame. She has to flee across Spain, Ireland, England, Canada and America, pursued both by her former colleagues and good cops.

This isn't a bad film. As far as the action and suspense goes it's quite good. And look at all the big name actors in it: Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas, Ewan McGregor, Michael Fassbender. But something is missing. The film doesn't have that certain magic that makes me jump up and shout about it. That's the magic that I look for in every film I watch. It might be a Hollywood blockbuster, it might be an indie film with unknown actors, it might even be an erotic comedy. Either a film has the magic or it doesn't. In cases where the magic is missing it's often difficult to say where the blame falls. In this film it's easy to point a finger. The film's weak link is the lead character, Gina Carano, who plays Mallory Kane. As another reviewer has written, she's "all kick and no charisma".

So who is Gina Carino? She has a successful career behind her as a Mixed Martial Artist (MMA). She appeared in "American Gladiators". She's now retired from fighting and has decided to follow a career in films. In many ways she's a perfect action heroine. She can jump around the room beating up men as fast as they attack her. I'm almost certain she does all her own stunts. But as I said before, she's "all kick and no charisma". When she talks she's boring. When she performs a love scene she seems awkward. She can't win my sympathy as a viewer. Maybe she'll improve over the next few years. I hope so. She's one of the favorites to play Wonder Woman in a future DC film. If she can learn to act better she'll be a good choice.

I love you, Phillip Morris (4 Stars)

This is the true story of Steven Jay Russell, a notorious American con man and prison escaper. He's the only person in America ever to have escaped from prison four times, including twice from a maximum security prison. That's quite an achievement, a work of genius, but obviously Steven wasn't smart enough to stop himself being re-arrested. Or maybe he has an Achilles heel, as the film shows. Tragically, his love for Phillip Morris has been his downfall.

Steven Russell and Phillip Morris met in prison. Steven was in prison for insurance fraud, Phillip was in prison for "stealing" (i.e. not returning) a rental car. The film suggests that Phillip's crime might have been an accident, maybe he just forgot that the rental time had expired. Steven was already a hardened criminal at this time, revelling in his trade as a con man. They spent a few months sharing a cell, their own personal love nest. Steven's skills as a con man kept him in money, even behind bars, and they lived in relative comfort. It wasn't until they were separated that Steven decided he had to escape. Whenever he escaped he went straight to Phillip's home, which made it easy for the police to find him.

Steven's cons were so bold that they were magnificent. During his career he impersonated a doctor, a lawyer, a judge and an FBI agent. His most extravagant escape was by faking his own death. While watching the film I couldn't believe it really happened, it seemed too crazy to be true. But it did. Check his Wikipedia page.

Jim Carrey was the perfect choice to play Steven Russell, the man with many faces. Ewan McGregor also fits in well with his subdued portrayal of the shy Phillip Morris. I've read that the original version of the film had to be toned down because the homosexual scenes were too explicit. It's sad that prejudice like this still exists today. On the other hand, seeing Jim Carrey in any sex scene is somehow unsettling. I can't remember him having a sex scene in any film so far. In the first 10 minutes of the film we see him singing in church, having sex with a woman and having sex with a man. I don't know which of these three scenes is the most disturbing.

"How does a person who doesn't exist go on existing?"

This film's big quote jumped out at me. It was unmissable, and as usual I paused the film to write it down. Maybe it's something that just applies to me and my psyche. The question touched me deeply, but maybe I'm taking it out of context. In the film it's the soul-searching question of a deceiver who never lets anyone see his real face. For me it's more a matter that I'm a person that nobody really knows, because my life has moved through drastically different phases. It's not that I'm hiding the past, I've just left it so far behind that I'm unrecognisable as the same person. I'm like a ghost floating through this world. I want to touch people I meet with acts of kindness, but I don't believe I have ever done anything truly memorable. I continue my existence by re-inventing myself for each new phase of my life.

My regular readers probably know that I'm a big fan of Jim Carrey, especially his serious films. Despite occasional comic elements I'd say this is a serious story. It's not so much his skill as an actor that attracts me, it's his choice of films. What I mean is, seeing Jim Carrey's name in a film's credits is the guarantee that it's a well written story, whatever it's about. I feel tempted to do a Jim Carrey film marathon, but now isn't the right time. I'll just weave in a few of his films with my regular viewing.

The Ghost (4 Stars)

This film is also called "The Ghost Writer" in some countries.

Ewan McGregor plays a ghost writer who is hired to assist a British ex-prime minister, Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan), in writing his memoirs. To do this he has to go to the remote American island Martha's Vineyard where Lang is living in virtual exile. Lang is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged humanitarian crimes, having delivered Al Qaeda terrorists to the American CIA for interrogation under torture. He is safe in America, since the USA is one of the few countries that does not recognise the ICC. The ghost writer is caught up in the frenzy of public protests and media coverage while trying to do his work and delve into Lang's past.

Significantly, the ghost writer is never named in the film. Ghost writers always remain anonymous, as part of their contract. They are commonly used by politicians or celebrities who are unable to write their own autobiography, whether it's due to lack of time or lack of writing skill. Seriously, does anyone really believe that Katie Price wrote her own books? Ewan McGregor and Pierce Brosnan excel as the two main characters. The slow and steady suspense are typical for films directed by Roman Polanski. I don't think Polanski has ever made a bad film. He's an old school director who puts the emphasis on the plot rather than sensational special effects.

Brassed Off (5 Stars)

Please forgive me for being unpatriotic, but I'm not a big fan of British cinema. Not modern British cinema, anyway. Back in the 1960's British films were the best in the world, but in the 1970's the British film industry went into decline and hasn't recovered since. The problem is that there isn't enough money. It's not just about expensive special effects. The best producers and screenwriters are tempted to Hollywood by big money offers.

If you were to ask me which country's films I like the most I'd look at my DVD collection before giving an answer. What country were most of the films made in? America comes first. Then Germany. I have a whole bookcase full of German films. After that Japan and China come in as a distant third and fourth. And Britain crawls into fifth place.

I'm not saying that Britain never makes good films. "Slumdog Millionaire" was a great film. And then there's this film, "Brassed Off". Just describing the plot doesn't do it justice. In my opinion this simple little film is the best British film made in the last 30 years. Against the background of true events, it takes place in the north England town of Grimly in 1992. The coal mine which is the town's main employer is threatened with closure. Against this depressing scenario we see the story of one man who is fighting to keep the miners' brass band active. It isn't a comedy, although it does have a few funny moments. The late Pete Postlethwaite excels in his role as the band's conductor, a man with a passion for music above all else. This was the peak of his career. I know, I know... this is a film that doesn't sound interesting from its description, but I strongly recommend it, you won't be disappointed.