Paddington in Peru (4 Stars)

This is the third film in the Paddington series. Can it be considered the final part in a trilogy? Yes and No. It doesn't round off any open threads from the previous films, which is a No. But it goes back to Paddington's origins, which is a Yes. So make your mind up.

Paddington has settled into his new home in London. He even has a British passport, although he has no reason to leave the country. One day he receives a letter from the Home For Retired Bears in Peru, telling him his Aunt Lucy wants to see him. I don't remember her being mentioned in the previous films, but a flashback tells him that she's the bear who rescued him when he fell into a stream as a child. He was separated from his parents, so she brought him up as her own child.

Paddington sets off to visit her with the Brown family. If you don't know who they are, go back and watch the first two films! On arriving in Peru, he's told that Lucy has gone on a journey. This is suspicious, because she's left her glasses behind. Foul play is suspected.

Together with the Reverend Mother who leads the Retirement Home, Paddington and his friends head into the jungle after hiring a boat from a devious sailor.

Olivia Colman looks like the role as Reverend Mother was written for her. I've tagged the film as a musical because she occasionally breaks into song, leading the other nuns to dance around her.

I had difficulty rating the film. The scenery is spectacular. It was filmed in Colombia, not Peru itself, but it looks realistic enough. I can't tell the difference. Can you? Despite frequent slapstick sequences, I didn't find it particularly funny. I glanced sideways and saw that Oliver also didn't laugh much, although he told me later that he'd enjoyed the film.

This was my first visit to the Metropol cinema since it changed owners. It used to belong to the Innenstadt cinemas, but it closed in December 2020 due to the Corona pandemic. It reopened in October 2024 as part of the Traumpalast group. When the cinema closed it wasn't expected to reopen as a cinema, so the building's owner demanded that the seats be removed. This was unfortunate, because it delayed the reopening while new seats were installed. The Traumpalast made the most of it by installing luxurious seats, better than the old seats.

I'm Still Here (4 Stars)

In 2008 Joaquin Phoenix announced that he was retiring as an actor and would pursue a new career as a rapper. He hired a documentary crew to film him every day. A big screen version of the Osbournes. As we later found out, it was all a hoax. After 12 months he returned to acting. But what's remarkable is that almost nobody knew. His feeble attempts at rapping were ridiculed by the media, and he didn't care. He was even mocked by Ben Stiller at the 2009 Oscars.

What other actor would have done something like this? Only someone as insane as Joaquin Phoenix.

Here's the film's title song, which Joaquin performed live in Miami.

---

I'm still here,
I don’t scare,
I don't fear,
Don't even fear fucking fear.
I never cracked, never,
I don’t give, never,
I'll live forever, I'm the one that God chose.

I'm still real,
I won't kneel,
Unless it's God, my team know how I feel,
I never sold out, never, my good soul, never,
I'll live forever, I'm that one that God chose.

I heard the call, alarms sounding off,
Feeling guilty cause my night was spent fucking off,
History’s perverted me,
Words can never harm me,
Saying I’m the epitome of a motherfucking self-parody,
A charity being formed for this deformity,
Cause man can't conform for nobody.
I made it here despite the efforts of a few.
What can I say to a punk but "Fuck you"?
You might suggest I’m conscious at best,
A pretentious mess that can't get himself even dressed.
In response I don't get mad,
I shake you off,
Waving goodbye like I was last year's fad.
Trendsetting on you, I won’t be betting,
I let it go so long as you know I'm stormy weather,
And whether or not you're better or not,
Couldn't make a lick of difference from where I'm sitting at the top.

I'm still here
Through these years,
I don't scare
Don't even fear fucking fear.
I never cracked, never,
I don't give, never,
I'll throw it down,
You can bet on that, fella.

I'm still real,
I won't kneel,
Unless it's God, my team know how I feel.
I never sold out, never, my good soul, never,
I'll live forever, I'm that one that God chose,
Bitch!

Long-winded letters that I've written,
Once a snake has bitten I'll forgive but won't forget it,
Not taking revenge, I don't have the time to do to you
All the fucked up things, fantasies of ruining you.
Ain't got a crew, but I'll take on you,
Gotta wrap this shit up with you cause I'm so fucking bored.
Just this one thing I gotta say to let you know,
To get off my chest before this long rest,
I never betrayed you, I never did what you thought I did,
But still you came at me swinging, kid.
Nevertheless, I wish you the best, I pray you get to Heaven,
But more than likely you'll be burning with the Devil.

Here,
Through these years,
I don't scare,
Don't even fear fucking fear.
I never cracked, never,
I don't give, never,
I'll grow in value, you can bet on that.

I'm still real,
I won't kneel,
Unless it's God, my team know how I feel.
I never sold out, never, my good soul, never,
I'll live forever, I'm that one that God chose,
Bitch!

Wonka (4 Stars)

Yet another film about Willy Wonka? I can vaguely remember seeing Gene Wilder in the 1971 film, but I never bothered watching the 2005 film with Johnny Depp. I wouldn't have gone to the film today if my grandson Oliver hadn't insisted on seeing it.

In the new film Timothee Chamolet plays Willy Wonka, a young man who dreams of opening a chocolate shop. He can perform acts of magic to help himself reach his goals, but the magic either works or doesn't work, depending on the plot necessities. When he arrives in the unnamed small town he doesn't have any money, so he intends to sleep on a bench. He's approached by the co-owner of a laundromat who offers him a room for only one sovereign that he can pay later. At the laundromat he signs a contract, even though he can't read. The terms of the contract effectively enslave him for 10,000 days, more than 27 years.

With the help of a fellow slave, a girl called Noodle, he manages to get in and out of the building during the day, preparing to open his chocolate shop. But there's a cartel which has a monopoly on chocolate sales in the town, and they're prepared to kill him to prevent the competition.

Today was my first opportunity to try out my cinema's new D-Box seats, which were introduced two months ago. They're a cheaper version of the 4DX seats that I used when I saw "Avengers Endgame" in Birmingham. They're comfortable recliners with vibrations and slight swaying motions. There's no wind, water or scent. As a budget version of the 4DX chairs they're not particularly enjoyable. The vibrations were annoying on every setting from light to extreme.

The chairs have also been installed poorly. They've been put in two rows at the back of the cinema, rows 20 and 21. The screen looks small in the distance. It would have been better to place them in the middle of the cinema, maybe as the tenth row. The main advantage of putting them at the back is that it'll be easier to remove them if they prove to be unpopular.

According to my cinema's website, there's a seven Euro surcharge for the D-Box seats. On the surface that seems to be true. The standard price today was 10.50 Euros, and the price for D-Box seats was 17.50 Euros. But there are hidden charges that can be found in the small print. There are no rebates allowed on the price of D-Box seats. As the owner of a Cineplus card I receive a one Euro rebate on seats, so I would have paid 9.50 Euros for a normal seat, but I had to pay 17.50 Euros for a D-Box seat; an eight Euro surcharge. For children it's even worse. For children under 11 the normal seats cost 6.90 Euros, but there's no children's price for the D-Box seats; they still cost 17.50 Euros. That's a whopping 10.60 Euro surcharge, 153% extra for something that nobody wants.

The D-Box seats are a failure. Poor quality, overpriced and badly placed. The seats were hardly used today, only one person apart from Oliver and myself. We shan't use them again. In the post-Corona days of smaller cinema audiences it was a foolish investment that won't recoup its costs.

The Gentlemen (4½ Stars)

I almost didn't go to see this film. I have mixed feelings about the director, Guy Ritchie. His first two films, "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" (1998) and "Snatch" (2000) were works of genius, among my favourite films ever. After that he slumped. "RocknRolla" (2005) was awful, the Sherlock Holmes films were entertaining but average, and "King Arthur" (2017) was dull. Probably his worst film was "The Man from UNCLE" (2015), which is a stain on the memory of a wonderful TV series. "The Gentlemen" was scheduled for release in Germany two months later than in England and America, so I had time to decide if it was worth the price of a cinema ticket. The trailer didn't impress me, but critics and fans were calling it a "return to form" for Guy Ritchie, so I gave it a chance.

Wow!

From the opening minutes I was drawn in. The style of the storytelling is as enthralling as the story itself. An investigative journalist wants to blackmail an American drug lord operating in Britain, so he sits and relates what he knows. The drug lord, Mickey Pearson, wants to retire from the business of selling marijuana, and he's offered his operations for £400 million to a rival. The reporter, Fletcher, has uncovered secrets about him and offers to keep them out of the newspaper for £20 million.

The film's strength is less in the plot than in the richness of the characters portrayed. We see all levels of British society, from aristocrats to the middle class, workers and low-level drug addicts. They are credible characters, and they're amusing in the way they react to one another. I couldn't help laughing out loud at situations that were serious in themselves.

This is a must-have film for my Blu-ray collection. On the bus coming home I thought long and hard whether to give it a full five star rating. I decided against it, because it's not quite as good as Guy Ritchie's first two films. Almost, but not quite. It's possible that I'll rethink my rating after watching it again.

I expect most of my readers live in countries where the film is no longer running in the cinema. If you haven't seen it yet, wait for it to be shown on television or online. You won't be disappointed.

I'm Still Here (4 Stars)

In 2009 Joaquin Phoenix, 34 years old at the time, announced that he was giving up acting to follow a career as a hip hop singer. This was to be the subject of a documentary, so cameras followed him day and night for the next 12 months. During this time his health and his physical appearance deteriorated, and he received setbacks from music insiders telling him he didn't have the talent to make it as a singer.

Some of the events were staged, others happened spontaneously, and they are all mixed up together. This is similar to the way that modern reality shows are made. Be honest: does anyone really believe that the Osbournes, Anna Nicole Smith or even Honey Boo Boo behave naturally when a camera is pointing at them?

Joaquin didn't really intend to quit acting, but this wasn't evident at the time. He remained in character throughout the filming, which meant that many people, even news reporters, believed he was really quitting. Very few people were in on the secret that it was just a film. Even David Letterman was fooled when he invited Joaquin Phoenix onto his show.

What was Joaquin Phoenix trying to say with the film? He was making fun of himself, he was mocking reality shows, and he was showing how shallow the music and film industries are. More than anything else, he was making fun of the audiences who watched him live (during that year). He was ridiculing them because they were gullible enough to believe anything.

The Man From UNCLE (3 Stars)

This is a difficult film for me to write about. I sat in the cinema watching it with my friends. It had good acting, fast action and a few pretty girls. And yet it didn't excite me. Something was missing. I can't quite figure out what it is. I wouldn't even criticise the story, as some other reviewers have done. Since the film is set in 1963 there's nothing wrong with making it about a nuclear bomb that has fallen into the wrong hands. That's a typical plot for a cold war era spy thriller. Why do something new?

Maybe my problem with the film is that I couldn't help comparing it with the original television series. Robert Vaughn and David McCallum were so charismatic as Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin that it's impossible to accept anyone else stepping into their shoes.

The best thing about the film is that it has sparked interest in the TV series. Until now it has never been made available on DVD in England. This month the first season was finally been released as a box set, 51 years after its first broadcast. I assume the other three seasons will follow soon.

One thing amused me in the film. At the beginning of the film Napoleon Solo goes to East Berlin to free Gaby Teller. They have a brief conversation in German, for which subtitles appear on the screen. Gaby tells Napoleon he has a strong American accent. That was ridiculous, as anyone who speaks German can verify. Napoleon Solo is played by Henry Cavill, a British actor. Gaby Teller is played by Alicia Vikander, a Swedish actress. Henry's German was surprisingly clear, and he could have passed for a German in short conversations. Alicia's spoken German was so bad that it was barely understandable. She could never pass for a German, and yet she was the one criticising him.

As you can see from the ticket, I was admitted free as a meerkat. Lucky me.

Cloud Atlas (4½ Stars)

In the post I made on "The Phantom Empire" last night I mentioned that I have a pile of 12 unwatched DVDs. So, am I making an attempt to watch them all? Not today, at least. I felt drawn to watch "Cloud Atlas" again. It's such a powerful film that it's worth watching repeatedly. Despite telling six stories in parallel the film isn't overly complex, in my opinion. It's always obvious what is happening.

Here is my pile of unwatched DVDs. They're stacked up on top of my computer, so they're close enough to remind me of their existence. This photo also shows something that you might not know. German DVDs have the writing on the side the opposite way round to English language DVDs. Do you see the ones I mean? "Hoppe hoppe Reiter" (3rd down), "Jud Süss" (9th down) and "Nacht über Berlin" (10th down). English DVD inscriptions are from top to bottom, while German inscriptions are from bottom to top.

Don't worry. I'll watch them all. Eventually. Hopefully soon, but I'm not making any promises. But at least you have an advance warning of future reviews.

Four Weddings and a Funeral (4 Stars)

This was the most successful British film ever. It was made on a budget of £3 million and earned over £250 million at the box office. It was made in 1994, but I didn't see it until today. Sometimes I'm slow.

The film takes place in episodes over a 15 month period, one episode for each wedding. There's no separate episode for the funeral, because the death takes place at a wedding. I won't tell you which one, that would be too much of a spoiler. It centres around Charles (Hugh Grant) and his friends, as they meet at weddings, either as guests or as the bridegroom or best man. A recurring theme is that people meet at weddings and then go on to get married. In a way I can understand this; a wedding is a romantic place to meet someone.

The film is a comedy, but it's a subtle comedy, with humour that takes a while to sink in. The timing of the jokes reminds me of the 1960's Carry On films. After every joke there's a pause or a scene change. If you're a Carry On fan you'll notice it immediately. I did.

I bought the film on Blu-ray for only £4. Recently I carried out a small poll among my Facebook friends, asking how many of them buy Blu-rays. Of the five who answered, only two said Yes. If I add my own vote to the pool it makes three out of six, i.e. 50%. What was more interesting was the reasons why my friends don't use Blu-ray. One of them wasn't aware that Blu-ray players are capable of playing DVDs. A common answer was that they're too expensive.

I have to say that the price issue is partly true. Usually, I'd estimate in 90% of cases, Blu-ray Discs are more expensive than DVDs, but Blu-ray Discs are cheaper today than DVDs were ten years ago. This is especially the case for films that are more than 12 months old. The other 10% is significant. In particular, television box sets are often cheaper on Blu-ray than DVD. The reason for this is that a typical 22-episode box set is made up of six DVDs, but only four Blu-ray Discs. The good companies pass the savings on to the customers.

Price shouldn't be an issue anyway, because the difference is so small. Films usually cost no more than £2 extra on Blu-ray. I never buy films immediately after their release in the stores, I wait 12 months. By then the DVD costs £3 and the Blu-ray costs £5. I think the improvement in the picture quality is worth it. There is an improvement in the sound quality as well, but my home entertainment system isn't good enough to show the difference.

Cloud Atlas (4½ Stars)

"Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb, we are bound to others, past and present. And by each crime and every kindness, we birth our future".

The film tells six stories in parallel.

1. In 1849 Adam Ewing, a young lawyer, is crossing the Pacific Ocean on a ship after making a business deal for his father. The ship's doctor is poisoning him because he wants to rob his treasure. On the voyage Adam befriends a runaway slave, despite being initially a supporter of slavery.

2. In 1936 Robert Frobisher, a composer and conman, is helping an old composer to write a new symphony, "The Cloud Atlas Symphony". Robert discovers and reads the journal of Adam Ewing in the old composer's home.

3. In 1973 a journalist called Luisa Rey is investigating a faulty nuclear reactor. During her investigations she stumbles on letters written by Robert Frobisher.

4, In 2012 Timothy Cavendish, a bankrupt book publisher is tricked by his brother into being locked in a private mental hospital after having an affair with his wife. While there he reads a novel written by Luisa Rey based on her investigations.

5. In 2144 Sonmi-451 is one of many genetically engineered slaves. After seeing a film about Timothy Cavendish's escape from the mental hospital she joins a resistance movement and becomes the movement's teacher.

6. In the far future, 106 years after a disaster called "The Fall", most of the Earth is covered by water. Humanity is living in small tribes, some primitive, some technologically advanced. In the advanced tribes Sonmi-451 is revered as the greatest philosophical thinker; in the primitive tribes she is worshipped as a Goddess.

The film is based on a novel by David Mitchell, but the screenplay by Tom Tykwer completely restructures the story and adds new elements. The film shows a progression of souls through death and rebirth. The same actors play different characters in the six stories, sometimes good, sometimes evil, sometimes male, sometimes female. We see that soulmates sometimes find one another again, but sometimes they miss one another in a rebirth and have to wait until the next time. For instance (using the actors' names for convenience), Tom Hanks meets Halle Berry in 1973, but he doesn't reunite with her until 106 years after the Fall. Jim Sturgess marries Doona Bae in 1849, but he doesn't meet her again until 2144.

A lot of reviewers have drawn diagrams to explain the interlocking relationships in the film. That's a sign in itself how complex the film is. I would draw my own diagram, if I were more skilled at using Photoshop. Instead of that I'll include a diagram that I like here. You can click on it to look at a larger version. You can see that Jim Sturgess (the dark blue line) is relatively good in each lifetime, while Hugo Weaving (the yellow line) is always evil, but other people, such as Tom Hanks (the red line) change from good to evil.

Despite the complexity, I don't consider the film too difficult to follow. If you like you can just enjoy the action sequences. You don't have to think about the philosophical implications. The Wachowskis, best known for directing the Matrix trilogy, directed three of the six stories, but anyone familiar with Tom Tykwer's films can see that it is his guiding hand that shaped the whole film.

The film isn't only about the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. The quote at the beginning of this post, one of the teachings of Sonmi-451, states that we are connected to others in the past, which means that they are also connected to us in their future. For instance, the old composer in 1936 dreams about the genetically engineered slaves of 2144. Past and future are intertwined as if they exist in a large circle.

Cloud Atlas (4 Stars)

Stories feed the future.

The Lair Of the White Worm (2½ Stars)

I bought this film after seeing a short clip on television. It seemed like a fascinating horror film, and since it's based on a Bram Stoker novel I expected quality. It didn't live up to my expectations. The problem is Hugh Grant. I've never understood his success as an actor. He's incapable of playing a role, any role, he can only play himself. Maybe it's his Britishness that endears him with American audiences? I don't know.

The story itself is good. In a remote Scottish village an ancient creature, a carnivorous giant worm, returns periodically to devour members of the local population. The film has erotic moments, and is in serious need of a remake. Without Hugh Grant.