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

Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

Steven Spielberg faced an impossible task with "The Lost World" (shortening the title). How do you follow one of the greatest blockbusters ever made? Instead of trying to recreate the magic, he made a darker, nastier and more chaotic film. Sometimes it works brilliantly. Sometimes it reminds you exactly why the original is untouchable.

The biggest difference is the tone. "Jurassic Park" was full of awe and wonder. Every dinosaur reveal felt magical, and even the terrifying moments were balanced by humour and a sense of adventure. "The Lost World" strips most of that away. Isla Sorna is a much harsher place, where humans aren't simply trying to survive but are exploiting the dinosaurs for profit. The film feels less like an adventure and more like a survival thriller.

Jeff Goldblum steps into the lead role as Ian Malcolm, and he carries the film with his trademark sarcasm and nervous energy. Malcolm is a very different hero from Sam Neill's Alan Grant. Grant gradually became brave because he had to. Malcolm spends most of the film desperately trying to convince everyone else that they're making a terrible mistake. Goldblum is entertaining throughout, but Grant remains the more satisfying protagonist.

The dinosaurs are even more convincing than before. Advances in CGI and animatronics make the creatures feel heavier, faster and more dangerous. Spielberg stages several unforgettable set pieces, especially the trailer hanging over the cliff and the attack through the long grass. These scenes rank alongside anything in the first film for pure suspense.

Where "The Lost World" struggles is its characters. Too many exist simply to become dinosaur food, and few leave much of an impression. The first film gave us characters we genuinely cared about, making every close encounter more suspenseful. Here, the spectacle often takes priority over emotional investment.

The final act remains the film's most controversial decision. Bringing a Tyrannosaurus Rex to San Diego turns the film into a giant monster movie, echoing King Kong and classic creature features. It's undeniably entertaining, but it also feels disconnected from everything that came before. Personally, I love its audacity, though I'm aware that others think differently.

Ultimately, "Jurassic Park: The Lost World" is bigger, louder and more action-packed than its predecessor. The dinosaurs are better, the action scenes are more elaborate and the danger feels more relentless. Yet it loses the sense of discovery, believable characters and perfect balance that made "Jurassic Park" a masterpiece.

It's an excellent sequel that dares to be different instead of repeating the original. That's admirable. But while it delivers some of the series' greatest action sequences, it never captures the wonder that made us fall in love with dinosaurs in the first place.

Success Rate:  + 6.5

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

Chloe (4 Stars)

As I've already stated, it's currently difficult for me to watch films at home. Writing about them is just as difficult. It took me almost three days to get through the film.

Despite lukewarm reviews from critics, I like it a lot. It's not even the acting performances that attract me. It's slow paced, but fascinating from beginning to end.

I strongly recommend watching the alternative endings (plural) on the disc.

Success Rate:  - 0.9

	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

Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #11

The correct name of this film is "The Lost World: Jurassic Park", but I've turned it around. I think my alternative title makes more sense. If you object to this, you can leave me a comment complaining about it, but only if your name is Steven Spielberg.

I shan't go into too many details about the plot, because I'm sure all my readers have seen it. It's one of the films most commonly shown on television. It was made in 1997, four years after the first film, and the story itself takes place four years later. Dr. Hammond is still nominally the head of InGen, the company that genetically recreated the dinosaurs, but his health is failing, so the board of directors has given his nephew the power to run the company.

"Lost World" (as I prefer to call it) has more action than the first film. There's no need for further exegesis about where the dinosaurs come from. The first film explained everything. Apart from John Hammond, who we only see briefly at the beginning and end of the film, the only character who returns from the first film is Dr. Ian Malcolm. Hammond sends him on a mission to Isla Sorna, the breeding ground for the Jurassic Park dinosaurs. He's accompanied by the palaeontologist Dr. Sarah Harding, the cameraman Nick van Owen and the engineer Eddie Carr. The first two are presented in great details in the character development section, but we don't get to know Eddie Carr. This is a hint that he'll be killed soon.

That's Eddie in the middle. Rest In Pieces.

Sarah Harding. I can't help feeling that she's a last minute replacement for Laura Dern as the palaeobotanist Ellie Sattler in the first film. They have similar personalities, even though their careers are different.

This is Dr. Malcolm's daughter Kelly, who stows away on the mission. There's not much of a family resemblance, as Eddie remarks when he sees them together. Steven Spielberg needs to plant children in his action films, just as Stephen King puts children in his horror stories.

Camilla Belle was only 10 years old when she appeared in a small role in "Lost World". Since then she's appeared in more than 20 films, and she's also directed a few films. She likes cute little dinosaurs. It's not named in the film, but it's a Compsognathus. Does that knowledge make you any smarter?

The film's cinematography is darker than the first film's, underlining the darker subject matter. More scenes take place at night, but even in the daytime the colours are darker.

Unfortunately, this was the last film in the Jurassic Park franchise directed by Steven Spielberg. None of the following films live up to the quality of the first two films. On the other hand, there's a steady increase in the quality of the computer graphics as technology improved. "Jurassic Park 3" has the best graphics, even though the overall film quality is inferior.

As for a comparison of the first two films, I'm not sure I placed them in the right order. Maybe "Jurassic Park" is better? I don't know. I like the structure of "Lost World", with an epilogue that takes place in San Diego after the main part that takes place on the island of Isla Sonar. It reminds me of "King Kong".

Success Rate:  + 6.5

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

Chloe (4 Stars)

This isn't necessarily one of my favourite films, but it's a film I keep returning to. I've watched it more often than films I rate higher. I have to ask myself if four stars is too high, because it has a cheap feeling to it, like a television movie, but it still fascinates me. It's a good story with great acting, but something about the cinematography lets it down. It's difficult for me to describe exactly what it is.

Catherine Stewart suspects her husband of having an affair, and maybe he's even had several affairs. I'll give away a spoiler: it's not true. He's been faithful all the years they were married. He flirts with other women, but it never goes past words. I can relate to that, because I see myself in him. I've always been flirtatious, even while I was married, but I still remained faithful.

Catherine hires Chloe, a beautiful young call girl, to test her husband. She asks Chloe to meet her husband and seduce him. That's a dangerous game. Chloe is being paid to succeed, so she'll do anything within her power to get him into bed. Could any man resist temptation like that, especially when the girl is as sexy as Amanda Seyfried?

Here's a small anecdote. In the 1980's the British army hired three girls to test the security at military bases, in Britain and Germany. The idea was that they should try to seduce the security guard to leave his post. Any guard who failed the test would be court-martialled. What the army didn't reckon with is that the girls treated it as a competition. They kept in contact with one another, comparing their results. The girl who won the competition had a 100% success rate. Was it a fair test? No, the guards were set up to fail, but it could just as well have been Russian spies trying to break into a base.

Back to the film: what Catherine didn't expect is that Chloe has her own agenda. She's not satisfied with just doing her job; she also seduces Catherine herself and Catherine's teenage son. She takes over the family.

This film is included with Amazon Prime, but I strongly recommend that you watch it on DVD or Blu-ray. The discs include two alternative endings. They're both better than the ending in the film. They're not really alternatives. To understand the film's message you have to watch both of them. I can imagine what happened. The director filmed both endings, and he couldn't decide which one to use, so he used neither. They should both have been used, even if it meant restructuring the film. One of the endings could have been slightly refilmed and put into a mid-credits sequence. There has to be a way this could have been done better. As it is, you need to watch both alternative endings after watching the film. If you don't do that, you'll miss out.

Success Rate:  - 0.9

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

Sadly, this film has only been released on DVD in the UK. If you want to watch it on Blu-ray, buy the German release.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (4½ Stars)

I haven't read the comics on which the Kingsman films are based. Maybe I should. The films are so good. They're like the James Bond films, but so exaggerated that they're almost a parody. They also seem to borrow ideas from the "Man from UNCLE" television series.

A surprise guest star in this film is Elton John, playing himself. In a film with exaggeratedly evil megalomaniacs and over-the-top secret agents, all that's needed to round it off is an excessively extravagant pop star. Was this the first time that Elton John met Taron Egerton, who would go on to play him in "Rocketman"? It's possible. If this was the beginning of their friendship, it must have influenced the development of the musical.

It's a different sort of role for Halle Berry as the American secret service computer expert. She doesn't have any of her usual sex appeal. Instead, she has a nerdy appearance that's very appropriate for her role.

Mark Strong is just Mark Strong. He's good in every role he plays. Whether he's a good guy or a bad guy, he's the quintessential tough guy. Mess with him at your own peril!

They make a good pair, don't they?

I've read that several Kingsman films are planned, not just a third film in the series. There will also be a prequel and a spin-off film. That's good news for everyone who likes crazy action films.

Success Rate:  + 2.0

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

Suburbicon (4 Stars)

It doesn't matter how perfect a town seems to be. It can only be as good as the people who live in it. Suburbicon, founded in 1947, was designed to be a perfect place to live. There's no heavy traffic, no pollution, no crime, everything is pleasant. But that doesn't change the fact that people are greedy and lustful and selfish. It's easy to cover things up on the outside, but the sin still simmers beneath the surface.

Gardner Lodge (Matt Damon) has a perfect life. He owns a small business, he has a beautiful wife and a smart son. What else could he possibly want? Two things. He wants more money, and he wants his wife's sister. The situation escalates as he finds out that everything comes with a price.

The film was a failure at the box office. I think I can understand why. It's not an easy film to understand. There's a mystery that slowly unravels, and the things that are revealed aren't things we want to know. I can't say more without giving away spoilers. The film has a surreal quality to it, as if it's a fairy tale, not real life. This might be unsettling for many viewers.

I have the feeling this is a film that I'll enjoy more with repeated viewing. I'll watch it again when I have time.

Success Rate:  - 2.1

	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

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (4 Stars)

This is a sequel to the 2015 film "Kingsman". If you liked the first film you'll love this film as well. Don't expect anything different. You get more of the same: ridiculously exaggerated action and a barely credible plot about a megalomaniac who threatens the world's safety.

In this case, it's arguable whether the threat to the world is really a threat. A woman called Poppy Adams has a monopoly of the world's supply of illicit drugs, everything from marijuana to heroin. She's laced the drugs with a deadly poison that affects its victims in four phases.

(1) They get blue marks on their faces.
(2) They can't stop dancing -- Is that a bad thing?
(3) They're paralysed.
(4) After a few days they die.

Most of the Kingsman agents are killed in a deadly attack by Poppy, but the survivors travel to America to team up with Statesman, an American spy organisation, to save the world's drug addicts. I'm sure Donald Trump would have let them die.

The Kingsman films target audiences who want to forget the world outside, put their brain on standby and laugh for two hours. The critics hate it, which is no surprise to anyone, but I love it. Now I can hardly wait for the third film.

Watch out for Elton John parodying himself. He must have a big sense of humour to accept this role.

You're probably wondering why Colin Firth is in the film poster, because he was killed in the first film. That means that the film poster is a spoiler.

Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

This was the first film I saw in the cinema after moving to America. I had never watched "Jurassic Park" before this, but I caught up by borrowing it on video from Blockbuster before I went to see the sequel. From what I remember I read about "Jurassic Park" in the newspapers while I lived in Germany, but I didn't go to see it because I thought dinosaur films are boring. I could hardly have been more wrong. "Jurassic Park" is now in my list of 30 films to watch before you die. See the list in the sidebar, and watch them all. Even watch the films again if you've already seen some of them. You won't regret it. If you watch one film a day it'll be a month to remember.

Burger King seems to have been the primary corporate sponsor for "The Lost World" in America. All of the Burger King television ads in early 1997 featured dinosaurs. I ate at Burger King often while I was in America. The price of the food was approximately the same at McDonald's and Burger King, but I preferred the taste of the hamburgers from Burger King. What I liked most at McDonald's was the milk shake and the soft ice cream. What was particularly good was that a local supermarket had vouchers for a free Big King burger on the back of their receipts. I was very short of money when I first arrived in America, so I used to walk around the car park to see if anyone had left his receipt in his shopping trolley. There were always a few, so I could go to the nearest Burger King with a handful of vouchers and eat for free.

After returning to England I didn't visit Burger King as often. Unlike America, there's a big price difference between Burger King and McDonald's. Similar food at Burger King costs two to three times as much as the equivalent at McDonald's. But the Burger King food does taste better, so I occasionally go in for a meal. It's just a shame that there aren't any vouchers for free hamburgers.

Carrie [2013 version] (4½ Stars)

My first review of this film was in December 2013 after seeing it in the cinema with the Birmingham Film Club. Today I watched it again on Blu-ray. I think I said the most important things in my first review, but I'll add a few thoughts here.

When I wrote about the film two years ago I said that I couldn't decide which was better, the 1976 original version or the 2013 remake. After watching it a second time I have to say that the remake is better. As amazing as Sissy Spacek's performance was, Chloe Grace Moretz is a superior actress. Julianne Moore is madder than Piper Laurie. The pacing is better, with the film leading up to the final prom scene faster and extending it.

I make this judgement very carefully, because the original is utterly amazing. I have a certain fetish for the original. I would like to say it's better, because it's a film I've watched repeatedly with great pleasure over the years, but it simply isn't better.

I wonder which version Stephen King himself prefers. I'd like to hear his opinion.

Chloe (4 Stars)

This is an erotic thriller with a twist. Or maybe that isn't so unusual. Most of the classic erotic thrillers of the 1990's used plot twists to distract the viewer from the low budgets and poor production quality.

The Stewarts are a perfect family. David Stewart is a professor at a film school in New York. His wife Catherine is a successful gynaecologist. Their teenage son Michael is a music student. But Catherine suspects that her husband is being unfaithful to her when he returns home from work late. As we soon find out, her suspicions are unfounded, but once jealousy has taken hold in a woman's heart nothing can persuade her she's wrong. From her surgery window Catherine can see a luxury prostitute leaving a hotel with her clients every day, so she forms a plan. She hires the prostitute, Chloe, to test her husband's fidelity. That's not fair. Chloe is played by the beautiful actress Amanda Seyfried, so what man could resist her?

As expected, Chloe soon reports to Catherine that her husband has fallen prey to her powers of seduction. But it soon becomes obvious that Chloe has an agenda of her own. She becomes part of Catherine's life, seducing first Catherine and then her son.

This is a very sexy erotic thriller thriller. When you find out the plot twist it'll be obvious that there were clues right from the beginning of the film. It's a film that you will want to watch more than once.

Maps to the Stars (3¾ Stars)

After seeing this film in the cinema I found it difficult to review. I cheated by checking reviews written by other people, but I don't like their reviews either. I think the problem is that the film has different stories which are interlocked by sharing the same people, but actually have little to do with one another. It's the same scenario that we have in "Magnolia", except that P. T. Anderson makes a big deal of stories happening in parallel while David Cronenberg just lets them happen.

Let me attempt a partial synopsis of the film. Spoiler-free, of course. Dr. Stafford Weiss (John Cusack) is a psychotherapist who has become a millionaire through television appearances, self-help books and treating the Hollywood stars. His unconventional counselling techniques involve talking to the actresses -- he only has female clients? -- while massaging them. But there are several dark secrets in his life. His wife is his sister. His 13-year-old son Benjie, the star of "Bad Babysitter", has just spent four years in drug rehab. His 18-year-old daughter Agatha (Mia Wasikowska) was sent to a mental asylum as a child after starting a fire, and he refuses to let her contact his family.

Agatha returns to Hollywood with the intention of marrying her brother. After all, she's only following the example set my her parents. She returns using a false name to avoid suspicion. At the airport she meets and grows attached to Jerome (Robert Pattinson), a young man who is working as a limo driver while trying to make it as a screenwriter. She becomes the personal assistant of Havana Segrand (Julianne Moore), an aging actress and one of Dr. Weiss's patients, who is desperate to star in a film remake in which she would play the same role that her now deceased mother played 30 years earlier.

The film is a savaging attack on the Hollywood film community and the people who populate it. The teen stars that Benjie mixes with are the ugliest of all. They've entered an adult world, and they've adopted its conventions to survive. They talk bad about others behind their backs and fight their way to the top by trampling on their peers. The adults too are heartless. When the son of Havana's friend Azita (Jayne Heitmeyer) dies, Havana pretends to be sympathetic, but she's really pleased because Azita is no longer able to star in a film role that Havana wanted.

I don't think my synopsis does the film justice, even though it's better than anything else I've read so far. I've omitted many things that are going on, but it should give you a rough impression. It's a film worth seeing more than once. It confused me on first viewing, but there's a good chance I'll rate it higher next time I see it.

Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

In the second Jurassic Park film Richard Attenborough plays a smaller role. John Hammond, the man who founded the park, is now old and spends most of his time in bed. His nephew has now taken over the running of his company, Ingen. We only see Richard Attenborough at the beginning of the film, in his bedroom, and in the final scene in a television interview. Nevertheless, in these two short scenes he puts on a magnificent performance.

Magnolia (4 Stars)

Things go round and round.

This is a film that I find it very difficult to write about. It tells several unrelated stories, only connected by the fact that they all take place on the same day, and some of the people know each other. A recurring theme in the stories is the alienation between children and their parents. And then there are the frogs falling from the sky.

It's a fascinating film that kept me glued to the screen from beginning to end. But when it finished I had an empty feeling. I was expecting the stories to be somehow linked together in a final scene, but they weren't. That was the point. Things happen side by side every day. We don't live in a well-scripted cinematic universe. When I leave home in the morning I say hello to my neighbours. It could be that several of us have intense personal dramas before we go to bed in the evening. And yet the only connection between these dramas was a simple greeting in the morning.

Carrie [2013 version] (4½ Stars)

Is it possible to describe this film without comparing it with the original version? The question everybody will be asking is, "Is it as good as the original?" followed by other questions such as, "Was it worth remaking it?" To be honest, I'm surprised that it's so similar to the original. I would have expected the director (Kimberly Pierce) to experiment with new ideas, even ones that might not have been in Stephen King's book. While watching it I felt like I was seeing an old friend. It's been moved from 1976 into the 21st Century, and the special effects look more realistic, but basically it's the same film. So let's compare!

Sissy Spacek was an inspired choice to play Carrie White in the first film. Chloe Grace Moretz had big shoes to step into, but she does it well. What I like about Chloe is that she isn't a "looker". This might be a disadvantage for her 10 years from now, but at this point in her career it's in her favour. What I mean is that she doesn't really look beautiful. Cute, maybe, but there's something plain about her. Even when she's in her prom dress Carrie doesn't look like the belle of the ball, she looks like a Plain Jane who's had a makeover that will wash off in the morning. Hollywood should use more actresses who look "normal". Just look at all the other girls in Carrie's class. They're all drop dead gorgeous, as if it's a high school for beauty queens. Normal schools aren't like that. In a usual school class there are a few beautiful girls, the majority are plain, and a few are unattractive, for whatever reason.

I liked Piper Laurie as Carrie's mother in the first film, but Julianne Moore is far better. In the original film the mother was a religious fanatic who loved God more than her daughter. She thought she was doing good in the way she was protecting Carrie, but it was obvious to everyone she was doing evil. This still applies in the second film, but she isn't just a fanatic, she's also deranged. Julianne Moore takes the character to the next level.

I was disappointed with the supporting characters, especially Carrie's classmates. In the first film they stood out more, especially Sue and Chris. I felt that I knew them. In the new film they just whiz by in a blur, they're not well developed as characters.

So, was the film worth remaking? It's difficult to say. I enjoyed the original version. I enjoy this version. They're both good. But you don't need to watch both versions.

Chloe (4 Stars)

Dr. Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) is a successful gynaecologist who works in a small town. Her husband David (Liam Neeson) is a music professor who works in New York City and only returns home at weekends. She suspects him of being unfaithful to her, so she hires Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), an exclusive call girl, to test her husband's fidelity. As we find out, David had never cheated on his wife before, but he is unable to resist Chloe's powers of seduction. Then things spiral out of control. Chloe goes on to seduce Catherine's teenage son and Catherine herself.

The film's plot is fascinating. I admit to having been excited by the naked scenes. Amanda Seyfried is a very beautiful woman. And yet I have the feeling that it could have been better. Something is missing. I'm not sure what.

The alternate endings included on the DVD are worth watching. Especially the ending with the voiceover by Catherine. They point out something (I don't want to spoil it by telling you what it is) that the director probably intended to say in the film, but was never made clear. He should have put the message across better.

Click here to view the trailer.

Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

It's good to see that the number of readers of my blog is going up again, over 1900 pageviews per month compared with 1700 in February and March. I'm seeing a correlation between my reading figures and the number of posts I make, which is very encouraging. This means that I have a large number of regular readers who keep returning when I write something new. If the readership figures remained constant whether I post or not it would mean that my traffic relies on random visits from people who have done web searches.

This is the second film in the Jurassic Park trilogy, once again directed by Steven Spielberg. It was only four years since the first film, from 1993 to 1997, but in those four years huge leaps were made in technology. This means that the photo-perfect computer generated dinosaurs in the first film could be made even more realistic in the sequel. Where mostly single dinosaurs or small groups were shown in the first film it was now possible to show swarms of dinosaurs. If you watch the two films in a row (like I did, yesterday and today) the difference is obvious.

The plot: After the destruction of the original theme park in the first film we now find out that there's a second island containing dinosaurs that is used for breeding only. After being abandoned for four years it's discovered that the dinosaurs are thriving in the wild, so they are to be captured and brought to America (San Diego) to open a new theme park. But things don't go as smoothly as planned.

The first film copied the formula of "Jaws", but the sequel follows the structure of "King Kong". I'm referring to the 1933 version, which was accurately recreated by Peter Jackson in 2005. This leads to the ironic situation that the 2005 King Kong film seems to be copying "The Lost World", but they're actually both based on the pre-war film. The film structure is simple. A team goes to a remote island and meets monsters. They capture one big monster and bring it back to civilisation, where it runs amok.

At first I preferred "The Lost World" to "Jurassic Park". Now, after watching both films many times, I rate them equally. Apart from the improved special effects "The Lost World" has more action, more gore and is faster paced. "Jurassic Park" spends more time on character development and subplots. Both films are brilliant, but I still think that "Jurassic Park" is better material to study in film school.

Click here to view the trailer.

Hannibal (4½ Stars)

Although "Silence of the Lambs" is the most famous film about Hannibal Lecter, I find "Hannibal" better. The main reason is that we see more of the good doctor, but I also find that Julianne Moore is a better choice to play Clarice Starling. Giancarlo Giannini, an actor not well known outside Italy, delivers a moving performance as the police detective blinded by greed. The film moves slowly, but when the action kicks in you jump in your seat. A great film all round.