Where the wild things are (3 Stars)

This film is based on a children's book written by Maurice Sendak in 1963. The director Spike Jonze insists that he made the film for children, but many critics claim it isn't suitable for young children.

Max is a nine-year-old boy who has difficulty fitting in. He prefers to play alone. He builds an igloo outside his house, but his sister's friends demolish it. He's angry with his sister for not telling them off. Later that evening he wants to spend time with his mother, but she ignores him when her boyfriend visits. Dressed in a wolf suit, he runs round the house throwing things on the floor. When she scolds him, he runs away.

At the side of a lake he finds a small boat. He gets in it, and the wind blows him far, far away. He arrives at a island so far away that it's no longer winter. It's inhabited by seven large furry monsters who're in the middle of an argument. When Max goes to speak with them they want to eat him, so he says that he's the king of a far-off land, and he has magical powers that will make them happy. They agree to make him their king.

For a while they're contented, until they start to believe he's a fake.

I haven't read the book, so I can only judge the film on its own merits. I don't fully understand it. Does Max really travel to a magical land, or is it just a child's fantasy? He spends a long time on the island, many days, but when he returns home it seems like only a few hours have passed.

Spike Jonze has directed four films. The other three are "Being John Malkovich". "Adaptation" and "Her". They're all films that I like a lot, but I found difficulty relating to "Where the wild things are".

Success Rate:  - 1.0

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

The Batman (4 Stars)

Today's the spring equinox, one of the year's four high days. It's even more special for me as someone who was born on an equinox. The other one.

Today I celebrated the equinox by going to the cinema to see the new Batman film. I have a love-hate relationship with Batman and DC comics in general. I've always considered DC second best in comparison with Marvel. For me DC will always be the other comics company.

That doesn't mean that I don't have some appreciation for Batman. I sporadically read his comics in his camp era (1960 to 1975). I greatly enjoyed the stories written by Steve Englehart in the late 1970's which returned him to the dark style of the early comics. I've watched Batman's ups and downs on the big screen, although I don't think there's ever been a Batman film as good as the 1966 version.

Now there's yet another Batman reboot. It doesn't start with the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, but their deaths are frequently mentioned. It's two years since Bruce Wayne became Batman. We aren't told who his first enemies were. It's possible they were only normal crooks. Now he has to face his first costumed super-villain, though it's something of a stretch to call it a costume. The Riddler is wearing something that looks like a boiler suit.

There have been some very good incarnations of the Riddler in the past.

Frank Gorshin, who appeared in the Batman TV Series from 1966 to 1967, is considered by most Batman fans to be the best version of the Riddler. Newer actors are judged by how closely they resemble him.

Jim Carrey played the Riddler in "Batman Forever" in 1995. He's obviously mimicking Frank Gorshin, but he doesn't quite succeed. Why be the second best Frank Gorshin when you can be the best Jim Carrey?

Cory Michael Smith plays a laid back but surprisingly convincing Riddler in the "Gotham" TV series from 2014 to 2019. I would have picked him to play the Riddler in the new film.

But no, Paul Dano was picked, wearing a very different costume. It's nowhere near as gaudy as the costumes of his predecessors, and why does he wear a mask? Obviously the director Matt Reeves wanted to do something different, but it was unnecessary. In the film the Riddler has a certain sense of nobility, which is missing both from the comics and the previous screen versions. He's a vigilante, killing corrupt city officials. He even sees Batman as a partner, not an enemy.

I have mixed feelings about Zoe Kravitz as Catwoman. The character has been portrayed so badly in films since the 1980's that anything would be an improvement. Her looks don't completely match the character, but her personality aptly matches Selina Kyle in the 1990 comics. She's miles better than Michelle Pfeiffer, Halle Berry and Anne Hathaway. I'm still waiting for the perfect  portrayal of Catwoman on screen.

As for Robert Pattinson in the title role, I can sum him up in one sentence: He's a great Batman but a bad Bruce Wayne. He's the best dark Batman there's ever been. He's aloof and truly frightening. He earns the title Dark Knight more than Christian Bale ever did. He deserves to play the role for years to come. I've read that this is the start of a new Batman trilogy, but three films aren't enough. And yet, he doesn't capture the essence of Bruce Wayne. I had a bad feeling the first time I saw him in a trailer, and the film reinforced my feelings. On the other hand, we see very little of Bruce Wayne in the film. Even when he's not wearing his costume, he's talking about Batman stuff with his butler.

Some people have complained that the film's too long. I find it just right. The action is thrilling, making it one of the most exciting films of the year. And almost everything takes place at night. This intensifies the atmosphere. I look forward to watching the film again.

Looper (4½ Stars)

This film has a premise that's ridiculously illogical, but it succeeds because of the story written on top of the premise and the excellent acting. Any film with Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt has to be good, doesn't it? They both play the same character, which stretches credibility. I'll explain the reason below.

The film takes place in Kansas in 2044. I would have preferred them to say "the near future" than name a year, but I'll let it go. In the future (i.e. some time after 2044) time travel has been invented, but it's been outlawed. That's understandable. If everyone could travel into the past to change events there would be chaos. A criminal gang in the year 2074 is using time travel discreetly for its own advantage. It's difficult to cover up murder in the future, so if they want to kill someone they send someone into the past, bound and hooded, to be executed by a waiting hitman on arrival. The payment for the execution is made in silver bars strapped to the victim's back.

Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is one of the hired killers, called Loopers. The reason for the name is that at the end of a person's contract he has to kill his future self. The payment is in gold bars, after which he can do whatever he wants for the next 30 years. At this point he'll be captured and sent back into the past to be executed. That's the loop.

That's a tidy system, until Joe's future self (Bruce Willis) arrives from the future. He's spent years training, so he manages to avoid being shot. He goes on the run, and young Joe is sentenced to death for not doing his job. Young Joe goes on the run as well, and eventually the two Joes find one another.

Old Joe wants to work together with young Joe to kill the future gang leader while he's still a child. It's not certain who he is, so he's going to kill all the children on a small list. (Does that remind you of "Terminator"?) Young Joe disagrees with killing children, so he goes to war with his older self. They're fighting against one another, not together as suggested by the poster.

By being in the past, everything old Joe does changes time, including changing his own memories. This puts young Joe at a disadvantage. Whenever young Joe goes somewhere to search for his older self, old Joe immediately remembers it and hides somewhere else.

Maybe you can already see what the problems with the premise are. I'll name a few points. You might be able to think of others.

It's said that the problem in the future (2074) is disposing of bodies. Why not kill the person and send his corpse into the past? That would eliminate the need for a hitman in the past. All that would be necessary is an undertaker. Alternatively, the corpse could be sent back into a cage with wild animals waiting for food.

Why should the hitmen be expected to kill themselves? Someone else could be given the job, making it less personal.

In fact, why shouldn't a hitman from the future be sent back to perform the executions? That would be much tidier.

Success Rate:  + 3.9

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

Okja (4 Stars)

"Never mistranslate. Translations are sacred".

This is a South Korean film, with some of the dialogue in English. It's distributed exclusively by Netflix, so if you weren't lucky enough to see it on the big screen during its original release, it's too late now. Some Netflix films are released on Blu-ray, but not "Okja".

The Mirando corporation has created genetically modified giant pigs in order to solve world hunger and make a profit. They know that the public is opposed to genetically modified food, so they claim that the pigs are offsprings of a rare type of pig found in the wild. To win popularity for their pigs a lengthy promotional campaign is staged. 26 piglets are sent to farmers around the world, and after 10 years the most beautiful pigs will be selected for breeding.

The film is centred around Okja, a female pig raised by an old farmer in the mountains of Korea. He doesn't have to do much, because the pig has been adopted by his granddaughter Mija. For her Okja is more than a farmyard animal, she's a pet, even a friend.

After 10 years Okja is collected to be taken back to America. This is devastating for Mija. She attempts to prevent this happening, and she has unexpected allies. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) attacks the transport convoy and attempts to steal Okja.

A lot of people don't like CGI in films, but this is an example of CGI making the film what it is. The giant pig has been perfectly crafted by the film's special effects engineers, and it looks so sweet and lovable. Okja is the real star of the film, and Okja's co-star is Ahn Seo-hyun, who was 13 when the film was made. The big names in the film, Jake Gyllenhaal, Tilda Swinton and Paul Dano, only appear in minor roles.

It's worth pointing out that Jake Gyllenhaal plays a very untypical role for him, as the obnoxious television host Dr. Johnny Wilcox. We can't help but hate him whenever he appears on the screen.

Success Rate:  - 23.8

There will be blood (4½ Stars)

I think that in all my years of writing this blog there has never been a film that I've felt less able to review. The story is awe-inspiring, and the acting by the two lead characters, Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano, is overwhelming. The trouble is that it has depths that I'm unable to describe.

The film is about Daniel Plainview, an oilman (the word he uses to describe himself) at the beginning of the 20th Century. After drilling for oil in a few small oil fields, he finally discovers a large oilfield in the land surrounding the small town Little Boston in California. It's poor farming land, so the settlers are prepared to sell cheap, but the local pastor, Eli Sunday, insists on receiving more money for his church, the Church of the Third Revelation. Over the next 25 years a rivalry develops between the two men. The presence of oil in the community leads to greater prosperity in the town, very little money out of Daniel's pocket, but enough to make the townspeople feel grateful. Eli Sunday continues to give the community spiritual blessings.

The film's strength is in the portrayal of the two men. Daniel is a greedy man seeking wealth. As the Bible says, "The love of money is the root of all evil" (1. Timothy 6:10), but he's not purely evil. There are some shimmers of goodness in him, although the good in him fades away as he becomes richer. Eli is doubtlessly a good man who wants to serve God, but he isn't perfect, and it's mostly his relationship with Daniel that brings out the bad in him. Eli is jealous of Daniel's position in the community, and he's also jealous of Daniel's wealth, as much as he tries to suppress it. This comes to a peak in the Great Depression when Daniel is living off his wealth and Eli has lost all his money.

Money and religion. Religion and money. The two are awkward bedfellows. When the two combine there are always problems. Money is necessary to live, as any Christian preacher will admit, but money appeals to the human heart, begging to be loved. The Christian soon loves money more than his God without even realising it. It's not even necessary to be rich to love money. Poor people can love money just as much.

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

Swiss Army Man (4 Stars)

I went to see this film at the Metropol cinema in Stuttgart today. It's fortunate that I live in Germany, as far as films go. This is the second Daniel Radcliffe film in a row that's been boycotted by UK cinemas. The first was "Imperium". Maybe people who lived in London had a chance to see them, but my friends who live in the tiny little town Birmingham missed out on these two films, each remarkable in its own way.

The film starts with a man on a deserted island. He calls himself  Hank, although as we later find out that's not his real name. It's not clear how long he's been there, but he's in a state of depression. He's about to hang himself when he sees a corpse washed up on the beach. He tries to revive the corpse by giving it the kiss of life, but it's too late. When the corpse farts Hank thinks that there's some life left in it, so he takes the corpse back to the beach and they become friends.

Note: I did some research on the subject, and corpses really do fart, especially if they've been in the water.

This is a buddy movie of a different kind. Two men bond after meeting under extreme circumstances. The only problem is that one man is alive and the other is dead. Hank talks to the corpse as he carries him around the island. After a while the corpse talks back and introduces himself as Manny. It's not giving anything away to say that the corpse is only talking in Hank's imagination. Hank sees Manny as only half dead and thinks he can reanimate him by encouraging him to talk about his previous life. Hank even dresses as a woman whose photo he finds on Manny's mobile phone and teaches Manny how to flirt with her.

It's a ridiculous comedy, but it does have a serious side. Hank and Manny engage in conversations about the meaning of life, raising many important questions. Towards the end of the film there are some surprises, i.e. plot twists, that tell the audience that things weren't exactly as Hank portrayed them in his conversations. Was he imagining them, in the same way that he saw Manny as alive, or deliberately lying to his new friend? That's not certain. Watch it for yourself and make up your own mind.

I still haven't decided what I think about Paul Dano as an actor. He's been in a few films, but the first time I paid attention to him was in his role as Brian Wilson in "Love & Mercy", one of the best films of 2015. It's not easy to judge him on his goofy role as Hank in "Swiss Army Man". I'll watch out for him in the future. If anything, the best actor in this film is Daniel Radcliffe, especially in the scenes where he isn't talking and he's only a corpse.

Love & Mercy (5 Stars)

This is a film about the musician Brian Wilson, told in parallel in two phases, his life in the 1960's and his life in the 1980's. The dates are never explicitly stated, but it seems like the main periods dealt with by the film are 1964 to 1966 and 1986 to 1988. Brian Wilson is played by two different actors, Paul Dano as Brian Wison in his early twenties and John Cusack as Brian Wilson in his late forties. Before I saw the film I thought that using different actors would detract from the realism, but it works very well. People's appearances do change over a period of time. I know that from my own experience. In my early childhood I had white hair, in my late teens my hair was yellowy blond, in my thirties my hair was dark blond, almost brown, and now I shave my head to hide the size of my bald patch.

The film opens with the Beach Boys already at the height of their fame. It was a family group: Brian Wilson, his brothers Dennis and Carl, a cousin and a childhood friend. From the beginning Brian was the driving force. He wrote the songs and the Beach Boys performed them. On stage Carl Wilson was the more dominant personality. This was just as well, because Brian said that live performances were too stressing for him, and he decided to stay at home while the group was touring. His strength lay in creating new songs in the studio, not in performing them on stage.

Brian's time away from the band allowed him to record "Pet Sounds" with session musicians. This was released as a Beach Boys album, but it was effectively Brian Wilson's first solo album, since the other band members added almost nothing to it, musically or vocally. Surprisingly, it was their least successful album. I say "surprisingly", because I'm used to it being regarded as their best album. I don't understand why it took so long to become popular. Maybe it's because the American public associated the Beach Boys with surfing music, and "Pet Sounds" was too different for them to accept straight away.

Behind closed doors not everything was so positive. Brian Wilson heard voices in his head, which was made even worse when he experimented with LSD and other drugs. His father, who had produced the band's first few albums, hated Brian's new music and said so in unpleasant ways.

In the 1980's we see Brian Wilson under the control of Dr. Eugene Landy, a domineering psychiatrist who lived with Brian and had taken complete control of his life. Dr. Landy's treatment had made Brian active again after a period of three years spent in bed, but as we see, he wasn't happy. People who know about Brian Wilson probably know what happened next, but I shan't say any more to leave it as a surprise for those who still haven't seen the film.

This is an incredible film, whether or not you consider yourself a Beach Boys fan. The atmosphere of the past decades is perfectly recreated, the happy 60's and the dismal 80's. It feels like we're living in the past. Both actors who play Brian Wilson give first class performances, but in my opinion it's Paul Dano who stands out. The film has been tipped as a contender for the Best Film at next year's Academy Awards, and I can see why.

The real life Brian Wilson, who is now 73, has praised the film for its accuracy, especially in the portrayal of his mental illness in the 1960's. Compare this with other biopics like "Foxcatcher", which Mark Schultz criticised for its inaccuracy. For some of the scenes the original locations were used, such as the recording studios which the Beach Boys actually used. Paul Giamatti bases his portrayal of Dr. Eugene Landy on surviving film footage of the eccentric doctor, both his speech patterns and his mannerisms. "Love & Mercy" is more than a piece of entertainment, it's a respectful tribute to Brian Wilson's life.

I'd like to add a few personal thoughts, based on my impression of Dr. Eugene Landy, pictured above with Brian Wilson (the real people, not the actors). Mental illnesses do exist, and psychiatrists are necessary to treat them, but in my opinion there should be more stringent controls on what psychiatrists are doing. It's true that Dr. Landy was an extreme case, but it happens more often than people think. I too spent 17 months in the hands of an abusive psychiatrist, Dr. Jeremy Kenney-Herbert.

My closer friends already know about this, but I'll give some brief details here. In 2000 I was suffering from depression.after a relationship break-up. I was caught up in a vicious circle. The depression caused me to lose my job, and I was refused unemployment benefits, so I ended up sleeping on the streets, which made me even more depressed. An Anglican priest advised me to commit a small crime, because being in prison would give me free food and board. I couldn't do this, because I have a natural aversion to breaking the law.

One day I witnessed a man committing a violent assault. I saw a chance to be arrested without committing a crime. When the police came I confessed to the assault and they arrested me. Unfortunately, I'm not a very good liar. After three hours of questioning they were convinced it wasn't me and sent me back onto the streets. I kept up my story in the hope that I would be re-arrested, but it never happened. After telling my story to a G.P. I visited, Dr. Benn in Ladywood, I was referred to Dr. Kenney-Herbert, and I was admitted to a mental hospital. That was fantastic. A comfortable room, three meals a day and nice people to talk to.

The first 10 days were okay. Then I was transferred to another hospital, and the worst time of my life began. Imagine the situation. There were 12 patients on the ward. 11 of them were young (under 35), black and violent. Then there was me. They noticed straight away that I didn't fit in. A rumour spread that I was an undercover policeman, and I was frequently beat up. I don't blame Dr. Kenney-Herbert for considering me to be violent when he first met me. After all, that was what I told him. But after my admittance into hospital he requested details about me from the police. He read the police report, but nobody else in the hospital ever saw it, because it was "lost". It's obvious that after reading the report he realised his mistake, but rather than admitting to it he tried to cover it up. I stuck to my story for two weeks after my admittance into hospital. (After my initial arrest and release I was put on bail for 7 weeks, so I continued to claim to be guilty for this time. After the 7 weeks were over I admitted that I had lied about it).

I had difficulty making out Dr. Kenny-Herbert's motives. At first I thought he was incompetent in the way he treated me, but as time progressed I realised he was malicious. He wanted me to be attacked by the other patients, hoping that I would retaliate, because that would prove to everyone that I was violent. After months of mistreatment without retaliation he tried a different tactic. He claimed that the only reason I got into so many fights was because I was attacking the other patients first.

It was obvious that Dr. Kenney-Herbert wanted to keep me locked up for the rest of my life. He might have succeeded, if I hadn't been extremely lucky. He was transferred temporarily for six months. The psychiatrist who replaced him, Dr. Russell, read my files and immediately noticed something was wrong. He interviewed me at length two days in a row. At the end of the second interview he asked me, "Do you know why you're in this hospital?" I replied "No", to which he answered, "Neither do I. Let's see about getting you out as quickly as possible".

So it isn't just Dr. Eugene Landy. Other psychiatrists such as Dr. Jeremy Kenney-Herbert can be just as malicious, doing everything they can to harm the patients in their care. This is wrong. I was helpless. I was vulnerable. I was suffering from depression and unable to defend myself. In fact, all my time in hospital I never received any treatment for depression. If anything, my state of mind deteriorated while I was in hospital, and I didn't start to recover until I was released.

Gigantic (1½ Stars)

Brian Weathersby works in a store selling luxury Swedish beds. Ever since he was young his dream has been to adopt a Chinese baby. He's been fighting with the authorities for years, because they don't think that he's suitable as a single man. In walks Happy Lolly, the spoilt daughter of a rich father. She buys the most expensive bed in his store, then falls asleep on it. They begin an awkward relationship. Neither of them have ever dated anyone, despite being in their 20's.

The film is called "Gigantic", and it was a gigantic flop. It earned less than $200,000 at the box office. I'm hardly surprised. I found the film dull from beginning to end. The attempts at humour failed. The drama of parental isolation didn't move me. The only action was when Brian killed a homeless man in self defence, but this scene seemed pointless in the context of the film. It's not worth watching.

Knight and Day [Guest Writer] (4 Stars)

June Havens (Cameron Diaz) finds her everyday life tangled with that of a secret agent (Tom Cruise) who has realized he isn't supposed to survive his latest mission. As their campaign to stay alive stretches across the globe, they soon learn that all they can count on is each other.

I had some mixed feelings about this movie if I'm to be honest because I'm a bit biased against the starring actors. I'm not the hugest fan of Tom. I think his acting is somewhat bland although I have a few scenes from a few good movies that I have enjoyed him in. Cameron Diaz is a sweetheart and I loved her from the moment that I saw her in "There's Something About Mary". I think everyone saw that film and fell just a tiny touch in love with Diaz and her quirky, off-brand sense of humor. This movie kind of felt like it was half serious and half humorous, meshing these two characters and actor personalities together. I'm not sure if it was meant to be completely funny or completely serious or maybe just meant to be what it turned out to be but whatever the case is, it was a pretty nice film. I have to admit there were some times where I was scratching my head and wondering what the heck was going on as Tom did his shifty spy work trying to be secretive since we are pretty much seeing this movie from Diaz's perspective so we are about as clueless as she is throughout the film. There were also parts that had me laughing up a storm as Diaz went through her silly antics and shaking my head saying, "Oh Cameron, you're so crazy!" Overall a pretty good film with a bit of love, laughter and action. No complaints here.

Cowboys & Aliens [Guest Writer] (5 Stars)

This is the movie that I have been waiting for all of my life! I've always wondered how those from the past would react to things of the future and this movie brings it all including some great ass-kicking with a hint of macho male bonding.

So the story: The Old West.. where a lone cowboy leads an uprising against a terror from beyond our world. 1873. Arizona Territory. A stranger with no memory of his past stumbles into the hard desert town of Absolution. The only hint to his history is a mysterious shackle that encircles one wrist. What he discovers is that the people of Absolution don't welcome strangers, and nobody makes a move on its streets unless ordered to do so by the iron-fisted Colonel Dolarhyde (Ford). It's a town that lives in fear. But Absolution is about to experience fear it can scarcely comprehend as the desolate city is attacked by marauders from the sky. Screaming down with breathtaking velocity and blinding lights to abduct the helpless one by one, these monsters challenge everything the residents have ever known. Now, the stranger they rejected is their only hope for salvation. As this gunslinger slowly starts to remember who he is and where he's been, he realizes he holds a secret that could give the town a fighting chance against the alien force. With the help of the elusive traveler Ella (Olivia Wilde), he pulls together a posse comprised of former opponents-townsfolk, Dolarhyde and his boys, outlaws and Apache warriors-all in danger of annihilation. United against a common enemy, they will prepare for an epic showdown for survival.

So why did I love this movie besides the initial premise of the story? The acting was well done and it had some of my favorite actors in it including Ford, Wilde, and Craig. I liked Craig ever since he was cast as the new "Bond", Wilde since I saw her act in the hit series "House" and of course Ford for his iconic character Indiana Jones. With this wonderful cast I was hard pressed not to take a peek at this movie and I wasn't disappointed. I love movies that go back to the past but I also love movies that give a different perspective of what could've happened if something unexpected was introduced. I'm kind of surprised that the characters took the idea of such an advanced civilization and strange culture so well - well after the shooting, screaming and praying. Haha. All in all, this is a movie that I would recommend to everyone. The pace in the beginning was a little slow for my taste but if things were left up to me they would've started right in the middle of a battle so I guess every story needs it's introduction. Great movie!