Dust Bunny (3 Stars)

Aurora is a 10-year-old girl who lives in an apartment in Manhattan with her foster parents. One night she discovers a monster under her bed. Her parents don't believe her – parents never do – so she sleeps outside her window on the fire escape to avoid the monster. The next day her parents are eaten by the monster, leaving her alone. She's witnessed her neighbour (an unnamed man played by Mads Mikkelsen) killing a dragon, so she asks him to kill the monster. Unfortunately, she's misunderstood what she saw. He actually killed a man wearing a dragon costume in Chinatown. The neighbour is a secret agent at war with enemy agents. He doesn't believe in monsters, but he agrees to help Aurora, even though it brings her into contact with the enemies attacking him.

There are many things about the film that I don't like, but I'll just name one problem: even though Aurora knows there's a monster under the bed, she returns home to sleep in her bed every night. That's totally illogical.

I don't intend to buy the film, but I'll give it another chance when it's available on streaming.

The Last Viking (4 Stars)

This is the first film in the Stuttgart Weird Weekender Festival.

Anker and Manfred grow up together after their mother dies and their father unexpectedly disappears. Manfred suffers from dissociative personality disorder. He thinks he's a Viking, and even dresses as a Viking when he goes to school. Anker looks after him to stop him being bullied.

As an adult, Anker takes part in a bank robbery. He knows that the police will catch him, so he entrusts his share of the money (two million dollars) to his brother. 15 years later he's released from prison, and Manfred's mental state has deteriorated further. He now thinks he's John Lennon, and he can no longer remember where he buried the cash, because he's become a different person. Anker is advised that the only way to cure Manfred is to convince him he really is John Lennon. There's another mental patient who believes he's Ringo Starr, and a third mental patient who believes he's Paul McCartney and George Harrison in one person, so Anker brings them together to reunite the Beatles.

The comedy in "The Last Viking" is ridiculous, but it works. It's a very good film.

Mufasa: The Lion King (4 Stars)

This is the first time I've gone to the cinema with my grandson Oliver since October. That's a long time. Usually I try to go with him twice a month.

There are a lot of children's films being shown over the Christmas holidays, but he's been busy with other things. What my friends might not know is that the Christmas holidays last longer in Germany than in other countries. Most companies are closed from 23rd December to 6th January. The reason is that the 6th of January is also a national holiday, the Holy Three Kings day, usually called the Epihany in English. It's an important day in Germany, because the skeletons were buried in the Cologne Cathedral after being passed around for centuries.

The shrine is now on an elevated platform behind the altar, and it's become a place for pilgrims to visit. I find it strange. The three kings went to Bethlehem to worship Jesus. Today the kings themselves are worshipped by Catholics, at least in Germany. This isn't right. If the kings were alive today they'd tell us they don't want to be worshipped.

Now to the film. It serves as a prequel to the classic Disney film, "The Lion King". The story seems to repeat the plot. I found the film interesting, but what fascinated me the most was the beautiful imagery. I visit the zoo in Stuttgart frequently (in some months more than others), but the animals looked more beautiful in the film than anything I've seen in the zoo.

Oliver greatly enjoyed the film. That's the most important thing. I need to encourage him to watch the glorious 1994 animated film.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (4½ Stars)

A funny thing happened to me on the way to the cinema.....

I arrived early, so I was sitting on the steps opposite the cinema eating an ice cream. A beggar came up to me, holding his hand out to ask for money. In an attempt to be sarcastic I held my hand out to ask him for money. He gave me three cents, and then he threw the rest of his money on the floor and stormed off in a rage, saying something I didn't understand. What was he doing? If it was an attempt to give me a bad conscience, it didn't work. As soon as I finished my ice cream I gathered up his money from the floor, another 12 cents. It's possible that it was more money, because the coins might have rolled away. The net result of this encounter is that I became 15 cents richer.

I said it was an attempt to be sarcastic, because I don't understand sarcasm. It's happened several times in my life that someone said something to me, I replied, and then the person said "I was being sarcastic".  So I gave the wrong reply. I should have interpreted the statement as meaning the opposite of what was said. But how was I to know that it was a false statement?

I've looked up definitions of sarcasm online, but I still don't get it. In order to understand sarcasm, I've tried to be sarcastic myself. If I understand correctly, I have to tell a lie, but it has to be a lie that the other person knows is a lie. Should that make people laugh? For instance, I told a friend that I like Donald Trump. She knows that I don't like him, so she should have laughed. Instead of that she just said "I thought you didn't like him". I replied, "I was being sarcastic", and she just looked at me as if I was being crazy. That's the same way that I react when people are sarcastic with me. Is that the intention? Is sarcasm supposed to be a joke that nobody understands? So what's the point of it?

Today I pretended to be a beggar. That was my way of being sarcastic. Was it successful? It made the man angry, so yes, maybe that is what sarcasm is supposed to achieve.

So I proceeded to Gloria, where I was greeted by Indiana Jones himself. That was my first impression. A closer look told me it was my fellow film fan Thomas Daake dressed up as Indiana Jones. It's an amazingly accurate costume. The only inaccuracy is that there's no gun in his holster. Thomas told me that he has a fake gun as part of the costume, but he chose not to wear it because it looks too genuine. I understand. He's standing in front of a poster of Barbie. I wonder if he'll dress up as Ken next week.

The film starts in 1944, when Indiana Jones is attempting to steal the Antikythera, the Dial of Archimedes, from the Nazis. It's rumoured to be able to predict fissures in time and allow limited time travel. In 1969, a former Nazi who's become an American wants the Dial so that he can go back in time and change the result of World War Two.

The film is an enjoyable adventure romp, despite not being directed by Steven Spielberg. It's supposed to be the last film in the Indiana Jones series. Never say never.

Green Butchers (4 Stars)

This is a black comedy made in Denmark in 2003. Svend and Bjarne are two butchers who want to open their own shop. Svend takes out a mortgage on his house. Bjarne doesn't have a house, but his brother has been lying in a coma for seven years. He asks for the life support to be cut off, so that he can collect his inheritance. The hospital agrees, but shortly before the machine is turned off his brother wakes up and returns home. This annoys Bjaerne, so he requests in vain for the hospital to put him back in a coma.

This sets the film's tone. The new butcher's isn't very successful, until an accident happens. An electrician is trapped in the freezer and freezes to death overnight. Rather than report the accident to the police, Svend cuts him up and sells his body as meat. The customer reaction is so overwhelming that there's a queue in front of the shop. How can Svend maintain the success? Easy! He traps customers in the freezer every night, so that he has a constant supply of his special chicken, as he calls it.

This is a highly enjoyable film. One of the funniest things about it is Mads Mikkelsen's ridiculous hair style.

If I had hair like that I'd seriously consider shaving my head.

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

The Door (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #40

This is an excellent film that not many people have seen. It's a German film, and in England German films aren't taken seriously, but it's barely known in Germany itself. Maybe the problem is that the film's genre isn't clear. The English DVD release has a cover picture that makes it look like a horror film. Despite occasional murder scenes, it's a cross between science fiction and supernatural fantasy. If no one else, I hope that Mads Mikkelsen's fans will take the trouble to look for the film on disc.

Mads Mikkelsen plays David Andernach, an artist who lives just outside Berlin. It was filmed in Potsdam, a mile north of the Babelsberg Studio, but the location is kept vague. All that matters is that it's a wealthy suburb near the big city. He owns a big house with an even bigger garden, like everyone else in his street.

While David's wife is away he's supposed to be looking after their daughter Leonie. He leaves the house to have sex with his neighbour. When he returns home, Leonie has drowned in his swimming pool. His life falls apart. His wife leaves him. He turns to alcohol. He gives up painting. His large house falls into disrepair.

Five years later he's given a second chance. He finds a door that leads into the past, although it's actually a parallel universe that mirrors the past. His first action is to save Leonie's life. Then he finds out what sort of a world he's entered. Everyone is a murderer, and he too must become a killer if he wants to fit in. He can only get his wife back by killing his wife, as ridiculous as it sounds. Don't worry, it all makes sense in the context of the film.

"We are all murderers. It's the price for our happiness".

This is a brilliant film. I've seen Mads Mikkelsen in many films, but this is his best performance ever. Don't just take my word for it; watch the film yourself. It's only been released on DVD in England, but the German Blu-ray has English subtitles.

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

Clash of the Titans [2010] (4 Stars)

It's getting very difficult for me to write reviews at the moment. The people I'm living with are panicking. The first Coronavirus case has been reported in the village where I live. As a result a doctor's surgery has had to be closed until the staff have been tested.

People are afraid of dying. Why? I don't see any logic in the fear of death. If you're a religious person, you know what's going to happen after you die, so you can make plans for it today. To use religious jargon, "Get right with God".

If you're an atheist, you know that there's nothing after death. Dead is dead, so why worry about it? If you die you won't even know you're dead.

Maybe the problem is that you believe in a fickle, unpredictable God waiting for you after your death. That's the situation in "Clash of the Titans". Zeus created man, and he even says that he loves man, but he's selfish and does what he wants. So the crops fail two years in a row, even though the farmers prayed to him? Sorry, he was too busy chasing virgins to listen to prayers. And when you die you're in the hands of Hades, a cruel God who's fuelled only by his hatred for Zeus.

But nobody believes in Zeus and Hades today, do they? Maybe the trouble is that people don't know what they believe. People in the West have abandoned their faith in Christianity, but they're worried it might really be true. They get sentimental and feel religious when they walk into a beautiful church for a wedding, but the feeling wears off the next week at work.

"Clash of the Titans" is about a war between the man and the Gods. It's not that people don't believe in the Gods, they just don't want to obey them any more. The film's hero, Perseus, fights against the Gods, even though Zeus is his father. Would I have followed Perseus? That's the question I asked myself while watching the film. I think not. I would have followed the Gods, but it wouldn't have been blind devotion. I wouldn't have fought the Gods, but I would have attempted to educate the Gods. I would have told them to listen to mankind instead of partying all day long.

Maybe I'm someone who ought to be afraid of death. I'm an agnostic, someone who doesn't know what's after death. I'm still not worried. If there's a God waiting for me, he needs me to educate Him. (Or Her. Or Them). He needs me to tell Him what He's been doing wrong.

The first time I watched this film I thought it was almost as good as the original 1981 version. Today I changed my mind. It's a very slick, polished film with high quality special effects, but it's lacking the naive beauty of the original. In the original version, Perseus is rewarded for his labours by being allowed to marry Princess Andromeda of Argos. In the remake he turns his back on her, having fallen in love with Gemma Arterton as Io. I think my readers know which choice I would have made.

Success Rate:  + 1.9

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

At Eternity's Gate (4 Stars)

There seems to be a Vincent Van Gogh craze at the moment. "Loving Vincent" was made in 2017, one of the most beautiful films ever made, as far as the visuals are concerned. Then there was the play "The Life of Vincent Van Gogh" two years ago. There was another play about him in Stuttgart last year that I didn't go to see. Now there's "At Eternity's Gate", a film about the last two years of his life.

Maybe the current excitement has been caused by the recent discovery of 65 new sketches by Van Gogh in 2015. They're also shown in the film.

The film concentrates on Van Gogh's mania, which kept him isolated from everyone around him. He painted because it was the only thing he could do. God had given him this gift, but it was also a curse, because he was unable to earn any money from his painting. He lived on the generosity of his younger brother Theo, who regularly sent him money. Theo was an art dealer, but he was unable to sell his brother's paintings. They were too revolutionary. Did Theo appreciate his brother's paintings? Somehow I doubt it. For him, the value of an artist was measured by the price paid for his paintings. It wasn't until after his death that his brilliance was noticed by others.

Vincent Van Gogh's only friend was the artist Paul Gaugin. I knew about their friendship before I watched the film, but I didn't realise that it was so one-sided. Gaugin kept telling Van Gogh how to paint, slower and with more planning. Theo bribed Gaugin to be with Vincent. He paid him 250 Francs a month on condition that he would live in Arles, the small town where Vincent lived. He moved away when his paintings started to sell for higher prices. Gaugin was one of the painters who was lucky enough to be appreciated in his own lifetime.

The director tries to show us the world through Van Gogh's eyes. While I appreciate this, it's an impossible task. The only way we can know what Van Gogh saw is by looking at his paintings, so "Loving Vincent" is more successful in this respect. I could accept the scenes with over-exposed sunlight, but I was irritated when the picture was distorted or blurred. This made me want to rub my eyes.

If I'm allowed a little spoiler, I was surprised to see that in the film Van Gogh's death wasn't by suicide. The film shows him being shot accidentally by a teenage boy, after which he claimed it was a suicide attempt to protect him. That's an unusual theory.

The owner of a cafe in Arles gave Van Gogh an empty ledger to use for sketches. He mailed the ledger back to her shortly before his death. Supposedly she put it with the other ledgers without opening it. The collection of ledgers was passed from hand to hand, unopened, for 126 years, until the sketches were finally discovered in 2015.

After watching the film this evening I sat sadly in the train on the way home. I feel that I have the mania of an artist, but none of the talent of an artist. The only thing of any artistic value that I have ever created were the poems that I wrote from the age of 16 to 21. That was my creative phase. I remember that every day I looked around for something to write about, and when I saw something I rushed home. I don't know why I stopped writing. I woke up one day and the inspiration was gone. I kept all my poems in a box in the cellar and didn't open it until 20 years later. That was deliberate. I wanted to wait long enough to forget them, then read them again and see what sort of effect they had on me. After that I wanted to wait another 20 years, but the box was accidentally thrown away when the cellar was being cleaned. That's tragic. I still remember a few of my shorter poems, but my longer poems are all lost forever.

Doctor Strange (5 Stars)

This is the 14th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in November 2016. I voted it my top film of 2016, but to be honest, I could just as well have picked "Deadpool" or "Captain America: Civil War". All three are outstanding films, and it's difficult to decide between them.

Stan Lee appears for about three seconds as a bus passenger in New York City. He's reading "The Doors of Perception" by Aldous Huxley, and it's making him laugh out loud. I don't know what the significance of his laughter is. I read "The Doors of Perception" when I was a teenager, probably 15, and I don't recall finding it funny. The book was an influence on my poetry over the next few years. I wrote about experiences after eating peyote, but the experiences were fake. I was never able to find peyote on sale, and I could only take LSD as a substitute.

I only took LSD for a few years, and I only wrote poetry for a few years. When I stopped taking LSD I stopped writing poetry. Without it I lost my inspiration. I'm still curious about peyote today. From what I understand, it's a weaker substance than LSD, so it's easier to dose.

The more I watch "Doctor Strange", the more I can accept Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One. I still think she was a curious choice for the role, but she's such a good actress that she plays the part perfectly. On the other hand, I never had any problems accepting Chiwetel Ejiofor as Baron Mordo. His racial characteristics in the comics are ambiguous, so he could have been played by a white or a black actor.

At the risk of making enemies, I have to say that I've never considered Mads Mikkelsen to be a good actor. He's too one-sided. He can only play characters that are cold, or troubled, or both. That's just the sort of person Kaecilius is, so he was the right person for the role.

I still can't make my mind up whether or not I like Benedict Cumberbatch as an actor. When I first heard that he'd been cast as Doctor Strange I groaned. Anyone but him! I changed my mind after seeing the film. He totally won me over. It's as if he was born to play the role. He doesn't just look like Doctor Strange, he walks and talks and casts spells like Doctor Strange. At least, he casts spells like the 1970's Doctor Strange drawn by Gene Colan.

Doctor Strange has appeared in other MCU films since this, but I'm still waiting patiently for his next solo film. From what I've read a sequel has already been planned, but no release date has been announced.

Success Rate:  + 2.1

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

The Door (5 Stars)

This is a film that I've been regularly watching once a year ever since I first discovered it in 2014. Every time I watch it I have the same feelings. It starts slowly, and I ask myself if I made a mistake rating it so highly in the past. It continues slowly, and the intensity overpowers me, so I have to say, "Yes, it's worth every bit of praise I've heaped on it, and more".

The film makes me sit and think every time I watch it. That's not because the film itself has any philosophical message it wants to push at the viewer. It's because the themes portrayed in the film are topics that fascinate me personally, and I assume they would fascinate many other people. Don't we all wish we could go back in time and put right mistakes we made in our life? And if it were only possible to go back in time if it cost a price, how much would we be willing to pay? Would I be prepared to kill in order to have a better life? My immediate answer is No, but I shouldn't overestimate my own morality. I could slowly be seduced to do evil, like David Andernach in the film. David has lost his wife and his daughter, but he gets them back by committing just one little murder. Then another. Then another. When will the cycle stop?

Mads Mikkelsen is perfect for the role. His sad brooding features are too intense for most roles, but they are perfect for "The Door". It was so important for the director Anno Saul to have Mads Mikkelsen in the lead role that he wasn't put off by the fact that he spoke no German. Mads learnt his lines phonetically. The end result didn't sound good enough, so the dialogue was dubbed by the German theatre actor Ingo Hülsmann. That sounds like a potential disaster, but the lips match perfectly throughout.

My personal definition of a good film is that it's a film I want to watch at least three times. In the case of "The Door" I'll continue watching it as long as I live. It's a masterpiece.

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

Clash of the Titans [2010] (4½ Stars)

It's taken me a long time to get round to watching this film. It was strongly recommended by my guest writer Kaylena in her review, but I was still reluctant to watch it. The problem is that I love Ray Harryhausen's version so much. For me it's perfection that can't be improved upon. On the other hand, the new version stars Gemma Arterton in one of her early films before she quit Hollywood, which is a reason to watch any film. It's not just her beauty and grace. She has acting skills which set her far above her peers.

Any doubts I had about the quality of the film were washed away within the first five minutes. The cinematography and special effects are perfect, as realistic as computer graphics can make them. Forgive me if it sounds blasphemous, but my first thought was "This is the sort of film Ray Harryhausen would make if he'd been born 50 years later". The flying horse, the Djinn, the winged monsters -- whatever they're called -- they all looked perfect.

Unfortunately, I found that the final scene was a letdown. I don't know what happened, why the portrayal of the Kraken was so disappointing. Maybe the special effects budget had run out by the end of the film. Maybe the director thought that an overpowering, invincible monster would be better portrayed by close ups with only a few complete  shots. Whatever the reason was, I'm disappointed. Compare the two Krakens:

Ray Harryhausen's 1981 Kraken.

The 2010 Kraken.

Do you see what I mean? Even though the older version is obviously a model, it looks more terrifying. It looks more real. Surely today's computers could have done a better job.

I think I detected something of a message in the film. Some of the dialogue seemed to be referring to religion in general, including today's Christianity, not just to the ancient Greek Gods. I'm not certain. Next time I watch it I'll pay attention to this aspect, and I might write something about it.

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

Doctor Strange (5 Stars)

After watching the undisputed weakest MCU film yesterday, I decided to watch one of the best MCU films today. Despite complaints of whitewashing (casting a white British actress as an Asian character) it's an excellent film. Tilda Swinton fits into the role much better than I expected. My readers might accuse me of being a hypocrite. I'm one of the strongest critics of Idris Elba being cast as a Norwegian God in "Thor", so why do I accept Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One? I think the answer is that I don't accept her, I merely tolerate her. I know that she's the wrong actor for the role, but she's such a good actress that I can overlook the casting mistake. She was killed in this film, so we don't have to put up with her in future MCU films.

I have less problems with Chiwetel Ejiofor being cast as Baron Mordo. In the early comics his race is ambiguous. It wasn't until much later, 25 years after his first appearance, that an origin story was written claiming that he was of Romanian descent. For me this was a non-canon story, so I'm happy with him being portrayed by a black character.

I love the visual effects in "Doctor Strange", but what makes the film so good to me is the fact that after the origin story is out of the way the action comes fast and furious with hardly a pause. This is what an action film should be like.

One very slight criticism I have of the film is the portrayal of Dormammu as an enormous non-corporeal being, similar to Galactus in the second Fantastic Four film. The comics always showed him in humanoid form with a burning head. I assume the filmmakers wanted him to look scarier, but the change was unnecessary. Whoever Stan Lee created was perfect exactly exactly as he created him.

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

Doctor Strange (5 Stars)

Since moving to Germany I've acquired a lot of new readers. I've been handing my card to people I meet, and judging by the boost in readers based in Germany (according to Google's statistics) my marketing strategy has been successful. There's something that might not be obvious to my new readers. This isn't a film review site, it's a film diary. That's a subtle but significant difference. It means that if I watch a film five time I'll write about it five times. You might ask what happens if I run out of things to say. Do I repeat myself? Not usually. I just add a few random thoughts, such as telling you what the weather was like when I watched the film. My "reviews" aren't always informative, but I hope they're always entertaining.

So what's the weather like today? It's snowing.

That's my card. Cute, isn't it? I designed it myself. The only thing I don't like is that the dancing logo isn't quite centred, it's slightly to the left of centre. When I reprint the card I'll correct the error, but at the moment I still have a few hundred copies in a box, so I'll have to use them first.

Since this blog is a diary, it's as much for me as it is for other people. Usually I remember a film after watching it, even though I watch hundreds of films every year, but sometimes there are exceptions. This is most apparent with this years's Fantasy Film Festival. It was only three months ago, but last week I realised that I couldn't remember some of the films, so I went back and read my reviews. I can clearly remember the best films and the worst films, but after watching four films a day my memory of the average films is hazy. I wish I'd had time to write more detailed reviews.

One film that I didn't and never could forget is "Doctor Strange", which I saw in the cinema last year. For me this is the new direction of Marvel films. Benedict Cumberbatch was perfect in the title role. After initial resistance I could even accept Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One, however weird it is to cast a white woman as an oriental man. At least she's dead now, so she won't be appearing in the next Doctor Strange films.

Mads Mikkelsen, always a wonderful actor, plays the part of the arch-villain Kaecilius in the film. There's a character in the comics with this name, but I don't think it's the same person. In the comics Kaecilius is a minor character without much mystic power, but in the film he's a powerful enemy. That's a problem with the Marvel films. So often a character is thrown in, and it's impossible to know whether he's an old character from the comics or someone completely new.

I enjoy the film very much, especially the Inception-ish cityscapes, but there's one criticism I have to make. It was too early to feature a battle between Doctor Strange and Dormammu. In the comics Dormammu is Doctor Strange's greatest enemy, so Marvel should have built up to him over a few films; first weaker enemies, and then finally a big showdown with Dormammu in the third or fourth film. After that Umar could step in as the main opponent. The trouble is that the Marvel film producers are too impatient. I blame Kevin Feige. There are hundreds of issues of the comics of each superhero to draw on, but the Marvel films want to do it all at once to keep the comic fanboys happy. It doesn't work with me. I'd rather progress slowly though the storylines.

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

Casino Royale [2006 version] (4 Stars)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Door (5 Stars)

Don't you sometimes wish you could turn back time? Everyone does. How often do you do something that you wish you could undo? Sometimes you say something, and as soon as the words have left your mouth you wish you had remained silent. It's too late. Sometimes you make a decision, and it's not until years later that you see the consequences. Maybe you took the wrong job. Maybe you married the wrong woman. To take one example from my own life: after graduating from university I wanted to work for two years before returning to do a Ph.D. After two years my boss offered me a 25% pay rise to stay in the company. The money convinced me to stay, which was the silliest decision I ever made in my life. On the basis of money alone, I would have earned much more after completing my Ph.D, but just think of the more interesting directions my life would have taken and all the people I would have met. I'd like to turn the clock back and tell my boss to stuff his offer, but it's too late. It's years too late.

Turning back time to get a second chance is a popular theme in films, especially German films. That's the topic handled in "Fenter zum Sommer" ("Summer Window"). At the moment there's a film called "The grass is greener on the other side" which is currently running in German cinemas; I'll probably go to see it later this week. Second chance films fascinate the Germans, and they fascinate me.

In "The Door" Mads Mikkelsen plays the struggling artist David Andernach, who makes a mistake bigger than anything I've ever done. While his wife is at work he's looking after their young daughter Leonie. He leaves the house to have sex with a neighbour. When he returns he finds Leonie dead in the swimming pool. That's the worst loss of all, but there are other losses, like the aftershocks of an earthquake. His wife leaves him, he becomes unable to work, and he turns to alcohol.

Five years later David is given a second chance. He steps through a hidden door which takes him to the day of his daughter's death. He sees her fall into the swimming pool and saves her from drowning. This might sound like a Happy Ever After scenario, but there's a price to pay. If David wants to keep his daughter he has to become a murderer. Everyone who finds out about his return from the future has to die.

This is a much darker film than the other second chance films. Mads Mikkelsen is perfect as the brooding David Andernach. Even when he's happy we see sadness engraved in his face, as if he suspects the tragedies to come. The film has never been given the recognition it deserves. I consider it to be one of the best German films ever made. It's only been released on DVD in England, but the German Blu-ray has English subtitles.

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

TV Series: Hannibal

Yesterday I finally began to watch the television series "Hannibal". It should come as no surprise to my readers that I've waited so long. It's usual for me to wait to watch a series until it's completed, so that I can watch it all in one go. On the other hand, I rarely do watch a series in one session. I started watching "Lost" when it was complete, but I'm only watching one season a year in mini-binges, so what's the point in me waiting? I never claimed to be logical.

I can understand "Hannibal" in the minds of the television studios. In the minds of the bosses who understand cash flow more than art, "Hannibal" was intended to be a replacement for "Dexter", which was in its final season as "Hannibal" began. It's another series about someone who works for the police who has a personal life as a psychopath. Of course, there are countless differences between the two series. The only one I'll point out here is that Dexter Morgan was presented as a likeable psychopath, someone who has learnt to channel his urges to a good purpose, whereas Dr. Hannibal Lecter is a repulsive monster, someone who merely kills for fun. Or maybe we're supposed to like him? After only a few episodes I haven't seen him being glamorised.

I haven't read the original novels, so I don't know how much has been invented for television, but the series gives much more of a backstory that fleshes out the main characters. When I saw "Red Dragon" I thought that Edward Norton was the perfect representation of Will Graham, but after seeing Hugh Dancy in the television series I had to change my mind. As for Mads Mikkelsen as Hannibal Lecter, I have to say that despite the different face and different accent, he's the same character as Anthony Hopkins. It's difficult to decide between the two of them, they're identical.

The relationship between the two men is morbidly fascinating. Will trusts Hannibal implicitly, while Hannibal is trying to manipulate Will. I expect the relationship will change further into the series, when Will begins to realise who Hannibal really is, but I enjoy seeing them as they are now, after five episodes of the first season.

As I understand it, the series hasn't been definitively cancelled. Even though it ended in 2015 after three seasons, there are attempts to revive it, possibly sponsored by Amazon. Let's wait and see. Based on the evidence of the first few episodes it deserves a resurrection.

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

Doctor Strange (5 Stars)

This is the most eagerly awaited film of 2016. The general public has been whipped into a frenzy by skilfully timed news releases and trailers, but I've been more anxious to see it than anyone else. Doctor Strange was always my favourite Marvel character. His early stories in Strange Tales were masterpieces, and I consider the 17-part story of his battle against Baron Mordo and Dormammu in Strange Tales #130 to #146 to be the highest achievement ever reached in comic books.

The first attempt at making a film called "Doctor Strange" failed miserably. If you haven't seen the first film, made in 1978, count yourself lucky. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth of anyone who watches it. It's a disgrace to the name of such a mighty hero. The new film needed to put things right.

As far as the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is concerned, the new Doctor Strange film was of crucial importance. For the last eight years Iron Man has been the most popular character in the MCU, but Robert Downey Jr. has been hinting that he feels too old to continue with the role. A replacement was needed. Doctor Strange would be a good character for a long term continuation, because he isn't an action hero who needs to be young. The same actor could play the role for 40 or more years, but only if the films are good enough to make the public want to keep coming back. So much could be done wrong by picking the wrong actor or writing a poor quality story.

Benedict Cumberbatch was picked for the role of Dr. Stephen Strange. I have to say that this was an excellent choice. He's not my favourite actor. I find him very straight-laced and unemotional in practically every part he's ever played. But when it comes to Doctor Strange, this is just what's needed. In the comics Doctor Strange was probably the most cool and aloof of all the Marvel heroes.

I was very disappointed to hear that Tilda Swinton was chosen to play the part of the Ancient One. A woman? That's ridiculous. However, she does play the role well, if I try not to compare her with the comics. By now I've come to accept that the films are only partially faithful to the original stories. Some changes to Doctor Strange's origin, as presented in Strange Tales #110, were necessitated by having to tie the story into the Thanos Infinity Gem film, which will effectively round off the first big arc of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I can't say too much about the film in this early review for fear of giving away spoilers to my readers who haven't yet seen it. All I'll say is that it lives up to its promise. It magnificently portrays the mystical dimension as drawn by Steve Ditko in the 1960's. The street fight scenes seem to be copied from "Inception", but that's acceptable in the context of the film. The only small fault I can pick with the film is Rachel McAdams' unconvincing acting, especially in the early scenes of the film. I hope we never see her again.

My initial verdict after a single viewing is that this is the best film of 2016 so far. If you haven't seen it yet, what are you waiting for?

P. S. As well as the mid-credits scene there is a scene at the end of the credits, so don't walk out of the cinema too soon.