City of Angels (5 Stars)

"City of Angels" is a remake of a German film that's so well made that most people don't even realise it's a remake. It's a rare Hollywood remake that completely understands what it needs to change. Rather than trying to imitate "Wings of Desire" scene for scene, it transforms the original's philosophical melancholy into something more openly emotional and romantic. If Wim Wenders' film is about observation, loneliness and the burden of eternity, "City of Angels" is about feeling; immediate, painful, human feeling.

It can be summed up in one sentence: "Wings of Desire" is a film for the head, while "City of Angels" is a film for the heart.

Wenders fills Berlin with angels who listen silently to the thoughts of strangers. His film drifts through divided Germany like a poem about history, memory and alienation. The angels are fascinated by humanity but remain detached from it, and the black-and-white photography creates the sense that they're trapped outside life itself. It's a deeply intellectual film, one that asks what it means to exist rather than merely observe.

"City of Angels" strips away much of that philosophical weight and replaces it with romantic tragedy. Nicolas Cage plays Seth not as an abstract observer, but as someone already emotionally vulnerable before he falls in love. His relationship with Meg Ryan becomes the centre of the film in a way that the romance never entirely does in Wenders' version. The remake isn't concerned with the political or spiritual condition of a city; it's concerned with the intensity of human connection, and the pain that inevitably comes with it.

That's why Los Angeles matters so much as a replacement for Berlin. Wenders' Berlin is haunted by history and division. The Los Angeles of "City of Angels" feels weightless by comparison; full of sunlight, hospitals, beaches and empty freeways. The angels no longer wander through a wounded nation wrestling with memory. Instead, they float through a city obsessed with youth, beauty and mortality. The shift changes the entire emotional temperature of the story.

The remake also embraces sentimentality in a way Wenders carefully avoids. The soaring score, the soft golden light and the naked emotional sincerity all push the film towards melodrama. Yet that's exactly why it works for so many viewers. It isn't trying to provoke philosophical reflection as much as emotional catharsis. The famous tragedy near the end would feel manipulative in "Wings of Desire", but in "City of Angels" it feels completely consistent with the film's belief that love and loss are inseparable.

What makes the remake interesting is that it doesn't diminish the original by being simpler. It merely aims at something different. Wenders asks whether eternal beings would envy humanity. "City of Angels" answers immediately: of course they would. Human life hurts, but the pain is preferable to endless detachment.

Viewed that way, the two films complement each other surprisingly well. One contemplates existence; the other embraces it.

Success Rate:  + 1.6

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.de

The Doors (5 Stars)

This is the May 2024 selection for the "Best Of Cinema" film. It definitely belongs to the selection of films, unlike some others which have been announced for the coming months. I shan't name them now. Although there are differences in opinion about the quality of the film. I have a friend who's a big fan of the Doors, so much so that she even visited Jim Morrison's grave in Paris. A pilgrimage? She told me that the film is awful because it's so inaccurate. When I hear words like that I'm confused. I like the music by the Doors, especially their earlier music, but I wouldn't call myself a fan. My only knowledge of the band's history comes from this film, so I have no way of knowing how accurate it is. All I can say is that it's a good film, as far as the story is told.

Even though the film is called "The Doors", it's really a film about Jim Morrison. The other band members aren't fleshed out, they're just background figures. The film could just as well have been called "The Rise and Fall of Jim Morrison". He begins as a charismatic wild boy, and a few years later he's descended into drugs and alcohol. He makes Mick Jagger look tame in comparison.

I like the way he's portrayed in the early scenes. I see a lot of myself in him. He's a lot like I was in my mid teens, 16 to 18. It's difficult to explain what I mean. I didn't take drugs, but I still had a feeling for the world that was delirious. It's like I was high without taking drugs. I always felt that I was a hippy born too late for the hippy era. I often walked barefoot in the Walsall town centre for no other reason than to be different.

The film takes place in a different era, 1963 to 1971. Society seems so primitive. The police are always fast to step in when Jim says or does something offensive. Today people would just tut and look the other way.

I've listed Jennifer Tilly in the credits, but her scene was cut from the film. You can find it online.

Success Rate:  - 0.9

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

When Harry met Sally (4 Stars)

Today is the first time I've watched "When Harry Met Sally". It was made in 1989, and I've been aware of it for years, mostly because of the highly publicised restaurant scene – you know what I mean – but I never felt inclined to watch it. Today it was included in the "Best of Cinema" series, so I had to go. I go to all the "Best of Cinema" films if I can, whatever they are.

"When Harry Met Sally" is a comedy that loosely follows the rules of romantic comedies. Maybe it's less predictable than typical rom-coms. It follows the on-off relationship between Harry Burns and Sally Albright in episodes over a period of 12 years and 3 months.

In 1977 Harry and Sally both graduate from the University of Chicago. They don't know one other, they're just sharing a car to New York. Sally suggests they should become friends (just friends), but Harry says it isn't possible. He says a man can't be friends with a beautiful woman, because sexual tension always gets in the way. This annoys Sally, and they go their separate ways in New York.

In 1982 they meet again by chance. They're both in relationships, and Harry suggests they become friends. Sally reminds Harry of what he said five years ago, and they go separate ways again.

In 1987 they meet again. Both of their relationships have broken up. They agree to become friends, and they see one another on a regular basis. Their friendship is awkward, and it's more like a duel than a friendship. One of them attempts to get closer, the other pulls away, and then the roles reverse.

The film is best when it's being funny. In the later scenes it becomes serious, and I was annoyed with the two main characters. It was so obvious that they wanted to be together that I felt like knocking their heads together and telling them to stop being stupid. Best of cinema? Not quite.

Getting back to Harry's claim about it being impossible for men and women to be friends, I'd say that it's difficult but not impossible. I enjoy the company of women, and I especially like to have friends who are lesbians. I feel comfortable with women who have no desire for me. I know where I am, and I feel comfortable knowing that they will never want to take it to the next level. I've often mentioned this, and my male friends find it strange. I can't say whether my feelings are right or wrong, but it's the way I am.

Success Rate:  + 3.8

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

The Doors (5 Stars)

It's been a long time since I last watched this film. More than 10 years, since it hasn't been mentioned on my blog. The title of the film is "The Doors", but it's really about Jim Morrison. The other band members hardly get any screen time, and their characters aren't fleshed out enough for us to get to know them.

I enjoy the film a lot (as should be obvious from my rating). Val Kilmer was an excellent choice to play Jim Morrison. He's fascinating from his early years (1965) until his death (1971). He was doubtlessly a genius, based on the poetry he wrote. Were the drugs that he took (mainly LSD) an inspiration or a hindrance for his poetry? They were probably both. LSD opened his mind to new thoughts, but as he continued the drugs took control of him and stifled his creativity. Added to the problem is that he mixed drugs and alcohol. There may be different opinions on the harm or benefit of several recreational drugs, but one thing all experts agree on is that alcohol and drugs shouldn't be mixed.

The film has a dreamlike quality. Jim Morrison's trips repeatedly bring back memories of a dead Indian (Native American) that he saw in a car crash as a child. He considers him to be a shaman. I don't know whether this actually happened in his life, but it makes the film more fascinating.

Today, after watching the film, I read that the film has been heavily criticised by those who knew Jim, in particular the other members of the Doors. They think that he was portrayed too negatively in his later years. I can't comment on this. I just know that the way he's shown makes a good film. It could have been called "The Rise and Fall of Jim Morrison". In his 27 years he lived more than most people live in a hundred years.

I might have written more about this film, but the bugs in the new Blogger interface take a lot of the joy out of writing. How long will it take for Google's Blogger team to fix the critical bugs, let alone the minor bugs?

Success Rate:  - 0.9

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

City of Angels (5 Stars)

Sometimes I don't know why I've gone so long without rewatching a good film. In this case I have a valid reason. I remember seeing "City of Angels" the first time on television while I lived in America. I loved it immediately. Shortly after that I moved to England. When it was shown on television again I taped it, and I recall watching it a few times. Then I bought my first DVD player in 2003, and I quickly replaced the tapes of my favourite films with DVDs. In most cases it was an improvement, but the "City of Angels" DVD was awful. It was a double-sided DVD, with the film on one side and the special features on the other. I hate double-sided DVDs with a passion. I'm not sure exactly when I bought it, probably round about 2005, but I shunned it for years, merely because I didn't want to use a double-sided DVD.

Now the problem has been solved. Recently the film has been released on Blu-ray in Germany, so I've rebought the film and dumped the DVD in the trash, where it belongs.

"City of Angels" is a case of a remake which most people don't know is a remake. The original film is "Wings of Desire", a German film made in 1987. Average film fans might not know that it's a remake, but professional film critics know both versions, and they're united in saying that the original was better. I strongly disagree. "Wings of Desire" is a film for the brain, "City of Angels" is a film for the heart. "City of Angels" makes me cry, which makes it a much better film, in my opinion.

The remake has been simplified. Maybe that annoys the oh so intelligent critics. The original is an ode to the city of Berlin, emphasising that it's one city, even if a wall has been built through the middle of it. The angels don't even notice the Wall, and they walk effortlessly through it. It's only humans who are blocked by the Wall. The other thing that's been removed is the character of Homer, who has been telling stories for thousands of years, a man who's almost as immortal as the angels themselves.

Many other details have been changed, but it's still the same basic story. Angels are watching over a city, invisible except to children and the dying. Despite their supernatural powers, they lack the human senses of taste, touch and smell. They also don't see colours (although this is only hinted at in the remake). An angel falls in love with a human woman, so he gives up his immortality to become a human at her side.

For me, the major factor in the film's success is the casting of Nicolas Cage as the angel Seth. Nobody else could have played the role. His sombre, brooding countenance is what fascinates me. This is definitely his signature role.

As for Meg Ryan, who plays his love interest Dr. Maggie Rice, there might have been other actresses who could have been picked, but she plays the part perfectly. The change of career from the original film is extreme, but understandable. In "Wings of Desire" the angel falls in love with a failed circus artiste, but in "City of Angels" she's a highly successful surgeon. This is more suitable for American audiences, who like to see women being strong and independent.

For me, "City of Angels" is an example of what a remake should be. It shouldn't just repeat the story, otherwise it would be enough to dub a foreign film into English. The director should give the remake his own vision, shifting the emotional emphasis while remaining close enough to be recognisable as a remake.

I know that remakes are a controversial subject. If you disagree with my thoughts on remakes, I recommend that you watch both films back to back, "Wings of Desire" first. Then let me know what you think.

Success Rate:  + 1.6

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.de

The Deal (4 Stars)

This is a difficult film to rate. Maybe 4 stars is too much. I enjoyed the first half of the film very much, but it changed style halfway through and lost its magic.

The premise of the film is amazing, and in the hands of Mel Brooks it would have been an utter masterpiece. Charlie Berns is a Hollywood film producer whose best days are behind him. When he was young he had a string of successes, but now nobody wants to hire him. Just as he is about to kill himself his nephew appears with a film script that he recognizes as what he needs to rejuvenate his career.

His nephew's script is entitled "Bill and Ben", and it tells the story of the 19th Century British prime ministers, William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli. Although the events take place towards the end of Disraeli's life, when he was in his seventies, Berns picks a black American action star to play the role and renames the film "Benjamin Disraeli, Freedom Fighter". Disraeli is shown running though the desert with a machine gun, mowing down the evil Moslems and single-handedly liberating Palestine.

The film comes to a halt when the action star is kidnapped and the plot has to be rewritten. After this I found the remaining film dull and slow moving. However, it gives fascinating insight into the making of films. As a film about making a film it succeeds. Overall an enjoyable film, but it could have been better.