Downsizing (4 Stars)

"Downsizing" has one of the most brilliant science fiction concepts in recent years, then spends the next two hours trying to avoid it.

The opening act is wonderfully inventive. Scientists discover how to shrink human beings to five inches tall, promising a future where overpopulation, climate change and financial inequality might finally be solved. Matt Damon's everyman sees downsizing as a chance to escape his ordinary life, and the film initially feels like a sharp satire of consumerism and modern economics.

Then it changes its mind.

What begins as a social comedy becomes a marital drama. That soon gives way to a fish-out-of-water story, before turning into a romance, then a critique of wealth inequality, then a meditation on global poverty, followed by an environmental apocalypse and finally a philosophical search for the meaning of life. Each new theme pushes aside the previous one, leaving the fascinating central premise increasingly forgotten.

The result is a film that feels less like a carefully constructed narrative and more like several unfinished screenplays stitched together. Every time "Downsizing" finds an interesting idea, it abandons it in favour of another. The miniature world itself, arguably the film's greatest attraction, becomes little more than a backdrop for subjects that could have been explored without shrinking anyone at all.

The real disappointment isn't that "Downsizing" has too many ideas. It's that it refuses to develop any of them fully. Rather than exploring the social, political and ethical consequences of its extraordinary premise, it keeps jumping to the next big theme before the previous one has had time to breathe.

"Downsizing" is an ambitious film that deserves credit for thinking big, but its constant thematic detours prevent it from becoming the great science fiction satire it could have been. It shrinks its characters, but never quite decides what it really wants to say.

Success Rate:  - 1.2

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

Jurassic Park (5 Stars)

As most of you know, Sam Neill passed away this morning. I've decided to watch two of his films to remember him, "Jurassic Park" and "Jurassic Park III". He doesn't appear in the second film, but I'll watch it anyway. It's in my top 20 films, meaning it's a film which deserves to be watched repeatedly.

If there's one performance that defines Sam Neill's career, it's Dr Alan Grant in "Jurassic Park". Neill had already built an impressive filmography before Steven Spielberg's dinosaur epic, but this is the role that made him a cinematic icon. Decades later, it's still impossible to think of Sam Neill without picturing the moment he removes his sunglasses in stunned disbelief as dinosaurs once again walk the Earth.

Neill is the emotional anchor that keeps "Jurassic Park" grounded. Grant begins as a brilliant but emotionally distant palaeontologist who'd rather spend his life digging up fossils than dealing with children. Over the course of the film, Neill subtly transforms him into a reluctant protector, and every stage of that journey feels completely natural. Whether he's awestruck by the sight of a living Brachiosaurus, desperately outrunning a Tyrannosaurus Rex or quietly comforting two terrified children, Neill never lets the spectacle overwhelm the humanity of the character.

Spielberg's ground-breaking visual effects still hold up remarkably well, but they only work because the cast reacts with absolute conviction. Neill's expressions of wonder, fear and determination make the impossible believable. His chemistry with Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum gives the film warmth and humour, while his fatherly bond with Lex and Tim provides its emotional heart.

"Jurassic Park" remains one of the greatest blockbusters ever made because it balances breath-taking action with unforgettable characters. At the centre of it all is Sam Neill, delivering the performance of a lifetime. He's enjoyed a long and distinguished career, but this is the role that made him immortal. For generations of film fans, Alan Grant isn't just Sam Neill's greatest character; it's the performance that will always define his legacy.

Sam Neill
14 September 1947 – 13 July 2026

Success Rate:  + 14.4

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

Jurassic World: Dominion (3 Stars)

I've waited a long time before buying this film. I only bought it this week because the seventh film in the Jurassic Park franchise has just arrived in the cinemas. I need to catch up before I go to see it. "Jurassic World: Dominion" should have been the final film as the third film in the second trilogy. That would have meant the franchise ending on a whimper, not a bang. It's the weakest film in the franchise, despite its success at the box office. Maybe people only flocked into the cinema because they'd enjoyed the previous instalments so much.

The trouble with "Dominion" (please excuse me for shortening the title) is that it's drifted too far away from the initial premise. Back in 1993 "Jurassic Park" was all about people running away from dinosaurs. Put like that, it sounds like a primitive idea, but it was a great film in the capable hands of Steven Spielberg. Most of "Dominion" has the form of a spy thriller, chasing someone who's using dinosaur DNA for his own devious purposes.

Okay, I watched it today, but I feel reluctant to ever watch it again. I hope the next film is better when I go to see it at the weekend.

Success Rate:  + 3.4

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

Wild At Heart (4 Stars)

Last week "Lost Highway" was shown in the cinema, but I couldn't go because it was sold out. I had mixed feelings. On the one hand I was sad, because I've never seen "Lost Highway" on the big screen. On the other hand, I was glad that so many people wanted to see such a wonderful film.

Tonight "Wild at Heart" was shown, also a film I've never previously seen in the cinema. It was a tribute evening to David Lynch. Two short films were shown before it started. The first was a tribute to David Lynch, a montage of short clips from his films and television series. The second was a collection of clips of things he said over the years, mostly taken from interviews. 

Nicolas Cage plays Sailor, a naive young man. He's dating Lula, played by Laura Dern. Lula's mother doesn't approve of him and hires a man to kill him. There's a fight, in which Sailor viciously kills the man with his bare hands. As a result he's sent to prison for two years, but Lula faithfully waits for him. Her mother is furious. She thought Lula would change her mind after having time to cool down.

Lula picks Sailor up from prison, but instead of going home they decide to drive all the way from North Carolina to California. That would be 2600 miles if they drove directly, but Sailor makes a detour through Texas to visit an old friend in Big Tuna, population 603. Meanwhile, Lula's mother has hired an assassin to find and kill Sailor. Since she doesn't trust him, she hires a second assassin, her former lover. (Or maybe he's still her lover, it's not clear).

Sailor drives through the barren landscape, not fully aware of what's happening around him. He's in love, which is all that matters. Nicolas Cage's acting is the opposite of his later performances. In this 1990 film he isn't at all over-the-top, he's supremely laid back.

It's an incredible film. The only thing that disturbs me is the amount of smoking. It's not just an occasional cigarette, Sailor and Lula are smoking in almost every scene. On occasions Sailor even has two cigarettes in his mouth. Maybe David Lynch meant this to be significant, but it's not attractive. In fact, it's repulsive.

Success Rate:  - 0.5

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

Inland Empire (4 Stars)

"Inland Empire" is the final film made by David Lynch in 2006. Today is the fourth time I've watched it.

I wanted to watch it in the cinema in 2006, but it wasn't shown in any cinemas in Birmingham. That made me sad. I bought it from Amazon immediately after its release on DVD in October 2007. That was a rarity for me. I usually wait a few months until the price has dropped. It cost me £20.66, which was a horrendous sum for me at the time. Usually I paid no more than £5.

I watched the film as soon as the packet dropped through my letterbox. I enjoyed it, but I didn't understand it, so I watched it a second time, taking a break only to make a cup of coffee. That was a mammoth sitting, watching a three-hour film twice. The second time round I understood it even less, so I watched one of the German "Schoolgirl Report" films to get over it. I've forgotten which one it was, probably a later film in the series, but it was easy to understand: it was about schoolgirls having sex.

I didn't watch "Inland Empire" again until 2014, when it was released on Blu-ray. I've forgotten what my impression was, but based on my brief review I still didn't understand much.

And today I finally watched it again, almost eleven years later. I've reduced my initial rating to four stars. After watching it back to back with "Lost Highway" and "Mulholland Drive" I can see that it's not on the same level.

Maybe the problem is that I'm looking for an explanation that isn't there. When David Lynch was asked to explain the film he only said that it was about a woman in trouble. Nothing else. The actress Nikki Grace plays the lead role in a remake of an unfinished Polish film called "47". The film was abandoned because the two leading actors, male and female, were murdered. Now there are rumours that the film's script is cursed.

As the filming progresses, Nikki finds it increasingly difficult to distinguish between her character in the film and her real life. She staggers around, meeting the cast of the original Polish film. Is she having a mental breakdown, or is she caught up in a supernatural curse? I don't think it really matters. There are multiple layers of the story: her real life in Hollywood, her role in the film and her life in Poland. When we think we're seeing one layer, we suddenly become aware that it's another.

I found the picture quality poor today, not up to Blu-ray standards. Parts of the film, especially in the early scenes, looked unpleasantly fuzzy. While reading about the film afterwards, I found out that David Lynch filmed parts of the film in SD. That's not good, but I assume it was a deliberate decision. Supposedly the film was upscaled to HD using an AI algorithm in 2022, supervised by Lynch himself. That's the version I want to see.

I'd be glad to discuss "Inland Empire" with any of my readers. Let's start in the comments box below.

Success Rate:  - 0.5

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

Jurassic World: Dominion (4 Stars)

This is the final film in the Jurassic Park franchise. For now, at least. There was a 14-year gap between the third and the fourth film. Nobody knows what will happen 20 years from now, when the film studios are desperate to make money. The only thing we can say for sure is that "Jurassic World: Dominion" is the final film of the second Jurassic Park trilogy.

It has all the characteristics of a final film. It goes back to the beginning. It re-assembles the main characters from the first film, Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), alongside the regular cast of the last two films. Alan Grant and Ellie Sattler don't add much to the film. I have the impression that they were only added to the cast for sentimental reasons. Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) are the film's real stars.

The film takes place a few years after the events of "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom". Dinosaurs are now living in the world in a natural equilibrium with mankind. We see news reports at the beginning telling stories of people being attacked by dinosaurs, but these are exceptions, not the rule. We've moved a long way from the first three films, when it was just a matter of running for your life whenever you see a dinosaur. The biggest danger in the new film comes from a corporation called Biosyn. In order to sell its own crops it's created a new species of giant locusts which devour all crops except for Biosyn's genetically modified crops.

That's the film's biggest problem, in my eyes. I would have liked to see more people running for their lives from dinosaurs. That's something that only happens on a large scale towards the end of the film.

"Jurassic World: Dominion" isn't a bad film, but it doesn't live up to the quality of the first two films, both of which are in my top 20 films. The difference is that they were directed by Steven Spielberg. I shan't say anything else to avoid spoilers. I'll write a more detailed review of the film when I own it on Blu-ray.

The Founder (4½ Stars)

True Stories #24

Name: Ray Kroc

Lived: 5 October 1902 – 14 January 1984

Film dates: 1954 to 1970

Film made in 2016

I've known Michael Keaton for many years, but I've only recently realised what a great actor he is. I wouldn't say that he's improving. He's always been good. I just took him for granted until now. I'm now at the stage where I want to watch any film he appears in. That's an honour he shares with Jim Carrey, Gemma Arterton and Chloe Grace Moretz. Usually I judge films by their directors, but these are a small group of actors that I always want to watch.

Ray Kroc wasn't a pleasant man. "The Founder" makes him sympathetic to the viewer, but that's the result of Michael Keaton's smooth acting. If I'd met the real Raymond Kroc I would probably have been taken in by his charm. He was a charismatic man, but beneath the surface was ruthless greed.

In 1954 Ray Kroc was a travelling salesman. He wasn't poor, but he wasn't rich either. In the words of his wife, their savings went up and down. He had an idea, it worked, so he made money. Then he had another idea, and it didn't work, so he lost money. Then he had a new idea that was successful, so he made money again. It was an endless cycle for him.

Then he saw a small drive-in restaurant called McDonald's in San Bernadino, Texas. It was a family business run by the brothers Dick and Mac McDonald. Ray wanted McDonald's for himself, and he did everything he could to steal the business for himself.

Ray Kroc was a parasite, and like most parasites he seemed pleasant at first. He persuaded the McDonald brothers to expand their operation. "Franchise" was the buzz word. Ray took it upon himself to open new restaurants all across America. He had control over all the new restaurants, while the brothers just had their original restaurant, so Ray grew into a market giant while the brothers remained local tradesmen. It was like a cuckoo growing up in a nest. The time came when he pushed the other birds out of the nest. He forced Dick and Mac out of business shortly after the events of the film.

Ray Kroc had the temerity to call himself the founder of McDonald's. He called one of his restaurants in Illinois the #1 store as a provocation to the McDonald brothers. It's kept this name until today.

If I were a man with strong principles I'd boycott McDonald's after watching this film. I'm not. Besides, if I boycotted every company that was founded by greedy businessmen I'd be naked and starving by now. I have friends in England who boycott Wetherspoons pubs because of the owner's political views, but they're the pubs that sell the cheapest beer, so I don't care what Tim Martin says. McDonald's sells good food for a cheap price, though probably not as good as it was in the 1950's. I don't often visit McDonald's these days, maybe twice a year, but by coincidence I visited McDonald's two days ago before going to see "Licorice Pizza". There was a buy one get one free deal for Big Macs, so I bought two. I only intended to eat one and save the other till later, but it was cold, so I ate both on the bench in front of the cinema.

Michael Keaton's acting is incredible. It's the mark of a good actor that he can make us like a bad guy.

Success Rate:  + 1.4

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

Jurassic Park (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #12

Blogging is all about momentum. For years I've been used to my daily rhythm of watching a film every day, then writing about it.

Watch. Write. Sleep. Repeat.

What I'm trying to say is that after taking a short break from blogging it's difficult to regain my momentum. I took a break last week to catch up on watching TV series. I watched the third season of "Vikings". At first I only wanted to watch a couple of episodes, but it's so brilliant that I couldn't stop. The murder of the monk Athelstan by Floki was a shock. For me, Athelstan was the series' most fascinating character. A man caught between two religions. As he said at the beginning of the third season, "I love Jesus, but I've chosen Odin". The whole subject of the two religions, along with the strong character development, is what makes "Vikings" so appealing. The Vikings and the English both consider their respective religions to be the true religion, and there's no way for the two to meet, except for Athelstan. His murder has destroyed the only bridge between the two religions.

Today, most people only know the Norse religion – what's it called anyway? Odinism? – from the Marvel films. Odin is Anthony Hopkins with an eye patch and Thor is Chris Hemsworth strutting about arrogantly. I read the Norse myths as a young teenager. I read them as stories, not taking account of the religious aspects.

Maybe I should write more about "Vikings" at a later date. Maybe when I get to the fourth season. I'm getting off topic now. I ought to be writing about "Jurassic Park". Did you forget?

Oops! Wrong dinosaur! I had this unused screenshot from "Bikini Jones" that I needed to share with you.

This is a dinosaur from "Jurassic Park". The difference in quality might not be apparent from the two screenshots. To fully appreciate the superiority of the computer animation, you have to see the dinosaurs moving. When the film was made in 1993, "Jurassic Park" had the most realistic dinosaurs ever. However, due to the restrictions in computer speed, they were used sparingly. 

Steven Spielberg might not be my favourite director, but I respect him as the greatest living director. He knows how to make films, and a Film Studies course could be wrapped around his films without mentioning any other director. In the series "Dawson's Creek" the title character, Dawson Leery, was obsessed with Steven Spielberg. He made frequent references to his films throughout the series, and his dream was to become a director like Spielberg. His films all include strong character development. There's a Spielberg Style, as I like to call it. His films start off with an action scene to get the audience in the mood. Then the films slow down, introducing the main characters, one by one. After that there's a slow build up to the big action scenes. That's the pattern he follows in "Jurassic Park". That's the pattern he followed in "Jaws". They're two excellent films, made 20 years apart, each using the best that the technology of the day had to offer.

The characters in the film are stereotypes. I don't say that as a criticism. By using standard stereotypes, the audience can relate to them. We know who they are and what makes them tick, even before we see the details of their characters. Dr. Alan Grant is a stuffy archaeologist. He would rather sit alone digging than communicate with others, and he avoids children as much as he can. Dr. John Hammond is the carefree millionaire. Dr. Ellie Sattler is a friendly, sociable palaeobotanist who assists Dr. Grant in his work. (For those of you who, like me, don't know what a palaeobotanist is, it's someone who studies old fossilised plants).

Then there are the kids. Dr.  Hammond's grandchildren are present in the dinosaur park, adding human interest. Everyone can relate to young children.

If anyone thinks this is the best film ever made, I won't argue with you. It's a candidate for the top spot. I have difficulty deciding which is better, "Jurassic Park" or its sequel, "Lost World", which I intend to watch tomorrow. "Lost World" has superior graphics, due to the rapid advances in computer technology in the 1990's, but "Jurassic Park" has a better story. Watching them back to back will help me judge them better.

Success Rate:  + 14.4

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

Little Women (4 Stars)

It took me a long time to begin to write this review. While watching the film I felt disadvantaged by not having read the book. I've already decided that I'll read the book before I watch the film again, and the Kindle edition only costs 95 cents, so there's nothing to stop me buying it. To help me with this review I've read a few articles about the book and the differences between the film and the book. I shan't repeat what I've read, neither verbatim nor in summary, but it's helped my understanding.

Rather than being a strict adaptation of the book, the film tells the tale of how the book was written. It's well known that "Little Women" is Louisa May Alcott's autobiography, with the names changed. The film adds another layer around the book, a type of meta-narrative, which helps us to better understand Jo March, the name that Alcott gives herself in the book.

The film's narrative is told in a non-linear way, even within the meta-narrative layer. That's something that confused me as someone who's never read the book. The same four actresses play the March sisters in their younger and older years, so at times I didn't realise that the timeline had switched until something happened that made me say "Ah ha". I repeat, this is a film for people who already know and love the book, not for outsiders like me.

The film tells the story of Jo March and her three sisters who live in semi-poverty in Massachusetts during the American Civil War. The book evidently goes into their financial situation in more detail. They have enough to eat, but not enough for any of the pretty clothes that young girls like to wear. They perform works of charity for those poorer than themselves, but they thankfully accept gifts from their richer neighbours.

Jo March is a free-spirited independent woman who wants to become a writer. She doesn't want to rely on a man to support her. Her older sister Meg is a vaguer character in the film. She gets a lot of screentime, but at the end of the film I felt I didn't know her. The reason for this became apparent when I read the online articles. The book presents Meg as the opposite to Jo: she's a traditional woman who sees her purpose in life as marrying and having children. The director, Greta Gerwig, reduced this aspect of her personality in the film, leaving a vacuum.

The third sister, Beth March, is a sensitive girl who loves music. The youngest sister, Amy, is a talented artist. It's a beautiful family that any parents would be proud of.

The girls' father is a pastor. I was somewhat shocked when I first saw him wearing a dog collar in the film. I wasn't expecting it. In the early scenes he's away from home with the Union army, so I assumed he was a soldier, but he was actually an army pastor.

Religion, or rather religiousness, plays an important part in the novel. This is missing from the film entirely. The good deeds performed by the family are humanitarian rather than Christian. This is why the girls' father and his importance in the family is downplayed. Evidently, Greta Gerwig's intention was to make a feminist film, and traditional Christianity is an enemy of feminism.

The film's meta-narrative emphasises the biggest difference between Louisa May Alcott in real life and in her auto-biography. The novel ends with her marriage, even though she remained single all her life. That's a strange change to make to a true story, but it's carefully explained. The publisher says that women in novels have to end up married or dead. That was probably the attitude in the unenlightened world of 19th Century America, but it's not the case now. Greta Gerwig adds Jo March's romance in hurried fashion towards the end of the film, but then we're told that it never really happened. The film ends with her alone and happy. That's the way Greta Gerwig would have written the book.

It's a film that I greatly enjoyed, but it's far from perfect. The non-linear storytelling causes too much disruption. Meg's character could have been fleshed out more. It's not a problem for me that the Christian element is downplayed, but the father's job as a pastor could at least have been better explained.

Maybe I'll give a more positive review after reading the book for myself. Wait till next year.

The Founder (4½ Stars)

I can't help myself. This is a film have to keep returning to. Something about it fascinates me, and I can't even say what it is. Michael Keaton's acting is brilliant, but that's not it. It might be the squeaky clean atmosphere of America in the 1960's. It's a bright, almost too perfect world. The sun is always shining. There's never too much traffic. The streets are clean, except in scenes where Ray Kroc is picking up rubbish.

Maybe I'm fascinated by the success of greed. Ray Kroc says twice, at the beginning and the end of the film, that the most important word is persistence, but what characterises him isn't persistence, it's greed. He saw an opportunity, and he grabbed it without any consideration for others. He took as much as he could, and he gave as little as possible back. Dick and Mac McDonald had created something visionary. Ray wanted it, so he ripped it out of their hands. They were hard-working and naive. They weren't strong enough to deal with Ray Kroc. They were foolish enough to trust him.

I have to ask what's gone wrong with McDonald's as a company. It worked perfectly in the early days, before and after Kroc. In those days you ordered a burger, and it was given to you within 30 seconds. That's not possible any more, even when a restaurant is empty. The streamlined efficiency of the 1950's restaurants has been replaced by sluggish, disinterested workers in the 21st Century. Another problem is that the menu is too big. In the 1950's there was only one hamburger, with or without cheese.

Just look at that menu. What else do you need? Just make one hamburger and make it perfect.

This is a cheeseburger I bought at McDonald's last week. The bread was dry, the meat wasn't juicy, and the cheese tasted like plastic. It was so disgusting that I wasn't sure I wanted to eat it. Dick and Mac must be turning in their graves.

McDonald's has lost its way. Let's make McDonald's great again.

Success Rate:  + 1.4

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

Downsizing (4½ Stars)

If you've ever been to a Chinese restaurant in America you know about those funny little things they give you after the meal called fortune cookies. They're horrible tasting sweet biscuits which contain a strip of paper with a message. This message might be a prediction of what will happen to you, or it might be a wise statement. When I visited a Chinese restaurant with work colleagues in Poughkeepsie, New York, I found a message that I'll never forget:

"The man is richest whose pleasures are cheapest".

It didn't mean much to me at the time, but I'm glad I didn't forget it, because a few years later it become my life motto. After having a large income for more than 20 years my career collapsed and I earned less than 20% of what I'd had before. But it was enough. I realised that I could make do with my smaller income by being happy with less. I didn't have a car. I never went on holidays. I rarely ate out. My only luxuries were a good computer and a good stereo system, and even they were bought carefully after tight budgeting. Now, after spending 15 years getting by with limited resources I don't want to return to the days of having too much money.

Many people don't understand me because this way of thinking is so alien to them. Many don't believe me when I say I'm not interested in acquiring money. My brother-in-law, a very greedy man by nature, has repeatedly accused me of wanting to get my hands on the family inheritance. He's projecting his own faults onto me, but even people with greater moral integrity think in similar ways. The opposite is the truth. If I somehow won a million dollars today my first thought would be to divide it among my children, keeping only enough for my basic needs for the rest of my life.

That's what "Downsizing" is about. Paul Safranek is a man who learns to live a life of virtual luxury by reducing his size and reducing his needs. Then he loses the little he has left when his greedy wife divorces him, but he still manages to survive. He finds pleasure in things that don't cost money.

I'm pleased that this film is already included in Amazon Prime, less than a year after it appeared in the cinema. Maybe that's because it was a box office failure. That's a shame. It's a film that deserves to be watched, and it's a film that should make you reassess your life and your goals.

Success Rate:  - 1.2

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

The Founder (4½ Stars)

Of all the films I've watched and enjoyed in the last few years "The Founder" is the one that I have the most trouble describing. I can describe the plot. That part is easy. What I can't do is explain why I like it. If I try to recommend the film to someone else it sounds boring, and if the other person asks me "What's so good about that?" all I can do is shrug my shoulders.

I can praise Michael Keaton's acting, of course. It's always a joy to see him on screen. He makes Ray Kroc, the self-named founder of McDonald's, come to life. What the film doesn't do is reconcile the two halves of his personality. On the one hand he's a naive hard-working person who believes that anyone can succeed if he perseveres. On the other hand he's a ruthless businessman who won't hesitate to crush anyone beneath his feet, friend or foe. Did he progress from one to the other, or were both personality traits always in him side by side?

Ray Kroc wasn't a pleasant person. The way he cheated the McDonald's brothers must stand as one of the greatest frauds of the 20th Century. He never honoured his promise to pay royalties which were in the value of more than $100 million per year. He stole their name and forced them out of business.

Maybe I enjoy the film because it's part of my life. I used to visit McDonald's in Bad Cannstatt when it was the only cheap hamburger restaurant near me. A few years later three McDonald's restaurants opened on the Königstraße in Stuttgart. My children loved McDonald's and begged me to take them there, so I knew all three of them well. Those were the good old days. Today I very rarely eat at McDonald's, and if I do it's usually just ice cream at McDonald's in Marienstraße before a film starts.

Nevertheless, McDonald's has lost the magic it had in the 1950's. When Ray Kroc first visited McDonald's in San Bernardino he said it was the best hamburger he had ever tasted. I would never have said that, not even in the days when I often visited McDonald's. It's not just the taste. The speed has gone. There's too much variety these days. In the 1950's there were was only one hamburger which could be ordered with or without cheese, so service was immediate.

I'd like to get into a discussion about this film. Please leave comments, telling me what you think about it, positive or negative. Better still, I'd like to sit and watch the film with someone. I watch too many films alone at home. When I lived in England I at least had Buster lie across my lap whenever I watched a film.

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

Downsizing (4½ Stars)

This is a beautiful film which almost earned a five star rating, but I had to deduct half a star for a plot weakness that I can't describe in this review. Spoilers!

In the near future a Norwegian scientist has discovered the solution to the overpopulation that is exhausting the Earth's resources. People can be shrunk to a fraction of their size, from six foot tall down to five inches. To make a real difference the whole human race has to be shrunk, but the project begins with it being done on a voluntary basis. In the film 3% of the Earth's population have already volunteered, which is already a considerable number.

There are big advantages in volunteering in the initial period which have nothing to do with saving the planet. The little people can live in luxury, because their savings go a lot further. A full sized mansion costs millions of dollars, but a miniature mansion costs less than $500.

Paul and Audrey Safranek are a young couple who decide to downsize, as the procedure is called, to escape the dull routine of their lives. The promise of great riches after being shrunk is an added perk. On the day of the downsizing they're separated into the male and female downsizing areas. Paul arrives in the little kingdom, but Audrey isn't there. She changed her mind at the last minute. Paul is now rich and alone.

Audrey files for divorce, taking most of the money Paul had saved for his new life. Now Paul is poor and alone.

Despite comedy elements this is a serious film. Maybe it has a message. I don't know. If it does, it's not a deeply significant message, it's a parable. It's the sort of plot that Spike Jonze or Charlie Kaufman might have written, but Spike Jonze would have added more of a political message while Charlie Kaufman would have made the film even weirder.  Matt Damon isn't one of my favourite actors, but he's very convincing as Paul. Christoph Waltz and Udo Kier play relatively small parts, but they're always exquisite actors who can't put a foot wrong. The Norwegian scenery in the last half hour of the film is so beautiful that I want to visit Norway as soon as I can.

Based on early prognoses "Downsizing" looks like it will have trouble making back its budget at the box office. That's a shame. It might look like an over-intellectual film on the surface, but I believe that it's a film most people would enjoy if they gave it a chance.

The Founder (4½ Stars)

I'm a naive person. I've always believed that the fast food chain McDonald's was founded by Ronald McDonald. I didn't think that he really looked like a clown, but I assumed that it was his real name. "The Founder" has educated me.

In 1954 Ray Kroc, a moderately successful travelling salesman, discovered a hamburger restaurant in San Bernadino, California. It was like nothing he had ever seen before. The queue to be served was long, but it moved fast. He received his hamburger so fast after ordering it that he thought a mistake had been made. The restaurant was called McDonald's, run by the brothers Dick and Mac McDonald. They were committed to running a successful business without sacrificing quality. Their secret was speed, possible by streamlining the restaurant. Rather than offer a large menu like other restaurants, they only sold three items: a hamburger, french fries and a milkshake. These could be cooked in advance, based on the length of the queue, because they knew that everyone would order the same thing.

Ray decided to invest in the company. The brothers were happy running a single restaurant, but he saw the possibility of creating a chain of identical restaurants throughout the USA. At first he was a junior partner in the operation, required to confirm all business deals with the McDonald brothers. He grew increasingly impatient with them because they insisted on quality before profit, and the big showdown came when he wanted to replace the real ice cream in the milk shakes with powder to cut down on refrigeration costs.

Ray Kroc wasn't a nice person. He was enterprising and charismatic, but I suspect that the film glosses over his character faults. His deal to buy the company in 1961 must go down in history as one of the biggest con tricks ever. He offered the brothers $2.7 million plus 1% of the profits in perpetuity. Ray said that the 1% couldn't be included in the contract because of resistance from his financial backers, but he was a man of his word and would pay them. He wasn't a man of his word. He never paid a single cent from the profits, defrauding the brothers out of at least $100 million.

The brothers insisted that their original restaurant was exempt from the deal and would remain their property. Ray grudgingly accepted, but he didn't take his defeat lying down. Immediately afterwards he served them a legal notice that they were no longer allowed to call their restaurant McDonald's. He opened up a McDonald's directly opposite their restaurant, and within two years they went out of business. That was unnecessarily cruel.

After watching the film I decided to go to the nearest McDonald's to see if the company still has the magic. Evidently not. The first McDonald's I went to was a so-called McDonald's Café in the pedestrian zone without any seats. The benches near the café were all full, occupied by rowdy semi-drunk men, because there had been an evening football match. So I walked to the next McDonald's. There were four cash registers, but only two were manned. There were six people in the queue ahead of me. The waiting time to be served was 5 minutes 50 seconds. The time required to receive my food (shown above) was 4 minutes 43 seconds. The milk shake was the fastest. Then the fries. The longest wait was for the hamburger. The days of the 30 second hamburger are long gone.

What's the problem? I think that it's because McDonald's has departed from its initial business model as devised by the McDonald brothers: one burger, one size fries, one milk shake. Now there's a menu, with different burgers to choose from. A restaurant can't be expected to keep all the different burgers pre-cooked and wrapped, so there's a delay with the orders.

As for the quality, when Ray Kroc first visited the restaurant he told Mac McDonald it was the best hamburger he'd ever tasted. What I ate tonight wasn't bad, but it wasn't anything special either. Maybe the hamburgers sold by the original 1950's McDonald's restaurant really were something special, but the Krocburger that I ate today wasn't. Burger King's flame-grilled burgers taste better, and I've tasted even better burgers at small, privately owned restaurants.

My overall impression of the film is very positive. Michael Keaton is an incredible actor. By the end of the film I felt that I knew Ray Kroc inside out. I even liked him, despite all his faults. The film shows a typical American success story. The way they tell it is that anyone can succeed if he works hard and perseveres. That's only half the story, as the film shows. In America anyone can succeed if he works hard, perseveres and is cruel enough to trample his competitors underfoot.

Jurassic Park (5 Stars)

30 films to watch before you die, #14

God creates dinosaurs.

God destroys dinosaurs.

God creates man.

Man destroys God.

Man creates dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs eat man.

Woman inherits the earth.

That's not quite an accurate summary of the film, but people who have seen it know where it comes from. This is in every way a typical Steven Spielberg film. It starts off with a bang, then goes back and introduces the characters, slowly building up to a dramatic conclusion.

Steven Spielberg has made many magnificent films during his career. Let me just pick out three of them for further viewing.

• Jaws (1975)
• E.T. (1982)
• Jurassic Park: The Lost World (1997)

Jurassic Park (5 Stars)

After hearing the news of Richard Attenborough's death yesterday I decided to watch two of his films. I actually only own two films he appears in, namely the first two Jurassic Park films. They are both films that I have seen many times, but when I sat down to watch "Jurassic Park" this evening I paid special attention to his performance. There are small details that I never noticed before, details that probably hardly anyone has noticed, but they make a strong effect on the performance. For instance, when he talks about his flea circus on the streets of London his bottom lip is quivering. How does he do it? I can't make my lip quiver like that. It perfectly expresses the emotion that his character, John Hammond, is feeling at that point in the film.

Richard Attenborough was a magnificent actor. It's even more amazing if you remember what point this was in his career. He appeared in almost 60 films from 1942 to 1979. Then he took a break from acting for 14 years to concentrate on working as a director. "Jurassic Park" was the first film he made when he returned to acting at the age of 69, and he wasn't at all rusty. He still had the old magic. He wasn't the main character; in fact, he's in sixth place as far as the minutes of screen time go, but his performance makes the film. He was a giant of cinema who will never be forgotten. Rest in peace.

Richard Attenborough
August 29, 1923 – August 24, 2014

The Master (4 Stars)

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

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

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

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

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

Inland Empire (5 Stars)

Laura Dern stars as Nikki Grace, an aging Hollywood actress whose best days are behind her. She's offered the leading role in a film called "On High in Blue Tomorrows", a love story which promises to make her an A-list star again. At the first rehearsal she's told that the film is a remake of a Polish film called "47", which was never completed because the leading stars were murdered.

As the filming begins Nikki finds herself trapped within the film, as if it's her real life. She further regresses and finds herself in the original Polish film, sometimes on the film set, sometimes within the film. She continues making her film despite gradually losing her identity.

This is the most confusing of David Lynch's films, but its incomprehensiblity doesn't make it any less enjoyable. We feel for Nikki's plight in her never-ending nightmare.

Jurassic Park (5 Stars)

It's difficult to pick a list of my favorite films. A few months ago I posted a top 10 list here. But the trouble is, as I said at the time, that I change my mind a lot. I omitted "Jurassic Park". After watching it again this morning I've decided that it must be in the list. It's one of the best films ever made. Not just for the special effects, which were revolutionary at the time (1993). The structure of the film, with its perfect mix of character development, suspense, human interest and action is something that should be studied in film schools. Maybe it is. This film is a testament to Steven Spielberg's brilliance. It should be taken as an example for other film makers, to show them what they're doing wrong. Within the first 15 minutes of the film I knew all the main characters intimately, their strengths and their flaws. I even had a feeling for the minor characters, what makes them tick.

Do I really have to tell you the plot? Is there anyone who hasn't seen this film at least once? Let me summarise in a few words. A scientist has found a way to bring dinosaurs back to life. He's breeding them on a small island in South America, and he intends to open a safari park with dinosaurs. Before the park can open the dinosaurs break out of the compounds and start killing people.

A simple enough plot that could have been the basis for a laughable trashy film in the hands of a lesser director. But Steven Spielberg's skills have lifted it to the level of brilliance.

In many ways this film is similar in structure to "Jaws", the monster film that first made Spielberg famous. Instead of a giant shark there are dinosaurs. Both films start with action and the killing of a random victim (the young girl swimming, the park worker). They move on to the introduction of an inept main character (the island police chief who is scared of water, the archaeologist who is scared of computers). Since this character is stuffy, we need an erratic exciting main character as a counterpart (the marine biologist, the mathematician specialising in chaos theory). Then a slow build up to a big terrifying showdown.

Click here to view the trailer.

---

On an unrelated topic. Today I updated to the new version of Blogger. And I hate it. It's much more awkward to move back and forth between the statistics, the blog itself, and the dashboard. In the past I rarely used the dashboard. Now I'm forced to. I guess I'll have to get used to it.

I've been pondering for a while whether I should start another blog. More of a soapbox for ranting about random topics that interest me. I still haven't decided. For now I'll stick to this blog, but if I have too many off-topic matters I want to write about I might start my second blog.