Adaptation (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #55

Nicolas Cage was nominated for an Oscar as Best Actor in the 2003 Academy Awards. He didn't win. That was a miscarriage of justice. "The Pianist" was a good film, but there's no way that Adrien Brody was a better actor.

Meryl Streep was nominated as Best Supporting Actress, but lost to Catherine Zeta-Jones in "Chicago". That's a close call, but I still think that Meryl was slightly better.

Chris Cooper won the award as Best Supporting Actor. So there's still some justice left in the world. His performance in the film is incredible.

It's almost 20 years since "Adaptation" was in the cinemas. How many of my readers know it? I consider it to be a cinematic masterpiece that's been unjustly forgotten. It's rarely been shown on television, and even in our Netflix days television is the best way to keep films alive. Random films are thrown at viewers who just tune in to watch whatever's on.

I don't often watch television. Almost never. Usually it's only when I'm a guest in someone else's home and they have the television running in the background. Today was the first time I consciously watched television in my own home for more than five years. I watched Prince Phillip's funeral. Before it started there were advertisements for films that would be shown in the evening: "Thor: Ragnarok" and "300". They're both good films, in their own way. I'd say that they're better television films. What I mean by that is that there's a lot of action, so if you walk into the room while your wife or kids are watching you'll be attracted and sit down to watch the rest.

"Adaptation" isn't a good television film. Anyone who walks in and sees it will say "Huh? What's this?" and walk out again. It's a film you have to give yourself to. You have to sit down and devote yourself to the plot. It's a film for thinkers. You have to actively participate in the film and think about everything that happens. I'm sure that television planners realise this, which is why it's not shown.

In my opinion, this is the most intelligent film ever made. I wouldn't say it's the best film, just the most intelligent, as far as the plot is concerned. It's been called a meta-film, but it's really a meta-meta-film. It's a film about a film about a film about a book about true events. "Adaptation", the film, shifts constantly between the different levels, so that at the end you don't know what's real and what isn't.

In 1998 the journalist Susan Orlean wrote a book about John Laroche, a man who was arrested for stealing rare orchids. The book was a surprise bestseller, so it was decided to make it into a film. When the screenplay was finally written it was shown to Susan Orlean for approval, and her reaction was "Absolutely not! Are you kidding? This is going to ruin my career!" The film portrayed her as a drug addict who posed for pornography sites. There was no truth to this, but it's well known that films often take liberties with the truth. She eventually changed her mind and allowed the film to be made. That surprises me. Most respectable authors would have refused to be slandered in this way. Maybe she treated it as a joke.

Charlie Kaufman was hired to write the screenplay for the book. He was an unusual choice for such a task. In my opinion, he was the wrong choice. He suffered from writer's block, so eventually he made the unusual decision to write a film about himself suffering from writer's block while writing the screenplay. He's hampered in his writing by his fictitious twin brother Donald, who also wants to be a screenwriter. Charlie considers Donald an idiot, but he has to stand by and see that Donald is considered a genius. It's significant that Charlie only succeeds in finishing his screenplay when Donald is killed.

This is a film that I can wholeheartedly recommend to everyone who likes to watch films that he can think about.

The film is universally available on DVD, but it's only been released on Blu-ray in America. The Blu-ray disc is locked to region A.

Success Rate:  - 0.3

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

Little Women (4 Stars)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mary Poppins Returns (5 Stars)

This was my first cinema visit of 2019. It started the year off with a bang. It's a film that has been a long time in the making. There are eight books in the Mary Poppins series. The first book was adapted into a film in 1964, and this is the second book. At this speed it will be more than 300 years until the series has been completed.

"Mary Poppins Returns" takes place about 20 years after the first film. Michael and Jane Banks were children in the first film, now they're adults. Michael has children of his own, but his wife has died, so his sister Jane is helping him raise the children. They live in the same house where they grew up. At the beginning of the film lawyers come with the information that the house will be repossessed within a week because Michael is three months behind with a loan.

At this point Mary Poppins descends from the sky. She takes her place within the Banks' household as if she had never left. Her priority is the children's well-being. She's aware of the problems with the loan, but she doesn't get involved.

This isn't a film to be enjoyed with your head, it's to be felt with your heart. The visuals are glorious, and there are more animated sequences than in the first film.

Many of the songs from the first film have become classics that have taken their place in British culture, maybe also American culture. People in Britain know the songs by heart. The question I asked myself while sitting in the cinema was whether new classics have been created. It's difficult to decide after only hearing the songs once. My impression of the first half hour was that there was nothing of epic quality, but as the film continued the songs improved. I'm not talking about songs being merely good, I'm talking about songs that will be remembered from generation to generation for the next 50 years and beyond. That's a lot to ask of any songwriter.

The film achieved its highest peaks in the big song and dance musical numbers. There was a Wow effect every time they were in full swing. This is a musical magic that's missing in weaker films like "La La Land". There are more of these scenes than in "Mary Poppins", making "Mary Poppins" a more spectacular film overall.

I love this film. That's all I can say. The rest of 2019's films have a lot to live up to.

The Post (3½ Stars)

This is a true story about the efforts made by the Washington Post to publish details from the so-called Pentagon Papers, a report on the American involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. These papers contained information never revealed to the American public that showed why the American control of Vietnam was so important. It also contained claims by the government adviser, Bob McNamara, that the war in Vietnam was unwinnable, but it had to be continued for the sake of American prestige.

The main characters in the film are Meryl Streep as Katharine Graham, the publisher of the Washington Post, and Tom Hanks as Ben Bradlee, the chief editor. I'm surprised that Meryl Streep received an Oscar nomination for her role while Tom Hanks didn't. Maybe I'm confusing the actors with the characters that they play. Ben Bradlee was a shrewd, dynamic businessman. Katharine Graham was a naive woman who had inherited the newspaper from her husband and had to rely on the opinions of her advisers. She wasn't a strong woman, but if mistakes were made she was the one that everyone would blame.

We see Katharine Graham throwing dinner parties for her rich friends, while Ben Bradlee is the one doing the work. It's difficult for me to have sympathy with her.

Her biggest business worry is that the uncovering of the Pentagon Papers was at the same time that the Washington Post became a public company on the New York Stock Exchange. There was danger that the investors would pull out and the newspaper would be bankrupted. That was a real problem for her. She loved the newspaper, and she wanted it to survive at all costs, because it was the legacy of her father and her husband.

I found the portrayal of a newspaper company fascinating because my father worked for a newspaper, the Walsall Observer, for almost 20 years. He wasn't a newspaper professional as such. His qualification was as a carpenter, but he also had skills as a plumber and electrician, so he was well-suited as an all round handyman. If anything was broken Jack Hood would fix it. Since it was a small company, much smaller than the Washington Post, he rubbed shoulders with the bosses. After my father's death in 1983 the Walsall Observer's owner visited me and praised my father greatly, for his work and for his personality.

The film takes place in 1971, the good old days when printing was an analogue business. Typesetting was just what the word says. Metal letters were set on blocks and slotted together for printing. Isn't it so much easier today, now that we can type text on a computer?

The 1971 Pentagon Papers scandal is over-shadowed by the bigger Watergate scandal that began a year later. They both have a common issue: is the press free to print whatever it wants? My answer is Yes. It's a big subject, but I have a very simple answer. It's summed up in the words of Justice Black:

"The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfil its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors".

That applies to any other country just as much as to the USA. The freedom of the press is essential in a democracy. The rulers of a country must never be beyond criticism. It's possible that a newspaper might make mistakes. It's possible that a newspaper might be politically biased and write one-sided stories. It doesn't mean that newspapers like this should be banned. They can be balanced out by the reports of other newspapers.

So what happens if someone – a whistleblower – gives state secrets to a newspaper? That's a crime, so should the newspaper be forbidden to tell the story? I say No. If it's a crime, the whistleblower should be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law. That person has broken a contract and should be treated appropriately. However, the newspaper should be allowed to do whatever it wants with the information it has received. Newspapers aren't bound by legal contracts, and they can print whatever they like.

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

Mamma Mia: Here we go again (4 Stars)

This is a sequel to "Mamma Mia", which was made in 2008. I have nothing against sequels, but I'm always sceptical of delayed sequels. Usually they're a desperate attempt by film studios to make money when they've run out of new ideas. However, I decided to give it a chance because I love the original so much and all the main members of the original cast have returned for the sequel.

The story takes place a few years after the original film. Sophie's mother Donna has passed away, and since her death Sophie has worked on restoring the hotel, renaming it Hotel Bella Donna. She's planned a big re-opening ceremony, inviting her family and her mother's friends.

The film tells two stories in parallel. In addition to dealing with the ceremony it tells the story of Donna's arrival on the island and the three men in her life. Throughout the film we see two versions of the main characters, as people in their twenties and and in their fifties. Sophie's life mirrors that of her mother, apart from only having one man in her life.

"Mamma Mia: Here we go again" – I really should shorten the name to "Mamma Mia 2" – is a happy feel-good film which most people will enjoy, but it falls short of the original. It tries too hard to be funny. Whereas the humour in the first film was subtle, the sequel relies on slapstick and overt comedy. This humour is effective. There was a lot of laughter in the mainly female cinema audience today. If that's what you're looking for the film is right for you, but I missed the emotional depths that made me cry when I watched the first film.

None of the three actors who play the young versions of Sam, Bill and Harry are competent singers. The only weak singer in the first film was Pierce Brosnan, who unfortunately sings again the second time round.

Most of Abba's big hits were used in the first film. "Mamma Mia 2" repeats a few of these songs, like "Dancing Queen" and "I have a dream", but it relies mostly on lesser known songs. If you're an Abba fan you'll know the songs, but I was never a fan, so I only know the big hits that are played on the radio. The strength of the first film was the familiarity of the songs. That's missing in the second film.

I enjoyed the film today, but I can't imagine that I'll want to watch it again. It's not a bad film, but it's unnecessary. Donna's story doesn't add anything, it just retells what we already knew from her diary in the first film.

I found it interesting that there's an after credits scene. It used to be that after credits scenes were reserved for Marvel films and the Pirates of the Caribbean films, but now they're becoming more popular. Could it be they're just a ploy to keep people in the cinema to listen to the final songs?

Mamma Mia (5 Stars)

Amanda Seyfried plays Sophie Sheridan, a 20-year-old woman only a few days away from her wedding. She's lived all her life on the small Greek island Kalokairi, where her mother Donna owns a small, unsuccessful hotel. She wants her father to give her away, but there's a problem: her mother has never told her who her father is. He left before she was born. That's all Sophie knows, and it's all her mother wants to tell her.

By chance Sophie finds her mother's diary for the year before her birth. The problem is that she had intimate relationships with three different men within two weeks. Sophie invites all three men to her wedding, sure that she'll recognise her real father when she sees him. All three men accept the invitation, but it's not so easy. All three think she's their daughter when they realise when she was born. All three want to be her father and give her away at the wedding.

Donna, on the other hand, doesn't want to see any of them. She wasn't a slut, however it might seem. There's a saying in England: "Good men are like buses. You wait for ages, then three come at the same time". Sam, Bill and Harry were Donna's three good men, and she's remained single ever since because she's never met anyone else like them.

Colin Firth, Stellan Skarsgard and Pierce Brosnan play the three potential fathers. They're three very different men, all special in their own way, and any of them would be a father for Sophie to be proud of.

The film is best known for including a selection of Abba's hit songs, but that doesn't distract from the fact that this is a beautiful story. "Mamma Mia" made me cry, and I would have been just as moved without the songs. It's a beautiful film in all respects: the music, the acting and the idyllic Greek scenery.

A sequel has recently been made, ten years after the original film. I'm always sceptical about delayed sequels. Usually they suck. I'm going to see it next week. I'll tell you what I think.

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

The Homesman (4 Star)

This is the second time I've watched this film. It's difficult for me to give a clear judgement. It starts off perfectly. We see a strong, independent woman. She's willing and able to do things the men around her are too weak and too lazy to do. In the harsh environment of Nebraska in the mid 1850's she could ride and shoot better than anyone else.

If the film had continued like this I wouldn't have hesitated to give it a five star rating. But then she fell apart. She experienced one small setback, and she gave up. What was the author of the novel that formed the basis for the film trying to say? "Women can achieve a lot, but they can only go so far before men have to take over"?

Nevertheless, the film has a lot in its favour. The stark beauty of the environment stands out even more in contrast to the poverty of the town's inhabitants. This is an honest portrayal of life in the frontier towns, less glamorous that what's shown in traditional westerns.

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

Adaptation (5 Stars)

This year the film "Legend" was shown in which one actor, Tom Hardy, played two characters, the Kray twins. It might seem like a novel gimmick to have an actor play both twins, but it's something that has been done repeatedly in the history of cinema. In 1929 William Bakewell played Louis XIV and his unnamed twin brother in "The Iron Mask". In 1946 Douglas Fairbanks played the twins Mario and Lucien Franchi in "The Corsican Brothers". Of course, in the early days of cinema technology was limited. It was difficult to put the same actor in the same picture twice without cutting film frames in half, or maybe using a stand-in in double shoots with his face hidden.

In 2002 Nicolas Cage was cast to play both of the Kaufman twins, Charlie and Donald, in "Adaptation". No other film comes as close to highlighting Nicolas Cage's brilliance as an actor. Charlie Kaufman is insecure, full of self-loathing. Donald Kaufman is self-confident, happily sailing through life, naively oblivious when people speak badly of him behind his back. (On a side note, the Economist once praised German Chancellor Helmut Kohl for dealing with problems by not noticing them until they were gone). The relationship between the twins is even more poignant. Donald, on the left in the picture above, loves and idolises his brother. Charlie's feelings are more complex: he has affection for Donald, but he considers him to be stupid and an embarrassment. Nevertheless, Charlie would like to be more like Donald.

My regular readers will realise that it's no coincidence that I've shown a screenshot where the two characters are reading books. Charlie is reading "The Orchid Thief" by Susan Orlean, the book which he is attempting to adapt into a screenplay. Donald is reading "Story" by Robert McKee, a book of instructions on how to be a successful screenwriter. The authors of both books appear in the film, played by Meryl Streep and Brian Cox respectively.

In real life Charlie Kaufman doesn't have a brother. In the context of the film it's obvious to interpret this as a multiple personality disorder. Donald is writing a screenplay in which a police detective and a serial killer are the same person, which the detective doesn't realise when he's pursuing the killer, or even when the killer holds the detective prisoner. We can interpret the film as Charlie being held prisoner by his other self, unable to escape until he kills him.

Robert McKee

However, there's another way to interpret Donald Kaufman. Donald represents Robert McKee, while Charlie represents the real Charlie Kaufman. They are two screenwriters, but on opposite poles of creativity. Robert McKee has all the answers. "Follow my 10 rules of screenwriting and you'll be rich". Charlie Kaufman struggles to do something original, knowing the rules but deliberately breaking them. Supposedly Charlie dislikes Robert (or at least what Robert stands for) in real life. "Adaptation" is Charlie's way of dealing with him. If Robert says don't use voice-over, he'll use it throughout the movie. If Robert says don't use a deus ex machina, he'll throw in an alligator in the final scene.

"Adaptation" is as much an adaptation of "Story" as it is of "The Orchid Thief". The joint adaptations go in different directions. "The Orchid Thief" is a sprawling non-narrative which has been developed into a coherent plot. The story emerged from the primeval ooze and developed into an upright piece of fiction. "Story" is a well-organised book, but it's reduced into chaos, being smashed to pieces by the end of the film. It's evolution versus entropy.

"Adaptation" is probably the most brilliant screenplay ever written. Its depth and nuances make it an ideal topic for a film studies PhD thesis. Probably someone has already written a thesis about it. If I find a thesis on this film I'll ask the author for permission to publish it in full on my blog, because I know that nothing I write myself could ever say enough about the film.

Suffragette (5 Stars)

"Never surrender. Never give up the fight".

The Suffragette movement in the early 20th Century was unique in the history of revolutions. All other revolutions were spearheaded by the suppressed workers. The Suffragette movement was a revolution of middle class women. It could be argued that they didn't need to revolt. They had comfortable lives, they had money, they could do whatever they wanted. But there was one thing they couldn't do. They weren't allowed to vote. They took a stand, fighting for something that most of the working class women didn't care about. Why would a poor woman want to vote when she was more worried about earning enough money to feed her children? In that respect, England's middle class women saw more clearly. They fought to give the working class women what they needed, not necessarily what they wanted.

Having said that, what I enjoy most about this film is that it doesn't concentrate on the fight of middle class women. The main character is Maud Watts, a woman who works in a laundry. As she says of herself, she started work part time when she was 7, full time when she was 12, and she was now a forewoman at 24, but she still earned less than the male employees. This makes the film more poignant. We see a woman suffering from issues other than not being able to vote. For Maud the right to vote is a means to an end, she wants women to vote so that new laws can be passed to achieve equality for women.

The film did make me question some of my personal ethics. I'm someone who believes in obeying the law. If I don't like what's happening around me I call upon the law to be changed to stop it happening. In short, I'm a good citizen. That wasn't the case with the Suffragettes. They weren't good citizens, they were rebels. They broke the law. They smashed shop windows and blew up houses. That was the right thing to do. If they hadn't taken extreme measures women still wouldn't be able to vote today.

"Never surrender. Never give up the fight".

Is the fight over? I think not. I'm not just talking about countries like Saudi Arabia where women still aren't allowed to vote. I'm talking about England. Women have equality in theory, but not in fact. Women are paid lower wages, as long as it isn't admitted that their gender is the reason for the discrimination. When women complain about it men point at the few top women who earn more than most men, trying to distract from the fact that they're rare examples.

Emmeline Pankhurst (who we only see briefly in the film) didn't accept the status quo and the breadcrumbs thrown to her by men. She was a revolutionary. She fought for something that the majority of women in England didn't know they needed. In the same way Valerie Solanas fought for the overthrow of male-dominated society in the 1960's, although most women didn't listen to her. I fear that the fight has already been given up. Women today have been brainwashed into believing that they've already won. It's time to take up the fight again, not stopping until all patriarchal structures in government and religion have been overthrown.

The Homesman (4 Stars)

Sometimes a film doesn't fit into a neat genre. On the surface "The Homesman" looks like a western. The posters even promote the image that it's a western, probably to draw people in who wouldn't normally go to see it. In actual fact, this film has nothing to do with westerns, apart from taking place in the same time and place as the traditional Hollywood westerns.

The film begins in Loup City, Nebraska, in the 1850's. Despite the pompous sounding name it was a town with only a dozen houses, most of the population being Polish and Norwegian immigrants. Loup still exists today, and it isn't much bigger. Mary Bee Cuddy is a reasonably wealthy 31-year-old woman who has moved from New York to buy land and start a farm. She does all the work herself, raising cattle and growing crops with only minimal assistance from neighbouring farmers.

The other women aren't as strong as her. It's a harsh land with very little comfort. Cattle die of frost, children die of diptheria. Three women are suffering from mental illness and have to be delivered to a mental asylum in Iowa. On the map it doesn't look very far, but it's a five week journey by horse-drawn wagon. Mary Bee volunteers to take the women to Iowa, because she considers herself more capable than the women's husbands. She sets off by herself, but as she leaves the town she finds an old man, George Briggs, who has been left sitting on a horse under a tree with a noose round his neck. She saves his life in return for his assistance.

Mary Bee Cuddy, played by Hilary Swank, is an awe-inspiring woman. She towers above the men around her, in both strength and intelligence. Her only weakness is that she feels lonely and wants a husband. She proposes to men, but they turn her down because she's "too plain and too bossy". What were the men thinking? I don't find her plain at all, and I like bossy women. She's a good, honest woman who would have made any man an excellent wife. George Briggs (Tommy Lee Jones) is different. He's a selfish man who always puts his own interests first. Mary Bee is an immoveable rock, but George slowly develops during the film, learning from her example. It's a tale of grace and redemption. First his life is saved, then he learns how to put his new life to good use.

Adaptation (5 Stars)

"You are what you love, not what loves you" (Donald Kaufman).

This is probably the cleverest film ever made. Note that I didn't say the best. Whether or not you like it will depend on whether or not you like intelligent films. A film that just uses action to entertain the audience isn't necessarily a bad film. I enjoy action films. Some films go halfway by containing deep philosophical thoughts or political messages. Good films as well. But then there's "Adaptation". From the beginning to the end it sets out to puzzle the viewer. It's a true story. It's also a work of fiction. But where is the dividing line? When the film reaches its final scene where the film's screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman, dictates what he's doing into a voice recorder we still don't know where to draw the line between fiction and reality.

Basically, the film is about Charlie Kaufman writing the screenplay of a film about himself writing a screenplay about himself. That would be enough in itself to make most people's head spin, but the confusion runs deeper. Charlie Kaufman -- the real Charlie Kaufman who wrote "Adaptation" -- would be a psychiatrist's dream patient. In the film he invents a twin brother who is his complete opposite, then kills him and gives him the credit for writing his screenplay. That's not just in the film, or in the film about the film, it's in real life. Donald Kaufman, a man who has never existed, was nominated for an Academy Award in 2003, making him the only person ever to be nominated for an Academy Award who didn't exist. After killing his brother Charlie becomes his brother.

This is a film that deserves a full psycho-analytical analysis. I'm afraid to attempt it myself, because I'm sure that whatever I write I'll look at it a week later and realise that I've left out half of the film's meaning.

Into the Woods (3 Stars)

Right and wrong don't matter in the woods.

This is a weird film. It's a musical fairy tale mash-up swingers party. The central characters are a baker and his wife who have been cursed to remain childless. A witch promises to lift the curse if they give her four magical items: Cinderella's slipper, Rapunzel's hair, Red Riding Hood's cape, and the cow belonging to Jack, the boy in the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk" This brings them into contact with the characters from the four fairy tales, since their stories are all taking place concurrently in the woods.

A lot of the fairy tale action occurs off screen. For instance, we don't see Cinderella at the ball, we just see her leaving and being pursued by the prince. That's just as well. It would have added an extra 60 minutes to a film that already lasts two hours. All four fairy tales are resolved with their respective happy endings, but the story of the baker and the witch continues. Then the film takes a weird turn. The prince, already married to Cinderella at this point, meets the baker's wife in the woods and has an affair with her. We only see them kissing, but obviously more happens. As a result Cinderella leaves the prince and goes to live with the baker. It's all so unsettling to see the fairy tales that children love twisted into immorality. Welcome to the 21st Century!

Johnny Depp is the film's biggest actor, but only has a small role as the wolf. That's a shame, because he's the best singer in the musical. Only Meryl Streep (the witch) comes close. On the other hand, the "wolf" is such a creepy character. Rather than a murderous predator he seems to be a leering paedophile when he meets Red Riding Hood. It made me feel very uncomfortable.

Mamma Mia (5 Stars)

This is the musical that kicked off the recent popularity of jukebox musicals, in which the songs of a particular artist are put together in an order that tells a story. There were other musicals before it that are sometimes referred to as jukebox musicals, but I don't include them. "Buddy" was made in 1989, a biopic of the rock'n'roll musician Buddy Holly, but I don't include it because when making a film about a musician it's normal to use his songs. What makes a musical a jukebox musical for me is that the songs are unrelated to the original artists, with fleeting references at the most. An example of a typical jukebox musical is "Tonight's the night", a 2003 musical using the songs of Rod Stewart.

The musical "Mamma Mia" was written and performed in 1999, using the songs of Abba. In 2008 it was filmed as a big budget production, and I have to admit that it's overpowering. The two main things that make the film succeed are Stellan Skarsgard and Amanda Seyfried. They were already two of my favourite actors, but after seeing them in this film I'm amazed. Not that the other actors are to be overlooked. Meryl Streep, Julie Walters, Pierce Brosnan and Colin Firth are all very good in their own right.

I knew I wanted to see this film again after seeing it at the Birmingham Outdoor Film Festival last July. It was even better being able to sit and watch it in the comfort of my own home. I won't describe the plot again, I already did it last year, I'll just recommend this film to anyone who is still biased against jukebox musicals. It's a real tear jerker, and as my regular readers know I always love a film that makes me cry. Even though I have to make one small criticism: Pierce Brosnan might be a good actor, but he can't sing.

Mamma Mia (4 Stars)

This was the fifth film shown at the 2013 Outdoor Film Festival at Brindley Place in Birmingham. Today was a special day for me; I actually managed to get a beanbag. It was amazingly comfortable. I didn't have to keep changing positions like I did when I was sitting on my own pillow the last few days.

This is a film I've wanted to see for some time, and I wasn't disappointed. Donna Sheridan is a single mother who runs a restaurant on a small Greek island. Her daughter Sophie is about to get married. Sophie has never known her father, but shortly before the wedding she reads one of her mother's old diaries and finds out that she slept with three men within a short time. Since any of them could be her father, she invites all three to the wedding. All three men gladly accept Sophie as their daughter, so she quickly advances from having no father to having three fathers.

The crowd loved it, both young and old. As you can see from the photos, they expressed their enjoyment by dancing and singing along. Those who felt too warm danced in the water.

The Iron Lady (3 Stars)

I'm disappointed, I really am. After all I'd read about this film I expected it to be better. First of all, let's say what's good about the film: the two actresses who play Margaret Thatcher, Alexandra Roach and Meryl Streep, are both outstanding. So what's bad about it? Everything else!

There is hardly anyone more fascinating in recent British history than Margaret Thatcher. She was a girl from a humble background, a shopkeeper's daughter, who grew up to be the first ever female prime minister. A film about her was overdue. This film is so poor that we need a better attempt. I'll name the biggest faults, there are too many for me to name them all.

Too much time is dedicated to showing Margaret in her state of senile dementia in 2010, when the film was made. 20 minutes at the beginning, 10 minutes at the end, and repeated views throughout the rest of the film. A single display of the great lady in her old age at the beginning would have sufficed, no more than 10 minutes. Better still would have been to leave it out altogether.

The film assumes that the viewers already know the history of Margaret Thatcher and what happened when she was in power. I know it, of course, but what about younger viewers or people who aren't from England? The scenes of rioting, bomb blasts and rubbish bags piled in the street must be confusing.

So many of the characters aren't named. The casting department did an excellent job in finding actors who looked like the politicians of the time, such as Michael Heseltine, Michael Foot and Geoffrey Hume, so I recognised them when I saw them, but they aren't named.

A much better way to make the film would be to start with the assumption that the audience knows nothing. Present the young Margaret Thatcher to us. Show us her development through school and university into politics, so that we win a real love for her. Show us her steady advance through parliament and her various jobs in the cabinet, such as education secretary. Show her relationship with Edward Heath. Show the problems that brought down Edward Heath's government, because these were vital in forming her policies when she became prime minister. It wouldn't be too much of a diversion to show the infamous three day week of 1974. The war against Argentina should be shown in more detail, including Michael Foot's opposition to the war. The miners' strikes, the rail strikes, the changes in the laws concerning striking and flying pickets. The poll tax should be explained. Her non-elected political advisers who she trusted more than fellow politicians. Her relationships with Ronald Reagan and Helmut Kohl. There are so many important things that "The Iron Lady" either omitted or showed too briefly.

Adaptation (5 Stars)

For a film that was nominated for several Oscars in 2002, including a win for Chris Cooper as best supporting actor, it's amazing how few people know this masterpiece of cinema. The following review contains spoilers, so read on with care. Normally I try to avoid spoilers, but I don't know any other way to write this review.

At its core it's a true story. A successful Hollywood screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman, is asked to write a screenplay for a best-selling book, "The Orchid Thief". After reading it he realises that he can't see any way to adapt the book to film, so he sinks into depression and insecurity, hindered by the presence of his identical twin brother, Donald, who is everything he isn't. While Charlie is a social misfit and is unable to write, Donald dates girls and quickly churns out a detective thriller. Nicolas Cage plays both brothers to perfection. Charlie is encouraged to spice up the book, adding elements such as sex, drugs and violence to make it more appealing to the audience, but he refuses.

Finally Charlie makes a breakthrough when he decides to write a film about himself writing the film. This is where it gets complicated, especially when the viewer realises he's watching a film about a film about a film. Actually it's a film about a film about a film about a book about true events. As the film progresses the viewer has increasing difficulty to distinguish between fiction and reality. Are we seeing the real events, or things that Charlie invented for the sake of entertainment? In fact, does Donald really exist, or is he a product of Charlie's multiple personality disorder? It's significant that the film in the film doesn't get written until Donald is killed.

Maybe that's the reason "Adaptation" isn't more popular? It's too intelligent for the mass audience. Despite Charlie's eventual capitulation, dumbing down his film by adding sex, drugs and violence, the film still hovers on a high intellectual plain. If you want a film that will make you think, watch this. You won't be disappointed.

Interestingly, Donald Kaufman was nominated for an Oscar for the best adapted screenplay jointly with his brother Charlie. This is the only time in the history of the Academy Awards that someone who didn't exist was nominated for an award.