Carrie [2013 version] (5 Stars)

This is the fifth time I've watched the 2013 version of Carrie, which makes this review difficult. I said most of what I wanted to say about the film in my previous reviews, particularly in 2019. But having watched it again, there's one thing I want to emphasise.

I still think it's a very good film. In fact, I still prefer it to the 1976 version. Chloe Grace Moretz is excellent as Carrie and, for me, gives a better performance than Sissy Spacek. Julianne Moore's Margaret is even more deranged than Piper Laurie's version, and I like the way the new film gradually develops Carrie's telekinetic powers rather than suddenly revealing what she can do when the story reaches the prom.

The prom sequence itself is another improvement. It lasts longer, giving the film more time to build up to the inevitable disaster. I also prefer the way the film moves almost immediately from the destruction at the school to the aftermath at Carrie's home. The whole thing feels more continuous.

Nevertheless, I don't think the film needed to be made.

When a film is remade, I think there are two things it has to achieve. It has to be close enough to the original for us to recognise the story, but it also has to be different enough to justify making it again. There should be something new to say or a different way of telling the story.

Carrie 2013 doesn't fulfil that second condition.

It was described as a new adaptation of Stephen King's novel rather than a remake of the 1976 film. Technically, I suppose that's true. But having watched both films several times, I find that distinction difficult to accept. The 2013 film is remarkably close to the earlier one, right down to individual scenes and snippets of dialogue. It's been modernised, with smartphones and social media replacing the technology of the 1970's, but that isn't enough to make it feel like a genuinely new interpretation.

And that's what makes my opinion slightly contradictory. I think the 2013 Carrie is better than the 1976 Carrie, but I also think the remake was unnecessary.

There are certainly differences, and some of those differences are precisely why I prefer this version. Moretz is a superb Carrie, Moore gives Margaret an appropriately disturbing quality, Carrie's powers are better developed and the prom sequence is more substantial. Miss Desjardin is also more appealing in this version. I particularly like her wild dancing at the prom.

But when I watch it, I can't escape the feeling that I've seen it all before.

Perhaps that's inevitable when two films are based on the same novel. But there's a difference between telling the same story and making the same film. I would have liked the 2013 version to take King's novel and do something substantially different with it.

Nevertheless, after five viewings, I'm still very fond of it. The fact that I can complain about its lack of originality while giving it five stars tells you everything you need to know about how much I enjoy the film.

So many films, so little time.

Success Rate:  + 0.8

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

War for the Planet of the Apes (4 Stars)

This film takes place two years after the events in "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes". In the previous film the apes won their fight against the citizens of San Francisco. Now they have a more serious opponent, a professionally trained army that's arrived from the North.

But this film shows further developments. The Simian Flu that wiped out more than 99% of the Earth's population has now mutated. It's making people lose their intelligence, starting with their ability to speak. A lot of thought has been put into the rebooted film series. It makes a lot more sense than the last three films of the legacy series.

The battle lines aren't as clear cut as in the last film. The soldiers aren't just fighting against the apes, they're fighting against one another. A second army arrives from the North which believes that the first army is infected with the Simian Flu and wants to destroy it.

Caesar doesn't want war. He wants peace. He thinks that humans and apes can live side by side. There's enough room for everyone. Unfortunately, the humans disagree.

Success Rate:  + 1.3

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

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (5 Stars)

This film takes place eight years after the events of the previous film. A lot has happened in this time. The apes, led by Caesar, have settled in Muir Woods, the area north of San Francisco. The disease that we saw at the end of the previous film has spread throughout the world. Only one person in 500 has survived the disease, but that's not the only thing that's killed people. The survivors have rioted, and civilisation has collapsed.

The people of San Francisco know nothing of the ape civilisation on the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge. They finally cross the bridge to repair the dam that supplies the power to their city. An uneasy alliance develops between the apes and the humans. Once more the apes are the good guys, but even among the apes there are those who want war. The humans aren't really evil, they're just scared. They realise that the apes are intelligent and powerful, and they're worried they won't survive.

Caesar has become a father. He shows affection towards his children, but at the same time he's developed into a noble ruler. He's no longer the playful little chimp that we saw in the last film.

War breaks out, and the apes win. Is that a spoiler? Not really. By now everyone knows that the apes are destined to replace humans as the dominant species on the planet.

Success Rate:  + 1.0

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

Halloween [2018] (4 Stars)

I've finally bought the 2018 version of "Halloween" on Blu-ray. Is it the 11th film in the series or the third? That depends on how you count them. The first film was made in 1978, and it's rightfully considered a classic. "Halloween 2" was made three years later in 1981, but it continues directly from the first film, so it also takes place on 31st October 1978.

In 1982 there was a curious film called "Halloween 3", which has nothing to do with the first two films. It doesn't feature or even mention Michael Myers. It doesn't deserve to be included in a list of Halloween films.

In 1988, 1989 and 1995 there were three films that acted as sequels to the original films. So "Halloween 4" was the third film, "Halloween 5" was the fourth film, and "Halloween 6" was the fifth film. Are you still with me?

Then there was a marketing coup in 1998. Either a coup or a disaster, depending on how you look at it. To celebrate the 20th anniversary of "Halloween", a film was made called "Halloween H20". This continues from the second film, ignoring the events of the previous three films. So "Halloween H20" was the seventh film, but it's the third film in the revised continuity. In 2002 the story was continued in "Halloween Resurrection", so the eighth film was the fourth film.

In 2007 a film called "Halloween" was released, which was a reboot of the franchise. So the ninth film was the first. That's fair enough. And in 2009 the story was continued with "Halloween 2".  The world was in order again.

And the world remained in order until 2018, when a third film with the name "Halloween" was released, the one I'm writing about now. The reboot was ignored. The sequels "Halloween 4" to "Halloween 6" were ignored. The alternative sequels "Halloween H20" and "Halloween Resurrection" were ignored. That makes "Halloween" (2018) the new "Halloween 3".

I'm worn out after writing all that confusing stuff, so I'll keep my description of the new film to a minimum. Michael Myers escapes from the mental hospital after 40 years and returns home to Haddonfield. All this time Laurie Strode, the final girl from the first two films, has been waiting for him. This has had an adverse affect on her mental health and her relationship with her daughter Karen.

And the killing begins.

Success Rate:  + 24.0

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

Carrie [2013 version] (5 Stars)

When I wrote about the 1976 version of Carrie yesterday, I said that I was going to watch a mini-marathon of seven American high school films. This isn't one of the seven films. I decided sporadically to watch it when my son Benjamin came to visit me this evening. It was primarily because I know he's a fan of horror films and would like it more than the teen comedy I had planned. It's also because I've been promising for years to watch the two Carrie films back to back.

When I suggested the film to Benjamin today he asked if it was "Carrie 2", i.e. a sequel to the first film. No, I told him it was the same story filmed again. He asked me why they'd done it. I couldn't answer. Of all the remakes I've seen, "Carrie" is the most superfluous. Some remakes are good, some are bad, but what justifies a remake is that it stands apart from the original film. It's different. The two versions of "Carrie" are so similar that I really have to ask why it was necessary to remake the film. It's more modern, so there are new inventions like mobile phones and laptops, but the other differences are so subtle that it's easy to miss them.

Both films are excellent. I've given both films a five-star rating. The only reason to prefer the original version is nostalgia.

When I reviewed the film in 2019 I listed the differences. There's one important thing that I forgot. The results of the final prom scene are different. In the original version, everyone was locked in the building and killed in the flames. In the new version there are various deaths, but when Carrie leaves the doors are left open and most of the traumatised kids escape. That means that there is do doubt for the police that Carrie White is responsible. Whether or not they believe what they're told is a different matter.

In 1976 Sissy Spacek was the natural choice to play Carrie. She had an inborn look of madness in her eyes. No insult intended. Chloe Grace Moretz, only 15 when she made the film, didn't have this look of madness, but she was  a skilled actress who was able to rise to the challenge.

I'll continue with my mini-marathon on Sunday. I have other film plans for the next two days.

Success Rate:  + 0.8

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

Playing With Fire (4 Stars)

Amazon Friday #2

This is my second week of watching a film streamed on Amazon Prime. I bet you thought I wouldn't keep it up. Yes, I will. At least for another 10 weeks. That's how many films I have in my Amazon Watchlist, unless I add any more films.

The film stars John Cena as the fireman Jake Carson. I don't consider him to be a great actor. He isn't capable of portraying deep emotions, but somehow I like him. He's able to play tough, rugged characters, especially in comedy films.

Jake isn't a normal fireman, he's a smokejumper. That's a fireman who specialises in the fighting of forest fires. Teams of smokejumpers are usually situated on the edge of large forests, ready to be deployed immediately when fires break out. In America they're employed by the United States Forest Service.

After watching the trailer I expected there to be a lot of fire fighting action. I was wrong. It was yet another example of a deceptive trailer. There are only a few short fire scenes at the beginning to set up the film's background. Most of the film takes place in the fire station itself. Jake Carson and his team rescue three children from a burning hut. The children are badly behaved and cause problems for a strict fireman like Jake Carson. Initially he wants to keep them in the station overnight until their parents can pick them up, but he soon finds out that their parents are dead. They've run away from their foster home to stop themselves being separated.

Jake refers to them as eight-year-old children. Really? We find out that Zoey (on the left) is two years old, a few days away from her third birthday. We're not told the ages of the other two. Will (on the right) could possibly be eight, but what about Brynn (in the middle)?

Brynn is played by Brianna Hildebrand, best known for her role as one half of the "Tragedy Girls". She's also appeared as Negasonic Teenage Warhead in the Deadpool films. She was 22 when she made "Playing With Fire", but I'm guessing she was supposed to be 14-ish. But eight years old? I'd never make a mistake like that.

She's beautiful, isn't she? It's a very different role to the one she plays in her other films. She also looks different with her long hair. More girly. But she still doesn't look like she's eight.

"Playing With Fire" is a lightweight film with a lot of silly slapstick humour. It's classified as a family film, but in truth it's more suitable for young children. It's the sort of film that would appeal to mischievous small children. I wonder what my five-year-old grandson Oliver would think of it. I'm an adult, not the target audience, but I enjoyed watching it, once at least. It's not a film I would return to, except possibly with Oliver at my side.

Success Rate:  + 0.3

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

Adaptation (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #55

Nicolas Cage was nominated for an Oscar as Best Actor in the 2003 Academy Awards. He didn't win. That was a miscarriage of justice. "The Pianist" was a good film, but there's no way that Adrien Brody was a better actor.

Meryl Streep was nominated as Best Supporting Actress, but lost to Catherine Zeta-Jones in "Chicago". That's a close call, but I still think that Meryl was slightly better.

Chris Cooper won the award as Best Supporting Actor. So there's still some justice left in the world. His performance in the film is incredible.

It's almost 20 years since "Adaptation" was in the cinemas. How many of my readers know it? I consider it to be a cinematic masterpiece that's been unjustly forgotten. It's rarely been shown on television, and even in our Netflix days television is the best way to keep films alive. Random films are thrown at viewers who just tune in to watch whatever's on.

I don't often watch television. Almost never. Usually it's only when I'm a guest in someone else's home and they have the television running in the background. Today was the first time I consciously watched television in my own home for more than five years. I watched Prince Phillip's funeral. Before it started there were advertisements for films that would be shown in the evening: "Thor: Ragnarok" and "300". They're both good films, in their own way. I'd say that they're better television films. What I mean by that is that there's a lot of action, so if you walk into the room while your wife or kids are watching you'll be attracted and sit down to watch the rest.

"Adaptation" isn't a good television film. Anyone who walks in and sees it will say "Huh? What's this?" and walk out again. It's a film you have to give yourself to. You have to sit down and devote yourself to the plot. It's a film for thinkers. You have to actively participate in the film and think about everything that happens. I'm sure that television planners realise this, which is why it's not shown.

In my opinion, this is the most intelligent film ever made. I wouldn't say it's the best film, just the most intelligent, as far as the plot is concerned. It's been called a meta-film, but it's really a meta-meta-film. It's a film about a film about a film about a book about true events. "Adaptation", the film, shifts constantly between the different levels, so that at the end you don't know what's real and what isn't.

In 1998 the journalist Susan Orlean wrote a book about John Laroche, a man who was arrested for stealing rare orchids. The book was a surprise bestseller, so it was decided to make it into a film. When the screenplay was finally written it was shown to Susan Orlean for approval, and her reaction was "Absolutely not! Are you kidding? This is going to ruin my career!" The film portrayed her as a drug addict who posed for pornography sites. There was no truth to this, but it's well known that films often take liberties with the truth. She eventually changed her mind and allowed the film to be made. That surprises me. Most respectable authors would have refused to be slandered in this way. Maybe she treated it as a joke.

Charlie Kaufman was hired to write the screenplay for the book. He was an unusual choice for such a task. In my opinion, he was the wrong choice. He suffered from writer's block, so eventually he made the unusual decision to write a film about himself suffering from writer's block while writing the screenplay. He's hampered in his writing by his fictitious twin brother Donald, who also wants to be a screenwriter. Charlie considers Donald an idiot, but he has to stand by and see that Donald is considered a genius. It's significant that Charlie only succeeds in finishing his screenplay when Donald is killed.

This is a film that I can wholeheartedly recommend to everyone who likes to watch films that he can think about.

The film is universally available on DVD, but it's only been released on Blu-ray in America. The Blu-ray disc is locked to region A.

Success Rate:  - 0.3

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

Jurassic World (4 Stars)

"The key to a happy life is to accept you are never actually in control".

This is the third film that I'm watching this week to remember Irrfan Khan. Interestingly, I could hardly recall his performance in this film, unlike the first two films, "The Life of Pi" and "Slumdog Millionaire". It's not because he has a smaller role. He definitely has more screentime than in either of the other films. Somehow he fades into the background as such an essential part of "Jurassic World" that he's taken for granted.

He plays Simon Masrani, the owner of the Jurassic World theme park, the eighth richest person in the world. Despite his wealth, it isn't all about money for him. He's a complex character with different conflicting goals. He has respect for the animals, even if he doesn't forget that their ultimate purpose is to make money for him. He rejects the militarisation of the dinosaurs, even if that means giving up the possibility of even more money. He has red lines that he won't cross. Added to that, he enjoys fun. He insists of flying helicopters himself, even though he's not a very good pilot. And finally, he's philosophical, as we can tell from the wisdom that he imparts to the passengers in his helicopter. Listen to his words carefully. He's not saying that we have to give up control to have a happy life. If that were the case, it would mean that until now we've spent time in control of our lives. He's saying that none of us have ever had control of our lives. In itself, that's a typical existentialist statement, but the idea of becoming happy by accepting it goes one step further than existentialism.

Unfortunately, he doesn't survive to come back in the sequel. I would have welcomed his pensive but determined driving force in "Fallen Kingdom". He's a good counterpart to Chris Pratt, who plays Owen Grady as an all-out action hero. Simon Masrani disappears in a ball of flames when his helicopter crashes.

Here's a gratuitous dinosaur photo, in case that's the reason you're reading this review.

Irrfan Khan
7 January 1967 – 29 April 2020

But it's not the reason I'm writing this review. It's about the magnificent actor who passed away unexpectedly three days ago. We can bring dinosaurs back to life by splicing DNA strands, but we can never bring back Irrfan Khan.

Success Rate:  + 9.1

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

Ant-Man and the Wasp (5 Stars)

Together with "Captain Marvel", this is one of two Marvel Cinematic Universe films that were released between "Avengers Infinity War" and "Avengers Endgame". With the exception of the mid-credits scene, "Captain Marvel" takes place 30 years before "Infinity War", but "Ant-Man and the Wasp" takes place at the same time as "Infinity War".

I picked the two films that I watched today without remembering that Laurence Fishburne appears in both of them.

In "John Wick 3" he plays the King of the Bowery, the man who runs an empire with the help of carrier pigeons.

In "Ant-Man and the Wasp" he plays Bill Foster, a university professor who used to be an employee of Hank Pym. He claims that he was Hank Pym's partner, but that obviously isn't the case, because he was fired.

That's Laurence Fishburne as well. Sort of.

Wait! Is that Kim Jong-Un? I recognise him, even when he has a good hair style.

Who's that man getting into his car? That's a silly question. Everyone recognises him.

Abby Ryder Fortson, who plays Scott Lang's daughter Cassie, is a magnificent actress. Her talent is astounding, considering she was only ten years old when the film was made.

She already appeared in the same role in "Ant-Man", three years earlier, but she won't be returning to the role in future MCU films. Due to the time jump in "Avengers Endgame" she had to be replaced by an older actress. That's a shame.

In this film Janet Van Dyne, played by Michelle Pfeiffer, is a brilliant scientist. In the comics she was an air-headed debutante who was more interested in fashion than science. I wish they wouldn't change things.

I'm a big Marvel fan, ever since my early childhood. I read the comics regularly, and I know that I'll keep watching the films again. Nuff said!

Success Rate:  + 1.8

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

Carrie [2013 version] (5 Stars)

In my previous reviews I've said that the 1976 version and the 2013 version of Carrie are equally good. After watching them (almost) back-to-back for the first time I have to change my opinion. The new version is better.

While I still think that the two versions are so similar to one another that a remake (or new version) was unnecessary, the new version gives the film more of an edge. To list the improvements:

1. Chloe Grace Moretz is a better actress than Sissy Spacek.

2. Julianne Moore's performance is more deranged.

3. Carrie's powers are steadily developed in the new version, preparing us better for the climax.

4. The climax at the school prom lasts longer.

5. There's less of a pause between the climax at the prom and the aftermath at Carrie's house.

6. The music in the early parts of the first film are annoying. It sounds like a Lifetime movie.

7. I find the gym teacher Miss Desjardin more appealing in the new film. I love her wild dancing at the prom.

I've never read the novel on which this film is based. After watching both films this week I think I ought to. Over the last few months my reading has been restricted to Shakespeare's plays, but I ought to read something more modern.

I don't know whether the 2013 film is based on the book or the 1976 film. That's what makes the difference between a remake and a new version. So many snippets of dialogue are identical that I suspect it's based on the old film, but I shan't know for certain until I read the book.

Success Rate:  + 0.8

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

Ant-Man and the Wasp (5 Stars)

This is the 20th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in July 2018. I've now re-watched all the MCU films so far, so I shan't be able to continue until "Captain Marvel" is shown in the cinemas next month. It'll be an interesting film, but so far removed from Marvel canon that I'll have to force myself to forget everything I ever knew about Captain Marvel (the character).

In a six-second cameo Stan Lee plays a man whose car shrinks in front of his eyes. Speaking words that can easily be understood by any former LSD user, "The sixties were fun, but now I'm paying for it".

I criticised the humour in "Thor: Ragnarok", but in "Ant-Man and the Wasp" it's totally appropriate. The story is so well written, and the elements of slapstick only make it better. There are various plotlines that are expertly interwoven, interrupting one another when we least expect it. To sum up:

Scott Lang is under house arrest for two years as punishment for his illegal super-hero activities in "Captain America: Civil War". Hank Pym needs Scott's assistance to rescue his wife from the quantum realm, so he has to bypass the electronic tag that checks he's still at home. An illegal high tech trader, Sonny Burch, is attempting to steal Hank Pym's laboratory. Hank's former colleague Bill Foster has adopted a girl (now a woman) who needs the energy from the quantum realm to cure herself from perpetual phase shifting.

Even though today is the third time I've watched the film I felt as excited as if it were the first time. There's something thrilling about the film. This is the film that should have been nominated for an Academy Award, not "Black Panther".

It's good to see Hank Pym finally put on an Ant-Man suit. You're never too old to be a super-hero.

Hank Pym's daughter, Hope Van Dyne, puts on her mother's costume to become the Wasp. She wears it well.

Scott Lang's daughter Cassie wants to become the next Wasp. She should wait another ten years. With the right preparation she could become the best Wasp yet.

Scott Lang was an unlikely person to take on the mantle of Ant-Man, both in the comics and in the films. He's not a hero by nature. He's a family man who would like to enjoy a simple life without great wealth, just enough money to get by.

In the comics Bill Foster goes on to become one of Marvel's biggest heroes. I doubt that will happen in the MCU films. We'll have to wait until the franchise is rebooted, which probably won't be in my lifetime. They're not like the Spider-Man films which are constantly being rebooted.

Success Rate:  + 1.8

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

Ant-Man (5 Stars)

This is the 12th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in July 2015. Stan Lee appears so late in the film, less than a minute before the closing credits, that his fans might despair and think he won't be in the film. Don't worry, we finally see him as a barman. It's only for 2½ seconds, but that's long enough for him to give his opinion about the YouTube star Anna Akana, who he sees sitting in his bar.

"Crazy stupid fine". Those are Stan's exact words to describe her.

Take another look at her. Stan Lee wasn't just a brilliant writer, he also had good taste in women.

When the film was first announced it was predicted that this would be the MCU's biggest failure. The press wrote things like, "How can a super-hero be taken seriously if his super-power is being able to shrink to the size of an ant?" Then they went on to mock his name. On the other hand, dedicated comic fans expected something amazing, because Ant-Man was one of Stan Lee's first super-heroes. He first appeared in Tales To Astonish #35 in September 1962. He was one of the founding members of the Avengers. His lack of size could always be used as an advantage, either to sneak up on someone or to slip through the smallest of gaps.

Ant-Man could also fly by riding on a flying ant.

Far from being a failure, "Ant-Man" was a big box office success. Judged by my rating system it was one of Marvel's most successful films.

One thing that didn't hit me fully until I watched the film today – for the fifth time! – is the contrast between the two Ant-Men, past and present, both trying to be reconciled with their daughters. This is so important a theme in the film that I'm shocked that I never realised it before.

Dr. Hank Pym

Hope Van Dyne

Hank Pym, the original Ant Man, pushed his daughter Hope away from him after the death of his wife Janet Van Dyne, also known as the Wasp. He put her in a boarding school and didn't see her for years. People react to sorrow in different ways. If I lost my wife I would cling to my daughter tighter than ever. Now Hope herself is seeking contact with her father, but she can't bring herself to call him Dad. That takes time.

Scott Lang

Cassie Lang

Scott Lang, the new Ant-Man, was sent to prison for four years as a thief. His wife moved on. She has a new fiancé who lives with her. The future step-father isn't a bad man. Scott's daughter Cassie loves him, but she loves her real father more. She forgives her Dad for whatever he's done wrong. He'll always be the most important person in her life, but her mother is blocking the contact. In America – unlike most other countries – there's a connection between paying child support and visitation rights. Scott is four years behind with his child support payments, so his wife has the right to refuse him access to his daughter. That's cruel. She thinks she's punishing her husband, but she's hurting her daughter even more.

Success Rate:  + 2.0

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