Fire Walk With Me (4½ Stars)

This is the September selection for the monthly "Best Of Cinema" It's a film I own on DVD, but I haven't watched it for a long time. It was made in 1992, and it's a prequel to the television series "Twin Peaks". I first watched "Twin Peaks" in 2004 (according to my Amazon purchase history), and I watched "Fire Walk With Me" immediately afterwards. I re-watched "Twin Peaks" in 2014, but I didn't watch "Fire Walk With Me" again. I'm not sure why.

Let me start by saying that I don't think "Fire Walk With Me" is a well made film. It makes no concessions for the viewer. The characters appear randomly in the film, some named, some not, and anyone who hasn't seen the series probably has no idea what's happening.

But it's a David Lynch film, so is it necessary to understand it? The psychedelic imagery is compelling and drew me in, and I'm sure it would have had the same effect if I'd never watched the series.

The film is made up of two parts. In the first part we see an investigation of the murder of Teresa Banks. The murder isn't solved, and one of the detectives mysteriously disappears. The second part, which takes place a year later, shows the last seven days of Laura Palmer. In the series special agent Cooper spent weeks painfully researching clues to figure out what happened. Many of the clues pointed in the wrong direction. In the film we see exactly what happened.

After watching the film I checked the availability of "Fire Walk With Me" on 4K, and I found that the release date is November this year, alongside a 4K release of "Lost Highway". Wow! While reading up on it I found rumours on social media that "Twin Peaks" will be released on 4K. I've only watched my Blu-ray box set once, but that wouldn't stop me buying it yet again.

"Fire Walk With Me" is a film that overwhelms me. I've only deducted half a star because there's too much smoking.

Success Rate:  - 2.4

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.de

Dark City (5 Stars)

After watching the theatrical version of "Dark City" in May, I decided to watch the director's cut today. It's noticeable how much has been re-edited. The only thing about it that I dislike is the way Kiefer Sutherland screams when he's approaching Shell Beach. That's a comment for my readers who already know and love the film. It'll confuse anyone who's never seen it, so my advice is that you go out and buy it straight away, preferably on Blu-ray. I'm not aware that it's available on any streaming services.

Rufus Sewell plays John Murdock, who's at the centre of a conspiracy. He wakes up at midnight in a bath tub with amnesia. He doesn't even know his own name until he looks at his driver's licence. There's a dead woman in the next room. He's the prime suspect in a murder investigation. Six prostitutes have been killed, and John doesn't know whether or not he's innocent.

John's wife Emma is a night club singer. John left her three weeks ago, but she thinks he's innocent.

Frank Bumstead is a lonely, brooding detective who's determined to find the murderer. The closer he gets to solving the case, the more he realises that it doesn't make sense. The last detective who was working on the case went insane, telling everyone that there is no case. It's all a game.

This is Melissa George's first role as a prostitute called May. John visits her to test himself. He wants to know whether he's capable of murder.

The psychiatrist Dr. Daniel Schreber is the only man who knows what's happening, but nobody believes him.

This is a brilliant film. It's a mystery that will thrill you from beginning to end.

Success Rate:  - 1.0

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

Dark City (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #37

This is an amazing science fiction film with aspects of film noir and added hints of German expressionism. Calling it science fiction is already a spoiler, because the film opens without revealing its genre. After the first 15 minutes the mystery could still go in any direction, and even when there are supernatural occurrences the viewer is unsure what to make of them.

Today I read the Wikipedia page and found some interesting thoughts that weren't on the page the last time I read it. I'll quote them in full:

Theologian Gerard Loughlin interprets "Dark City" as a retelling of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave". For Loughlin, the city dwellers are prisoners who do not realize they are in a prison. John Murdoch's escape from the prison parallels the escape from the cave in the allegory. He is assisted by Dr. Schreber, who explains the city's mechanism as Socrates explains to Glaucon how the shadows in the cave are cast. Murdoch however becomes more than Glaucon; Loughlin writes, "He is a Glaucon who comes to realize that Socrates' tale of an upper, more real world, is itself a shadow, a forgery". Murdoch defeats the Strangers who control the inhabitants and remakes the world based on childhood memories, which were themselves illusions arranged by the Strangers. Loughlin writes of the lack of background, "The origin of the city is off-stage, unknown and unknowable". Murdoch now casts new shadows for the city inhabitants, who must trust his judgment. Unlike Plato, Murdoch "is disabused of any hope of an outside" and becomes the demiurge for the cave, the only environment he knows.

Today I watched the original theatrical version, which is spoilt by an ugly voiceover in the opening scene. The director Alex Proyas has confirmed that the studio forced him to add the voiceover against his will. A Director's Cut was released 10 years later, removing the voiceover and making many small changes. I welcome the omission of the voiceover, but I have mixed feelings about the other changes. The additional 10 minutes footage is noticeable, but makes no difference to the film's quality. The musical score is different in places, and is definitely inferior in the Director's Cut.

My recommendation is: if you've never seen the film, watch the Director's Cut. You'll enjoy it. You won't be aware of any problem with the music, so you won't have anything to regret. Nevertheless, I consider the Director's Cut to be unnecessary. It would have been enough to add a second audio track to the theatrical version without the opening scene's voiceover.

I intend to rewatch the Director's Cut soon. Maybe next week. That's only a Maybe, so please don't hold your breath while you're waiting.

Success Rate:  - 1.0

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

Phone Booth (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #45

I forget exactly when I first saw this film or even why I bought it. It was released in 2003, but I probably didn't see it until a few years later. I'm sure that my review in November 2010 wasn't the first time I saw it. Amazon keeps a perfect record of the date when I bought films online since 2003, but in my early years of collecting DVDs I bought a lot of films over the counter at Virgin Records and HMV. I didn't keep my receipts, so I can only vaguely remember the dates. I really should have started my blog in 2003 when I bought my first DVD player. It was a mistake to wait seven years.

In my past reviews of this film I haven't written much about it because not much happens. I'll try to write more today. The plot and the location are minimalist, but the emotions are intense. Stu Shephard, a wheeling, dealing public relations man goes into a public phone box at the same time every day to ring his girlfriend. He has a cell phone, but he doesn't want his wife to see his girlfriend's phone number listed on his bill.

Someone rings the phone box, and Stu answers. It's a man who knows everything about him. The man is somewhere in a building looking down on the phone box, and he threatens to shoot Stu if he hangs up. The man says that he's already executed a paedophile and a crooked banker in the street, but it isn't obvious why he's picked Stu for his next victim. Stu has never done anything wrong except for cheating on his wife.

The frantic conversations continue. The man proves how serious he is by shooting a pimp who tries to make Stu leave the phone booth. The police arrive, suspecting Stu of murder, even though he isn't carrying a gun. Forest Whitaker plays one of the best roles of his life as the police captain talking Stu into leaving the booth.

I've always liked Forest Whitaker as an actor, but in this film he excels. He's fully credible as he portrays a man who is trying to make an arrest while plagued by emotional problems in his past. It's the subtleties in the portrayal of emotions that make the difference between good actors and great actors.

I only found out today that Jim Carrey was originally cast as Stu Shephard. He dropped out shortly before filming began. The more I think about it, the more I can see Jim Carrey being perfect for the role, but Colin Farrell can't be faulted.

The film was a box office success. I don't know how well it's known today. That depends on television broadcasts more than anything else. I'm not aware that it's available on any streaming services, which is a disadvantage. It's a film that's too good to be forgotten.

Success Rate:  + 5.5

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

Phone Booth (5 Stars)

"This is my booth, and I'm not coming out, all right? I like it in the booth. It's my world".

This film was made in 2003. Phone booths were already in decline, because of the convenience of mobile phones. The film states that the phone booth on 53rd and 8th is the last booth of its type in western Manhattan. How many are there now, in America and elsewhere?

This is a phone booth in Coventry Road, Small Heath, Birmingham, just outside Asda. It provides an essential service. It's used by drug addicts on Friday morning, just after midnight. That's when they receive their weekly welfare benefits. They don't want phone numbers to be stored on their mobile phones, so they ring drug dealers from this phone booth. The business itself is done in front of Asda. The dealers pull up in front of the cash machines, and the money changes hands through the car window. It's all very efficient. As a habitual midnight shopper I observed it many times. It's all made possible by the phone booth.

I watched this film today in remembrance of the director Joel Schumacher, who died yesterday at the age of 80. Most newspaper reports refer to him as "the Batman director", because he made two films about Batman in the 1990's. That's a shame, because they're not his best films (though they're not as bad as some critics say). He attempted to imitate the camp films of Tim Burton, but as I'm sure he later realised, there's only one Tim Burton. The films would have been better if he'd made them in his own action style. I'm not saying that the films should have been darker, I'm just saying they should have been more serious, though remaining the over-the-top action. The Batman films should have been more like "Falling Down", which he made two years before "Batman Forever".

"Phone Booth" has a lot in common with "Falling Down", as far as the style goes. It's a man pushed to the limit by forces working against him. The difference is that in "Falling Down" Bill Foster rises from the chaos to become an anti-hero, whereas Stu Shephard collapses under the pressure and becomes a nervous wreck.

The premise of "Phone Booth" might seem infeasible, a man being held hostage in a phone booth by an unseen sniper, but the action is so intense that the viewer soon stops asking questions.

It's a brilliant film. I only intended to watch one of Joel Schumacher's films this week, but after watching "Phone Booth" today I need more of his action; I'll watch "Falling Down" in the next few days. The Blu-ray disc is already lying on the desk next to my computer.

Success Rate:  + 5.5

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

Strangely, the film has only been released on DVD in England. If you're a high definition film fan, don't worry. The German Blu-ray is 100% English.

Lost Boys (5 Stars)

This is a film that critics can tear apart. There's so much about it that's bad, from the script to the exaggerated non-acting, and yet the end result is so good. It's a film that has rightly become a cult classic. Please don't use cliches like "it's so bad that it's good", an expression that I don't like anyway. It doesn't apply to "Lost Boys". The film is brilliant throughout.

The film has probably become better with time, ageing like a fine wine. It's an ode to the 1980's, and anyone who feels nostalgic about the 1980's will like it more today than the cinema audiences did in 1987, when it was made. The hairstyles and the attitudes are exaggerated 1980's.

The vampires in the film are cool, even though they're still the bad guys. Other critics have said that "Lost Boys" paved the way for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (the TV series, not the film), but I'm not convinced that that's the case. In the TV series the vampires aren't cool, it's the vampire slayers who are cool. In "Lost Boys" the vampire slayers are dorky and awkward. They act like they're bold and know anything, but as soon as they're in danger they scream like little boys.

What Edgar Frog really means is "We kill vampires". Although he and his brother panic so much when they're in danger that I can't help feeling this is their first attempt at vampire slaying.

And what sort of a family name is Frog anyway?

Almost all of the non-vampire characters are caricatures. The single mother, the eccentric grandfather, the horny older teenager, the comic nerd younger teenager. This is what makes them so appealing. They're ridiculously simplistic, which means that the film doesn't even need character development because we already know who they are.

Whatever points people can name as faults can be turned around to look like strengths. Try me. If you're a serious film critic write a list of the film's weaknesses in the comments box.

I was surprised to realise that I haven't watched the film since I started my blog in September 2010. More than nine years. I know that I watched it several times before then, ever since I discovered it in the late 1990's. Sometimes I think I should stop watching new films, always a risk, and just rewatch the old films that I know are good. So many films, so little time.

Success Rate:  + 1.8

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

A Time To Kill (4 Stars)

This is a courtroom drama made in 1996 by Joel Schumacher. That's a guarantee for quality in itself. As far as I know, he's never made a bad film. His films range from good to brilliant. It's based on a 1989 novel with the same name written by John Grisham.

Unlike most courtroom dramas, most of the action takes place outside of the courtroom. The film lasts two and a half hours, and there's nothing dull or uninteresting about it. It's not just men in suits shouting "Objection" and "Overruled", although that happens as well.

The film takes place in Canton, a small town in Mississippi. Two white supremacists rape a 10-year-old black girl. They hang her and leave her for dead, but the branch snaps and she manages to get home. She's able to identify the men, and one of her shoes is found in their truck, so they're arrested.

The girl's father, Carl Lee Hailey, visits the lawyer Jake Brigance and tells him that he doesn't expect justice to be done because it's a white man's world. In a similar case, when four white men had raped a black girl, the men were acquitted. Carl asks Jake to defend him if he deals with the matter himself, but Jake tells him not to do anything stupid. Carl doesn't take the advice. A few days later the rapists are in court requesting bail, and Carl bursts in, shooting them both dead.

Now Carl is on trial for murder, facing the death penalty. Jake says his normal fee would be $15,000 but he accepts $900, which is all of Carl's life savings. His defence strategy is based on claiming Carl was insane at the time of the murder. The Ku Klux Klan gets involved, burning down Jake's house and kidnapping his secretary. There are riots outside the court room, so the National Guard is called in. There are various other sub-plots, which I shan't go into here.

Parts of the film are very difficult for me to understand as a non-American. Is the Ku Klux Klan really allowed to march openly in the street the day after burning a cross in someone's lawn? Maybe it's because it can't be proved it was really them who burnt the cross? Can't the law deal with criminals like that?

I also find it difficult to understand the attitudes of the all-white members of the jury. Why does the colour of the accused person play a role? As I've already said elsewhere in this blog, I don't understand racism. I'm not saying that I'm against racism, what I'm saying is that to me racism is so ridiculously stupid that I don't understand how anyone can possibly be a racist. It doesn't make sense to me. I can argue with people about politics, and I can discuss religion and philosophy for hours on end, but if someone's a racist I don't know what to say to him. I can't credit him with enough intelligence to understand the words coming out of my mouth.

But the biggest problem I have with the film is the way the American legal system is portrayed. Carl was defended by pleading insanity. Was it really so insane? If someone raped my daughter and I expected the person to go unpunished, it's a natural reaction to want to get revenge. If Carl was insane, then I'm insane as well, and so are many other parents.

I'm not saying that vigilante justice is correct. Carl took the law into his own hands. He committed murder, so he's guilty. In a private conversation the judge said he would give Carl a 20 year prison sentence if he pleaded guilty. I would have accepted that sentence. Carl didn't regret what he did. It was a premeditated act, and if he'd failed to kill the rapists he would have tried again. Guilty is guilty, and it's unjust to use legal tricks to get him acquitted.

The film has a star studded cast. I could go through the actors one by one, praising their performances, starting with Samuel L. Jackson as Carl Lee Hailey. He's an uneducated man, but not unintelligent. He makes philosophical statements that dumbfound his lawyer.

Patrick McGoohan excels as Judge Noose. Is that name meant as a joke? He plays the role very subtly, displaying his motivation more through what he doesn't say than what he says. He presents himself as impartial, but we can see that his sympathies lie with the town's white people.

This is a film that I'd like to discuss with my friends. If you've seen it, please leave me a comment telling me what you think of it.

Success Rate:  + 1.8

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

Phone Booth (5 Stars)

I'm sure it's happened to everyone at some time in his life. You see a film that you think is great, so you tell a friend about it, but when you try to describe it he says "That sounds boring". This is one of those films. Let me tell you what it's about:

A man goes into a phone booth to call his girlfriend. The phone rings, and the caller tells him he will kill him if he doesn't do what he wants. The whole film takes place inside the phone booth.

If that doesn't sound boring, what does?

The film's strength is in the way a very simple scene can escalate into mayhem. It has similarities with "Falling Down", another film directed by Joel Schumacher. At times I feel like laughing, but a minute later I'm reminded that it's a very serious situation.

The film is original in the way it's filmed. With the exception of the introduction and the last five minutes the whole film takes place in real time. It's not a single take like "Victoria", but the time in the film runs at the same speed as in the real world while you sit watching it. I'm sure that this has been done in other films, but it's rare enough to make a big impression.

The cinematography is amazing. Split screens are used more effectively than in any other film I've seen. They're needed to maintain the real time, showing us what's happening in different places at the same time. Brilliant!

You might still think the film sounds boring. It isn't. Take my word for it.

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

Dark City (5 Stars)

This is one of the best films ever made, if we turn a blind eye to the horrible voiceover at the beginning, a blunder that was fortunately removed in the Director's Cut. I included "Dark City" in my list of 30 films to watch before you die, so if you haven't seen it yet I have only one question: Why not?

Rather than write any more about the film today I'll point out a few details that you might miss if you only watch it casually. It has to do with some newspaper clippings that John Murdock finds in his coat pocket concerning a serial killer who has been murdering prostitutes. All of the following screenshots can be enlarged by clicking on them.

In the first newspaper clipping the headline reads "Killer Strikes Again", but carry on reading. The text of the article has nothing to do with a serial killer, it's about a battle between America and Japan in World War Two.

The headline of the second newspaper clipping is "Hunt for Murderer Continues", but the article's text is very curious.

A very casual woman and a man that didn't mind were very much in evidence in the police records lately. An old hatter near Castlemaine came home to find his domicile invaded by a strange woman. He admitted that he didn't mind, and next day she proposed that he should give her a legal status as his wife. As he was still indifferent, the banns were called, but before their conclusion the lady was missing.

Eventually he found her habitating with with another man. He still didn't mind, and allowed that he was willing to marry her, but before the wedding day had arrived the bride wandered into matrimony with another casual stranger, and brought the husband in to live with the late intended. He didn't mind, and continued that way until the newcomer decided to turn him out and did it in a half minute.

Very strange. The same text is repeated in the next column.

The third newspaper clipping has the headline "Street Walker Killer still at large", but read on. The article's text is the same story of the man who didn't mind that was in the second clipping. Was the man who didn't mind a killer?

The fourth newspaper clipping has the headline "Police Baffled by Murders". I'm more baffled why the article about the man who didn't mind is repeated yet again.

The fifth newspaper clipping is perhaps the most interesting. The headline reads "Killer Stalks City's Street Walkers", but the article's text has nothing to do with the murders. The picture is too blurred to read much of the article, but one paragraph is clear in the second column:

Of no less importance was the common recognition shown of the fact that any menace from without to the peace of our continents concerns all of us and therefore property is a subject for consideration and cooperation. This was reflected in the instruments adopted by the conference.

Does that sound familiar to you? I recognised it straight away. It's the same text that's written in the newspaper in "Basic Instinct" and "A Horse For Danny".

There are only five words I can use to describe these five newspaper texts.

Sloppy. Sloppy. Sloppy. Sloppy. Sloppy.

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

Mirrors (4 Stars)

This is my Halloween Challenge film #23. It was recommended to me months ago by my good friend Henry from Iran as the scariest film he knows. I didn't watch it until now because most of the reviews are bad. In particular, it only holds a 14% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I really should stop taking Rotten Tomatoes seriously. It's a stupid web site quoting the opinions of stupid film critics who sit in ivory towers, far removed from the reality of what cinema audiences enjoy. The Rotten Tomatoes critics wouldn't know a good film if it slapped them in the face. This is a very good film that I'm now determined to watch again.

Kiefer Sutherland stars as Ben Carson, an ex-policeman suspended from duty because he shot a colleague in the line of duty. After almost a year of unemployment he starts a job as a security guard at a derelict department store, the Mayflower, previously the most luxurious department store in New York. It was badly damaged in an arson attack five years previously, but it still hasn't been restored due to legal battles with the insurance company. While waiting for the issues to be resolved the store has to be guarded 24 hours a day to prevent further acts of vandalism.

The Mayflower is an unsettling labyrinth of deserted rooms and corridors, damaged by the flames. Only the large mirrors are in perfect condition. Ben begins to see threatening images in the mirrors that aren't in the rooms behind him. This isn't confined to the store, he also begins to see things in the mirrors at home, and so do his other family members. The film becomes terrifying, because mirrors are everywhere, we can't escape them.

As the film developed and it became clear that a young woman who lived in the building 50 years previously was somehow involved I had the feeling that it was a Japanese-style film. I found out afterwards that it's a remake of a Korean film, "Into the Mirror". A quasi-remake, that is. From what I've read the premise is the same, but the story has been rewritten.

The film took a while to build up steam, but by the time it reached the second half I was fascinated and couldn't look away. This is definitely a film to watch again.

Ben Carson reads newspaper clips about the arson attack on the Mayflower. I don't know why he bothered highlighting the text in the first column. It's repeated below, then three times in the second column and yet again in the third column. Click on the picture above for a larger view. Maria Romano is a very poor journalist. Sloppy.

Here's another newspaper clip, also written by Maria Romano, printed on the same day, presumably for a different newspaper. The text is also repeated over and over again. Very sloppy.

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

Zoolander 2 (4 Stars)

Normally I would groan when a sequel is made 15 years after the original film. It seems too much like an act of desperation to get people into the cinemas. However, I do have faith in Ben Stiller, especially as a director. He's someone who takes risks and gets things right. I even like "Cable Guy", which is generally considered to be his worst film. Apart from this, I read that Ben Stiller wanted to make "Zoolander 2" for years, but he didn't do it because he was waiting for a suitable script.

It seems that not many people have the same faith in Ben Stiller's judgement as me. Only four members of the Birmingham film group decided to see the film with me. Actually there were five, but one of them didn't turn up because he fell asleep on the sofa. Life is hard.

I don't think that "Zoolander 2" is quite up to the quality of the original, but it's still a very good film. When a sequel is made to a comedy film the temptation is to repeat the same jokes. See the second Austin Powers film for an example of this.This was only partially the case with "Zoolander 2". A few of the original jokes were repeated, enough to make me feel comfortable and accept it as a sequel, but most of the humour was new. Overall, the film went in a new direction. The first film was all about exposing the shallowness of the fashion industry. In the second film this subject is only mentioned in passing. Instead of this we have an epic battle between good and evil.

That's all I'll say about the plot. My recommendation to my readers is that if you enjoyed "Zoolander" you'll probably like "Zoolander 2" as well, even though it's a different film. If you didn't enjoy "Zoolander" this probably isn't a film for you, but give it a try anyway, you might like it. If you've never watched "Zoolander" I suggest that you watch it first. There are enough references to the first film to make "Zoolander 2" slightly confusing if you don't know the original.

Dark City (5 Stars)

30 films to watch before you die, #20

This film, made by the Australian director Alex Proyas, was a financial flop when it was released in 1998. It was filmed with a budget of $40 million, but only earned $27 million at the box office. However, it was later recognised as a cult classic, and after being released on DVD enough copies were sold to make it profitable. More than $13 million of DVD sales? That's healthy.

Visually, the film could be mistaken for film noir. It's literally a dark city, a city in which the sun never shines. There's a murder mystery, but as the film progresses it becomes less and less relevant. It's more important to find out the secret hidden in the city. The first person to discover the secret is Detective Walenski, but what he uncovers drives him mad.

The similarity between this film and "The Matrix" is unmistakable. Roger Ebert went as far as to say that "The Matrix" recycled the premise of "Dark City". Obviously the Wachowski Brothers were strongly influenced by "Dark City", but as is often said, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Alex Proyas hasn't made many films in his career, but you might want to check out

• The Crow (1994)
• I, Robot (2004)
• Knowing (2009)

Pompeii (4 Stars)

I read mixed opinions about this film before I went to the cinema today. Normally before I go to see a film I check out what film critics are saying. The reviews of critics are usually safe, because they're professional enough to steer away from spoilers. I always avoid reading the Wikipedia article about a film before seeing it, because it almost always gives a full plot description, including the ending. The critics vote roughly 2-1 against the film. Since the film was released two months ago in America I was also able to check the user ratings on Amazon.com for the film, and it seems that the general public is evenly divided on whether they like it or not.

As my four star rating already tells you, I liked the film when I saw it. In fact, of the people who went to see the film with me -- I went to see it with the Birmingham film club -- we all liked it, although one of us had reservations. I'm prepared to defend my opinion of the film against those who hate it, but I'll admit its weaknesses.

We all know the story of Pompeii. It was destroyed in 79 AD when the nearby Mount Vesuvius erupted. It was the most thorough destruction of a city by a volcano that has ever been recorded. I was shown pictures when I was in junior school, and during my studies of Latin in grammar school I returned to the topic. There are no immediate eye witness reports, because nobody survived. A historian known as Pliny the Younger wrote the following report, which is quoted in the film:

You could hear the shrieks of women, the wailing of infants, and the shouting of men; some were calling their parents, others their children or their wives, trying to recognize them by their voices. People bewailed their own fate or that of their relatives, and there were some who prayed for death in their terror of dying. Many besought the aid of the gods, but still more imagined there were no gods left, and that the universe was plunged into eternal darkness for evermore.

However, we have to remember that this is not a report from Pompeii itself. Pliny was in Misenum, about 20 miles away on the other side of the Bay of Naples. He is obviously not describing the screams in Pompeii itself, but the lesser suffering around him, which was restricted to dark clouds and falling ashes. I also have a suspicion that he was dramatising his account of the disaster, making it more appealing through exaggeration.

Due to this lack of a first hand account, I knew before I entered the cinema that the bulk of the film would be a work of fiction, leading up to the destruction itself. I reject any criticism of the film based on the accuracy or the relevance of what happened before the disaster. This part of the film is story-telling, and it's what is needed to separate it from documentaries of the disaster.

The film's fictional part is a classic love triangle, such as we already know from disaster films like "Titanic", "Pearl Harbor" and "Dresden". Love triangles always make good stories, whatever the variations. They're something that people can relate to. And love triangles go well with disasters. Doomed love. That's something that can evoke tears from the hardest of men. The film tells the story of a young slave captured from a tribe of horse-keeping Celts in northern Britannia. His name is Milo, but as a gladiator he's called "The Celt", because the Romans claim that he is the last Celt left alive. He falls in love with a noble lady from Pompeii, Cassia, who is being pursued by a Roman senator called Corvus. The triangle is complete.

The gladiatorial scenes are so similar to "Gladiator" that the film could almost be accused of plagiarism. Almost? Maybe some of the critics do make this accusation, but I reject it. The life of a gladiator and the scenes he had to portray were doubtlessly similar from one city to another over the centuries, so there's no shame in showing similar scenes.

The disaster itself is stunningly filmed. The horror of destruction is brilliantly portrayed in the panic of the people while fire is raining down from the skies. Just as in "Titanic" we see small vendettas being played out in the middle of the devastation, as if people care more about killing others than saving their own lives. It's impossible to underestimate the depths of evil.

So what is my main criticism of the film? Simple. It was too short. The romance should have been stretched out for an extra hour. It should have been a three-hour film like "Titanic", "Pearl Harbor" and "Dresden". We could have had a passionate night in Milo's cell; it was a usual practice for noble ladies to pay to visit the gladiators. We could have seen Cassia tearfully submitting to Corvus in order to do the best thing to help her parents. Maybe more gladiatorial training and an extra fight. "Pompeii" is a good film, worth watching at least once, but it doesn't measure up to the other three films, in quality or in length.

Before I went to the film I went to McDonald's to try one of their new double cheeseburgers. I don't care what anyone else says, I enjoy eating at McDonald's. I don't visit their restaurants often, but I consider their food to be good and nutritious, whatever the haters say. However, yesterday I was disappointed. The burger that I ate yesterday at the McDonald's branch in Birmingham's Paradise Forum was virtually tasteless. I don't know what they did wrong, but if it had been my first visit to McDonald's I would never have gone again.

The Three Musketeers (1993) (4¼ Stars)

I hate double-sided DVDs.

My intention for March was to write only 4-word reviews. I have to give up now, there's way too much I have to say about this film. Or at least I can make a compromise. I'll write 4-word summaries, as above, then add more thoughts if necessary.

I enjoy this film, the 1993 version of "The Three Musketeers", but as far as the DVD release itself is concerned, this is the worst DVD in my collection. To explain: you have to put the DVD in your player. You watch half the film. Then you have to turn the disk over to watch the other half. This is dreadful. Disgusting. Shameful. What is the point in making a double-sided single-layer DVD? Is it cheaper to manufacture than the usual single-sided double-layer DVDs?

I don't like double-sided DVDs anyway, even if they're double-layered. I have a few in my collection, and I hate them all. The "City of Angels" DVD has the film on one side, the extras on the other. "Snatch" has two different versions of the film, one on each side. The "Kung Fu" box set is made up entirely of double sided DVDs to halve the number of discs. Some of the DVDs in the Sopranos box sets are double sided. I despise this. The sides, A or B, are marked in very small writing on the edges of the discs. It's just unacceptable. It's not just a problem that the lettering is so small, and almost illegible. The problem is that the lettering is inconsistent. On some DVDs the "A" means that the side it's written on is the first side, so it should be placed face down in the player. On other DVDs it means that the opposite side is the first side, so the "A" should be face up when putting in the disc. I've solved the problem for myself by always putting the first side face down when I put a DVD back in its case. But it's still no excuse. Double-sided DVDs should be banned.

As for the film itself: "The Three Musketeers" is a novel written by Alexandre Dumas in 1844 that has somehow won the imagination of film makers. It has been filmed at least 30 times from 1903 till today. In fact, it has been filmed twice in the last three years. There must be a psychology to films that are constantly remade over the years. There must be something special about the stories. As far as I know, the story that has been filmed the most often is Bram Stoker's "Dracula", filmed more than 40 times. Other multiply filmed stories are "Cinderella", "Tristan and Isolde" and "Dangerous Liaisons".

This version of "The Three Musketeers" stars Kiefer Sutherland, Oliver Platt and Charlie Sheen as the title characters, plus Chris O'Donnell as D'Artagnan, who is actually the film's main hero. Tim Curry is his usual evil self, and Rebecca de Mornay is sexier than I have ever seen her in any other film. It's an exciting film from beginning to end. It's just a shame I have to get up half way through to turn over the DVD.

Dark City (5 Stars)

A man wakes up suffering from amnesia. He has a knife at his side and a dead woman is lying in the next room. The police suspect him of being a serial killer, but how can he prove to them he's innocent when he even suspects himself? As he dodges the police he's also pursued by a group of mystery men dressed in black. The only person who knows the truth is a psychiatrist who limps around the city giving cryptic clues as to what is happening.

This is one of the best films I've ever seen. If you haven't yet seen it I advise against reading other reviews, because it's difficult to say more than a few words without spoiling the film's mystery which unfolds as it develops.

The film was released in the same week as "Titanic" and suffered as a result at the box office. It was filmed on a budget of $40 million, but only earned $27 million in the theatres. Since then it has gained great critical acclaim. It's a film that is worth watching over and over again.