Bicentennial Man (5 Stars)

Netflix Thursday #47

"Bicentennial Man" is a film that was made ahead of its time. When it was released in 1999 it seemed faintly embarrassing, yet it has aged into something quietly fascinating, commonly being called a cult film. Directed by Chris Columbus and starring Robin Williams, it was initially dismissed as overlong, sentimental and tonally confused; a family film that strained toward philosophical seriousness without quite earning it. But in the age of contemporary AI, its reputation has shifted. What once felt naive now feels oddly prescient.

The film, loosely based on Isaac Asimov's novella "The Bicentennial Man", charts the 200-year life of Andrew, an android who evolves from a household appliance to something approaching a human being. At the time, this arc was framed largely as a Pinocchio-style fable; a machine who wants to become "real". Today, that premise lands differently. The question is no longer abstract. With the rise of machine learning systems and conversational AI, Andrew's journey speaks directly to contemporary anxieties about consciousness, identity and rights.

One reason the film has become a cult object is precisely because of how unfashionable it once was. In 1999, audiences were primed for sleeker, more ironic science fiction; the same year saw "The Matrix" redefine the genre with cyberpunk cool and philosophical edge. By contrast, "Bicentennial Man" is earnest to a fault. It takes its time, embraces melodrama and leans heavily on Williams' gentle, increasingly restrained performance. That earnestness, once a liability, now reads as sincerity. The film is not trying to be clever; it is trying to be humane.

And that is the key to its afterlife. Modern AI discourse is often dominated by fear; job displacement, surveillance, loss of control. "Bicentennial Man" approaches the subject from the opposite direction. It asks not what machines will do to us, but what it would mean for a machine to join us. Andrew's desire is not to surpass humanity but to belong to it; to love, to create, to die. The film's central provocation is quietly radical: humanity is defined not by biology, but by experience, vulnerability and mortality.

There is also something newly poignant in the film's incrementalism. Andrew does not leap into consciousness; he inches toward it over decades, through small acts of creativity and self-modification. In an era when AI progress is rapid and opaque, this slow, legible evolution feels almost comforting. It suggests a continuity between tool and personhood that modern systems, with their black-box complexity, often lack.

The film's flaws have not disappeared, but these very flaws are now considered its strengths. The romance subplot used to divide critics; how could a woman possibly have a romance with a robot? But today there are common news stories of people forming relationships with online chatbots, which contributes to its cult appeal. The film is marked as a sincere attempt to grapple with big ideas within a mainstream framework; something increasingly rare.

Ultimately, "Bicentennial Man" endures because it asks a question that has only become more urgent: if a machine can think, create and feel, what, exactly, is left to distinguish it from us? In 1999, that question felt speculative. In 2026, it feels uncomfortably close.

What was once a misfire now plays like a time capsule from a more optimistic technological imagination; one that believed the endpoint of artificial intelligence might not be domination or disaster, but a quiet, hard-won recognition of shared humanity.

The film has returned to the public eye through being revived by Netflix. For that we can be thankful. The DVD releases from the turn of the century are now difficult to find. On Netflix the film is in HD quality, even though it's never been released on Blu-ray. Discerning fans are clamouring for a Blu-ray or even 4K release.

Success Rate:  - 1.0

Lake Placid (4 Stars)

Betty White is dead.

Those are words that I didn't think I would have to write. There was already some media buzz about her upcoming 100th birthday on 17th January 2022. She didn't make it. She died yesterday morning at home. The cause of death hasn't yet been disclosed, except that it was natural causes.

She's had a long acting career, but I first became aware of her about 20 years ago when I saw reruns of "The Golden Girls" (1985 to 1992). I've never been a fan of American sitcoms, but the concept of four elderly ladies living together interested me. I wouldn't say that I found the episodes laugh-out-loud funny, but I found the old ladies sweet. Even then, Betty White stood out as the one who attracted me most.

A short time later I saw "Lake Placid" for the first time. Betty White has a small but important role in the film as an old woman who keeps giant crocodiles as pets. After a diver is killed she tries to cover up the existence of the crocodiles.

I'm sorry to say that "Lake Placid" is the only film in which I ever saw her, but I didn't forget her over the following years. Betty White remained active in social media, and I was always fascinated by whatever she had to say. What I liked about her so much was that she sounded so young. She always retained the playful attitude of a teenage girl. If I'd met her in a chatroom I would have guessed her age as 16.

One of her most famous quotes sounds like a joke, but it's actually true:

"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding".

Now she's passed away. She'll be missed not only by her family and friends, but by the millions of fans who've watched her from afar over the years. People like me.

Betty, we'll always love you.

It's sad to see the cover of the latest issue of People magazine. They jumped the gun.

Betty White
January 17, 1922 – December 31, 2021

Success Rate:  + 0.1

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

Professor Marston and the Wonder Women (4 Stars)

William Marston was an amazing man. He invented the first lie detector, and then he went on to create the character Wonder Woman, whose comics he wrote for six years. How can one person be responsible for two such outstanding creations of such different types?

Which was the most important of the two? Most would say the lie detector (now called a polygraph in the USA), but I would disagree. Its effectiveness is contested. In some countries it's commonly used, in others only occasionally, and in others not at all. In university my Psychology professor, Dr. John Bradshaw, was very critical of lie detectors. He gave us instructions on how to beat the machine, as he called it. I've never had to take a lie detector test, but if I did I'd deliberately lie, just to see if his methods work. He told us that the study of body language is more reliable in telling whether a person is lying.

Wonder Woman, the character and the comic, is something different. She's a powerful woman who inspires women and girls of all ages. She wasn't the first female super-hero, but she was the first to be successful. Why did she succeed when others had failed? Maybe it was her costume, which alluded to the American flag. It could be that she came from an island of women who didn't need men. It's true, Wonder Woman fell in love with a man when she came to America, but it was her choice, not because she needed a man. It could also be because the initial comics (those written by Marston) relied strongly on bondage, which was something still uncommon in the early 1940's.

Whatever the reason for the success was, Wonder Woman is still with us today. Her comics have appeared every month since 1941. She's also been featured in a television series and more recently in films.

The film concentrates on Bill Marston's relationship with the two women who inspired him: Elizabeth Marston, his wife, and Olive Byrne, their lover. The three had a true polyamorous relationship. I emphasise the word true, because polyamorous is a commonly misused word. In most cases people say they're polyamorous when they really mean that they're promiscuous. If you love someone, you put the other person and his wishes first. Those who call themselves polyamorous are thinking about themselves and their own lusts. In most cases. Bill, Elizabeth and Olive were truly polyamorous. After Bill's death, the two women lived together for another 38 years. There was no need for another third wheel on the cart. They had both loved Bill intensely, and there was no room in their hearts for a replacement.

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

Once more, this is a film that has only been released on DVD in England. If you're a true film fan, you can order it on Blu-ray from Germany.

Ginger & Rosa (4½ Stars)

I bought this film when I was in England at Christmas, and it's been lying on my shelf ever since. To be honest, I don't remember why I bought it. It doesn't look like my sort of film. The sticker says it's part of an HMV "Five Blu-rays for £30" sale, so it's possible I picked it up in desperation as the fifth film. I didn't even intend to watch it today, and may have left it on the shelf for another six months. I wanted to watch "Picasso Trigger". I recently bought all 12 films in the Andy Sidaris collection from Amazon, and I'm slowly working my way through them in order, but today something terrible happened. I opened the case, and there was no disc inside. The disc was sealed in foil, so it was probably a packing error. That's never happened to me before, in my 17 years of buying films on DVD and Blu-ray. And I've bought a lot! I was too lazy to go down to the cellar to pick another film from my to-watch list, so I grabbed the nearest film: "Ginger & Rosa".

I was amazed, from the first minutes onwards. Somehow it touched a nerve. It's a family drama and (to a lesser extent) a coming-of-age drama.

Two women, Natalie and Anoushka, meet on 6th August 1945. They're both in labour, lying in beds next to one another, and they hold hands to comfort one another. They both have baby girls. Natalie's daughter is called Africa, although she's later given the nickname Ginger. Anoushka's daughter is called Rosa. The two mothers become close friends, and the daughters also grow up as friends.

The girls are separated at the age of 11 when they have to go to different schools. Ginger passed the 11+ exam and went to a grammar school. Rosa failed the exam and went to a secondary modern school. Nevertheless, they still spend as much time as possible together.

Fast forward to 1962, shortly after their 17th birthdays. Anoushka is a single mother, after her husband walked out for unstated reasons. Natalie's marriage is on the rocks, because she suspects that her husband Roland, a university lecturer, is having affairs with younger students. Nevertheless, Ginger is closest to her father. Natalie tries to control Ginger's life, preparing her for marriage and a future as a housewife, whereas Roland recognises Ginger's intelligence and encourages her to be a free thinker.

All this is happening against the background of the Cold War. Ginger and Rosa visit CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) meetings. Ginger is convinced that something needs to be done, including illegal protests, while Rosa says that nuclear war is inevitable, so they should just enjoy the short time they have left.

Roland leaves home. A few weeks later Ginger goes to live with him. She soon discovers that Rosa is having an affair with her father, which drives her to the verge of a mental breakdown.

This is a film with incredible emotional depth. Maybe it touched me because I can relate to being alienated from a daughter to whom I used to be close. I don't know. Timothy Spall delivers a stunning performance as Ginger's godfather and close friend of both parents.

Christina Hendricks is convincing as Natalie, apart from the fact that she's too attractive. Why would any man with a gorgeous wife like her run around after young girls? In my opinion, she's one of Hollywood's most beautiful actresses.

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

Letters to Juliet (3 Stars)

This film is based on a tradition in the Italian city of Verona. It's devastating to me that people go along with it. It's a religious con without the religion.

In Verrona there's a house called Casa di Giulietta, Juliet's House, named after Juliet Capulet in Shakespeare's play "Romeo and Juliet". Women who have relationship problems write letters to Juliet asking for advice, and stick the letters to a wall outside the house, called Juliet's Wall. It's not just the women of Verona who do this, there are women who visit the house from all over the world.

This is similar to the Roman Catholic practise of praying to saints. Some people believe in saints, I don't, but I won't argue about it here. What's different about Juliet is that she isn't a divine representative of any religion, and she never even existed. She's just a fictional character invented by an English playwright, so what's the point in asking her for help?

But guess what? Any woman who leaves her name and address on her letter to Juliet receives a reply. Is that a divine miracle? Not quite. As the film shows, there's an organisation run by the tourist centre of Verona called the Secretaries of Juliet. The letters are collected every evening, and a group of women sit writing answers. When the reply arrives a few days later the heartbroken woman can shout, "Hallelujah! Praise Shakespeare!"

There's also something for the men. There's a statue of Juliet outside the house. Any man who touches the statue's breast will be lucky in love. That sounds somehow creepy, since Juliet in Shakespeare's play was only 13. If I want to be lucky in love I'd rather go speed dating.

All that is true, as ridiculous as it might sound. You can travel to Verona yourself to check it out, if you don't believe me. Now for the fictional part of the story.

Sophie Hall is a junior reporter from New York. She's on holiday in Verona with her fiance Victor, who's looking for exclusive items to serve in his restaurant. Sophie discovers Juliet's House by accident, after which she visits the Secretaries of Juliet to ask what it's all about. On the next day she finds a letter behind a loose stone that was written in 1957, more than 50 years ago, by a young English woman who was too scared to run away with her Italian lover Lorenzo. Sophie replies to the letter herself, telling the woman that it's never too late to go to the one you love. She signs the letter Juliet. Of course.

A few days later Claire Smith arrives in Verona with her grandson Charlie. He thinks it's all romantic nonsense, but his grandmother is now a widow and wants to look for Lorenzo. She also wants to meet Juliet. Together they go on a journey, meeting all the men in the vicinity called Lorenzo Bartolini. There are 74 listed in the phonebook, but it's possible to whittle the number down by eliminating the younger men.

Is it a spoiler to say that Claire finds her Lorenzo, who's also a widower? Not really. The viewer knows from the beginning that she'll be successful. They get married and live happily ever after.

What's worth mentioning is that Claire and Lorenzo are played by Vanessa Redgrave and Franco Nero, who are married in real life. It must have been a wonderfully romantic experience for them to get married again in the film.

There's also a romantic comedy subplot, which I won't go into, because that really would be a spoiler.

I greatly admire Amanda Seyfried as an actress, but I don't enjoy this film, despite the beautiful Italian scenery. It's not even the film's premise that disturbs me. Something about it is too light. The script could have been better, but don't ask me how. Something is missing that would turn this average film into a great film.

Success Rate:  + 0.7

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

A Time To Kill (4 Stars)

This is a courtroom drama made in 1996 by Joel Schumacher. That's a guarantee for quality in itself. As far as I know, he's never made a bad film. His films range from good to brilliant. It's based on a 1989 novel with the same name written by John Grisham.

Unlike most courtroom dramas, most of the action takes place outside of the courtroom. The film lasts two and a half hours, and there's nothing dull or uninteresting about it. It's not just men in suits shouting "Objection" and "Overruled", although that happens as well.

The film takes place in Canton, a small town in Mississippi. Two white supremacists rape a 10-year-old black girl. They hang her and leave her for dead, but the branch snaps and she manages to get home. She's able to identify the men, and one of her shoes is found in their truck, so they're arrested.

The girl's father, Carl Lee Hailey, visits the lawyer Jake Brigance and tells him that he doesn't expect justice to be done because it's a white man's world. In a similar case, when four white men had raped a black girl, the men were acquitted. Carl asks Jake to defend him if he deals with the matter himself, but Jake tells him not to do anything stupid. Carl doesn't take the advice. A few days later the rapists are in court requesting bail, and Carl bursts in, shooting them both dead.

Now Carl is on trial for murder, facing the death penalty. Jake says his normal fee would be $15,000 but he accepts $900, which is all of Carl's life savings. His defence strategy is based on claiming Carl was insane at the time of the murder. The Ku Klux Klan gets involved, burning down Jake's house and kidnapping his secretary. There are riots outside the court room, so the National Guard is called in. There are various other sub-plots, which I shan't go into here.

Parts of the film are very difficult for me to understand as a non-American. Is the Ku Klux Klan really allowed to march openly in the street the day after burning a cross in someone's lawn? Maybe it's because it can't be proved it was really them who burnt the cross? Can't the law deal with criminals like that?

I also find it difficult to understand the attitudes of the all-white members of the jury. Why does the colour of the accused person play a role? As I've already said elsewhere in this blog, I don't understand racism. I'm not saying that I'm against racism, what I'm saying is that to me racism is so ridiculously stupid that I don't understand how anyone can possibly be a racist. It doesn't make sense to me. I can argue with people about politics, and I can discuss religion and philosophy for hours on end, but if someone's a racist I don't know what to say to him. I can't credit him with enough intelligence to understand the words coming out of my mouth.

But the biggest problem I have with the film is the way the American legal system is portrayed. Carl was defended by pleading insanity. Was it really so insane? If someone raped my daughter and I expected the person to go unpunished, it's a natural reaction to want to get revenge. If Carl was insane, then I'm insane as well, and so are many other parents.

I'm not saying that vigilante justice is correct. Carl took the law into his own hands. He committed murder, so he's guilty. In a private conversation the judge said he would give Carl a 20 year prison sentence if he pleaded guilty. I would have accepted that sentence. Carl didn't regret what he did. It was a premeditated act, and if he'd failed to kill the rapists he would have tried again. Guilty is guilty, and it's unjust to use legal tricks to get him acquitted.

The film has a star studded cast. I could go through the actors one by one, praising their performances, starting with Samuel L. Jackson as Carl Lee Hailey. He's an uneducated man, but not unintelligent. He makes philosophical statements that dumbfound his lawyer.

Patrick McGoohan excels as Judge Noose. Is that name meant as a joke? He plays the role very subtly, displaying his motivation more through what he doesn't say than what he says. He presents himself as impartial, but we can see that his sympathies lie with the town's white people.

This is a film that I'd like to discuss with my friends. If you've seen it, please leave me a comment telling me what you think of it.

Success Rate:  + 1.8

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

Professor Marston and the Wonder Women (4 Stars)

First of all, many thanks to my wonderful friend Cath West for recommending this film to me. I might otherwise never have gone to the cinema to see it.

Professor William Marston was the man who invented the super-hero Wonder Woman and wrote her stories for the first six years, using the pen name Charles Moulton. She wasn't the first female super-hero, but she was the first who was successful. This was attributed to two factors. She was a powerful woman, not just a damsel in distress. The early comics contained many scenes that portrayed, or at least hinted at bondage and sado-masochism practises.

Professor Marston was a Psychology professor at Harvard University. He also lectured at Radcliffe College, which was attended by only female students. Gender segregation was common at university level  in America before World War Two. His wife Elizabeth assisted him in his lectures, although she wasn't allowed to teach because she had only completed an M.A.

William was attracted to one of his students, Olivia Byrne. At first his wife was jealous of her, but then it became obvious that Olivia loved William and Elizabeth equally, so Olivia moved in with them. This was a true polyamorous relationship, something rarely practised in the 1920's. I'm not opposed to polyamory, but I object to the misuse of the term. In most cases it's used as a euphemism for being slutty. If a man has sexual desires for more than one woman, which is biologically a completely natural state of affairs, he calls himself polyamorous as an excuse. It's more common for women who have desires for several men to call themselves polyamorous. True polyamory has to be completely open, without deceit, and it has to be reciprocal among all parties. The latter condition is obvious, if you consider the consequences. Let's assume a married woman takes another man home, claiming to be polyamorous, but her husband doesn't approve. This isn't polyamory, it's selfishness. By ignoring her husband's wishes she's showing that she doesn't really love him.

In the case of William, Elizabeth and Olivia, they all loved another and slept in one bed. It wasn't just a matter of sexual desire. They all had deep feelings for one another. Elizabeth and Olivia each had two children, fathered by William. Elizabeth went to work while Olivia stayed at home to look after the children.

William invented the first lie detector, but that wasn't enough to protect him from the prejudices of his day. The university fired him because of his immoral life style. Those were dark days indeed.

The family moves to New York and William becomes a writer. His interest in feminism -- he claimed that women should rule the world -- and sadomasochism led him to invent the character Wonder Woman. In 1940 he approached DC Comics to pitch his character, and Wonder Woman's stories have been printed ever since.

From the earliest comics onwards it was clear that women are stronger than men; all women, not just Wonder Woman. This is why the stories still appeal to readers today.

"Professor Marston and the Wonder Women" is a fascinating film that I need to watch again.

X-Men: First Class (5 Stars)

I've read various articles that call the first X-Men film, made in 2000, to be the best super-hero film ever made. Even writers at Empire magazine subscribe to this opinion. I don't understand why anyone would say something like that. The best super-hero film is Sam Raimi's Spider-Man, made two years later in 2002. Usually I accept other opinions because I know that tastes differ, but in this case it's so obvious that "Spider-Man" is better that I want to shake the head of anyone who contradicts me.

Even among the X-Men films the first film wasn't the best. "X-Men: First Class" is a much faster paced and better crafted film. I consider it to be the best of the six X-Men films. It catches the essence of the early X-Men comics, even if it features different characters. Apart from Charles Xavier (Professor X), the only member if the original group that appears in the film is Hank McCoy, the Beast.

There's one thing that the X-Men films do better than the comics. That's the portrayal of Magneto. He was admirably portrayed by Ian McKellen in the first three X-Men films, and Michael Fassbender was even more impressive as a younger Magneto in "First Class". In the comics Magneto was aloof. He always wore a helmet, so we never saw his face. He was utterly evil. It wasn't until the 1980's, 20 years after his first appearance, that we found out his real name was Magnus. Later it was said that his name was Erik. First it was said that Magneto came from an East European gypsy background, but later he was said to be Jewish. Marvel went on to write stories to explain the discrepancies, saying that he used different pseudonyms in his youth and only pretended to be a gypsy. That was merely an attempt to fix a mess that should never have been there in the first place. In the 1980's Marvel continuity, the thing Marvel had been famous for since the early 1960's, was breaking down. Different authors wrote whatever they wanted without reading previous comics, and they contradicted one another. They made mistakes. The real Magneto, as created by Stan Lee, faded away some time in the mid-1980's and was replaced by the re-imaginings of less talented authors, despite the valiant attempts of Chris Claremont to hold continuity together.

I'm drifting away from the point I wanted to make. What I want to say is that the real Magneto was a big bad monster that we knew nothing about. The X-Men films develop his character. We know him. We sympathise with him. Even when he does wrong we see that he's trying to achieve good goals. This is the case in all six X-Men films, but never more clearly than in "First Class". This is a film that concentrates on the relationship between the two idealistic young men, Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr.

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

P.S. I want to keep my readers up to date on what television series have been keeping me away from my films lately. This week I've watched the whole second season of "Teen Wolf" and the first half of the second season of "Vikings". Maybe I should write something about "Vikings". Wait and see,

Lake Placid (4 Stars)

Grandma, what a big mouth you have!

 It's a long time since I watched this film, at least 10 years. It used to be one of my favourite films. Watching it again today I don't rate it quite as highly. Or maybe it's just my mood.

The film is centred around a lake called Black Lake in Maine. The lake really exists, but since the film was made in Canada other lakes were used for filming. As far as the film's name goes, that's explained early on. "We wanted to call it Lake Placid, but the name was taken". After a number of mysterious deaths in the lake it's discovered that there's a giant crocodile, estimated to be 30 feet long. Kelly Scott is a palaeontologist sent from New York to investigate. She's assisted by Hector Cyr, a mythology professor with a passion for crocodiles. Why mythology? Hector explains that in many civilisations crocodiles are worshipped as Gods, and he himself has a morbid fascination with them.

The film is marketed as a horror film, but it has a lot of comedy. The main characters clash to comic effect. For me the film's main star is Betty White, the old woman who lives at the side of the lake. It doesn't matter how old she is – she was born on 17 January 1922 – she still has the attitude of a sassy teenage girl. I love her!

Due to family staying with me for the next two weeks I'll have less time to spend on my blog. I'll still write reviews every day, but they will probably be shorter than usual.

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

Shut In (3½ Stars)

The film begins with a tragic accident. Richard Portman leaves home with his son Steven to drive him to a boarding school. It's necessary. Steven has just been expelled from his local school, and it's a rural area with no other schools. On the way father and son argue, and the car swerves onto the wrong side of the road. Richard is killed instantly. Steven is badly injured and is left as a paraplegic, unable to move, talk or show any signs of intelligence.

Six months later Mary Portman is struggling to look after her son. She has to dress him, feed him, lift him in and out of bed; in short, she has to do everything for him. She lives in a remote house in the middle of the woods in Maine. She works as a child psychologist in a smaller house on her property. Her food and supplies are delivered by the receptionist who works for her, so she never leaves, only walking from one house to the other. Apart from her receptionist she only has contact with her patients and their parents. She also talks to a therapist by Skype.

One day a 10-year-old boy, Tom, one of her patients, turns up at her house late at night, in the middle of winter. She rings his mother and arranges to have him picked up the next day. However, Tom disappears during the night. Over the next few days Mary thinks she hears Tom in her house, but she can't find him. She thinks she's hearing a ghost, and she even doubts that he ever visited her on the first evening. Is she going mad, or is something sinister happening?

This is a neat little psychological thriller with traces of horror. It's not a masterpiece, far from it, but I can recommend it for viewing on a cold night indoors, sitting cuddled on the sofa with your partner.

Bicentennial Man (5 Stars)

I would rather die a man than live for all eternity as a machine.

This is the third film I've watched this week starring Robin Williams. It's always been my favourite out of all his films, but watching it today has struck me just how good it is. It ought to be in my top 10 films list. Most critics have given it bad reviews, complaining about it being overly sentimental. That's the film's strength. It's a film that always makes me cry, however often I watch it.

The film, based on a short story by Isaac Asimov, begins in the near future: the year 2005. That's the film's one major mistake. Scriptwriters and directors should learn that when setting a film in the future that uses future technology the year shouldn't be precisely specified, just in case the film is still being watched after that date and the technology isn't available. In the case of "Bicentennial Man" it was an unnecessary blunder. The film was made in 1999, only six years earlier, and it should have been apparent at the time that the robots in the film wouldn't be invented so soon.

Anyway, the film begins with the delivery of a robot to the wealthy Martin family. The robot is played by Robin Williams, although at this stage of the film he's only recognisable by his voice. He's given the name Andrew, and he is put to work as a servant, cleaning and cooking for the family. As the company that sells him describes Andrew, he's a household appliance. But it soon becomes clear that he's more than this. He develops artistic skills, and he spends his free time listening to opera. Andrew becomes especially attached to the family's 7-year-old daughter Amanda, who he calls Little Miss.

The film is told in episodes over the next 200 years. I don't want to describe the plot at length, except to say that Andrew requests repeated modifications, "upgrades", which are all intended to make him step by step more human. This is Andrew's burning desire in life, to be a human and no longer a machine.

The film is perfectly structured. Many films that are told in episodes stretched over a period of time seem disjointed. Not "Bicentennial Man". We stay connected to the Martin family over five generations as the family members are born, grow old and die. This is a brilliant film. Whatever the critics say.

X-Men: First Class (4½ Stars)

Tomorrow I'm going to see "X-Men: Days of Future Past", so I rewatched "X-Men: First Class" today. It's a very good film, even though it jumbles up X-Men characters from the 1960's to the 21st Century.

Read my original review here.

One more photo of Mystique. Nude and proud. It's a shame she lost her nipples.

The Three Musketeers (1993) (4¼ Stars)

I hate double-sided DVDs.

My intention for March was to write only 4-word reviews. I have to give up now, there's way too much I have to say about this film. Or at least I can make a compromise. I'll write 4-word summaries, as above, then add more thoughts if necessary.

I enjoy this film, the 1993 version of "The Three Musketeers", but as far as the DVD release itself is concerned, this is the worst DVD in my collection. To explain: you have to put the DVD in your player. You watch half the film. Then you have to turn the disk over to watch the other half. This is dreadful. Disgusting. Shameful. What is the point in making a double-sided single-layer DVD? Is it cheaper to manufacture than the usual single-sided double-layer DVDs?

I don't like double-sided DVDs anyway, even if they're double-layered. I have a few in my collection, and I hate them all. The "City of Angels" DVD has the film on one side, the extras on the other. "Snatch" has two different versions of the film, one on each side. The "Kung Fu" box set is made up entirely of double sided DVDs to halve the number of discs. Some of the DVDs in the Sopranos box sets are double sided. I despise this. The sides, A or B, are marked in very small writing on the edges of the discs. It's just unacceptable. It's not just a problem that the lettering is so small, and almost illegible. The problem is that the lettering is inconsistent. On some DVDs the "A" means that the side it's written on is the first side, so it should be placed face down in the player. On other DVDs it means that the opposite side is the first side, so the "A" should be face up when putting in the disc. I've solved the problem for myself by always putting the first side face down when I put a DVD back in its case. But it's still no excuse. Double-sided DVDs should be banned.

As for the film itself: "The Three Musketeers" is a novel written by Alexandre Dumas in 1844 that has somehow won the imagination of film makers. It has been filmed at least 30 times from 1903 till today. In fact, it has been filmed twice in the last three years. There must be a psychology to films that are constantly remade over the years. There must be something special about the stories. As far as I know, the story that has been filmed the most often is Bram Stoker's "Dracula", filmed more than 40 times. Other multiply filmed stories are "Cinderella", "Tristan and Isolde" and "Dangerous Liaisons".

This version of "The Three Musketeers" stars Kiefer Sutherland, Oliver Platt and Charlie Sheen as the title characters, plus Chris O'Donnell as D'Artagnan, who is actually the film's main hero. Tim Curry is his usual evil self, and Rebecca de Mornay is sexier than I have ever seen her in any other film. It's an exciting film from beginning to end. It's just a shame I have to get up half way through to turn over the DVD.

X-Men: First Class (5 Stars)

My guest writer Kay already reviewed this film here.

Of the four X-Men films made so far this prequel is the best. From the beginning it drew me in with its excitement, drama and fast pacing. I quickly grew to love the characters of Charles Xavier (Professor X) and Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto). It's amusing to see the young Charles as a womanizer.

The film begins in 1944, but most of the events take place in 1962 against the background of the Cuban missile crisis. I can't fault the film as an opus within itself, but it takes great liberties with the chronology of the X-Men comics and the Marvel universe in general. Random characters are thrown together who were up to 20 years apart in their first appearances in the comics. Sebastian Shaw knew Magneto as a child? Mystique grew up as Professor X's sister? And Hank McCoy turned blue before the X-Men were formed? Tut tut tut..... Still, it was fun watching the characters I know and love. Even if they were anachronisms. I was surprised at the inclusion of Riptide in Sebastian Shaw's Hellfire Club, since he was a relatively minor character who wasn't introduced until 1986. The only character I didn't recognise was Darwin. I had to google to find out who he was, and he actually didn't appear in the X-Men comics until 2006. The reason for his inclusion must have been his skin colour; the film had to be politically correct and include at least one black mutant. Silly.

Click here to watch the trailer.

And click on this picture if you want to read about the REAL X-Men first class, as they were first portrayed in the comics in 1963. Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Angel, Iceman and the Beast. Those were the good old days.

Letters to Juliet (3½ Stars)

In 1936 Italy decided that it wanted more tourists to visit Verona. A house was built called Juliet's house, claiming to be the house of the fictional character from Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet". The house has a balcony to be used by women: they can either stand on it to shout out their love for someone, or they can stand silently while a man in the courtyard below shouts up a declaration of love to her. A life size bronze statue of Juliet was placed in the courtyard, and it is claimed that anyone who touches the right breast will be lucky in love. A wall in the courtyard was declared to be Juliet's Wall. Heartbroken women can attach notes to the wall describing their problems, and any letters containing a name and address will receive a personal reply from Juliet herself.

All of this is true, and gullible tourists lapped it up. Today Juliet's house is the main tourist attraction in Verona. This forms the background for the film. Sophie is a "fact finder" for a New York magazine. While on vacation in Verona she is fascinated by Juliet's Wall and decides to investigate it. She observes a woman removing the letters from the wall after closing time, and follows her to an office where a group of women, calling themselves the "Secretaries of Juliet", reply to the letters, signing them as Juliet. The following day she discovers a letter that has been hidden in a crack in the wall since 1957. A 15-year-old English girl called Claire is complaining about losing touch with her Italian lover, Lorenzo. Sophie asks for permission to reply, and writes a passionate letter in Juliet's name saying that even after 50 years she should have the courage to find her lover. "True love has no expiration date". Imagine her surprise that a few days later Claire arrives from England looking for the writer of the letter and asking for help finding her Lorenzo.

This is a beautiful story about love that can survive the passage of time. It's obvious from the start that the director was fascinated by Italy, the landscapes and the cities, and is using every chance to frame the story against a romantic background which is so un-American. My main criticism is that for the first hour the film moves too slowly, the characters moving in circles and not getting anywhere. The last 30 minutes are overwhelmingly romantic. This is a film for lovers to watch while they sit holding hands.

X-Men: First Class [Guest Writer] (5 Stars)

Before I begin this review I would like to point out that I watched this with no prior prejudice against the entire Marvel and X-Men corporation. The only things I saw before this was the previous X-Men movies and the Wolverine movie staring Hugh Jackman so bear that in mind when reading this.

I loved this movie to be entirely honest with you. I'm a pretty simple person when it comes to my movies. I don't go to a movie to be confused, listen to thought provoking philosophers go on and on about the universe and try to convert me to some strange new cult way of thinking. I go there for the enjoyment of escaping away into a fantasy world where the impossible become probable for a few hours and this movie allowed it to happen.

So here is the story: In 1944, in Poland, the boy Erik Lehnsherr unleashes his magnetic power when his mother is sent to a concentration camp. The evil Dr. Sebastian Shaw brings Erik to his office and kills his mother, increasing his abilities through anger. In New York, the wealthy Charles Xavier meets the mutant Raven (Mystique) and invites her to live in his manor. In 1962, the CIA agent Moira MacTaggert discovers the existence of mutants working with Shaw and the invites Professor Xavier to recruit mutants to work for the USA government. Xavier teams up with Raven, Erik and a group of young mutants. Sooner they learn that the evil Shaw has the intention of beginning a nuclear war to destroy the world and increase his power.

I loved seeing the back-story of how Charles' and Erik's relationship grew and transformed by the end of the movie. It was probably the most touching and heart-wrenching part of the movie for me - to see two close friends become enemies. One thing that sort of confused me about their friendship and made it just a bit unrealistic for me was in how fast their friendship grew to such monumental proportions. From the way that they interact throughout the entire X-Men saga one would think they were childhood friends turned enemies. So unless their bond formed over a longer period of time than the movie suggests I had to question that. I enjoyed seeing some new faces and wonder where they went but otherwise it was a very good movie. I also really enjoyed the lead actors of this movie. I think James McAvoy, a recently discovered talent that I loved from the minute I saw "Wanted" (will do a review of that one later) and am glad he got to play such an iconic role and see that he did it justice. It was all so good I saw it three times in theaters. Haha!