Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (5 Stars)

In 1973 Todd Rundgren wrote the words "Love between the ugly is the most beautiful love of all". It's been a long time since I've listened to his album, "A Wizard, A True Star", considered by many to be his best album, but I'll never forget that song. It went through my head as I watched the final scenes of "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" tonight.

In the past I only rated it four stars. I don't know why. It deserves more. I might have been distracted by the imperfect picture quality. The picture is fuzzy, especially in the darker scenes. It's in need of a better remastering.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

In case you're interested, I wrote more about the film in my 2018 review.

Success Rate:  + 0.5

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

---

Addendum on 31st December, 2021

I just found out that "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" will be released on 4K disc on 29th March 2022. That will mean a new remastering. I'm excited.

Sweeney Todd (4½ Stars)

If you'd asked me 10 years ago, I would have said that Johnny Depp was my favourite actor. He made some fantastic films in the 1990's and 2000's. I was irritated by his performance as Captain Jack Sparrow in the Pirates Of The Caribbean films. The films themselves were quite good, I just don't think that he's funny. He has a lot of talent without acting like a buffoon. He's better as a serious actor, or at least he used to be. In his recent serious roles he tends to shuffle around and mumble. There's no passion in his acting. Sweeney Todd was probably his last great role. He's dramatic and awe-inspiring in his madness.

I haven't read the 19th Century stories on which the film is based, but the musical as presented is full of pathos and tragedy. Benjamin Barker, who changes his name to Sweeney Todd to avoid detection, doesn't start out as a bad man. He's a loving husband and father who's mistreated by an evil judge who abuses his position. He sings a tail of woe:

There's a hole in the world like a great black pit,
And the vermin of the world inhabit it,
And its morals aren't worth what a pig could spit,
And it goes by the name of London.
At the top of the hole sit a privileged few
Making mock of the vermin in the lower zoo
Turning beauty into filth and greed. I too
Have sailed the world and seen its wonders
For the cruelty of men is as wondrous as Peru,
But there's no place like London.

Maybe I wouldn't call London the worst place on Earth, but it's certainly a place of evil. Those who are rich trample on those who're poor, believing there's a natural order that gives them the right to do so.

The film's imagery backs up the evil character of London. People walk the streets in suits and top hats. They're the fine gentlemen. Benjamin's friend Anthony is a young sailor who dresses in scruffy clothing. Nobody thinks of him as a gentleman. That's something I recognised years ago. Being a gentleman isn't about being kind to others, it's about how you dress. If you dress well, you're seen as one of the elite. It's assumed that you know how to behave. A gentleman doesn't start a fight on the streets; he beats up poor people in the back yards and alleyways where nobody can see him.

Benjamin Barker himself isn't a gentleman. He's a tradesman, a barber. He returns to London after 15 years at sea, sentenced to banishment for a crime he didn't commit. He wants revenge on the judge who did him harm. Nobody can blame him for that. This wish for revenge is strengthened when he finds out that his daughter Johanna has been adopted by the judge. I still have sympathy with him.

The problem is that the hatred in his heart grows. It starts off with him believing that the judge deserves to die, but it progresses to the point when he looks out of his window at the gentlemen in the street and says that they all deserve to die. Maybe they do deserve to die, but what right does he have to judge them?

The real monster in the film is Mrs. Lovett, played by Helena Bonham Carter. Sweeney Todd's excuse for killing is revenge. Mrs. Lovett's excuse for killing is love. She loves Sweeney Todd and dreams of marrying him. She keeps him happy by supporting him in his quest for revenge. When his lust for killing grows out of hand she doesn't hold him back, she supports him, thinking that if she shares his passion for killing he'll love her too. She's the one who helps him dispose of the bodies. Mrs. Lovett doesn't kill a single person, but she's more than an accessory to the crime, she's a motivator.

The two are a perfect pair in their path of destruction. Are they insane? I'm always slow to call anyone mad, because insanity can be used as an excuse for evil. A lack of morality doesn't mean you're mad, it just means you're a bad person. I would call Sweeney Todd insane, driven mad by the pain of losing his wife and his daughter. He could have been cured if he'd had an understanding lover at his side. Mrs. Lovett isn't mad, she's just cold-hearted and evil. Whatever a court of law might say, she's the real criminal.

Success Rate:  + 1.1

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

This excellent film is only available on DVD in America and England. You can buy it on Blu-ray from Germany. I did.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (4 Stars)

This is one of the reasons I could never be a professional film critic. I'm too erratic with my viewing. At the moment I have more than 60 films on my to-watch list, but I've gone back to watch "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" after watching it less than two months ago. I should be working my way through my list. In my defence, I had a good reason. After seeing "Mary Shelley" three days ago I wanted to watch the film based on her famous novel once again.

I read the novel when I was 15. I'd already seen the two major Frankenstein films, the Universal Studios film of 1931 and Hammer Studios' "Curse of Frankenstein" (1957). I expected the novel to be similar to the films, but it was very different. Instead of being a true horror story it was sad and emotional.There was nothing to scare me, not even the occasional murders, but there was a lot to move me. I remember my friend Bryan Westley interrupting me when he saw me reading the book. He asked me "How many people has he killed so far?" He didn't get it. I hope he's read the book by now.

The film has been badly rated by critics, but unfairly so. This is the most faithful adaptation of the novel so far. It's fast-moving and dramatic. Maybe it's lacking emotionally. Even though it's a sad film it doesn't move me to tears. Maybe there will be a newer better adaptation one day. Until then, this is the best available.

Was Helena Bonham-Carter the correct choice to be cast as Victor Frankenstein's sister Elizabeth? Maybe not. She's one of my favourite actresses, but there's an air of madness about her that doesn't fit the role.

Success Rate:  + 0.5

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

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (4 Stars)

"I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other".

This film was released in 1994 and is often referred to simply as "Frankenstein". I prefer the full name, because it distinguishes it from the other films with the same name. There are some disputes about its quality as a film, but it's recognised as the most faithful adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel, written in 1818.

The two characters Dracula and Frankenstein are usually mentioned in the same breath by fans of the classic horror films. Universal Studios' films about the two characters were both released in the same year, 1931, "Dracula" in February and "Frankenstein" in November. If we look at the two films we can see that the film adaptations were handled very differently. "Dracula" was obviously based on Bram Stoker's 1897 novel, not a 100% accurate reproduction, but close enough for those who knew the novel to recognise the story. "Frankenstein" was different. It borrowed the idea of a creature being pieced together from dead body parts, but the story went in a completely different direction. When Hammer made a new version of "Frankenstein" in 1957, the style gothic instead of impressionist, the film was closer to the original novel, but it still borrowed many of the story deviations from Universal's film.

Summing up, there have been many attempts to faithfully tell the story of Dracula on film, with differing levels of success, but this was the first attempt to tell the story of Victor Frankenstein and his monster as Mary Shelley envisioned it.

The screenplay was written by Frank Darabont, one of my favourite directors. What does he have to say about the film?

"Frankenstein is the best script I ever wrote and the worst movie I’ve ever seen".

Anyone who reads that statement after watching the film has to shake his head in disbelief. Many people like the film greatly, and even those who dislike the film wouldn't say it's the worst film ever made. Far from it.

Frank goes on to qualify what he means, but before quoting his exact words I'll try to explain his feelings. He wrote the script. He had a dream about the film. In his mind he pictured how the finished product would look. He sold the script to the film studio, who then put it in the hands of the director, Kenneth Branagh. The director interpreted the script and gave the film a style that so greatly differed from Frank Darabont's dream that he was devastated. In his eyes it became the worst film he'd ever seen, because he was comparing it with his dream.

To continue with Frank Darabont's words:

"There’s a weird doppelganger effect when I watch the movie. It’s kind of like the movie I wrote, but not at all like the movie I wrote. It has no patience for subtlety. It has no patience for the quiet moments. It has no patience, period. It’s big and loud and blunt and rephrased by the director at every possible turn.

"Cumulatively, the effect was a totally different movie. I don’t know why Branagh needed to make this big, loud film. The material was subtle. Shelley’s book is way out there in a lot of ways, but it’s also very subtle. I don’t know why it had to be this operatic attempt at filmmaking. Shelley’s book is not operatic, it whispers at you a lot. The movie was a bad one. That was my Waterloo. That’s where I really got my ass kicked most as a screenwriter".

I understand Frank Darabont. I sympathise with him. I know what he means about Mary Shelley's novel. I read it after I'd already seen the Universal and the Hammer films several times. I was surprised by the style. The storytelling was slow and elegant. It was an emotional story that made me cry. Even when Frankenstein's monster killed people I felt sorry for him.

Let me contradict Frank Darabont. The movie isn't a bad one. It's a very good film. However, it isn't a subtle film. It's loud and brash, right from the beginning. It was never Kenneth Branagh's intention to make a subtle film. If he'd wanted to make a subtle film he wouldn't have cast actors like John Cleese and Helena Bonham Carter. Kenneth Branagh wanted to make a brash movie, and he succeeded. It only slows down in the final 15 minutes, but even then the sadness and mourning are exaggerated.

Frank Darabont says that he doesn't know why Kenneth Branagh wanted to make this "big, loud film". I'd like to venture a guess. Branagh must have been well acquainted with the old Frankenstein films. They were big and loud, especially the Universal version. I think he wanted to maintain the atmosphere of the old films while returning to the plot of the original novel. Was this the correct choice? I don't know. The film might have been better if it had retained the subtleties of Framk Darabont's dream. It might have been worse. I can't say for certain because it was never made. I don't know what Kenneth Branagh would have done with it.

What I can say with absolute certainty is that if Frank Darabont had directed the film himself it would have been perfect. I have full confidence in his abilities as a director. He would have brought his dream to the big screen and had the cinema audiences in tears.

Success Rate:  + 0.5

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

Ocean's 8 (4 Stars)

Debbie Ocean, the younger sister of Danny Ocean from the Ocean's Trilogy, is released after spending five years in prison for art fraud. She's spent this time meticulously planning an extravagant jewel robbery in her head. All she needs to do is find a team to help her. She assembles a team of six women with different skills around herself. It's only women, because she doesn't trust men. It was a man who snitched on her and got her thrown into prison. The eighth woman is added late in the film.

The target is a diamong necklace worth $150 million that's been locked in a vault at Cartier in New York for 50 years. They manipulate the host of the yearly Met Gala event into borrowing the necklace to wear at the event. She's accompanied at all times by two armed security guards, but Debbie has everything planned.

This is a very good film about suave and manipulative women who manage to keep their cool while fighting against overwhelming odds. The film takes time to introduce all the characters, and by the middle of the film we're rooting for them and hoping they'll be successful. Sandra Bullock is excellent as the criminal mastermind who doesn't actually take part in the robbery; she just stands back and watches as her team do their jobs.

Sweeney Todd (4½ Stars)

This is my second film for today starring Alan Rickman. In it he proves that he isn't just an actor, he can sing as well. That's not something that can be taken for granted. Have you ever heard Pierce Brosnan try to sing, for instance in "Mamma Mia"? It's embarrassing. Then there's Alyson Hannigan. When a musical episode was written for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" parts had to be re-written because she wasn't able to perform all her songs. I don't understand this, because the few lines she does sing in the broadcast episode are adequate. She's not as bad as Pierce Brosnan, and nowhere near as bad as Richard Gere.

Of course, Alan Rickman's singing is over-shadowed by Johnny Depp, who is a magnificent singer. If he had never become an actor he could have embarked on a singing career. Another first class singer is Anthony Head. Those are the only two actors I can think of who are excellent singers. Most others are okay, but they're not good enough to give up their acting.

I enjoy this musical, especially because of the dark humour, but it doesn't live up to other musicals in my collection. I prefer "Tommy", "The Wall" and "Evita".

Alan Rickman plays an evil character in the film, Judge Turpin. I've heard it said that only the best actors can play bad men. That's certainly the case here. It takes an actor of Alan Rickman's stature to portray the nuances of the evil judge. We almost feel sympathy for him, because however bad he is all he wants is to be loved. Almost. We still cheer when Johnny Depp slashes his throat.

Suffragette (5 Stars)

"Never surrender. Never give up the fight".

The Suffragette movement in the early 20th Century was unique in the history of revolutions. All other revolutions were spearheaded by the suppressed workers. The Suffragette movement was a revolution of middle class women. It could be argued that they didn't need to revolt. They had comfortable lives, they had money, they could do whatever they wanted. But there was one thing they couldn't do. They weren't allowed to vote. They took a stand, fighting for something that most of the working class women didn't care about. Why would a poor woman want to vote when she was more worried about earning enough money to feed her children? In that respect, England's middle class women saw more clearly. They fought to give the working class women what they needed, not necessarily what they wanted.

Having said that, what I enjoy most about this film is that it doesn't concentrate on the fight of middle class women. The main character is Maud Watts, a woman who works in a laundry. As she says of herself, she started work part time when she was 7, full time when she was 12, and she was now a forewoman at 24, but she still earned less than the male employees. This makes the film more poignant. We see a woman suffering from issues other than not being able to vote. For Maud the right to vote is a means to an end, she wants women to vote so that new laws can be passed to achieve equality for women.

The film did make me question some of my personal ethics. I'm someone who believes in obeying the law. If I don't like what's happening around me I call upon the law to be changed to stop it happening. In short, I'm a good citizen. That wasn't the case with the Suffragettes. They weren't good citizens, they were rebels. They broke the law. They smashed shop windows and blew up houses. That was the right thing to do. If they hadn't taken extreme measures women still wouldn't be able to vote today.

"Never surrender. Never give up the fight".

Is the fight over? I think not. I'm not just talking about countries like Saudi Arabia where women still aren't allowed to vote. I'm talking about England. Women have equality in theory, but not in fact. Women are paid lower wages, as long as it isn't admitted that their gender is the reason for the discrimination. When women complain about it men point at the few top women who earn more than most men, trying to distract from the fact that they're rare examples.

Emmeline Pankhurst (who we only see briefly in the film) didn't accept the status quo and the breadcrumbs thrown to her by men. She was a revolutionary. She fought for something that the majority of women in England didn't know they needed. In the same way Valerie Solanas fought for the overthrow of male-dominated society in the 1960's, although most women didn't listen to her. I fear that the fight has already been given up. Women today have been brainwashed into believing that they've already won. It's time to take up the fight again, not stopping until all patriarchal structures in government and religion have been overthrown.

Terminator: Salvation (3 Stars)

In 2003 Marcus Wright, an inmate on death row, donates his body to science after his death. He's executed. Then 15 years later he finds himself walking around in a world run by machines. He's in the world after Judgement Day, which took place in 2004 at the end of "Terminator 3". But how did he get there? Maybe the resistance leader, John Connor, can give him an answer.

This isn't a bad film. It's not a bad film at all. It's a sci-fi action thriller with a dash of mystery as mankind battles against an overwhelmingly powerful foe. So what's wrong?

The problem is that the film stands in the shadow of the previous films, especially the first two. The Terminator film series could have ended with "Terminator 2". The loose ends of the first film had been tied up, and the world had been saved. Then "Terminator 3" was made in 2003 to milk the cow. Why end a series if it's making money? Though not reaching the heights of the first two films, "Terminator 3" has an appeal that I appreciate more every time I watch it. Then there was a diversion with the TV series "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" (2008-2009), which took place between "Terminator 2" and "Terminator 3". The series contained some very good ideas, but it was cancelled after the second season, in the middle of a mind-bending cliffhanger. In my opinion, it would have been a good idea to make a film concluding the story started in the TV series, but it was simply ignored, and "Terminator: Salvation" (which I prefer to call "Terminator 4") was written to continue the story from "Terminator 3".

There's something that the first three Terminator films and the TV series have in common: mind-twisting temporal paradoxes. These aren't the paradoxes of the Marvel Universe, in which every time the past is changed a new time line is created, so there are multiple pasts and multiple futures. In the Terminator Universe there is only one past and one future, so if you go into the past and start changing things you might return to the future and find yourself in a different world. That's a problem for quantum physicists and sci-fi writers to deal with, while the rest of us just sit and scratch our heads. This head-scratching is what made the Terminator films and TV series great. It's missing from "Terminator 4", apart from the matter of John Connor having to find and save his father Kyle Reese, who is still a teenager. "Terminator 4" is only a sci-fi action thriller with a dash of mystery.

The studios still want to milk the cow. "Terminator 4" has an open end. It would be easy to make a sequel or a series of sequels where it left off. "Terminator 4" made a huge profit at the box offices, over $170 million, so it would make financial sense to continue. But the studios have listened to the fans, most of whom are disappointed with "Terminator 4". There will be a new Terminator film released later this year which will use the end of "Terminator 4" as a hook to travel back in time and reboot the series. This isn't a stupid reboot, like "The Amazing Spider-Man", in which a story is retold just because the old director has been fired and replaced by his inferior. In the case of the Terminator films time travel rewrites the past, so we can expect a Terminator reboot in every generation. It's a shame I won't live long enough to see "Terminator 25 3D Holographic" in 2115. But it might never happen. Instead of a fictional Judgement Day, Vladimir Putin, the President of Lies, might have destroyed the world by then.

"I vant to destroy the vurld, and nobody vill stop me".

Les Misérables (4 Stars)

I'm reviewing the 2012 version of the musical starring Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean. The original story stems from a novel written by Victor Hugo in 1862. Unlike other French novels the original title has been retained for the English version, since it is difficult to translate accurately. A musical based on the novel was first performed in 1980, in French. In 1985 an English language version was first performed in London. The original novel spends a lot of time discussing moral issues, but this is kept to a minimum in the musical. Nevertheless, the lessons are there to be learnt.

The story begins in 1815 when Jean Valjean is released from prison after serving 19 years hard labour for stealing a loaf of bread. Officially he is still on parole, so he has to report to the authorities once a month for the rest of his life. He is given food and refuge in a church, but he is tempted by the riches he sees. He steals the silver plates and flees. The police capture him and bring him back, but the church's priest says that he had given Jean the plates as a gift, and chides him for having forgotten the most valuable items, the silver candlesticks. This act of kindness changes Jean's life, but he also decides that he will never report for his parole.

In 1823 Jean is living under a false name in Montreuil-sur-Mer as a factory owner and the town's mayor. One of his employees, Fantine, is fired because she has an illegitimate daughter. Destitute, she is badly beaten and Jean finds her shortly before she dies. Since he feels guilty for her fate he promises to take care of her daughter, Cosette, as if she were his own child. But Inspector Javert, a policeman who knew Jean as a prisoner, recognises him. Jean flees to Paris and takes on another new identity.

Cosette living in poverty

The story continues in 1832. A revolution is being planned. Inspector Javert is sent to Paris, where he recognises Jean. The revolutionaries capture Javert and deliver him to Jean, but Jean releases him. He says that he bears Javert no ill will because he was only doing his duty. Javert gives no thanks, saying that he will return to arrest Javert after the revolution has been crushed.

There are many more details to the story, but I've only described what's necessary to understand the moral issues. Jean started out as a petty thief, only stealing out of desperation, but his time of imprisonment hardened him. When he was released he had become an immoral person, willing to steal even from some someone who was helping him, but the priest's act of forgiveness made him want to help others. It's wrong to say that Javert was a bad man. In one scene he is speaking to God, and we see that he honestly thought he was doing God's work in pursuing Jean. Javert's mistake was not seeing that a person can change. "Once a thief, always a thief". This is a mistake made by many today, Christians and others. Repentance can be a reality, but others who have "always been good" don't want to accept it and assume the change is only being pretended.

Jean, in the face of persecution, continues to do good. He lives to serve others, especially his adopted daughter Cosette. He even saves Javert's life when he has the chance, by letting the revolutionaries think he is already dead. A man who is truly good doesn't do good in order to gain a reward -- in this case a pardon from Javert -- he does good for its own sake. "Les Misérables" has a lot of lessons to teach us.

Dark Shadows (5 Stars)

There's no justice in the world. This film was a box office flop. I don't understand why. It was directed by Tim Burton, it stars Johnny Depp and vampires are "in". It earned $80 million at the box office, but considering that its budget was $150 million that's an enormous loss. So what went wrong? I honestly don't know. Was it the film's quality? I think not, "Dark Shadows" is a typical mix of Burton-Depp brilliance.

The film is based on the television series that holds the record for being the longest running vampire tv series ever, running for a total of 1225 episodes from 1966 to 1971. Compare that with the 144 episodes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". The tv series is often referred to as a soap opera, as if that would degrade it. The ctiteria for a series being a soap opera is that it is aired at least twice a week without interruption for 52 weeks a year. That would indeed qualify it as a soap opera, even though its supernatural subject matter is unusual for the genre.

Tim Burton, Johnny Depp and Michelle Pfeiffer all claim to be big fans of the original series. As a child Johnny even wished he could be Barnabas Collins. This film fulfilled his wish at last. The story is very compact, only having 90 minutes running time, but it captures the essence of the Barnabas Collins saga. In 1760 the Collins family emigrated from England (Liverpool) to Maine, where they founded first a port and then a town that they named Collinsport. The son and heir of the family, Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp), has a brief affair with a maid, Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green). Unknown to him she's a witch, and when he turns away from her she curses him by making him a vampire and burying him alive.

200 years later, in 1972, his coffin is accidentally unearthed. Barnabas returns to the family mansion and finds it run down. The family matriarch, Elizabeth Collins (Michelle Pfeiffer) is struggling to hold onto it despite being bankrupt. Barnabas reveals the treasure hidden in the cellar and helps revive the family fishing business. But Angelique is still alive and well in Collinsport, now a successful businesswoman. She still loves Barnabas, but he spurns her once more, and she vows revenge.

The beauty of this film is the portrayal of the dysfunctional Collins family. We find out very late in the film that the younger family members, 10-year-old David (Gulliver McGrath) and 15-year-old Carolyn (Chloe Grace Moretz), also have secrets. I'll refrain from spoilers. All I'll say is that the groundwork has been lain for a sequel. Unfortunately, after this film's poor box office performance I doubt the sequel will ever come.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (4 Stars)

It all ends here.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (3½ Stars)

This is Harry Potter's seventh year of school. This would be the upper sixth form, the last year of school for him, except that he's dropped out of school. He's gone underground after the events of the last film. Now he's on a mission to find parts of the Dark Lord's souls hidden in mystical objects called "horcruxes". From the previous film I understood that there were seven horcruxes, but now Harry only speaks about five. Maybe I missed a detail somewhere.

The film moves very slowly. I can't help feeling it would have been better to make one film out of the seventh Harry Potter book instead of two. Why was it split into two films? Was it for artistic or commercial reasons? I suspect the latter, but I haven't read a reliable answer anywhere.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (3½ Stars)

Though visibly the most appealing film so far, very little seems to happen. Rather than being packed with action like all the previous films it moves slowly. And what happened with the blossoming romance with Cho that we saw developing in the last two films? I have a feeling that the film has omitted something that the book explains.

I was also disappointed to see Severus Snape take the side of the Dark Lord. Until now he was my favorite teacher at Hogwart's. I liked to see him as being strict and unfriendly, but on the side of good. Just like a normal teacher! In contrast, I found Dumbledore's familiarity with Harry Potter alienating.

Getting back to the maturing of the characters, just look at Tom Felton in the poster above. He's no longer a child, he has the facial features of a man.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (4½ Stars)

A storm is coming.

Harry Potter is coming of age. I don't just mean the character, I mean the film series as well. I'm glad that the swearing has been toned down since the last film. It's restricted to one exclamation from Ron's lips.

Harry is now 15 and in the 5th form (commonly called Year 10 to align it with the school systems in other European countries). He has his first kiss with Cho. Ah, that brings back memories. I had my first kiss when I was in the 5th form as well, though I was already 16 at the time. It was a clumsy kiss with Mandy Stickland, a friend of my sister's, outside her house in Aldridge after I walked her home. It was nowhere near as romantic as Harry's first kiss. My second kiss, a few days later, was better. Not as hurried, and more passionate. And yet it's the first kiss that I'll always remember. In fact, even though my relationship with Mandy lasted three months it's that one kiss that I remember more clearly than anything else.

Non-Americans probably don't realise that Dolores Umbridge is based on Mary Whitehouse, the bigoted anti-immorality and anti-progress campaigner of the 1970's and 1980's. History will remember her as a person who did evil in the name of good. If she were alive today she would be campaigning to ban the Internet because of its adverse effect on morals. When I was young she scared me; I thought that she would harm the society I was growing up in. Fortunately my fears were unfounded. She faded into obscurity after an injury in 1988 and died in 2001, having failed to bring about changes in any of the issues that meant so much to her.

This is the darkest of the Harry Potter films so far, and contains hints for the following stories. I'm glad that I'm watching them at last. But I'm still not tempted to read the books.

Sweeney Todd (4½ Stars)

I'm afraid that I slipped up here. This should have been my Five Star Month. "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street" (to give it its full title) isn't quite as good as I remembered it, so I had to deduct half a star. While it's enjoyable, as are all films made by Tim Burton, it doesn't quite live up to the other musicals I've watched this month, "Evita" and "Tommy". The film loses some of its quality by not being sung 100%. The spoken interludes deduct from the film's power. Nevertheless, Tim Burton portrays London with a bizarre gothic beauty. I would still recommend that my viewers watch the film.

The story is allegedly based on the life of a real criminal, though many people doubt that Sweeney Todd really existed. Johnny Depp stars as Benjamin Barker, a barber who is sentenced to 15 years in Australia by a judge on a false charge, because the judge wanted his wife. After his sentence he returns to London using the fake name Sweeney Todd, and he once more works in his old barber's shop. More than anything else he wants revenge on the judge, especially when he finds out that the judge is holding his daughter Johanna as a prisoner in his house.

Sweeney allies himself with Mrs. Lovett, his landlady and the owner of the pie shop below where he works. After he kills another barber who threatens to expose him as Benjamin Barker Mrs. Lovett suggests that he should give her the body as meat for her pies. Over the next few weeks he kills many of his customers to help her business. Helena Bonham Carter is deliciously evil as his accomplice.  The viewer can feel some sympathy for Sweeney himself, but Mrs. Lovett has no redeeming qualities.

This is a good film, a very good film. But it doesn't quite deserve the full five stars. Watch it and decide for yourself.

Click here to view the somewhat overlong trailer.