Wuthering Heights (5 Stars)

This film has been promoted as the perfect film for Valentine's Day. I almost agree. It's a powerful film packed with passion from beginning to end, but as those who've read the novel by Emily Bronte know, it's a tragedy. You won't go home with a contented feeling in your heart. In fact, this post could be reduced to a two-word review:

Love hurts.

My praises go out to German cinema fans. The theatre (373 seats) was almost full, even though the film was shown in its original version with English dialogue. The film was shown simultaneously in another room (404 seats) dubbed into German, and it was also close to being sold out. I'm always happy when the cinemas are full.

Barbie (5 Stars)

It is literally impossible to be a woman.

We have to always be extraordinary, but somehow we're always doing it wrong.

You have to be thin, but not too thin. And you can never say you want to be thin. You have to say you want to be healthy, but also you have to be thin.

You have to have money, but you can't ask for money because that's crass. 

You have to be a boss, but you can't be mean. You have to lead, but you can't squash other people's ideas.

You're supposed to love being a mother but don't talk about your kids all the damn time.

You have to be a career woman, but also always be looking out for other people.

You have to answer for men's bad behaviour, which is insane, but if you point that out, you're accused of complaining.

You're supposed to stay pretty for men, but not so pretty that you tempt them too much or that you threaten other women because you're supposed to be a part of the sisterhood. But always stand out and always be grateful.

But never forget that the system is rigged. So find a way to acknowledge that but also always be grateful.

You have to never get old, never be rude, never show off, never be selfish, never fall down, never fail, never show fear, never get out of line.

It's too hard! It's too contradictory and nobody gives you a medal or says thank you!

And it turns out in fact that not only are you doing everything wrong, but also everything is your fault.

I'm just so tired of watching myself and every single other woman tie herself into knots so that people will like us.

Success Rate:  + 9.3

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

Barbie (5 Stars)

"Barbie" isn't in my top 100 films list at the moment, but I'll add it the next time I revise my list. That's a promise. It only became eligible for my list today. I only put films in my list that are available for me to watch whenever I want. That usually means that I own the film on Blu-ray or DVD, but I also accept films of which I have a digital copy. I bought "Barbie" today as a special offer for 99 cents.

"The Marvels" was criticised for having too much emphasis on a message. But look at "Barbie". The message is laid on thick for the whole film, but it's still an excellent film, because it also has a good story. I don't care about messages, unless it's a message that I'm violently opposed to. I want a good story, and that's something that "Barbie" has. It was the biggest box office success of 2023, and deservedly so. We need more films like "Barbie". We need more Barbie (and less Ken).

In Germany there were complaints about the film's age rating. It's allowed to be watched by children from the age of 6, but many people consider it unsuitable for children, in particular unsuitable for young girls. They say the film brainwashes young girls to look down on men. So what? We live in a new age. After thousands of years of being suppressed, women are learning that they don't need men. They can live their own lives, with or without a man. Insecure men are taking the path of claiming to be women in men's bodies to raise themselves to women's level. I'm sorry to say it, but no amount of putting on women's clothes or cutting off parts of your body will ever make you a man. You'll never be a Barbie, the best you can be is a Ken.

Success Rate:  + 9.3

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

Suicide Squad (4 Stars)

I've often said that I like bad girls. I need to clarify what I mean.

This is the sort of bad girl I like. She's bad, and she lets everyone know she's bad.

This is the sort of bad girl I don't like. She's bad, but she pretends to be good.

Let me test my readers, to see if you've been paying attention. Here are photos of two more bad girls. I like one, and I don't like the other.

Do I like this one?

Or do I like this one?

Success Rate:  + 2.3

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

Barbie (5 Stars)

Today was the eighth day that "Barbie" is being shown in the cinema, and it's still sold out. Almost. When I booked a ticket, there were only three seats to choose from, but in the cinema there were four empty seats in front of me. It's possible to reserve a seat online and collect the ticket 30 minutes before it starts.

What was noticeable is that there were hardly any men in the audience. I looked around before the lights went out, and I could only see three other men. That's understandable, since it's a film about a doll for girls, but it's still unfortunate. Men are the film's target audience. It's a film all men should watch and learn from. As other reviewers have pointed out, every man in the film is stupid, a bigot or a pathetic loser. Those three categories aren't mutually exclusive. There hasn't been a film that puts men down so much since the days of Russ Meyer, who divided men into two categories:

The first type of man is weak and stupid, but sexually capable.

The second type of man is strong and stupid, but sexually impotent.

The women are all strong, intelligent and sexually demanding.

The difference in "Barbie" is that sex doesn't play a role. Or does it? Ken (Ryan Gosling) is embarrassed when Barbie (Margot Robbie) tells men at a building site that he doesn't have a penis. Barbie doesn't have a vagina, but that doesn't bother her. Women are able to do without men. There's a running joke in the film that Ken wants to be Barbie's boyfriend, but she turns him down. She wants them to be just friends. The modern Barbie doesn't need a man.

In the film the universe is divided into two worlds: Barbieland and the Real World. (The capitals are deliberate). Barbieland is ruled by women, who are intelligent and powerful and party every day. In the Real World there's supposedly equality of the sexes, but in practise it's ruled by men, who are stupid and bigoted.

The film highlights the problem with women's equality, a movement which came to public notice in the early 20th Century. The women who led the suffragette movement had good intentions, but they were doomed to fail. Women's equality is impossible, as the last 100 years have shown. If women say "We want to be equal", the men will grin and say Yes, giving them a figment of equality. In large companies like Mattel a few women are promoted to high positions to hide the fact that almost all the bosses are men. The suffragettes didn't go far enough. It wasn't enough that women should be allowed to vote, men should be forbidden to vote. The suffragettes said, "You've been suppressing us for the last 3000 years, so let's forget about it and be equal partners". They should have said, "Now it's our turn to suppress you for the next 3000 years".

"Barbie" contrasts the two systems: women rule Barbieland and men rule the Real World. Is Barbieland a perfect world? Not quite. The film shows the rise of toxic masculinity in Barbieland. The men should be happy to be Just Ken. It's not a bad life.

Asteroid City (2 Stars)

What is the director Wes Anderson trying to do? Does he want to entertain the audience or just provoke us? I honestly don't know. I felt provoked. There were two young women sitting in front of me who felt just as provoked. Every time something strange happened in the film they turned and looked at one another. About half an hour from the end one of them put on her jacket and wanted to leave, but her friend tugged at her and told her to stay. It's a film that I almost walked out of. As it was, I was the only person in the cinema who remained seating to watch the bird hopping around during the final credits.

It's a film within a film, or rather a play within a film. It's about a playwright who writes, casts and directs a play about a group of people, mostly stargazers, who come together in a fictional city in the desert. While being told about an asteroid that fell in the desert thousands of years ago, an alien arrives and takes the asteroid away.

It's deliberately left unclear what's part of the play and what's really happening. It's possible that a real alien arrives while the play is running.

Wes Anderson has put a lot of work into the visual effects of the film. That's the only reason I haven't given the film a one star rating. I didn't enjoy it, and I have no intention to ever watch it again.

I, Tonya (5 Stars)

True Stories #32

Name: Tonya Harding

Lived: 12 November 1970 – still alive

Film dates: 1974 to 2003, mostly 1985 to 1994

Film made in 2017

"There's no such thing as the truth. Everyone has their own truth".

I hate this quote, spoken by Tonya Harding at the end of the film. The nature of truth is an ages old philosophical concept. When Pontius Pilate spoke to Jesus Christ, he asked him "What is truth?" and Jesus didn't answer. Naively, I would say that truth is what really happened and what exists, but 20th Century philosophers have written endless books questioning this naive definition. The main argument against the definition is that it's a tautology. If truth is defined as what happened, the statement can be reduced to "Truth is truth". Philosophers prefer to define truth as what's perceived, so it's something subjective. That brings us back to Tonya Harding's words. Everyone perceives the truth differently.

Maybe we can better understand truth if we ask what the opposite of truth is. Most people would answer lies, but I don't believe it's that easy. There are also mistakes. Let me give a fictional case as an example.

Bill shoots Fred in front of Lucy. Betty is standing close by, looking in the opposite direction. Lucy pulls the gun out of Bill's hand to stop him shooting again.

1. Lucy says "Bill shot Fred".

2. Bill says "Lucy shot Fred".

3. Betty says "Lucy shot Fred".

Statement 1 is the truth, based on the naive definition that the truth is what really happened.

Statement 2 is a lie, because Bill is denying his guilt.

Statement 3 is a mistake. Betty turned round and saw the gun in Lucy's hand, so she assumed Lucy had just shot Fred.

Let's take this example a step further. Betty rings the police and tells them that Lucy shot Fred. Lucy is arrested, and in court she's found guilty, based on the testimony of the two witnesses, Bill and Betty. So the decision of the jurors, the judge and the whole legal system is that Lucy is lying, even though she's the only one who told the truth.

This started out as a simple example, but let's make it even more complicated. Lucy's lawyer tells her she has no chance of winning in court, so she should plead guilty to reduce her sentence. (In English law, pleading guilty reduces the sentence by 50%). So Lucy lies to the judge, saying that she shot Fred, and she only gets a 10 year sentence instead of 20 years.

Now nobody is telling the truth!

This simple fictional case now has implications, making it so complex that it could be the subject of a Philosophy PhD thesis.

There are other examples of truths and non-truths.

"God exists" vs "God doesn't exist".

Millions of people have been killed arguing over these statements.

"The Earth is flat" vs "The Earth is round".

This is a more difficult pair of statements, at least from a philosophical viewpoint. One of the statements is true, the other false, but most people have no way of proving what they say. They either rely on the proof of their own two eyes, or they accept the words of experts on faith.

Now for another example from my own past. In 1997 I decided to leave my wife. I explained my reasons, but she didn't understand them. I even gave her two weeks to change the way she was acting, but she didn't see any fault in herself. As far as she was concerned, I was leaving her for another woman.

About 10 years later she discovered that I'd had another girlfriend while we were separated. (There were actually several, but she only found out about one). That was all the proof she needed. Now she knew I'd left her for another woman. It was no good me telling her that the relationship didn't start until we were already separated.

The reconciliation with my ex-wife tentatively began sometime round about 2007. It culminated with me moving back in with her in 2016. I felt it was the right thing to do. The biggest problem is that after all this time she still doesn't know why I left her. She's told our children, her relatives and all her friends that I left her for another woman. She can't go back on it now. Three of our children believe her, one doesn't. Whenever I overhear her telling someone that I left her for another woman I tell her she's lying, although I know it isn't a lie. It's a mistake. It's a terrible mistake that she's unable to put right.

Now for the reason for Tonya Harding's words at the beginning of this post.

"There's no such thing as the truth. Everyone has their own truth".

The film is based on interviews with Tonya, her ex-husband, her mother and a few friends. Their stories don't agree. For instance, Tonya says that her husband Jeff was always hitting her. Jeff says that he never hit her, because he wasn't that sort of person. I know which one of the two I choose to believe. The film itself follows Tonya's version of the truth, but every time someone disagrees he faces the camera and says it happened differently.

The central point of the film is the incident on 6th January 1994, when Tonya's main rival, Nancy Kerrigan, was attacked and injured. Jeff tells the viewers that the incident is always different, depending on who's telling the story. Tonya didn't have to go to prison. She was given a ridiculously high fine, which she could only pay after appearing in a television news programme. The worst thing for her was that she was banned from professional skating for the rest of her life.

So she became a boxer.

This is an incredible film that grows on me every time I watch it. It was a big mistake not to include it in my top 100 films list. I've already made up my mind to start my new rolling top 100 list today. What I mean by rolling is that the list won't be fixed, it'll be regularly updated. I'll keep it online for my readers to check what I like most, but it can only be understood as a snapshot of what films I like most today, not what I'll like most next year, next month or even tomorrow.

Success Rate:  + 2.9

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

The Suicide Squad (5 Stars)

This is what I call a BBBM. It's a Big Budget B-Movie. It has a trashy feeling to it which increases as the film progresses. It was a lot less successful than the first film, for reasons I don't understand. It's definitely a better film. I even voted it the best film of 2021.

Once more, the premise is that a team of super-villains is put together to do a job that none of the super-heroes want to do. If they die on the job, who cares? They're villains anyway. If they succeed, their prison sentences are reduced by 10 years each, which admittedly isn't much for someone who's been found guilty of killing 23 people. I'd demand a full pardon as a reward for doing a job that I might not survive.

As in the first film, the team is assembled by the government agent Amanda Waller. In the first film her ruthlessness made us suspect that she's not much of a good guy, but in the second film we see that she's downright evil. The villains are the real heroes. Even Harley Quinn. She might be deranged, but she has lines that she won't cross.

If I had to name one fault in the film, I'd say that Harley Quinn doesn't have enough screen time. It's a team film, so the action is shared by the six team members. I would rather have seen Harley Quinn doing all the fighting, but that's just me. After three films, she still hasn't had the solo film the character deserves. Maybe the next one.

But when she bursts into action she's magnificent.

That's not to say I don't like the other characters. I particularly like King Shark.

Idris Elba is outstanding as Bloodsport. In fact, he's outstanding in every role he plays. He's one of my favourite actors.

They have to fight a giant starfish. As silly as that may sound, it leads to some incredible fighting scenes. Can you see Harley Quinn on the ground in front of the starfish?

Success Rate:  - 1.2

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

Birds of Prey (4 Stars)

Netflix Thursday #3

I just read my first review of this film from 18 months ago. I wrote that Harley Quinn was trying to be a hero. Obviously, I didn't get it. I need to watch some films more than once before I properly understand them. In "Birds of Prey" she isn't trying to be a hero at all. She's just being selfish and looking after herself. If she can better herself by teaming up with a (suspended) policewoman to fight a crime lord, it's what she does. She doesn't do it out of noble motives.

"Birds of Prey" shows Harley Quinn's life without the Joker. That's just as well. In "Suicide Squad" he was a millstone around her leg. With the Joker at her side she could never achieve her full potential. I can see why she liked him. They're both insane, so they have a lot in common, but she's still better off without him.

As in "I Tonya", Margot talks into the camera to explain her life as Harley Quinn. This is something she does very well. It draws the viewer into the story, helping them to relate to whatever's happening. Even if you're not someone like me who likes crazy girls, you can't help loving Harley Quinn.

I shan't write any more now, because I don't have the time. I'm going to the cinema tonight, so I need to rest. DC this afternoon, Marvel tonight. It's a comic book Thursday! Let's see which film is better.

Success Rate:  + 0.5

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

The Suicide Squad (5 Stars)

I'll keep spoilers to a minimum, because this film is still in the cinemas. It's a film that you really have to see, even if you didn't like the first Suicide Squad film, which was called "Suicide Squad", without a definite article. That's confusing. There may be a subtle joke intended, but I don't get it.

A good friend, whose opinions on films I usually agree with, warned me in advance that this sequel is much better than the first film. That's the only sort of spoiler I appreciate with a new film. After watching the first 10 minutes I disagreed. A group of eight villains, of whom I only knew Harley Quinn and Captain Boomerang, were hurriedly united as a team. No character development. I groaned. Then they went into action, and within another five minutes they were all killed. Except for Harley Quinn. I was relieved. This was just the introduction to set up the film. The six new characters didn't need any character development, because they weren't going to be around long enough. Within the context of the film they were only intended as cannon fodder. None of them were expected to survive. Their only purpose was to distract the enemy from the arrival of a second team, the Suicide Squad. With a definite article. In a flashback sequence we get to know them all.

• Idris Elba is Bloodsport, a weapons expert.
• John Cena is Peacemaker, another weapons expert.
• Sylvester Stallone is King Shark.
• David Dastmalchian is Polka-Dot Man.
• Daniela Melchior is Ratcatcher 2.

I've been assured that they're all well known DC villains. I rarely read DC comics, so they're new to me. I'll leave it up to other reviewers to tell me whether they're accurate portrayals of the comic book characters.

The film has a glorious grindhouse aura about it. The gore is exaggerated, and it can't be taken seriously. I couldn't help laughing out loud at some of the deaths. I feel ashamed of myself, I should be able to control myself better.

The action scenes are ridiculously over-the-top. Robert Rodriguez would be proud to make a film like this.

Harley Quinn is prominent, but not to the extent she stood out in the first film. She's still magnificently crazy. My only regret is that for most of the film she doesn't wear her usual Harley Quinn costume.

The reason for the improvement over the first film can be summed up in two words: James Gunn. He's a far superior director to David Ayer, who made the first film. James Gunn already contributed to the Marvel Cinematic Universe as director of the two Guardians of the Galaxy films. They're both very good films, and he's getting better at making super-hero films as he goes along. I can hardly wait for "Guardians of the Galaxy 3".

Terminal (2 Stars)

This is a film about a group of professional hitmen that takes place in and around a train station. Many things happen that seem to be random occurrences, but towards the end of the film everything is neatly tied up. That's just the problem with the film. For most of it the viewer is left puzzling what things have to do with one another.

The film's strength is the high calibre of its actors. Margot Robbie and Simon Pegg are excellent. The film's weakness is the general confusion. For most of the film Simon Pegg, who's terminally ill, sits talking to Margot Robbie about ways to kill himself, while two hitmen are discussing their next job. The scenes swap backwards and forwards, and there are even flashbacks to earlier occurrences, leaving the viewer with no idea what's going on. It's true, if I watch the film a second time I'll know how everything fits together, but I doubt I'll watch it again.

By the way, don't you think that Margot Robbie looks sexy with black lipstick? Or is it just dark red lipstick, so dark that it looks black? Whichever it is, it's a perfect contrast to her blond hair.

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

I, Tonya (5 Stars)

After having been a member of various film groups I'm used to being asked what sort of films I like. That's an awkward question which I've never been able to answer. The only honest answer I can give is "I like good films", which must be frustrating for anyone who takes the trouble to ask me the question. It sounds like I'm evading the answer, which I'm not. It sounds like I've never given any thought to what sort of films I like, which definitely isn't true. Worst of all, that answer makes it sound like I know nothing about films. It's the sort of answer my father would have given, and he really did know nothing about films.

Some people say they like horror films. That makes it easy to pigeonhole them. It's a statement that I've heard from group members so often that it sounds trite. It's even more common for people to say they don't like horror films, although people who say that usually have a limited idea of what horror films are.

If you want to know what sort of films I like, go through my blog and look for films with a five star rating. But I'll try to generalise anyway. I'll start with the negative terms. I can't say in general terms that I dislike any particular film genre, although there are certain types of films that I don't usually watch. I don't watch sports films, especially boxing films. I don't usually watch children's films. I don't usually watch period films, by which I mean films set in previous centuries in which rich people wear extravagant clothing. On the positive side. I do like to watch horror films and sci-fi films, although there are many films in both genres that I dislike after seeing them once. I have a particular leaning towards true stories.

These positive and negative guidelines only determine whether I give a film a chance and watch it in the first place. They don't say what I really like. To be good, a film has to have an interesting plot. It doesn't have to be original. In recent years a lot of emphasis has been put on plot twists (which usually happen near the end of a film), but it doesn't bother me at all if a film has a predictable ending. To be good, a film has to have well defined characters that I feel I know intimately by half way through the film. Maybe the supporting characters can remain vague, but the main characters, especially the bad guy, have to be well described by their words and actions. To be good, a film has to be logical, i.e. it has to make sense within the parameters of its genre.

Normally, I would never have watched a film about ice skating. It's not a sport that appeals to me. I only watched "I, Tonya" for two reasons: (1) it's a true story, and (2) it stars Margot Robbie, one of my favourite actresses.

I'm glad I watched it. I still remember when I first saw it in the cinema. It drew me in straight away. Margot Robbie made me fall in love with Tonya Harding. I wanted to take her in my arms and hug her. The film's style also won me over. It's a mixture of narrative and fake interviews, which aren't always clearly separated. Frequently, in the middle of a scene a character will turn to the camera and address the viewer. I'm sure that this is something film school students are told not to do, but any rule can be broken if it's done well.

The film is based on eye witness reports, but the leading characters have contradicted one another about what happened 20 to 30 years ago. Maybe they've forgotten, maybe they're lying. The film doesn't judge them. When something happens that is disputed, one of the characters jumps in and says "That never happened". This makes the film a lot more realistic.

"I, Tonya" is a film I like. I call on all of my friends to have an open mind when it comes to films. I know that each year too many films are made for you to possibly watch them all, especially if you want to go back and watch your favourite films repeatedly. Don't limit yourself to one genre. You can find good films anywhere, even in unexpected places. 

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

Once upon a time in Hollywood (4½ Stars)

I gave this film five stars when I saw it in the cinema last year, but I've decided to lower the rating after watching it again today. The film is disjointed. In 2017 it was announced that Quentin Tarantino was going to make a film about the Manson Family murders. As the release date came closer, it was reported that the film was about Hollywood at the end of the 1960's. It's actually about both. The first two hours are about the golden days of Hollywood, while the last half hour is about the Manson Family murders. Both parts of the film are perfect in themselves, but it looks like the second part has been tagged on as an afterthought. It's true, the Manson Family also appears in a scene in the first part, but the Family doesn't seem to have any great importance, along all the other things that are happening.

There's a lot that I could write about the relationship between the actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his stuntman Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). I'll leave my thoughts on them until I watch the film again. In this review I'll concentrate on women's feet.

Margot Robbie is sitting in the cinema watching "The Wrecking Crew" with her feet up. I have no problems with that. When I went to see "Emerald Green" there was a teenage girl with her legs up sitting next to me, and I allowed myself a few looks. The problem is that Margot's feet are dirty. I've heard that some men like dirty feet, but not me! I find them revolting, not sexy at all.

This is Pussycat (Margaret Qualley) hitching a ride from Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt).

Pussycat has beautiful feet, and even more beautiful legs, but I have to offer her some advice: when she's hitching a ride, she shouldn't lay her head on the driver's lap. It's not safe.

Dakota Fanning plays Squeaky, the Manson Family member keeping ranch owner George Spahn as a sex slave. The other recent film about the Manson Family, "Charlie Says", goes into more detail on their relationship, but only Quentin Tarantino shows us Squeaky's feet.

"George is that way, Cliff". Why should Squeaky point with her finger when she can use her toes?

I don't know who these two girls are, but they have nice feet.

I have difficulty rating Quentin Tarantino's films in order, but this film is easy to rate. Out of his nine films, I put this in eighth place. (His weakest film is "Hateful Eight"). Apart from the film being disjointed, I have two other slight criticisms. The first is the portrayal of Bruce Lee. Why is he so arrogant? It's also shocking that a random stunt man is able to beat him in a fight.

My second criticism is the rewriting of history. When Quentin Tarantino rewrote history in "Inglourious Basterds" it didn't bother me. It had a purpose that suited the movie well. The rewriting of history in "Once upon a time in Hollywood" is puzzling. Is there a purpose behind saving Sharon Tate's life? She's saved by the random meeting of Cliff and Tex in the first part of the film. Does Tarantino want to say that random events, however minor, can change history? That's the message of "Run Lola Run". If he's ever commented on this in interviews, please let me know in the comments box below.

Success Rate:  + 2.2

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

Suicide Squad (4 Stars)

This review will probably be short because I'm suffering from writer's block. On the other hand, does it matter? When I look back at my first film reviews in 2010, they were almost all short. I only wrote occasional long reviews, such as my overview of the Highlander franchise, which I consider to have been one of my best posts, even though it didn't receive many views. Maybe I should start pinning a featured post to the homepage of my blog to encourage my readers to read what I think's reading, rather than relying on Google to send people to posts that accidentally contain topical keywords.

I watched "Suicide Squad" today to remind myself about the film after watching "Birds of Prey" yesterday. For me both films are all about Harley Quinn, exquisitely played by Margot Robbie, however many supporting characters are running around. For that reason I'll compare the two films in relation to her. So, to answer the question which of the two films I like more, I slightly prefer "Suicide Squad", because Harley Quinn is madder, sexier, and overall more enjoyable.

I watched the extended cut today, which is 11 minutes longer than the version I watched in the cinema four years ago. That's too long for me to remember the differences. According to what I've read, the additional time features more backstory about the squad's characters, and it gives the Joker more screen time. Jared Leto is so bleh as the Joker. I'd rather have an extra 11 minutes of Harley Quinn bashing heads.

I'd forgotten that the whole film is one mission, with only a small break for drinks in the middle. That makes the film very compact, despite its running time of two hours.

Success Rate:  + 2.3

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

Birds of Prey (4 Stars)

If you read the small print on the poster above, you'll see that the film's full title is "Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of one Harley Quinn". That won't bother most people. They'll just call it "Birds of Prey". So will I, for convenience, but I would rather the film had been made without the first half of the title. In "Suicide Squad" Harley Quinn was such a delicious character, perfectly portrayed by Margot Robbie, that I felt she was hampered by having the other team members around her. Now we have her without the Suicide Squad, and she's even split up with Joker, so what does the film do? It gives her another team!

Admittedly, it takes more than half of the film before the team is gathered. "Birds of Prey" starts off telling the story of the one Bird of Prey that we're interested in. The more we see of the other team members in the later parts of the film, the less we see of Harley Quinn, and that's a loss.

The film is about emancipation in the sense of female emancipation. Harley Quinn complains that she's been under the control of a man, the Joker. Now that she's split up with him, she can do her own thing. She doesn't need a new man for protection.

We also see her trying to turn over a new leaf. She wants to be a good girl, a hero rather than a villain. It's not that easy, because however good she wants to be she's still insane. There's so much depth in her character.

Is "Birds of Prey" better than "Suicide Squad"? Most people seem to think so. My initial feeling is to rate them equally. I quite enjoyed "Suicide Squad", and I need to watch it again soon. Maybe even tomorrow. The fight scenes in "Birds of Prey" are enjoyable, often comical. DC still doesn't make films as good as Marvel, but this is a good attempt.

Once upon a time in Hollywood (5 Stars)

Some films are too good to watch just once. Any Quentin Tarantino film is too good to watch just once. That's why I returned to the cinema today to watch "Once upon a time in Hollywood" a second time. The cinema wasn't quite as full as it was two days ago, but let's be fair, today is a weekday, and I went to an early showing. Some people work while others are watching films. I feel sorry for them.

Watching today, I made an attempt to compare it with Tarantino's other films. There's less of a narrative, as I pointed out in my first review. It's his most self-indulgent film to date. It's all about nostalgia for a past era, in films, television and music. I'm including music, because the music that we hear on the radio is essential to the film, even more than it was in his early films ("Reservoir Dogs", "Jackie Brown" and "Death Proof"). I recognised most, but not all of the songs. I grew up in England, and England has always had a different pop music scene to America. Maybe the two music scenes are merging now, in the YouTube generation, but in the 1960's the music played on the radio in the two countries was very different.

Where does "Once upon a time in Hollywood" rank among Tarantino's films? Ask me again next time I watch it. It's difficult to compare his films. I can never decide which one I like most, they're all so good. It's not his best film, but it's definitely not his worst. I already know that it'll get a high place in my top 10 list for 2019. I'm glad I started doing a top 10 in 2015. Think of it as a snapshot of my opinion at the end of each year. When I look back at my old lists, I'd rate the films differently today. I'd put "The Walk" at the top of the list for 2015. My tastes change. Slightly.

Once upon a time in Hollywood (5 Stars)

Hollywood is the place of dreams. The problem with dreams is that they don't last. When you wake up in the morning they're gone. This is what we see in "Once upon a time in Hollywood", the 9th film by Quentin Tarantino. Sharon Tate is at the beginning of a successful career. After six years of minor roles she's finally become a face that people recognise. She expects her career to continue to dizzying heights, and her marriage to Roman Polanski is additional help.

Rick Dalton's success is waning. After years as a successful film and television actor he's having to play smaller roles. He's advised to go to Italy to make spaghetti westerns, but he thinks it's below him. The only person who believes in him is his stunt double and best friend Cliff Booth, but Cliff is on his way out as well. His bad temper makes him unpopular on film sets.

While I was sitting in the cinema I was asking myself what the film was about. When I walked out at the end I still didn't know. There doesn't seem to be a plot that leads from A to B. There are no recognisable character arcs. The story just rambles on, in a way typical for a true story, but in this case Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth are fictional characters. I'm sure they're composites of well known actors from the 1960's, but I won't know who Quentin Tarantino is thinking of until he names them in an interview. I can see some similarity between Rick Dalton and Lee Van Cleef, but I'm sure Tarantino is thinking of other actors as well.

Nevertheless, the story, or rather the non-story, is overwhelming. We're immersed in the good old days of Hollywood. Was 1969 the turning point? I don't know. I really want to hear Tarantino himself talk about the film.

I'm going to see the film again next week. Maybe I'll understand it better the second time.

Mary Queen of Scots (4 Stars)

My knowledge of English (and Scottish) history is poor. All I knew about Queen Mary of Scotland before watching this film is that she was the mother of King James, the man who united England and Scotland. After watching the film I read summaries of her life online. That's not enough to make me an expert, but at least I know more now than I did before.

Mary became Queen of Scotland when she was six days old. She lived in France while others governed Scotland on her behalf. When she was 15 she married Francis II and became Queen of France, but she lost this title when he died three years later. Aged 18, she returned to Scotland to claim her kingdom from the current regent, her half-brother James. That's where the film begins.

It was a time of political and religious upheaval. Protestantism was rising in Scotland, but Mary was a Catholic. She tried to make peace by saying that everyone was free to follow whatever religion they wanted, but that wasn't good enough for the Protestants, because they considered Catholicism evil.

Mary also considered herself the rightful Queen of England, although after looking at the royal family tree I don't understand what the basis for this claim was. Queen Elisabeth was her cousin. She insisted on being named as heir in the case of Elisabeth's death, which was rejected by the English noblemen. England was completely Protestant at this time. Elisabeth tried to make Mary marry an English nobleman who was under her influence, but Mary refused and married another English nobleman.

The English nobility made several unsuccessful attempts to get rid of Mary by supporting Scottish rebellions. Mary remarried and had a son, James. She reached an agreement with Elisabeth that if Elisabeth had a child that child would become King of England, otherwise James would become King.

Eventually, after the assassination of her second husband, the Protestant fanatic John Knox stirred up the people, and she had to run for her life. Her one-year-old son James became King in her place. She met Elisabeth, who offered her asylum in England. For 19 years she lived in comfort, but with no freedom to go where she wanted. Then false charges were brought against her that she was planning to assassinate Queen Elisabeth, and she was executed. In 1603 James became King of England, at the age of 36.

The film has excellent performances by Saoirse Ronan as Mary and David Tennant as the religious fanatic John Knox. Margot Robbie's acting is very subdued and unemotional, but that's appropriate for a portrayal of Queen Elisabeth. This is a beautiful film throughout, though tragic in its outcome.