Victoria & Abdul (5 Stars)

Like "The Shape of Water", this is another film from the lower half of my top 200 film list. No insult is intended. These 100 films are all outstanding, in my opinion, and they all deserve to be in the top half. The only problem is that there are even better films. Sometimes I push a film from the bottom half into the top 100 list, usually into the 90's, but I don't do it often. Sometimes I want to add new films to the list, but I don't want to remove any films from the existing list. Like "The Shape of Water", I picked it as an excellent film to "clean my head".

"Victoria & Abdul" is a true story that seems in places so ridiculous that it's impossible to believe. How could the 68-year-old Queen Victoria have feelings of tenderness for a 24-year-old Indian? After watching it in the cinema in 2017 I immediately checked online sources, and the story was verified. Maybe it was dramatized in places, but no lies were told. It's a story that Victoria's son Bertie (Edward VII) tried to hide after he became king in 1901. He evicted Abdul from the house Victoria had given him, and he destroyed all traces of Abdul in the palace. The story was only unearthed in 2010 when Queen Victoria's journals were found, written in Urdu. Shortly afterwards, letters written by Queen Victoria were found in India. It's all a story too strange to be true.

A lot of my friends in England are anti-monarchists. Please don't let that put you off watching the film. It'll make you smile, it'll make you laugh. It shines light on the personal life of one of Britain's longest reigning monarchs.

Success Rate:  + 1.1

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

Cats (3 Stars)

This is my first film of 2020, which automatically makes it the best film of the year so far. Or the worst film. It depends on how you look at it. Three years ago I began to keep a running list of my top 10 films of the year, so I wouldn't have to panic when the last week of the year arrived. That also means that as soon as I've watched my first 10 films of the year – an easy feat for January – I'll already have a top 10 list ready to publish if the worst happens and I'm bedridden for the rest of the year.

The film follows the adventures of Victoria, a cat who's abandoned on the streets of London near Trafalgar Square. She's a kind-hearted innocent cat who only wants to be loved. She comes into contact with the Jellicle tribe of cats, who follow a matriarch called Old Deuteronomy. Once a year she picks one member of the tribe to ascend into a new life. Wow! That's an extravagant clash of fairy tales and religious symbolism.

It's a magical version of London, recognisable but somehow mystical. The whole story takes place in one night.

Having said that, this is a film which has several outstanding features, but also several poor qualities, giving it an overall average rating. On the plus side, the dancing is excellent, especially the tap dancing scenes. It was the right decision to pick a ballet dancer, Francesca Hayward, for the lead role instead of an actress. That was the mistake made in the unjustly praised musical "La La Land".

On the minus side, the character of the film's villain, Macavity, is totally bland. I don't blame Idris Elba, because I consider him one of the best actors alive today. I blame his lack of characterisation in the film's script. We hardly see him, and we're given no chance to sympathise with him. Is it possible that his role was shortened in the film? I can't imagine that the musical itself could have been written so poorly.

Most of the songs were enjoyable, but I was somehow disappointed with Jennifer Hudson. I've liked her as a singer ever since I saw her in "Dreamgirls", but in "Cats" she doesn't unleash her full potential.

One problem that I have personally is the portrayal of the tomcats. Watching the female cats walking in a slinky, feline manner was almost arousing, but seeing the males walk in the same feminine way was distasteful. I'm too heterosexual to enjoy something like that.

For the last few weeks I've been reading bad reviews about the film, but I still had to see it. I like musicals, and I like Rebel Wilson (who plays a medium-sized role). If I hadn't gone to see it I would have been left burning with curiosity. I wouldn't call it a bad film, but I don't want to watch it again.

Victoria & Abdul (5 Stars)

For me this was one of the biggest surprise hits of 2017. I expected it to be good, but I was bowled over by just how good it was.

One of the film's greatest strengths is the atmosphere. We're propelled into the atmosphere of Britain in the 19th Century which is outwardly glorious but inwardly dull. Queen Victoria is celebrating her golden jubilee in 1887, one of the greatest days in her career, but she's bored and wishes it would all go away. Her servants have to wake her in the morning so that she can go about her many appointments that have been planned meticulously by her personal secretary. She has no control over her own life. When Abdul tells her that the purpose of her life is service he's telling her something she should have known already. She's seemingly the ruler of the world's greatest empire, but in truth she's the empire's servant, and she can only become happy when she accepts her role.

When 24-year-old Abdul arrives from India the Queen's life lights up. Even though their relationship is platonic there's an atmosphere of romance between them. It's a romance that can never be. Apart from the age difference, they could never be together because they're from two different worlds. They're both servants, but they're very different kinds of servants. Added to this is the fact that Abdul is already married. In one of the film's most poignant scenes Judi Dench proves her brilliance as an actress. She always assumed he was single, but when he tells her he has a wife the disappointment flashes across her face before she composes herself and puts on the stoic face that is becoming for a monarch.

The film shows a very different Victoria to the one that is presented in photographs and history books. The Victoria that I know from growing up as an Englishman is a stern woman who never smiled. She was even more aloof than Queen Elisabeth, the current monarch. That's the Victoria that we see at the beginning of the film. After meeting Abdul we see a new Victoria, a woman who loves life. She develops a passion for new hobbies, such as learning Urdu. It was a pleasant surprise for me to find out that for the last ten years of her life she wrote her personal diary in Urdu. What a fascinating women she must have been!

The film has nothing good to say about Victoria's son Bertie, who went on to succeed her as King Edward VII. He's described as selfish, looking out for his own interests. He embodies none of the characteristics of servitude that are so important to his mother. Like the other members of the elite who spend most of their time idling in the palace, he's jealous of Abdul. He doesn't understand how someone from a common background can be so close to his mother. He's a racist, but more than that he looks down on the lower classes. I don't know which of the two is worse. A person's class and his race are both things he's born with and can't change. (An educated person can hide his class background by lying about it, but if he's found out he'll be despised even more).

This is a brilliant film. It's amazing that it could ever have been made. After Victoria's death Bertie and his cronies expelled Abdul from England and attempted to destroy all traces of him. They forgot to burn the Queen's diaries written in Urdu, and further evidence was the chest containing letters from the Queen that she wrote when Abdul was visiting India. Nobody's past deserves to be edited out of existence, and I appeal to all my readers to leave behind them some sort of proof of their own existence, however insignificant they might consider themselves.

Success Rate:  + 1.1

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

Tulip Fever (4 Stars)

Let's jump straight into the controversy. This film has been savaged by critics, in my opinion unfairly. The film flopped at the box office, but this was because cinema audiences weren't given a chance to see it. It was only given a limited release in America, and it wasn't shown at all in England. The main accusations levelled against the film are poorly written dialogue and an over-complicated plot.

What's the problem with the dialogue? Many of the characters are either rich or strict Christians, so stilted speech is to be expected from them. As for the plot being complex, that's a valid criticism, but I personally didn't consider it excessive. Anyone who enjoys films will make the effort to sit down and pay attention to what's happening. The film is about a love triangle, but there's another pair of lovers involved in the story. Is that too difficult to follow?

Sophia (Alicia Vikander) is a 17-year-old who has grown up in an orphanage. She's sold to a rich businessman in Amsterdam, Cornelis Sandvoort (Christoph Waltz). He's not a bad man. He wishes the best for Sophia, and she does all she can to honour and obey him, but she doesn't love him. Cornelis commissions a young artist, Jan Van Loos (Dane DeHaan) to paint their portrait. A romance develops between Sophia and the artist, but she feels guilty because she knows her husband loves her.

At the same time Cornelis' maid Maria is having a passionate affair with the fishmonger Willem (Jack O'Connell). There are few chances for poor people in 17th Century Amsterdam, so he invests all his savings in tulips to make enough money to get married.

After that the plot develops the complexities that the critics don't like. Willem loses his money and is forced to join the navy. Maria is pregnant, but Sophia pretends the baby is hers. (That was possible in the good old days when husbands weren't allowed to witness the birth). Jan gets involved in the tulip market as well. The story is fascinating. It has the making of an epic, but I don't think the film needed to be any longer. It's just right as it is.

The only thing that the film is missing, in my opinion, is more tulips. The film is all about the tulip mania of the 17th Century, when tulips were more precious than gold, but we don't see many tulips. We see a few flowers here and there, but I would have liked to see a field, or at least a garden full of tulips.

The acting is excellent by all the main characters. Christoph Waltz and Dane DeHaan are two of my favourite actors. It's worth watching the film for their performance alone.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.de

Spectre (4 Stars)

This is the fourth film in the New Bond series. Like the previous film, "Skyfall", it's directed by Sam Mendes, but it has a completely different feel to it. It's a darker, more depressing film. This is intensified by the cinematography, which uses dull colours, even in daytime scenes. I'm glad that I've watched the Daniel Craig Bond films (almost) back to back, four films in six days. That's the only way to notice subtle changes in style.

Why is "Spectre" darker than the previous films? It's the arrival of Bond's nemesis Blofeld, whose full name is Ernst Stavro Blofeld. He introduces himself as the man who has been making Bond suffer for years; at least for the last four films. We can expect him to continue making Bond suffer for years to come. Does this mean we can expect more dark, depressing Bond films? I hope so. We had 40 years of camp James Bond films, especially in the Roger Moore years, so it's time to try something new.

Blofeld is played by Christoph Waltz. In an interview after the film's release he said that he wasn't satisfied with his performance. It's the mark of a great actor -- or a great anything else -- that he's the biggest critic of his own work. I felt that he played the part admirably, but he must see minor faults that aren't apparent to me. It depends on what he's trying to achieve. Is he attempting to model himself on any one of the past incarnations of Blofeld? In the Classic Bond films he was played by five different actors. For me Donald Pleasance is the version of Blofeld that I most fondly remember. Telly Savalas was so different that he seemed like a different person.

Donald Pleasance was a superbly evil version of Blofeld. Telly Savalas ran around too much, which made him seem comical. Christoph Waltz is somehow creepy as every bad guy that he plays, and that fits the role of Blofeld. I assume that he'll try to be closer to his vision of the role in the next Bond film. When I see him again I'll better understand what he's trying to achieve.

"Spectre" adds something to the character of Blofeld that wasn't in the Classic Bond films or the Ian Fleming novels. Bond and Blofeld are brothers! By adoption, at least. After the death of Bond's family he was adopted by Blofeld's father. At the time Blofeld used his birth name, Franz Oberhauser. He despised his adopted brother so much, feeling jealous of the attention his father gave him, so he killed his father, faked his own death and changed his name. Blofeld is his mother's maiden name, but his new Christian names are random.

There's a subtle irony that my friends missed when I went to watch "Spectre" with them in the cinema two years ago. In the Austin Powers films Dr. Evil, pictured above, is a parody of Blofeld. In the third film, "Goldmember", he reveals that he's really Austin Powers' lost brother. Now "Spectre" has copied this idea from "Goldmember". James Bond influenced Austin Powers, and now Austin Powers is influencing James Bond. I wonder if this crossed the minds of the screenwriters when they were writing the script.

Could Daniel Craig and Christoph Waltz be brothers? Even though the relationship is only by adoption there are certain similarities. Judge for yourself.

Where did the film take me on my virtual holiday today? London, as always, followed by Mexico, Morocco, Italy and Austria. Who needs to fly to other countries when he has a Blu-ray player?

You can skip the rest of this post if you don't speak German. Here's a newspaper report about the death of Blofeld's father. It contains a few errors and examples of poor style that could have been avoided by letting Christoph Waltz, a native Austrian, take a quick look at it. "Tal" and "gebracht" are two separate words that shouldn't have been combined. The word separation is faulty throughout. Probably the text was typed using an English version of MS Word, and the English language word separation algorithm was used. A German would never separate "Obduktionsbericht" as "Obduktionsberi-cht". Also, it's not usual to call the body of a dead person a "Körper". The word "Leiche" would be used. That's sloppy.

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

Skyfall (5 Stars)

Until today this was the only James Bond film that I had never seen. My friends already told me before I went to see "Spectre" in 2015 that "Skyfall" was the best Bond film ever. Then I read that "Skyfall" was the biggest box office success of all the Bond films, the seventh most successful film of all time, but even that didn't tempt me to catch up with it.

Now I've finally seen it for myself. It's an amazing film, especially in contrast to the relatively weak "Quantum of Solace". Maybe it's because of the arrival of a new director, Sam Mendes? I don't know. Whatever the reason is, "Skyfall" stands out as a classic. At the moment of writing this I'm still trying to think if there's any justification for giving it less than five stars.

Q and Moneypenny are back, after I complained about their absence in the last two films. However, they're completely different characters, even if they share the same names. In the Classic Bond films Q was an inventor who supplied James Bond with the most adventurous and infeasible gadgets. The new Q only gives Bond a gun and a radio. When Bond looks disappointed, Q's reply is "Were you expecting an exploding pen? We don't really go in for that any more".

James Bond makes remarks about Q's youth. The actor Ben Whishaw was actually 31 when the film was made, but it's true, he hardly looks a day over 20. Rather than being a seasoned old man like Desmond Llewelyn he's MI6's whizz kid.

In the Classic Bond films Miss Moneypenny's first name was never stated. She worked as M's secretary. It was an often repeated joke that she had a crush on Bond, and he flirted with her on every visit, but whatever promises Bond might have made to take her on a date never came to fruition. Miss Moneypenny always looked plain, in comparison to the sexy girls that he bedded in each film. Please don't accuse me of judging women by their looks, I'm just telling you how Bond judged women. If Miss Moneypenny had worn a short skirt and thigh high boots Bond would have wanted her.

In "Skyfall" we're told that her first name is Eve, which isn't much of a deviation from Classic Bond, but just look at her! When I first heard that Naomie Harris had been cast as Miss Moneypenny I shook my head and said "No, no, no. She's much too beautiful to be Miss Moneypenny". James Bond wouldn't have ignored her for 50 years if she'd looked so hot, even without the thigh high boots. That's what I thought in 2012, and it was one of the many reasons I didn't go to the cinema to watch "Skyfall". I think differently now. She's not the same Moneypenny, she's a new character with the same name. She can't just type, she's a field agent who is an expert sniper. She says in the film that she's applied for a desk job as M's secretary, though I find that a bit difficult to believe. Field agent to secretary seems too big a descent.

There's one small detail in the film which I consider significant. James Bond's Aston Martin is fetched out of storage, only to be destroyed a few scenes later. Sam Mendes wanted to emphasise that the old Bond is gone and a new Bond has stepped into his shoes.

In my review of "Tracks" last month I explained that I don't need to go on holiday, because films take me around the world. The best way to enjoy an instant cinematic holiday is to watch a James Bond film. All of his films jump from one country to another. "Casino Royale" took me to London, Italy, the Bahamas and Montenegro. "Quantum of Solace" took me to London, Italy, Austria and Bolivia (although the Bolivian scenes were actually shot in Chile). Today I used "Skyfall" to visit London yet again, followed by Istanbul, Shanghai and finally the most beautiful country on Earth: Scotland! Skyfall is the name of the Bond family estate in the Western Highlands. This estate is fictional, but the location is Glen Etive, a few miles south of Glencoe. The area between Fort William and Glencoe is the most attractive part of Scotland. Some people prefer Skye, and I admit that Skye is beautiful, but I contend that the people who prefer Skye have never spent time walking through the mountains and valleys of Glencoe. I have visited the area many times.

Here are a few screenshots from the film to show what I mean.

I could have posted 50 screenshots from the film, but these pictures should be enough to show what the Scottish scenery is like. Glen Etive is a wonderful place to visit, but a difficult place to live. It's a long walk to the next supermarket.

But now I've finally decided. Five stars is the rating the film deserves.

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

Quantum of Solace (3½ Stars)

This is the second film in the New Bond series. It starts off with a plot device never used in Classic Bond: the story continues directly from the previous film. At the end of "Casino Royale" James Bond captured Mr. White. At the beginning of "Quantum of Solace" James Bond still has Mr. White tied up in the boot of his car. We don't see that straight away. The film begins with Bond in a car chase. It's not explained who the people are that are chasing him, but it's possible that they're associates of Mr. White trying to free him. I say "possible", because they're attacking Bond so aggressively that they could easily have killed Mr. White.

I enjoy car chases. They're part of the James Bond culture. Almost all of the Classic Bond films had a car chase. In the Roger Moore years the car chases became increasingly exaggerated. However, I don't like the car chase in "Quantum of Solace". It's the cinematography that bothers me. The camera is too close to the cars, so it's difficult to see what's happening. The cameraman would only have to back up three or four feet to show the car in the context of the road.

The "continuation" aspect is constant throughout this film. There are repeated references to Vesper Lynd, Bond's girlfriend who was killed in the last film. That never happened in Classic Bond. However close Bond was to a woman, emotionally or sexually, after the final credits she disappeared and was never mentioned again. Bond might not have done one-night stands, but he certainly did one-film stands.

While not necessarily a bad film, I find that "Quantum of Solace" lacks the freshness of "Casino Royale". It's also been two films in a row with no Moneypenny and no Q. That has to be put right in the third film!

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

Casino Royale [2006 version] (4 Stars)

This is a remake of the 1967 film which was also called "Casino Royale". I strongly disagree with people who say that remakes are always inferior to the original versions of films. In this case the remake is better, because it keeps closer to Ian Fleming's novel. The novel portrays James Bond as a young agent who has only recently been promoted to Double-O status. The 1967 version shows Bond as an elderly man who has retired from active service, but returns to go on a mission that nobody else can do.

From 1962 to 2002 22 films were made about James Bond, starring six different actors as Bond. It's often claimed that only 20 films were made, because two of the films are considered unofficial and non-canon. One of the unofficial films was "Never say never again" (1983), while the other was "Casino Royale" (1967). "Never say never again" was a remake of "Thunderball" (1965), while the original version of "Casino Royale" was intended as a prequel to the official films, taking place long before "Dr. No" (1962). It's suggested that the elderly James Bond is the father of the new James Bond, which would mean that Sean Connery played James Bond Jr!

For the sake of simplicity, let's stick to the 20 official James Bond, all made by Eon Productions in London, in which five different actors play James Bond. Despite the different ages and appearances, it's always the same character. That's easy to accept, with just a little suspension of disbelief. What's more difficult to believe is the timescale. Each James Bond film is set "in the present", so, for instance, "Dr. No" takes place in 1962 and "Die another day" takes place in 2006. Each film takes place using the current technology, so things like mobile phones appear in the later films. This stretches out the timeline of the man called James Bond. It would have been easier to set all the films in the 1960's, but I can understand that Eon Productions wants to sell more cinema tickets by keeping the films up to date.

Now things have changed. In 2006 "Casino Royale" was made, followed by another three James Bond films so far. Daniel Craig has become the new actor to portray Bond. This isn't just a remake of the 1967 film, it's a reboot of the James Bond franchise. The story of James Bond is being told again from the beginning, which wasn't clear to me immediately. I didn't realise the franchise had been rebooted until I saw the fourth film, "Spectre", in 2015. I was so used to Bond regenerating every ten years that I didn't realise it was a new franchise until I saw the re-appearance of Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Now everything is clear. The old stories will be retold, rewritten and repackaged for the 21st Century.

I call the first 20 films "Classic Bond" and the films since 2006 "New Bond". I haven't heard anyone else making this distinction, but I believe it's appropriate.

The link between Classic Bond and New Bond is Judi Dench in the role of M, the head of MI6. When she first appeared in "GoldenEye" (1995) it was a critical change for James Bond. He had always been a misogynist, treating women as playthings, so it was a shock for him to have a woman appointed as his boss. In the New Bond films it isn't an issue. He might still be a callous playboy, but he's modern enough to accept that women can be in charge.

James Bond always had a rebellious attitude, but in "Casino Royale" it's pushed to the extreme; too far, in my opinion. A secret agent should do what his boss tells him. Instead of that we see that M is only aware of what he's doing when she reads about it in the newspaper. He means well, he wants to save the world, but he's incapable of following orders. When MI6 puts a tracer in his arm it's not just to track him while he's on a mission, it's so that they know what he's doing when he disappears on his own initiative.

"Casino Royale" might have been made with a budget of $150 million, but evidently the producer didn't have enough money left to write a good newspaper article. The last paragraph is a repeat of the second paragraph. That's sloppy. I would have written the extra paragraph for $100. Please get in contact with me when the next James Bond film is made.

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

Murder on the Orient Express (2017 version) (4 Stars)

Today I went to see the new version of "Murder on the Orient Express" in the cinema, as I announced yesterday when I reviewed the original version. The new version turned out pretty much as I expected. It looks superior to the original in its cinematography, while the story is almost the same. The new version is so similar that I have to ask what the point was in remaking the film. But I suppose that's a rhetorical question. It's all about money.

One of the few changes is that two characters in the original film have been combined into one. The Scottish soldier (Colonel Arbuthnot) and the Greek doctor (Dr. Constantine) have been merged into a Black American doctor, Dr. Arbuthnot. I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere.

The original is a pure mystery film. The new version adds a few elements of action. I can't name all the additions because that would mean giving away spoilers. One example is that in the original the train has to halt because the rails have been covered by snow in an avalanche. In the new version the train drives into the snow and the engine is derailed. There's a new chase scene when one of the suspects attempts to leave the train. Do today's audiences need more action to be able to sit through a film? I suppose they do.

One slight change that I regret in the new version is the lack of claustrophobia. In the original all the interviews by Hercule Poirot were held inside the train. In the new version he spends more time outside the train.

My summary is simple: the new film is quite good, but unnecessary from an artistic point of view.

Victoria & Abdul (5 Stars)

This is a simply beautiful story that takes place from 1887 to 1901. It's a remarkable true story that was almost erased from history, until it was unearthed when a trunk full of personal correspondence was discovered in 2010.

Abdul Karim, born into a Moslem family in 1863, was a clerk who worked in a prison writing the names of the prisoners in the Agra jail as they were admitted and discharged. In 1887 he was selected to deliver Queen Victoria a gift for her golden jubilee and work as a servant at her meals. This wasn't because of any previous experiences as a servant, it was because he was the tallest Indian in Agra and considered to look imposing.

The Queen, who was 68 at the time, immediately took a liking to the young Indian. As their friendship developed she considered it inappropriate for him to remain a servant, so she gave him the title Munshi, "teacher". He taught her about Indian philosophy and Indian history, as well as teaching her how to read and write Urdu. In her last few years Victoria wrote her personal diaries in Urdu, which still exist today. The only displeasure Victoria ever had with Abdul was when she found out he was distorting Indian history to make Hindus sound evil and Moslems sound noble.

Queen Victoria's family and royal advisers were shocked by the close friendship between Victoria and Abdul. It was a mixture of jealousy, racism and looking down on the lower classes. Victoria didn't let herself be influenced by them. She gave Abdul many gifts and royal titles. This ended when she died in 1901. When Victoria's son Bertie became king (Edward VII) he evicted Abdul from his estate and ordered him to return to India as quickly as possible. All of the Queen's personal correspondence in Abdul's home was burnt, and all traces of Abdul in Buckingham Palace were destroyed. Only two pieces of evidence remain:

1. Queen Victoria's diaries, written in Urdu, were spared, probably because nobody knew what they were.

2. Queen Victoria wrote many letters to Abdul while he was visiting India, which were stored in an unopened trunk from his death in 1909 until 2010.

The film contains a lot of comedy, especially in the first half hour, but as it develops it becomes serious. The relationship between the Queen and her Munshi is moving, while the personal animosity that Abdul received is tragic. This is a story that sounds too bizarre to be true.

Jane Eyre [2011] (4 Stars)

The film poster that I've used at the head of this post shows one of the things I hate most about film posters and DVD covers. If a poster shows a film's actors, and the actors are named on the poster, the written names should match the actors. Look at the poster. "Mia Wasikowska" is written over Michael Fassbender's head, and "Michael Fassbender" is written over Mia Wasikokowska's head. I'm not saying that I have trouble telling the two actors apart. I'm just saying that the poster is poorly designed.

I read the novel "Jane Eyre" when I was still at school. It wasn't part of my English Literature classes, it was something I wanted to read. In my mid teens, 14 to 16, I devoured the English classic novels, although this is the only novel by Charlotte Brontë that I read. Maybe I didn't read any more because I couldn't relate to "Jane Eyre" as a teenage boy. It's a book written by a woman for female readers.

The book is a first person narrative, relating everything from a woman's perspective. I should say from a girl's perspective. The novel begins with her aged 10 and ends when she's 19. We see her in three stages of her life.

After the death of her parents she's briefly adopted by her aunt, but is sent to a boarding school because she's considered a burden on her new family. It's a strict Christian school, so she is treated badly and frequently beaten.

When she leaves school she becomes the governess and private teacher of a young girl on a large estate, Thornfield Hall. She falls in love with the estate's owner, Edward Rochester, but he deceives her by not telling her he's already married.

Jane flees from Thornfield Hall and is taken in by a humble clergyman, John Rivers, who finds her a job as the headmistress of a new village school.

The story takes place in the early 19th Century, which is when it was written. It was a difficult time for women. Jane was oppressed by men and men's religion wherever she went. She was a free thinker and wanted to live her own life as she pleased, but it was practically impossible. As a woman she had very few options, and as a poor woman she had none.

Nevertheless, she survived. "Jane Eyre" is usually considered to be a gothic novel, because it's laced with supernatural occurrences, even if we later find out that there are natural explanations for everything that happens. The story's atmosphere is gothic, at least. However, it's more accurate to call it a feminist novel. Jane doesn't just survive, she takes control of her own destiny. When she arrives at the clergyman's house she's weak and dependent on charity, but when she leaves the house at the end of the novel she's strong and in a position to assist others, including others who are men.

The story has been simplified for the film, but even though some of the novel's details have been omitted it still manages to portray the major themes. The actors in the main roles put on magnificent performances. Michael Fassbender portrays a man who is brash and aggressive, but an emotional cripple. Mia Wasikowska is perfect in the title role, because she looks timid, but Jane Eyre is an intelligent and passionate woman. That's what Charlotte Brontë wanted to express. She wanted her female readers, housewives living in a men's world, to emulate Jane's strength in themselves.

A brief word about Mrs. Fairfax, played by Judi Dench. She is the old type of woman, happy with living a life of subservience to men, a complete contrast to Jane. She's related to Edward Rochester, but she makes no attempt to be any more than a housekeeper. She's a woman. She's a servant. That's all.

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

Die Another Day (4 Stars)

"Die another day" is the 20th James Bond film, made in 2002. It's the fourth and last film to star Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. It's also the last of the classic James Bond films before the reboot of the franchise in 2006.

The villain in this film has a relatively small goal. He doesn't want to rule the world or become the world's richest man, he merely wants to reunite Korea under the control of the North Korean government. This was a topical subject in 2002, because Kim Jong-il was seen as a dangerous leader. Today it would be even more relevant with Kim Jong-un as the deranged leader of North Korea, expecting all the men in his country to make their hair look as ugly as his.

After the critical acclaim of Michelle Yeoh in "Tomorrow never dies" another action hero has been chosen as the good Bond girl. Halle Berry stars as Jinx Johnson, a CIA agent sent to do the same job as James Bond. There's evidently no communication between the CIA and MI6, but at least the two agents decide to work together when they meet one another in the field. Halle Berry's role is an obvious attempt to combine the fighting skills of Michelle Yeoh with the sultry sex appeal of the other Bond girls, in particular Ursula Andress.

While the plot and the acting is good, the film is spoilt by over-the-top special effects. The invisible car is ridiculous. The scene with the escape from the disintegrating plane is so implausible that it made me laugh to myself. There hasn't been such exaggerated action in a Bond film since "Moonraker".

The world is not enough (4½ Stars)

"The world is not enough" is the 19th James Bond film, made in 1999. It's the third film to star Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. Film critics have formed a consensus that this is the worst Bond film ever. I'm so glad that I'm a fan, not a critic. I find the film highly enjoyable, not least because Pierce Brosnan is excellent in the main role, almost up to the standard of Sean Connery.

Of course, if I deny this is the worst Bond film the question will be immediately thrown back at me which one I think is the worst. That's a difficult question to answer because I like them all. If I had to pick my least favourite film it would probably be "Live and let die". I've never really given it any thought.

As far as the Bond girls go, this film treads new ground. The good Bond girl is Dr. Christmas Jones, played by Denise Richards. What separates her from previous Bond girls is that she isn't an air-headed rich girl, she's a highly intelligent nuclear scientist. Of course, her intelligence isn't enough to prevent her falling helplessly into James Bond's arms in the final scene. However, the biggest departure from previous Bond girls is the bad Bond girl, Elektra King, played by Sophie Marceau. All of the Bond films have either two or three Bond girls as well as a power-mad villain. This is the only film in which the villain is the Bond girl herself. Elektra King has inherited an oil company after murdering her father, and she intends to detonate an atomic bomb to ensure that her own pipeline is the sole supply of oil from the Middle East. She might not be the scariest of Bond's adversaries, but she's certainly the most seductive. After all, we never saw Ernst Blofeld writhing on James Bond's lap while strangling him to death.

"Do you know what happens when a man is strangled?"

It's a well known but little understood fact that when a man is being strangled he has an erection and sometimes even an orgasm. There is uncertainty about whether this is caused by the blocking of the air tunnel, the restriction of the flow of blood to the brain or a combination of the two. Whatever may be the case, the effect is to relax the muscles in the groin area and facilitate the flow of blood into the penis. This phenomenon has been most commonly observed in American style hanging. In English style hanging, practised in England until the 1960's, the hanged man falls rapidly and breaks his neck, dying almost immediately. In American style hanging there is no rapid fall, so the hanged man is gradually choked to death over a period of minutes. The erection during his struggles adds to his humiliation during the execution.

Women react to strangling in the same way as men, but the effect is less visible, for obvious reasons.

Some couples use this as a form of sexual play. They take turns in suffocating one another to sexually arouse one another. This is usually done merely by restricting oxygen, not by hindering blood flow, so it's called "erotic asphyxiation". Whether the sexual arousal is caused by the lack of air alone is unclear, because these games are played in a sexual context where the participants are already sexually excited. Apart from this, there is often additional sexual stimulus from one person sitting on the other. We see that when Elektra King sits on James Bond's lap while strangling him.

Tomorrow Never Dies (4½ Stars)

"Tomorrow never dies" is the 18th James Bond film, made in 1997. It's the second film to star Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. I was particularly excited when it was made because it starred Michelle Yeoh as the film's Bond girl, Wai Lin. Actually there are two Bond girls. In the photo above Teri Hatcher is shown on the left as Paris Carver, while Michelle Yeoh is shown on the right. There are frequently two good Bond girls, of whom one is killed early in the film. That's Paris Carver in "Tomorrow never dies". Wai Lin is the girl who survives to the end so that the film can close with her lying in Bond's arms.

So what's so exciting about Michelle Yeoh? From the first time I heard she would appear I knew she would be different to all the Bond girls before her. The Bond girls are eye candy for the viewer and sex toys for James Bond. Their sole purpose is to act as damsels in distress for the mighty hero to save, so that they can jump into his arms and his bed. That's not Michelle Yeoh. Ever since her early films, such as "Magnificent Warriors" and "The Heroic Trio", she was an action hero. It was expected that as a Bond girl she would be a martial artist on a par with Bond himself. This was the case. In the film it isn't just about James Bond saving her; they fight side by side and take turns saving one another.

In "Tomorrow Never Dies" there's a power-mad villain, as always, but in this film he isn't attempting to conquer the world. The villain is only the head of an international news corporation. He wants his newspapers to be the most read and his television stations to be the most watched, so he resorts to underhand tricks. He creates an international incident between China and Britain, threatening to make the two countries go to war. He does this so that he can be the first one to report the news. Step by step he causes the situation to escalate, always standing on the front line with his news report planned before the events have even occurred.

This is where Wai Lin fits in. The British secret service sends James Bond to investigate, and the Chinese secret service sends Wai Lin. The two agents each want to protect their own countries, but to do this they have to unite against their common enemy.

The public loved Michelle Yeoh. They were tired of James Bond's sexist attitudes and wanted a woman who could stand up to him. After the film there was talk of Michelle returning, making her the first Bond girl to return in a second film. I had mixed feelings. about it. On the one hand Michelle Yeoh was a fantastic actress that I wanted to see again. On the other hand, one of the key elements of the Bond formula was the appearance of a new girl in every film, showing that he had no interest in romance. As it was, the film studio decided not to bring her back. The next film returned to the usual damsel in distress girl. Almost. The next girl was actually a highly intelligent and independent scientist, but that's a topic for my next review.

GoldenEye (4½ Stars)

"GoldenEye" -- I absolutely hate words with a capital letter in the middle -- is the 17th James Bond film. It was the first to star Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. It was also the first James Bond film that I saw in the cinema. As I remember, I arranged to see it with a friend who never turned up, so I went to see it by myself. It was in a German cinema, and as is usual in Germany it was dubbed into German, but I enjoyed it greatly. Of course, it wasn't the first Bond film I'd seen. I already knew most of the previous films from seeing them on television.

Pierce Brosnan was the last of the classic Bonds before the film series was rebooted with Daniel Craig. He was the fourth after Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton. Before anyone corrects me and says he was the fifth, I don't count George Lazenby because he was a Sean Connery clone. He was a new, inexperienced actor in his first ever film, and his method of playing the character was to imitate Sean Connery as closely as he could. Apart from that, he never had any dedication to the role, unlike all the other actors. He was offered a seven-film contract, but he insisted from the beginning that he would only make one film. What a fool he was! How could a young actor, only 29, at the beginning of his career, have turned down a recurring role that would have made him a millionaire and one of the world's best known actors? The highlight of his subsequent career was that he starred in seven Emmanuelle films with Sylvia Kristel.

"GoldenEye" was the second time a new direction was taken with the films. The first 14 films formed a unit, with hardly any break between Sean Connery and Roger Moore. Timothy Dalton's takeover as Bond heralded a new style, a grittier, less humorous Bond. I regret that Timothy Dalton didn't stay longer. If he'd had a chance to grow into the role he could have become the greatest Bond. Nevertheless, Pierce Brosnan was a capable replacement. This was another new beginning after the Cold War. New days had arrived. The new head of MI6 was a woman, and she told Bond to his face, "You're a sexist, misogynistic dinosaur". Pierce Bond was the Bond who had to prove that he was still relevant in the modern world, a theme that's frequently repeated in conversation in "GoldenEye".

I have to ask though: was the end of the Cold War really a factor for James Bond? The real world British secret service spent years spying on Russia and the East Block countries, but that isn't what Bond dealt with, at least not in most of his films. Bond had to deal with megalomaniac villains like Ernst Blofeld or Francisco Scaramanga who stood above East-West politics and threatened both sides. In that respect I disagree with the new M (Judi Dench) that James Bond had become a dinosaur. The rest of her criticism is valid.

One subject that James Bond fans like to argue about for hours on end is "Who's the best Bond?" Opinions vary widely on the subject, but the majority seem to say that Sean Connery was the best, Roger Moore was the worst, and the rest are in the middle. I'm surprised that so few fans respect Roger Moore. He was a magnificent actor. I think the problem is that he was so unlike Sean Connery, in his looks and mannerisms. He brought his own ideas into the character, unlike George Lazenby. What many people don't know is that Sean Connery was the second choice for the character. He was only given the role after Patrick McGoohan had turned it down. There's more of a similarity between Patrick McGoohan and Roger Moore, so I believe that if McGoohan had been the first Bond Moore would have been accepted as his replacement.

So who do I, Mike Hood aka Dansator, think the best Bond was? It's impossible for me to give a one word answer. On acting ability alone I'd rate Timothy Dalton highest, but I'd still put Sean Connery first. As the first Bond he made the role. Everyone who follows is judged by Sean Connery's high standards. Roger Moore did an excellent job following him, but he was let down by lesser quality scripts that were too over-the-top, the peak being "Moonraker". Then there's Pierce Brosnan. Somehow he captures the essence of Sean Connery's Bond without being a mere clone, so I have to put him in second place. After that comes Timothy Dalton, then Roger Moore, followed by George Lazenby and Daniel Craig. Yes, I put Daniel Craig at the bottom of the list, even though it's not customary to talk bad of the current Bond. Let's wait and see how critics review Craig's career when the next actor takes over. I don't think his tenure as Bond will be judged so favourably in hindsight. We'll see.

There's something about the James Bond films that disturbs serious film critics, but the fans love it. As my readers already know, I don't consider myself to be a serious film critic, so I'll take the side of the fans. The James Bond films all follow a strict formula, with only slight variations from film to film. There's a pre-title action sequence. After the title sequence James Bond returns to MI6, where he's given a new mission from M, who frequently criticises Bond for creating too much havoc in his previous mission. Then he receives new equipment from Q, who criticises Bond for losing equipment on his previous missions. Then he flirts with Miss Moneypenny, who criticises Bond for standing her up on previous dates.

Then comes the mission itself, which somehow involves the legendary Bond Girls. There are always at least two Bond Girls: one is on Bond's side as an ally and companion, one is on the side of the villain. Sometimes there is a third girl on Bond's side who gets killed early in the film, adding a revenge element. Somewhere during the mission there's a car chase (ever since the Roger Moore films). The mission ends with a large explosion, destroying not only the villain but also his secret lair.

I usually prefer the bad Bond Girl to the good Bond Girl. Bad girls are so much more interesting. The good girls fall helplessly into Bond's arms after offering only token resistance. The bad girls run around killing people, also attempting to kill Bond, and look sexy while they do it. An example is GoldenEye's Famke Janssen, shown above, who plays the assassin Xenia Onatopp. The film shows her having an orgasm whenever she kills someone. Cute. She's one of the new wave of bad Bond Girls. In the older films the bad girl eventually succumbs to Bond's charms.