Showing posts with label Mike Myers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mike Myers. Show all posts

Monday, 12 October 2026

Bohemian Rhapsody (4½ Stars)


I love "Bohemian Rhapsody", the song and the film. Queen's music is the heart of the film, and the recreation of their Live Aid performance is a wonderful climax. It's a pleasure to see those songs brought to life on screen, and the film captures the excitement of a band whose music could be both wildly theatrical and enormously entertaining.

I have mixed feelings about Freddie Mercury himself. As portrayed here, he's not always a particularly nice person to his fellow band members. He puts himself out front and repeatedly arrives late for rehearsals, showing little respect for the others. Brian May is the one who stands out among the rest of the band, acting as their spokesman when Freddie goes too far. Queen might have had a remarkable frontman, but it was a band, not a solo act.

Nevertheless, I don't have to like Freddie in every respect to love the film. The music is magnificent, Rami Malek gives a compelling performance, and the final Live Aid sequence is a tremendous piece of cinema. "Bohemian Rhapsody" left me with a few reservations about its central character, but a great deal of affection for the music that made Queen special.

Success Rate:  + 16.1

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

Saturday, 12 November 2022

Inglourious Basterds (5 Stars)



I warned you that I'd be watching Netflix more often while I'm on holiday. That includes films like "Inglourious Basterds", which I have on Blu-ray at home.

In a recent interview Quentin Tarantino named six films which he considers to be perfect. The films, in the order he named them, are:


That's an interesting list. I've seen all the films except for "Annie Hall", but I've only reviewed "Jaws" and "Young Frankenstein" in my blog. I ought to watch all of the films in a row to see what he means. He claims the films are technically perfect, regardless of a person's personal tastes. That's difficult for me. My reviews are subjective, and I don't think I'm able to make an objective decision whether a film is perfect. I'll do my best.

Quentin should have added one more film to the list: "Inglourious Basterds". Maybe he was too modest to name one of his own films. The film's chapters are a series of vignettes, each of which can be judged on its own merits. Each vignette is perfect. If anything is imperfect, I'd like to hear Quentin himself tell me what's wrong with it.

Success Rate:  + 2.6

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

Thursday, 20 January 2022

Bohemian Rhapsody (4½ Stars)



Name: Freddie Mercury
Lived: 5 September 1946 – 24 November 1991
Film dates: 1970 to 1985
Film made in 2018

I just sat staring at my computer for ten minutes, trying to decide whether I should increase my previous rating to five stars. I finally decided to leave it at four and a half. My main reason for leaning towards a top rating is my sentimental attachment to Queen. The film's music is fantastic, but the film isn't perfect. Almost perfect, but not quite.

Initially the film should have been about the group. That was the wish of Queen's guitarist Brian May. Eventually it was decided to make a film about Freddie Mercury. That was the correct choice, in my opinion, but maybe the screenwriter and director went too far. Apart from Freddie himself, the characters of the band members aren't developed. We see Brian May's rebellion against Freddie's attitude, but little else. Roger Taylor loves his car. John Deacon just appears out of nowhere and only contributes a few lines of dialogue. John's hair style changes frequently over the film's 15 years, but Brian and Roger always look the same.

Queen is a band that's part of a generation. Their music is well known to everyone who lived from the 1970's to the 1990's, and to most people who were born later. They're the best known rock group of the late 20th Century. They had a series of hit singles, which couldn't be said of other rock bands like Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin. Queen was a rock band, but with a lighter sound that appealed to fans of pop music.


The film spends a long time showing the development and recording of the song "Bohemian Rhapsody". It's interesting to see that it was slammed by music critics when it was released as a single. Fans loved it. It was Queen's first #1 single in the UK.

The film isn't just about Freddie Mercury's music. It's about his sexual odyssey. He didn't realise until relatively late in his life – the late 1970's? – that he was homosexual. It's possible that his strict religious upbringing suppressed his feelings when he was younger. Nevertheless, his emotions and his sexuality were separate. He loved his girlfriend Mary Austin and always called her the love of his life, but his sexual desires were for men. That's a tragic position for a man to be in.


I regret that the full 20-minute Live Aid performance is only available as a deleted scene on the Blu-ray disc. The film itself only shows a shortened 11-minute version. The Live Aid performance shows the actor Rami Malek at the peak of his acting abilities. You could even think that Freddie Mercury has come back to life.

Freddie's premature death at the age of 45 was a tragedy. He was diagnosed with AIDS when it was still a barely understood new disease. There were still years of songs left to be written. Queen carried on without him, but they were never the same.

Success Rate:  + 16.1

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

Thursday, 7 October 2021

The Sparks Brothers (5 Stars)


Quite simply, this is the best documentary I've ever seen. It manages to be informative and entertaining at the same time. This is a mixture that most documentaries, even good documentaries, fail to achieve.

Prior to watching the film I had only limited knowledge of the Sparks brothers, Russell and Ron Mael. That means I belong to the film's target audience. Like most people from the UK, I considered Sparks to be a one hit wonder. For many years I only knew them from their hit single "This town ain't big enough for both of us", which reached number two in the British pop charts in 1974. I first saw them performing this song on Top Of The Pops, after which it became a hit.

An aside note about Top Of The Pops, the British pop music programme that was broadcast from 1964 to 2006. I watched it every week throughout my youth, from my early teens until I left England at 22. I didn't like most of the songs, but I considered it essential viewing to keep up with British music culture. It was broadcast on Thursday evening on BBC. At school the next day my friends discussed the programme, and sometimes I threw in my own opinions, which were shouted down. My friends were into pop music, I wasn't. When I was 18 and went to university I still watched Top Of The Pops, and I discussed it with my best friend, Christopher Burton. Sometimes we even watched it together. We had similar tastes in music, so we usually agreed that most of the songs were bad.

But getting back to Sparks. I saw them perform "This town ain't big enough for both of us" on a Thursday evening in 1974. It was a song that I liked. The next day in school all the children were enthusiastic about it. It was one of the rare times that I belonged to the in crowd. I was in the sixth form at the time, and my school had a sixth form lounge. Radio One ran all day, when there were no lessons. Nobody ever changed the channel. I remember Terry Wogan talking about the Sparks performance the next day. He said, "Did you see the man with those eyes?"

After that, Sparks disappeared, as far as I was concerned. The only other song that I ever heard was "Something for the girl with everything", a 1975 single which didn't become a hit. Wikipedia lists a song called "Never turn your back on Mother Earth" as a minor hit in late 1974, but I don't remember it. Maybe they never played it on Top Of The Pops.

I lived in Germany from 1978 to 1997. Then I moved to America. That's where I rediscovered Sparks. Several of my friends were Sparks fans. Huh? So they weren't a one hit wonder after all? I listened to the album "Kimono My House", and I loved it. I borrowed other Sparks albums. I also listened to their early albums. I was surprised to find out that their first album, "Halfnelson", was produced by Todd Rundgren. I was (and still am) a big fan of Todd Rundgren's early music (1968 to 1976). He wasn't a typical record producer. Whenever he produced a record, he took control. He became a non-playing member of the group. I can recognise his style in "Halfnelson".

P.S. I'm convinced that Todd Rundgren plays guitar on "Electrick Gypsies" on Steve Hillage's album "L", even though he isn't credited.

I bought a few of Sparks' albums. In 2000 they were stolen, along with the rest of my CD collection, by Thomas Kuzilla of Dearborn Heights, Michigan. I'm not a believer in Karma, but I'm happy to say that he's now dead. The world is a better place without him. I rebought some of my favourite CDs, but I didn't have enough money to replace all 1800 of them, so I had to make a selection. I didn't rebuy any of Sparks' albums. In retrospect, that was a mistake.

So I forgot Sparks again. This lasted until 2010. At that time I was able to download most albums from the Internet. It was illegal, technically speaking, but I didn't care. I retrieved MP3 versions of at least half of my stolen music collection. I added some new albums. Among others, I downloaded the complete collection of Sparks up to 2010. I enjoyed most of the albums, but not all of them. "Plagiarism" stood out as an album that particularly annoyed me. It didn't remain on my hard drive for long.

Over the next years I've occasionally listened to Sparks, especially their 1970's albums. Now it's become legal. I listen to their albums on Amazon Music, so I don't have to clutter up my hard disc with thousands of MP3s.

Incidentally, from 2010 to 2015 I owned two computers. One of them was used solely for collecting MP3s. I had both computers in the same room. I used to write and chat on one computer while the other was playing music.


Last month I was reminded of Sparks again by the release of "Annette", a musical written by the Sparks brothers, featuring their music. While reading reviews of the film I found out that Edgar Wright had made a documentary about the group. Edgar Wright? Then I had to see it! He's one of my favourite directors. He'd never made documentaries before this, but if he makes a documentary it has to be good.

I wasn't disappointed.

The film filled in my almost non-existent knowledge of the band's history. There was (probably) nothing new for hardcore Sparks fans, of which there was at least one in the cinema audience, based on her Sparks outfit. For me it was new, and there were a few surprises. I never knew that they were lived in England for two periods in their career. From 1973 to 1976 they formed a group that only had British musicians, apart from the two brothers themselves. This sometimes led to the misconception that Russell and Ron Mael were British as well, but No, they're from California. There's a curious anecdote about their first appearance on Top Of The Pops. They were signed up to appear on the show, but when they turned up to make a recording the producer realised they were American, and he told them they couldn't appear because of the rules of the musicians' union. Their slot on the show was given to the Rubettes at short notice. They finally appeared on Top Of The Pops three weeks later after signing the appropriate papers (which probably included joining the British musicians' union, although it wasn't stated).

I was also told that Sparks were popular in Germany in the 1980's. That surprised me. On the other hand, I lost track of the pop music scene while I lived in Germany. There was no German equivalent of Top Of The Pops for me to watch every week.

Sparks isn't the biggest band of the 1970's, or any other era. What makes them stand out is that they've retained their energy for 50 years. Think of any other rock groups of the 1970's. They had big success for a few years, after which they fizzled out. Maybe their albums became samey. Maybe they stopped making albums. Maybe they just spent their years as tired old men on stage performing their greatest hits for older fans. Not Sparks. Russell and Ron Mael, with changing support musicians, have managed to change styles and remain fresh over the decades.

The film's tag line is "Your favourite band's favourite band". That's interesting, and it's a theme that crops up repeatedly when famous musicians (i.e. more famous than Sparks) are interviewed in the documentary. Sparks are a group that's more popular with musicians than with the general public. They were also influential as the first Anglo-American electropop group in the late 1970's, paving the way for groups like the Pet Shop Boys and Human League. Most fans don't even realise that Sparks were the main influence of their favourite bands.

The documentary progresses through Sparks' 25 albums and the stylistic changes over the years. What fascinated me is that they had a six year enforced hiatus from 1988 to 1994. Due to low sales of their previous albums, they couldn't find a company that would give them a recording contract. That would make any other group give up. Any other group would turn to drugs, or simply get new jobs. Not Sparks. For six years they worked hard, writing and recording new songs. They were in their studio every day. I wonder how many albums can be made from this music archive.

How many more years of music can we expect from Sparks? That depends on their health. Ron Mael is 76, Russell Mael is 73. They both seem to be healthy, but it's a critical age. I hope they continue for years while their creativity is at a high point.

One thing that I didn't entirely agree with is the claim that Sparks, unlike most bands, include humour in their music. I don't see that. There's nothing in their songs that makes me laugh. What I see in their music is a subtle irony. Maybe that's what Edgar Wright means.


Where do I go from here? The documentary overwhelmed me. I've decided to listen to all the Sparks albums again, the more recent ones for the first time. I'll listen to each album chronologically, even "Plagiarism". but not just in quick succession. I'll listen to each album several times in order to fully appreciate it.

Saturday, 10 July 2021

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

Wednesday, 30 June 2021

Inglourious Basterds (5 Stars)



This film should be called "How the War should have been won". It's the first film in which Quentin Tarantino rewrote history. It's a fictional film, but it features authentic historical characters, such as Adolf Hitler. The film shows Hitler dying in France in 1944, a year before his real world death. Tarantino's most recent film, "Once upon a time in Hollywood", also rewrites history by showing Sharon Tate survive the attack by the Manson Family.

So who kills Hitler? It's a joint effort. There are two plots running in parallel. One is the fighting group called the Bastards, eight Jewish soldiers led by Aldo the Apache (Brad Pitt). It's Aldo's right hand man Donny Donowitz (Eli Roth) who fires the bullets that kill Hitler. When you look at his face it seems like he isn't just acting, he's really enjoying killing Hitler. But Hitler wouldn't have survived anyway. He's locked in a cinema that's being burnt down by Emmanuelle Mimieux, the cinema's owner who's secretly Jewish. Aldo's Bastards and Emmanuelle don't meet, and they aren't even aware of one another's existence.


As I've mentioned many times before, I consider the opening scene in a French farmhouse to be the best scene ever filmed. It's perfect. It's slow and intense with seemingly harmless conversation between the French dairy farmer and the SS officer Hans Landa. In fact, the whole film moves slowly, and there are only occasional short bursts of action.

This is a film I can watch again and again and never get bored. The same is true of all of Quentin Tarantino's films. If you haven't watched it yet, what are you waiting for? Please don't shy away from it with excuses like "I don't like war films". This isn't a normal war film, which should be obvious as soon as the background music begins. The music sounds like it comes directly from a spaghetti western.

Success Rate:  + 2.6

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

Sunday, 19 July 2020

Bohemian Rhapsody (4½ Stars)


As my regular readers know, my blog isn't a film review site, it's a film diary. They ought to know by now, I've repeated it often enough. The difference is that I don't just write about films once, I write about them every time I watch them. Even if I only watch a film once, it's still possible that my post will barely review the film.

I have a habit, that if I watch a film I've written about in the past, I reread my old reviews before I write my new post. I did that after watching "Bohemian Rhapsody" today. Sometimes when I read an old review I think, "Wow! Was it really me who wrote that? It's so good". That's the case with my first review of "Bohemian Rhapsody" in November 2018. Click here to read it. I only occasionally write a review which is so good that it's professional quality, but this was one of them. It makes me all the sadder that it was barely read, in comparison to my other reviews. I've never fully understood why my readers prefer some reviews over others. None of the film reviews in my top 10 popular posts list are up to the quality of my first "Bohemian Rhapsody" review. I wish my readers would go back and check it out.


I'll just add a few words about Freddie Mercury. I followed Queen closely from 1974 to 1978. At that time I watched "Top Of The Pops" every week, even though I thought most of the songs were rubbish. I thought it was somehow my duty as an English citizen to stay informed about popular English music. Queen was one of the few groups that regularly made good hit singles. I liked Brian May's style as a guitarist. He played mostly high notes, not the full range on his electric guitar, which made his music sound lighter than other rock guitarists. What drew me to Freddie Mercury was his stage presence, the way he made feline movements on stage. It's difficult to describe what I mean, I hope you understand me. Click here to watch this video of the group performing "Killer Queen" on "Top Of The Pops" in 1974.

In later years (the 1980's) Freddie Mercury lost this feline quality. His movements were more masculine, more aggressive. A good example is the Live Aid concert in 1985. This was mainly a result of working out more and becoming more muscular, but maybe it was also due to greater self-confidence and even a touch of arrogance. Whatever the reason, his later performances didn't appeal to me as much visually.

Needless to say, Rami Malek's brilliant performance mirrors this development. If Freddie Mercury changed over the years, Rami Malek changes with him. That's excellent acting.

I recommend this film highly to everyone. It's emotional, it's moving, and the music is damn good! ("Damn" is the strongest swear word I use, so it means a lot).

Success Rate:  + 16.1

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

Tuesday, 10 September 2019

Inglourious Basterds (5 Stars)


The world according to Quentin Tarantino is better than the real world. In Tarantino's world the last thing Hitler saw was the face of a laughing Jewish woman. In the real world he died in or just outside a cold bunker. Tarantino gave him a sexier death. I'd like the last thing I see to be a laughing woman, Jewish or not.

It's a fairy tale, not meant to represent the truth. It opens with the words "Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France". Fairy tales have happy endings. The big bad monster dies, and they don't come bigger or badder than Adolf Hitler.

The film shows two unconnected plots to kill Hitler. The one is a big operation ordered by Winston Churchill, carried out by the Jewish American squadron called the Basterds. The other is a solo effort by a Jewess who wants revenge for the death of her family. I know that Hitler killed six million Jews, but that's just a number. A number on a piece of paper is abstract, it means nothing. What makes it personal is if Hitler and his followers kill just one person that you know, a family member or a friend. That's what spurs revenge. That's what makes Shosanna Dreyfus aka Emanuelle Mimieux laugh.


Hitler's death takes place in a cinema. This is no coincidence. For Quentin Tarantino films are important, and cinemas are important as the place where films are shown. He loves films, and he openly displays his nostalgia for old films.


This was the film that helped Daniel Brühl make his breakthrough into Hollywood. He'd already been a successful German actor for ten years, but this is the film that made him well known internationally.


Martin Wuttke was primarily a stage actor in Germany, but since appearing as Adolf Hitler in "Inglourious Basterds" he's been cast in a string of American films.


Brad Pitt is the film's anti-hero. He's one of the good guys, but he's so mean in carrying out justice that he makes the audience shudder. His aim isn't primarily to win the war, it's to kill Nazis. For him, anybody wearing a German uniform isn't a human being, he's a Nazi, and he has to die. Obviously, this attitude is completely wrong. The vast majority of the German soldiers didn't put on uniforms because they were Nazis, they put on uniforms because they were conscripted. But it's just a film. The characters aren't meant to be perfect.


Christoph Waltz won an Academy Award as Best Supporting Actor, but anyone who's seen the film knows that he was really the Leading Actor. Despite having less screen time, Brad Pitt was named as the Leading Actor for two reasons:

1. He's more famous than Christoph Waltz.

2. Bad guys aren't usually the Leading Actor.

But look... isn't that a foot rising up Christoph Waltz's jacket towards his medals?


Yes, it's Diane Kruger's foot. I promised you that I would point out the bare feet in Quentin Tarantino's films.


Christoph Waltz gets to put a shoe on Diane Kruger's foot. Most actors work for 50 years and never get a chance like that.


Here are both of her feet, one of them in a plaster cast.


Before anyone accuses me of having a foot fetish, no, it isn't true. All I'm doing is acknowledging Quentin Tarantino's foot fetish. I have many fetishes, too many to list, but a foot fetish isn't one of them. I would rather look at Diane Kruger's face than her feet. She's beautiful, isn't she?


I definitely have a Sitting-In-The-Cinema-Watching-A-Laughing-Woman-Telling-Me-I'm-Going-To-Die fetish. That's a good idea for my blog. I should have a Fetish Of The Day feature. All year long!

This is probably Quentin Tarantino's best film. It's difficult to say. Every time I watch it I'm stunned, like I'm watching it for the first time. My definition of a good film is that I want to watch it at least three times. Today I watched "Inglourious Basterds" for the seventh time, and I still want to watch it again. That makes it better than good.

Success Rate:  + 2.6

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

Saturday, 1 December 2018

Bohemian Rhapsody (4½ Stars)


It's not often I go to see a film in the cinema twice. Today was an accident. I went with a meetup group to see the film "2.0". When we arrived we found out that the tickets cost 25 Euros. We were unanimous that it wasn't worth it, and we agreed on "Bohemian Rhapsody" as an alternative. I was the only one who had already seen it, and I had no problem with seeing it again. I knew my friends would love the film.

I wrote a lot about the film last time, so I shan't add anything now. Click here to read my first review.

Saturday, 3 November 2018

Bohemian Rhapsody (4½ Stars)


This is a film that was plagued with problems ever since its production began in 2010. At the beginning Sacha Baron Cohen was chosen to play Freddie Mercury – in my opinion an excellent choice – but he left the project in 2013 over differences with the script. For years it wasn't clear whether the film would be about Queen or about Freddie Mercury. In 2013 Brian May, Queen's lead guitarist, was still pushing for the film to continue after Freddie's death by telling the story of Queen's current success. I know that hardcore Queen fans will argue with me about this, but in my opinion Queen ran out of steam after Freddie Mercury's death. They're still touring, and I'm sure their concerts are highly enjoyable, but they haven't recorded an album for over 20 years. If Freddie were still with them today he'd be writing songs and there would be album after album.

That wasn't to be. The film I saw today was clearly about Freddie Mercury the man, not Queen the group. That's the film Sacha Baron Cohen wanted, and if he hadn't been so impatient he could have been in it. However, Rami Malek is an excellent replacement. I was amazed by his singing, although I read this evening that Freddie Mercury's original vocals were used in most of the songs. That's understandable. Where could they have found an actor with a four octave vocal range? An actor who looks like Freddie Mercury as well?

As far as the appearance goes, Rami Malek is a good choice. He has the right skin colour and stature, and whatever else was missing could be added with the aid of make up and prosthetic teeth. Rami learnt (supposedly after months of practise) how to walk like Freddie Mercury, a mixture of arrogant swagger and androgynous posing.

I didn't read reviews of the film before I went to the cinema today, but I checked what others have written as soon as I got home tonight. There seems to be a general consensus among the critics: they love Rami Malek's performance as Freddie Mercury and they love the songs, but they criticise the historical inaccuracies. I've read about what was "wrong" in the film, but I shan't repeat it here. Read the other reviews for yourself. All I'll say is that I'm rather puzzled. I don't understand why it was necessary to bend the truth to make a better film. Brian May, as executive producer, could have insisted on the truth being told.


The film begins with Freddie Mercury as a baggage handler at Heathrow Airport in 1970. He was born in Zanzibar, Tanzania's largest island. His traditional parents, especially his father, wanted him to make something good of himself. They didn't understand when he gave up his career to make music. Nevertheless, after teaming up with Brian May and Roger Taylor (John Deacon came later) his group went from success to success, and they finally accepted him.

I grew up with Queen. The first song I heard of theirs was "Seven Seas of Rhye" in 1974. I thought it was quite good, but not good enough to make me rush out and buy it. It was their third single; I missed the first two. I associated them with the glam rock movement. That was Freddie Mercury's image. Then they released "Killer Queen" later in the same year, and my reaction was "Wow! This is really good!" For me it wasn't just about Freddie Mercury's powerful vocals, I also liked the appropriately light guitar licks of Brian May. Then came "Bohemian Rhapsody".

I didn't realise until I watched the film today how badly this operatic single was received by the music press at the time. In the film the screen is plastered with quotes from magazines like Melody Maker saying how bad it was. I used to read Melody Maker regularly as a teenager, but I must have missed that article. All I remember is the effect it had on me and the people around me. When it was played on the radio people stopped to listen. It immediately topped the charts in England and most European countries. It didn't reach number one in America, but that's because the American charts weren't based on sales, they were based on the number of airplays on key radio stations. (That's an intrinsically corrupt way of fixing the charts, but that's a subject for another day).

"Bohemian Rhapsody" was Queen's biggest hit, but it didn't mean the band became any less popular. I followed their music until 1986, when they released the album "A Kind of Magic". There was an amusing story behind it. The band was asked by the director of the film "Highlander" to write a title song for the film. The band went away, and a few months later they returned with nine songs, a whole album. They were so enthusiastic about the story behind the film that they couldn't stop writing. Six of the songs were used in the film. One of the songs, "Who wants to love forever", is my personal favourite song by Queen.


I knew the music, but I didn't know what was going on behind the scenes. In the pre-Internet days I had to rely on rumours and random articles in music magazines. That's where the film steps in to assist me with its almost-true narrative. Freddie was in love with a girl called Mary Austin. They got engaged but never married, though they lived together for a few years. At the same time he began to have sexual feelings towards other men. Eventually he confessed to Mary that he was bisexual, but she rejected this and said, "You're not bisexual, you're gay". They split up, but she lived next door to him. He considered her the only love of his life, even though he preferred sexual relationships with men.

This is where Freddie's life started spinning out of control. By spending time with men he didn't love it was inevitable that he would be surrounded by men who didn't love him. They used him, and they separated him from the band members of Queen. Queen was his family, just as much as Mary was his family, and he distanced himself from them. It took him a few years to come to his senses, and he reunited for them for the Live Aid spectacular in 1985. The film gives the impression that this was the end of his time with Queen, but he actually made another three albums with them before his death.

Oops! I said I wouldn't name any of the inaccuracies in the story. Sorry!

I enjoyed the film greatly. I loved the music, I was impressed by Rami Malek's performance, and I was told enough about Freddie Mercury's personal life to satisfy my curiosity. I would probably have given the film a five star rating if it had been absolutely true. Nevertheless, I can recommend it to anyone, whether they're Queen fans or not. Maybe the film will make a fan of you.

Sunday, 15 July 2018

Austin Powers: Goldmember (4½ Stars)


There's been a two month delay, but I'm finally concluding my viewing of the Austin Powers Trilogy (which should only have lasted a week). I have a perfectly good reason for the delay: I forgot about the third film! I even put the Blu-ray box set back in the cellar last month because I thought I'd watched it all. No I hadn't. Yesterday I realised my mistake and ran down into the cellar in panic to get the box set back.

Don't worry, my cellar is well organised. I have five bookcases for my DVDs and Blu-rays, well sorted in alphabetical order. I found the Austin Powers Trilogy filed under A where it belonged.


My main intention of this post is to write about Verne Troyer, but I can't resist mentioning the Japanese twins Fook Mi and Fook Yu. Austin is admiring their rucksacks. I'm not so self-centred. I'd be looking somewhere else.


Now let's get back to Verne Troyer, or rather the character Mini-Me that he plays in the film. He was created by cloning Dr. Evil's DNA while he was frozen in suspended animation. This was a shock to Dr. Evil at first, but he soon accepted Mini-Me as a replacement for his son Scott who wasn't evil enough to take over the family business.


Mini-Me partook willingly in Dr. Evil's plans, even if it meant that he had to go to prison.


One of the advantages of being so small is that people don't notice Mini-Me sneaking up on them with a gun.


They really ought to make chairs in his size. And beds. And everything.


In this film Scott finally decides to become evil, so his father accepts him back. Poor Mini-Me feels rejected, so he changes sides. He becomes a British secret agent, which involves him dressing up to look like Austin Powers. Once a clone, always a clone.

Verne Troyer
January 1, 1969 – April 21, 2018

"Verne was the consummate professional and a beacon of positivity for those of us who had the honour of working with him. It is a sad day, but I hope he is in a better place. He will be greatly missed" (Mike Myers).

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

Thursday, 17 May 2018

Austin Powers: The Spy who shagged me (4½ Stars)


I admit it. The main reason why I decided to watch the Austin Powers trilogy this week is to remember Verne Troyer, the actor who played Mini-Me and died last month. The exact cause of his death isn't clear. Early reports claimed that it was suicide, but the official cause of death has been recorded as alcohol poisoning. The truth is probably a mixture of the two.

Some epitaphs written online say that it's wrong to concentrate on his size, he should just be judged as a man. I understand what they're saying, but it's impossible to write about him without mentioning his size. At 2'8" (81 cm) he was the world's smallest actor. Peter Dinklage (4'5", 135 cm) is a giant in comparison. Verne Troyer's height is what he'll be remembered for. That's an undeniable fact. But we should also remember him as a good actor. After seeing him at his audition Mike Myers was so impressed with Verne's acting ability that he rewrote the script to give him more screen time. How many actors can say that about themselves?

The first film takes place in the 1990's (1997), while the second film takes place in the 1960's (1969). Dr. Evil has invented a time machine, with which he travels back in time to steal Austin Powers' mojo while he was frozen. This mojo is the essence that makes Austin what he is, including his charm, his sexual prowess and his skill as a secret agent. Austin Powers travels back in time using a Back-To-The-Future-ish car to challenge Dr. Evil. He's at a disadvantage because he's already lost his mojo, but he receives assistance from Agent Felicity Shagwell, a swinging, free-loving sixties girl who is the exact female equivalent of Austin himself.


In the first film Mike Myers played two characters, Austin Powers and Dr. Evil. In this film he also plays the evil henchman Fat Bastard. Yes, that's his name. Yes, that's really Mike Myers. He's hardly recognisable under all that make up, body padding and whatever else was used to disguise him.


Because Dr. Evil's son Scott wasn't evil enough to be the successor to the Evil Empire a clone has been made from Dr. Evil's DNA. The clone is Mini-Me, played by Verne Troyer, identical in every respect except for his size. Dr. Evil immediately appoints him his successor. This annoys Scott, who now wants to try to be more evil, but it's too late.

I made a mistake in my last review of "The Spy who shagged me". I claimed that it was a blunder that Mustafa and Number Two magically reappeared after being killed in the first film. I should pay more attention. Mustafa was killed in 1997, so it's not a mistake to see him in 1969. It all makes sense. As for Number Two, he's thrown into a fire pit in the first film, but we never see him die. When he returns in this film he has burn marks on his cheek, so we can assume that he was somehow rescued from the pit. He might have burn marks in other places that his fine suits hide from sight.

Overall the film is just as good as "International Man of Mystery", but I have a few small problems with it. I find the humour with the Fat Bastard character unnecessarily vulgar. I also find it strange the way Elisabeth Hurley's character is removed from the film by the revelation that she was always a fembot. If you watch the first film you can see that this was impossible.

Verne Troyer
January 1, 1969 – April 21, 2018

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