Joker Folie à Deux (5 Stars)

Why it surpasses the first film

Joker (2019) was a character study built on grit, alienation and a slow descent into madness. Joker: Folie à Deux keeps that foundation yet pushes the concept into stranger bolder territory. This shift is exactly what makes it a stronger film. Where the first film offered a grim portrait of a man collapsing under the weight of society, the sequel becomes a fever dream shared between two unstable souls. It is more daring, more self aware and far more playful with the idea of cinematic reality.

The most obvious difference is the musical structure. Instead of repeating the grounded aesthetic of the first film, Folie à Deux uses musical sequences as windows into Arthur and Harley’s shared delusion. These scenes are not simple gimmicks; they become expressions of their mental state. The first film showed Arthur imagining an audience that never applauded him; the sequel lets him build entire worlds in song. The musical moments allow the film to explore fantasy, desire and dependency in ways the original could not. This added layer of surrealism gives the sequel more emotional range.

The chemistry between Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga also strengthens the narrative. Phoenix retains his uneasy unpredictability, yet Gaga brings a chaotic vulnerability that reshapes Arthur’s story. She does not imitate past versions of Harley; she invents her own that fits this universe. The dynamic between them has more energy than anything in the first film. It creates tension, tenderness and danger. Their relationship becomes the engine of the plot rather than a simple consequence of Arthur’s actions.

The sequel also feels less burdened by the need to justify itself as a “serious” comic book movie. It allows moments of humour to seep through, then happily undercuts them with dread. The result is more confident and more artistically free. Where the first film sometimes felt restrained by its insistence on realism, Folie à Deux embraces the subjective chaos of its characters. The film shifts tone with purpose; suddenly a scene is menacing, then it becomes operatic, then intimate. This variety makes it richer and more memorable.

Visually the sequel is more expressive. The colour palette is bolder and the cinematography leans into the idea of unreliable perception. Gotham still feels oppressive, yet it also becomes theatrical, almost like a stage for Arthur and Harley’s fantasies. This blend of harshness and fantasy gives the film an identity distinctly separate from the first.

Most importantly the sequel expands the themes. Instead of focusing mainly on systemic neglect it explores shared delusion, co-dependency and the longing to be seen. Arthur’s story becomes larger than a lonely man’s breakdown; it becomes an unsettling duet about two people who find comfort in each other’s madness. It is disturbing, sometimes touching and always compelling.

Joker: Folie à Deux improves on the first film by refusing to repeat it. It is weirder, more emotional and more ambitious. Instead of explaining Arthur Fleck it lets us get lost in the world he creates with Harley. In doing so it becomes a sequel that dares to be different and ends up being more satisfying.

Success Rate:  - 0.9

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

Gladiator (5 Stars)

My son Benjamin told me that he intends to go to see "Gladiator 2" on Monday, so he suggested that we rewatch "Gladiator" today. That was a good suggestion. It's one of my favourite films, included in my top 100 film list. Admittedly, it's in the bottom half of the list, but every film in my top 100 is a work of genius. There are even brilliant films that aren't quite in the top 100 because there isn't enough room for them. I actually have a top 200 list on my computer, but the bottom 100 are unordered. They're just a list of a hundred films that I don't want to forget because they're almost good enough to be in the top 100. Sometimes I change my mind and push a film into the top 100, but it's always with a heavy heart, because it means that another film has to be omitted.

"Gladiator 2" has been in the cinemas for ten days, but I still haven't gone to see it. I'll probably get round to it soon, but I admit that I have a certain aversion. The thought of making a sequel to an excellent film that's perfect in itself puts me off. There's no Russell Crowe, there's no Joaquin Phoenix. That's obvious, because both their characters died in the first film, but do you see what I mean? It's just an unrelated film which also takes place in an arena. If the film had been given a completely different name, it wouldn't have bothered me. Calling it "Gladiator 2" suggests that the film is something it isn't.

I've avoided reading reviews of "Gladiator 2" because I'll go and see it eventually. The only feedback I've received is the opinion of my friends who've seen it. They're unanimous. They all say, "It's good, but not as good as the original". That's what I expected. I'm sure it's a good film, though not good enough to enter my top 100. I just have to criticise my friends for calling "Gladiator" the original film. It's not the original of anything. It was a standalone film.

Success Rate:  + 2.5

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

Joker Folie à Deux (5 Stars)

I didn't think it was necessary to make a second film about the Joker. The first film said it all. Joaquin Phoenix was only prepared to make a sequel if it went in a different direction. That's what I saw today. Maybe the film was too different for critics and the audience, but it's exactly the film that Joaquin wanted to make.

Arthur Fleck, the Joker, is in prison for almost all of the film. Long sequences take part as a courtroom drama. On the whole, courtroom dramas are boring, but this problem was solved by interspersed musical numbers. Some were dreams, while others simply happened without explanation. I've read reviews that say the music was out of place. I disagree entirely. The music gives the film its strength. They also say there's not enough action. They don't get it. It was never intended to be an action film.

DC has further distanced itself from the film. There's no DC logo at the beginning of the film. I find this appropriate. The Joker in the film isn't the same character that we know from the comics or the Batman films. The comics are just a rough inspiration for the film. In the comics the Joker is a master criminal; in the film he's just a confused psychotic man.

The film is still in the cinemas, but initial predictions suggest it will be a box office flop. That would be a tragedy. Joaquin Phoenix won an Oscar for his performance in the first film, and he's just as outstanding in "Folie à Deux". Lady Gaga is an incredible actress, as always. Brendan Gleeson, one of my favourite actors, is brilliant as the abusive hospital orderly Jackie Sullivan. In my opinion, this is a film that everyone needs to see. Hurry, while it's still in the cinemas.

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!

Napoleon (4 Stars)

I was excited about this film ever since I saw the first trailers. I'm fascinated by Napoleon Bonaparte, even though I've never taken the trouble to read about his rule. He's a character who has hardly ever been dealt with in films, apart from being a minor character, shown in passing. Is Ridley Scott the director who would finally introduce us to Napoleon, the man and his legacy?

The film disturbed me immediately by showing Napoleon as nervous and clumsy in his personal life. Maybe this is accurate. I don't know. It just doesn't seem fitting as a portrayal of one of Europe's most powerful leaders. Maybe Ridley Scott wanted to put this in contrast with his ruthless efficiency on the battlefield.

The film seems rather staccato, especially in the first hour. It rushes through Napoleon's early successes. Maybe this will be put right in the director's cut. I'll have to wait. I was especially disappointed that the film doesn't show Napoleon's forces entering the Vatican and kidnapping the Pope. That would have been an iconic scene. Once again, I need to wait for the director's cut. It isn't until the post-Elba scenes that the film slows down and shows a battle in more detail.

A large portion of the film is about Napoleon's relationship with Josephine. She was an important part of his life, maybe a factor in his downfall. It was interesting to see her looking bored when they had sex. One of the commonly told stories is that he was inadequate at sex. Is that true? Ridley Scott seems to have been convinced enough to show this in the film.

One thing that I did know about Napoleon is shown almost in passing. He wasn't a conqueror like Alexander the Great, or even Hitler. Napoleon wanted peace. He wanted prosperity for France. He only waged war when he was attacked or threatend by other countries. He's often compared with Hitler, and it can't be denied that many soldiers were killed in battle. But he wasn't a tyrant. He only wanted to rule because he considered the alternative leaders to be incompetent or corrupt.

Is the film worth watching? If you're looking for a historical account of Napoleon's life, probably not. I see it more as light entertainment. I doubt I'll watch the film again, at least not the theatrical version. I'll wait for the director's cut.

Gladiator (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #70

This is a film made out of time. It could have been made in the 1950's, when big budget historical films were popular. It has the same style to it as "Ben Hur" and "Spartacus". The film's generic title pays homage to those films. It could be argued that it has greater poignancy than "Spartacus". Spartacus was a slave who became a rebel leader. He started out with nothing before rising in importance. The gladiator Maximus in "Gladiator" moves in the opposite direction. He begins as a general, a trusted friend of the Roman emperor, and then he's reduced to a slave who has to fight in the arena.

There's no doubt that Russell Crowe puts on an incredible performance, but for me the real star of the film is Joaquin Phoenix as Emperor Commodus, the man who becomes Rome's emperor by strangling his father. He's such a complicated character, and Joaquin Phoenix portrays this perfectly. He loves his father, but he kills him because he doesn't feel loved in return. He tries to kill Maximus, because he knows that his father loves him more. He loves his sister and hopes to marry her to produce a pure blooded heir. In so many ways Commodus is a despicable creature, but the way he's played makes us want to weep with him.

I don't think Joaquin Phoenix has found his signature role yet, but this is the closest he's got to it so far.

This is one of only four films I saw in the cinema while I lived in America. The other three were "Jurassic Park: Lost World", "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery" and "Titanic". Four films in three years is a poor showing. I wasn't such a big film fan back them. Since 2014 I've been going to the cinema on average twice a week, or at least I used to, before the Coronavirus closed the cinemas. The German government promised that cinemas can reopen on March 22nd (tomorrow), as long as the Inzidenzzahl remains below 50. That's the number of new Coronavirus infections per 100,000 people in a seven-day period. Unfortunately, the Inzidenzzahl has shot up from 46.2 to 81.1 over the last three weeks. Things are getting worse, not better.

Success Rate:  + 2.5

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

Here's a summary of the films in my top 100 countdown so far. You don't have to tell me there's a hole in the list. I know. I've been watching some films out of order, for various reasons.

71. Enter the Dragon (1973)
72. Pink Floyd: The Wall (1982)
73. The Legend of 1900 (1998)
74. Young Frankenstein (1974)
75. The Virgin Psychics (2015)
76. The Man who would be King (1975)
77. John Rabe (2009)
78. The Paperboy (1994)
79. The Walk (2015)
80. Perfume (2006)
81. The Green Mile (1999)
82. Little Nicky (2000)
83. Monster (2003)
84. Gloomy Sunday (1999)
85. We are the night (2010)
86. Dark Water (2002)
87. What to do in case of fire (2001)
88. The Shining (1980)
89. Azumi (2003/2005)
90. The Mummy (1999)
91. Wie Feuer und Flamme (2001)
92. Attack of the 50 Foot Centerfold (1995)
94. Titanic (1997)
95. Mad City (1997)
96. Leon (1994)
97. Iron Rose (1973)
98. Kick-Ass (2010)
99. Rush Hour (1998)
100. Bella Martha (2001)

Joker (5 Stars)

I saw this film in the cinema in October 2019, and I was amazed. It didn't look like a DC film at all, and I say that as a compliment. It takes a different angle on the character who's been in the comics since 1940 and in films since 1966. In all the previous iterations of the Joker, he was a monster that we immediately hated. This time Joaquin Phoenix has done what he does best: he's presented a bad guy with a heart and soul that we can sympathise with. When he kills the Wall Street workers on the subway train, we can understand why he did it. Even when he kills his mother, we see that it's because she treated him badly as a child. By the end of the film we know that he's a bad person, but we can't help asking ourselves if we'd be any different if we'd been in his position.

There have been on and off rumours about a sequel ever since the film was made. All I can say is that I hope not. "Joker" is such a colossal piece of art that I can't imagine anything living up to it. Joaquin Phoenix won an Oscar as Best Actor for this film. Now let him quit while he's at the peak.

It's curious that the film isn't available on Blu-ray in the USA. I hope it's only temporarily out of print. I know that streaming services are being pushed more aggressively in America than in other countries, but by now people should know that Blu-ray offers better quality than streaming.

Success Rate:  + 17.5

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

Joker (5 Stars)

I always face a dilemma when I see a film in the cinema, instead of watching it at home on Blu-ray a year or longer after its release. There's so much that I would like to write about a film, especially if it's a good film like "Joker" that touches my psyche, but it would be unfair of me to give away spoilers. I know that other reviewers are less sensitive. They're not shy of giving a detailed description of the plot a week after the release. Worst of all is Wikipedia, which gives a blow-by-blow report of everything that happens the day after a film's cinema release, sometimes even earlier. I would appeal to Wikipedia to only allow plot summaries a month after release, but I'm sure the Wikipedia overlords would refuse this, making excuses like "Everyone knows we publish spoilers, so it's people's own fault if they look at a film page".

I'm not Wikipedia. You won't get that from me.

The film "Joker" has received overwhelming praise from critics, but some voices criticise it for justifying the violent reaction of those who are bullied. We all know that the background of classroom shooters is that they were misunderstood bullies who wanted to strike back. I can see the parallel, but I don't believe that's what "Joker" is about. He was insane from the beginning. It's emphasised that he was previously in a mental hospital. It's this madness which leads to the revelation of his psychopathic tendencies. It's not that society mistreats him by not appreciating his talent, it's his narcissism which tells him that he has the right to be appreciated.

The Joker is one of Batman's oldest villains. This is his first appearance in Batman #1 from March 1940. (Batman himself had previously appeared in ten issues of Detective Comics, from May 1939 to February 1940). He was a frequent villain until 1954, but then he disappeared because he was considered too violent to be acceptable to the Comics Code Authority. In 1965 he returned, with the same appearance, but he had more of a comical character. Instead of killing people he played tricks on them.

The Joker appeared frequently in the Batman television series from 1966 to 1968. Critics of the series say that the series was too camp, nothing like the dark character of the comic books. What they don't realise is that the comics themselves were already camp when the series began. The violence of the Batman stories was gradually toned down from 1954 onwards. I can't say at what point the stories became camp, because it was a slow development. All I can say for certain is that by 1965 the comics displayed the same levity as the television series. They remained like this until Steve Englehart brought back the "dark Batman" in 1977.

The first and most prolific actor to play the Joker on screen was Cesar Romero. Apart from appearing in the 1966 Batman film, he was in 22 episodes of the Batman TV series. Rather than just being inspired by the comics, he inspired the comics. The extended lips originated with him and became part of the Joker's appearance in the comics.

Jack Nicholson played the Joker in the 1989 Batman film. He can be considered a transition between the earlier and later portrayals of the Joker by live actors. He shared the madness of Cesar Romero's Joker, but he was more homicidal.

Heath Ledger completed the transition from the early to the late Jokers in the 2008 film "The Dark Knight". Despite the face paint, there's little that's comical in his actions. He was highly praised for his role, receiving an Academy Award for his portrayal of the Joker. I don't deny that it was a magnificent performance, but he didn't quite capture the essence of the Joker the way Cesar Romero and Jack Nicholson did.

Jared Leto played the Joker in "Suicide Squad" (2016). I hardly know what to say. His participation in the film was irrelevant to the story and could have been omitted. He was only included because the Joker was a fan favourite that fans wanted to see. Added to that, he wasn't anything like the Joker in the comics. He doesn't even come close.

From 1966 to 2016 I would have rated the Jokers in the same order that they appeared:

1. Cesar Romero (1966-1968)
2. Jack Nicholson (1989)
3. Heath Ledger (2008)
4. Jared Leto (2016)

I didn't think it was possible to improve on Cesar Romero's performance. For me he was the quintessential Joker. Now I have to take that back. Joaquin Phoenix exceeded my wildest expectations. For me he's become THE Joker. He perfectly captures the insanity and the pathos of the character.

Having said that, I don't know whether I want him to return in a sequel or a future Batman film. "Joker" stands alone as a brilliant film, not just Joaquin Phoenix's acting, but also the construction of the story. I'm afraid that Joaquin Phoenix wouldn't be allowed to fully develop himself as the supporting character in a future Batman film. Maybe a sequel taking place before Bruce Wayne becomes Batman is a possibility, but the screenwriter and director would have to be very careful that they don't make mistakes. Despite messing up the timeline, it would be good to see the Joker and Harley Quinn together in a world before Batman. Joaquin Phoenix and Margot Robbie would be a dream team.

Gladiator (5 Stars)

When it comes to films, my son Benjamin is in the same place that I was in 2002. I rarely went to the cinema, at most four times a year. I watched films on television, and I occasionally borrowed films on VCR tapes from Blockbuster. There were some films that I liked, but I didn't really know films, if you understand what I mean. In 2002 I hadn't even heard of "Pulp Fiction", which shows how limited my film knowledge was. Benjamin doesn't often go to the cinema – mostly when I drag him along – and he watches most of his films on Netflix.

Benjamin is visiting me this weekend, so I sat with him watching "Gladiator". I occasionally glanced sideways at him and saw he was sitting with an expressionless face. I thought he might be bored, so after an hour I paused the film and asked him what he thought. He replied, "This is one of the best films I've ever seen". His face was blank for the rest of the film, but I'd misinterpreted him. He was overwhelmed. The action, the emotion, the opulent backdrops, it was something he'd never seen before. My son might not be a big film fan like his father, but he has good taste. When we spoke afterwards he was wildly enthusiastic about what he'd just seen.

I don't know whether he will ever be a film fan like me. He's more interested in computer games, mostly on his Play Station 4. That's a time-consuming hobby which leaves little opportunity to do anything else. Let's see how he develops. At his age I played a lot of computer games. I had my first PC in 1990, and I spent a lot of time playing adventure games. I couldn't go back to it now. I've moved on.

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

You were never really here (4 Stars)

This is the third film in the Stuttgart White Nights Festival.

This is a chilling thriller about an ex-soldier, a hitman for hire. He specialises in retrieving kidnapped children. He's successful in his work, but when he's hired to find a politician's daughter he gets involved in a conspiracy which is over his head.

Joaquin Phoenix received the Best Actor award at the Cannes Film Festival for his performance in this film. I can see why. He doesn't play a heartless killer like John Wick, he's a tortured soul who struggles with the ethics of what he does. He wants to do good, even if it involves beating people to death.

Technically, not much happens in the film, but what does happen is astounding. Watch out for it in the Academy Award nominations.

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.

Her (5 Stars)

This is the world we live in.

At work we sit in front of a computer.

At home we sit in front of a computer.

When we're on the bus we use our phone as a computer.

When we're with our friends we look at our phones instead of talking to one another.

So why shouldn't we fall in love with our computer? It's the next logical step. Computers have already replaced human interaction.

Smartphones (which I prefer to call computer phones) are the latest step in the decline of human culture. A few years ago they were expensive little toys for geeks. Now everybody knows how to use them. What people haven't yet learnt is how to stop using them. They've become an addiction. As a serious film fan it greatly annoys me that people can't stop using their phones in the cinema. It's so obvious to everyone. The theatre is dark, and then there are flashes of light when people pull their phones out. If the film is so boring they should leave. If it's not boring, why are they looking at their phones?

Two months ago I was at a concert of the (very good) glam punk band, Bonsai Kitten. After one of the songs the singer, Tiger Lilly Marleen, spoke to the audience:

"Do you know what turns people into zombies? Smartphones. Put them away and watch us. You'll enjoy it much more".

Very true. I never leave the house without my smartphone in my pocket, but I'm able to leave it in my pocket. Sometimes.

Inherent Vice (2½ Stars)

The New York Post complains about this film being confusing, and goes on to say, "Five minutes after it ends you won't remember the resolution". That's a good point. Now I come to think about it, I don't remember how the film ended, or how the film's many loose ends were tied up.

I was confused from the beginning. Not having read any reviews before I went to the cinema today, I didn't even realise that the main character, Larry Sportello aka Doc (Joaquin Phoenix), was a private investigator until 15 minutes into the film. He just seemed like an unemployed hippy wandering around trying to help his friends. There were too many people running around doing too many things for me to keep up without being able to pause the film and makes notes. A story this complex might be interesting as a novel, but it's not good material for a film.

The Master (4 Stars)

Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is an American sailor in the Second World War. When the war is over he is traumatised by his experiences and is unable to settle down. After doing a series of jobs he stows away in a yacht one night. When he wakes up the yacht is at sea, and he meets the yacht's owner, Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Far from being angry, Lancaster offers Freddie work on the yacht, and he also invites him to his daughter's wedding. Freddie soon discovers that Lancaster is the leader of a cult called The Cause, and the other passengers on the yacht call him Master.

Freddie becomes a close friend of Lancaster and joins the cult, even though the other members warn Lancaster against him. They think that Freddie is unwilling to get over his alcohol addiction and become a better man. Freddie also has problems with aggression. Whenever anyone insults Lancaster or The Cause Freddie beats him up. Lancaster says that he doesn't approve of violence, but makes no attempt to stop Freddie doing it again.

The fictional cult, The Cause, is obviously based on Scientology. In The Cause people advance through psychoanalysis rather than meditation. It is taught that perfection can only be attained by remembering and dealing with things that happened in past lives. Apart from the similarity in the teachings, the film mirrors conflicts that Scientology's founder L. Ron Hubbard had with his son and other family members.

The film created controversy as soon as it was announced. The similarities to Scientology were enough to make many cult members angry. Legal proceedings were avoided by never claiming the film was about Scientology, even though everyone knew it was. Apart from this, the film isn't directly about the cult; the central character is Freddie Quell, and it follows his spiritual journey, while The Cause and its members remain in the background, sometimes helping, sometimes hindering him.

The powerful performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman won them Oscar nominations. The only thing I would fault is that the film has no resolution. Freddie drifts into The Cause, remains a while and drifts back out with almost nothing to show for it. He hasn't become a better man. On the other hand, I'm sure that this was intentional. Other films by Paul Thomas Anderson, which he both writes and directs, have the same style. One of the things that screenwriters learn is that the characters in their scripts should follow arcs. They should start the film as one person and end as another. In a typical character arc a person begins either as weak or morally objectionable, and then the film presents challenges, at the end of which the person is stronger or a better person. This might be good storytelling, but is it the way real life works? Not necessarily. There's nothing wrong with experimental films that do without character arcs, but to me personally I feel that something is lacking.

Gladiator (5 Stars)

After watching "Pompeii" recently I thought I should watch "Gladiator" again. This film is so much better. It's an epic that keeps the viewer entranced from beginning to end. I'm actually surprised that I haven't watched it for so long. It's a film that deserves repeated viewing.

The film is set at the end of the second Century A.D. in the reign of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. Russell Crowe plays General Maximus Decimus Meridius, who was responsible for conquering Germania. Knowing that he is about to die, Marcus Aurelius entrusts Maximus with the task of turning power over to the Senate after his death. Before this can be made public knowledge, the emperor's son Commodus strangles his father and declares himself the new emperor. Maximus refuses to acknowledge Commodus, so he is sentenced to death. He escapes and kills his executioners, but while on the run he collapses from exhaustion and is captured by slave traders. Maximus is sold as a gladiator, and he soon becomes the mightiest fighter in the arena.

The film is both epic and moving. Even though Russell Crowe is the main character, the actor who impresses me the most is Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus. Despite being evil he wins our sympathy, when we see how he is suffering from the perceived lack of love from his father. In 2001 the film was nominated for 12 Oscars and won five, including best film.

Apart from the names of the emperors, the film doesn't keep to historical accuracy. Marcus Aurelius is portrayed too positively. In the film he wants to end the dictatorship of the emperors, but he was actually a tyrant who wanted Rome to continue as a dictatorship. For more than 100  years emperors had chosen a military general as successor, but Marcus Aurelius went against tradition by appointing his son as his heir, the exact opposite of what is shown in the film. Marcus Aurelius wasn't murdered, he died of natural causes. Commodus reigned for 12 years after his father's death, not the seemingly short time in the film. Commodus' madness was even more extreme than in the film. He claimed to be a God on Earth, the reincarnation of Hercules. During his reign he renamed the months of the year to match his own 12 names, Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus Augustus Herculeus Romanus Exsuperatorius Amazonius Invictus Felix Pius. He frequently fought in the arena, usually naked.

Can anyone tell me what the point is of selling a Blu-ray disc inside a paper box which has artwork identical to that of the inlay of the amaray case inside? Look at the picture above. They're exactly the same. The backs are identical as well, take my word for it. I don't like the paper boxes anyway, because they are never sealed, and they're often already scuffed when I buy the Blu-ray. The amaray case is sealed, and then the sealed case is put in the box. Even if I have an undamaged box, repeatedly taking the case out and putting it back in damages it. Usually I throw the paper box away. If it at least looked different there would be a point in keeping it. As I see it it's just an unnecessary increase in the production costs and a few more trees cut down.

Her (5 Stars)

This is the best film I've seen so far this year. It was released in December in America, two months earlier than in England, so that makes it a 2013 film, the best film of 2013, knocking "World's End" down into second place. It's received five nominations for this year's Academy Awards, including best film. It sincerely deserves to win the best film award, but I expect something dull like "12 Years a Slave" will win. The judges at the Academy Awards are too old to see clearly. "12 Years a Slave" is a film that dwells on the past, "Her" is a film that brings the future close.

Theodore Twombly (played by Joaquin Phoenix) is a man who lives in Los Angeles in the near future. His job is to write letters for people who are unwilling or unable to write their own letters. His speciality is writing love letters when couples are separated. His computer software is very advanced, it even imitates the handwriting of the people he represents. He is a very romantic person, but he has nobody in his own life. He's been separated from his wife for over a year, and from what he says there were problems even while they were together.

He installs a new operating system, OS1, on his computer. It's the first fully configurable operating system with artificial intelligence that adapts itself to its user's needs. The operating system speaks with a woman's voice and calls itself Samantha. In fact, it would be more correct to refer to Samantha as a "she", not an "it". Samantha shows distinctly female traits, becoming first a conversation partner and friend to Theodore, and then his lover. At first he feels like a freak for being in love with a computer operating system, but after a while he finds out that a lot of other people are doing it too. It's become acceptable.

I won't give any more spoilers now. Maybe I'll say more about the plot after I buy it on Blu-ray. By then more of my readers will have seen it. I hope so, anyway. This is only the fourth film that Spike Jonze has directed. Two of the others were films written by Charlie Kaufman, namely "Being John Malkovich" and "Adaptation". I praised them both because of Charlie Kaufman's screenplay, but after seeing "Her", a film that Spike Jonze wrote himself, I realise that he contributed a lot to those two films.

It's a film about alienation. We see people, not just Theodore, living alone. Rather than social interaction they occupy themselves with videogames and Internet porn. When people are walking in the street nobody is talking to one another; everyone is talking on the phone, maybe to distant friends, or maybe to their phone's operating system, we don't know.

I read that the original version of the film was 60 minutes longer. Seeing the deleted scenes on the Blu-ray will be interesting. Or maybe there will be a Director's Cut. Let's wait and see what happens.