Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

Steven Spielberg faced an impossible task with "The Lost World" (shortening the title). How do you follow one of the greatest blockbusters ever made? Instead of trying to recreate the magic, he made a darker, nastier and more chaotic film. Sometimes it works brilliantly. Sometimes it reminds you exactly why the original is untouchable.

The biggest difference is the tone. "Jurassic Park" was full of awe and wonder. Every dinosaur reveal felt magical, and even the terrifying moments were balanced by humour and a sense of adventure. "The Lost World" strips most of that away. Isla Sorna is a much harsher place, where humans aren't simply trying to survive but are exploiting the dinosaurs for profit. The film feels less like an adventure and more like a survival thriller.

Jeff Goldblum steps into the lead role as Ian Malcolm, and he carries the film with his trademark sarcasm and nervous energy. Malcolm is a very different hero from Sam Neill's Alan Grant. Grant gradually became brave because he had to. Malcolm spends most of the film desperately trying to convince everyone else that they're making a terrible mistake. Goldblum is entertaining throughout, but Grant remains the more satisfying protagonist.

The dinosaurs are even more convincing than before. Advances in CGI and animatronics make the creatures feel heavier, faster and more dangerous. Spielberg stages several unforgettable set pieces, especially the trailer hanging over the cliff and the attack through the long grass. These scenes rank alongside anything in the first film for pure suspense.

Where "The Lost World" struggles is its characters. Too many exist simply to become dinosaur food, and few leave much of an impression. The first film gave us characters we genuinely cared about, making every close encounter more suspenseful. Here, the spectacle often takes priority over emotional investment.

The final act remains the film's most controversial decision. Bringing a Tyrannosaurus Rex to San Diego turns the film into a giant monster movie, echoing King Kong and classic creature features. It's undeniably entertaining, but it also feels disconnected from everything that came before. Personally, I love its audacity, though I'm aware that others think differently.

Ultimately, "Jurassic Park: The Lost World" is bigger, louder and more action-packed than its predecessor. The dinosaurs are better, the action scenes are more elaborate and the danger feels more relentless. Yet it loses the sense of discovery, believable characters and perfect balance that made "Jurassic Park" a masterpiece.

It's an excellent sequel that dares to be different instead of repeating the original. That's admirable. But while it delivers some of the series' greatest action sequences, it never captures the wonder that made us fall in love with dinosaurs in the first place.

Success Rate:  + 6.5

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

Inception (5 Stars)

In my opinion, this is Christopher Nolan's best film. It has mind-bending concepts of being in a dream inside a dream inside a dream inside a dream, and yet the story is never difficult to follow. That is to say, it isn't difficult to follow until the final scene. When Dom Cobb finally wakes up from his nested dreams and returns to his children, is he really awake, or is he still in a dream above all the other dreams?

Dom uses a spinning top to check whether he's in reality or a dream. In dreams the top spins indefinitely, in reality it stops spinning after a while and falls over. He spins the top at the end of the film, and the film cuts out before we see whether it continues spinning or not. Many fans of the film have asked Christopher Nolan whether the top stops spinning or not. His responses are always evasive, and rightfully so. If he'd wanted there to be a clear answer, he'd have put it in the film.

The answer is that it doesn't matter. Dom wants to be back with his children, and when he's with them it doesn't matter whether it's reality or a dream. All that matters is that he's happy. But what most viewers don't notice is the way Dom spins the top. Usually he spins it, then sits and watches the result. This time is different. He spins the top, then walks away. He doesn't want to see the result. What the director is saying is that Dom himself doesn't want to know whether it's a dream or not. If it doesn't matter to him, why should it matter to us?

Do I personally have an opinion whether he's in reality or a dream? No, I don't. There's evidence to support both answers. The main evidence for reality is the complexity of the architecture. Dom flies from one country to another, whereas the manufactured dream architecture is always a confined area. The main evidence for a dream is the way his children are dressed. They have the identical clothes to the ones in his dream, and they're playing in the same garden. I'm sure that Christopher Nolan planted these contradictory clues to keep us guessing.

Success Rate:  + 3.2

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

In the Name of the Father (5 Stars)

True Stories #2

Name: Gerry Conlon

Lived: 1 March 1954 – 21 June 2014

Film shows: June 1974 – 19 October 1989

Film made in 1993

This is the second in my series of true stories that I'll be reviewing over the next two months. I gave a lot of thought to the ordering of the films. Should they be chronological, based on the birth date of the people? Should they be alphabetical, based on their names? Should I alternate between men and women? In the end I decided that the order should just be random. The trouble with any order I choose is that if I add a film at the end of the series it will be out of order. At present I have a list of 40 films, but it's possible that I'll add a film or remove one during the month. Actually, it's not a list; I have a box containing all the films I intend to watch in my room. In the cellar I have a small pile of the films that didn't make the list, and every time I look at it I wonder if it was right to omit them.

My regular readers know that I'm English. Some of you might know that I'm a patriotic Englishman, and my patriotism has been strengthened by living most of my adult life abroad. (I currently live in Germany). However, "In the Name of the Father" shows events that make me feel ashamed to be English. I don't deny what happened. I'm not naive enough to say it could never happen again. They were events which I speak about with deep shame.

Gerry Conlon was a young man who lived in Belfast, Northern Ireland. The 1970's were a time euphemistically called the Troubles. The Roman Catholic minority of Northern Ireland was seeking to become independent of the United Kingdom and become a part of the Irish Republic. The Protestant majority of Northern Ireland wanted to remain in the United Kingdom. A year earlier, in 1973, there was a referendum about whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom. An overwhelming majority of 98.9% voted to remain in the UK, but the people of Belfast, mostly Catholic, rejected the result.

Why would Belfast's citizens reject democracy? I have Irish Catholic friends who all say the same thing. They claim that in the 17th Century Scottish settlers arrived in Ireland. They were Protestants. The Irish Catholics claim that the Protestants in Northern Ireland aren't Irish, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Today, 300 years later, they don't consider themselves to be Scottish. They call themselves Irish. All I can say about this is that the Scottish were never sent to Ireland by the government, and Ireland wasn't forced to accept them. They were people who moved voluntarily. Immigration has always happened, often in large numbers. For instance, last century large numbers of Pakistanis settled in English cities like Birmingham and Bradford. Their children and grandchildren were born in England and have British citizenship, even if they still feel culturally connected to Pakistan. Is that a reason to exclude them from voting? Only the most extreme racists would answer Yes.

While I lived in America I discovered that the Americans don't understand the Irish conflict. They see the Catholic protesters on television and assume that all of Ireland is being oppressed by the British conquerors. Curiously, Protestant Irish who live in America also support the unification of Northern Ireland with the Irish Republic. I don't understand this. Maybe as second and third generation immigrants in America they feel more linked to their fellow countrymen than to their religion.

Now let's get back to the film again. Gerry Conlon was a young man who lived in Belfast. He was a petty thief, stealing lead from rooftops to sell it as scrap metal. While he was on a roof the British army mistook him for a sniper and fired at him. This started a riot. The IRA threatened to shoot him, so his father sent him to London for his own safety. He should have gone to live with his aunt, but on the ferry he bumped into a friend, Paul Hill, and went with him to stay with a hippy commune.

Things didn't go well in the commune. Some of them were prejudiced against the Irish. As a result, he and Paul were soon back on the streets. Gerry broke into a prostitute's apartment and stole her money. This enabled them to stay in a hotel. After this he returned to Belfast, while Paul remained in London. The night when Gerry stole the prostitute's money was 5th October 1974, the night of a pub bombing in Guildford. Gerry's arrival in England before the bombing and his departure soon afterwards was considered suspicious enough for him to be arrested. Gerry was taken to London in a military plane to be interrogated. His father travelled to London to support him, where he was also arrested, along with Gerry's aunt and her whole family. Paul Hill and two other members of the commune were also arrested.

Gerry and Paul were tortured by the police. Paul signed a blank piece of paper after a gun was put in his mouth. Gerry also signed a blank piece of paper after a policeman threatened to shoot his father. These statements were valid evidence in court, so they were both sentenced to life imprisonment. Gerry was eligible for parole after 30 years, Paul wasn't. The film doesn't explain why Paul Hill was considered the more serious criminal.

The rest of the film deals with Gerry's years in prison. We see him sharing a cell with his father. We don't see Paul Hill or his family members again until the end of the film.

The torture is bad enough, but there were other injustices. A homeless man in the park was interviewed and informed the police that Gerry was with him at the time of the bombing. This evidence was hidden in the police records with a note saying "Do not show to the defence". I could almost have forgiven the police for making a mistake and arresting the wrong man. That happens often enough. What I can't forgive is that the police knew he was innocent, but they put him on trial anyway. It wasn't until 15 years later that he was finally released after the critical interview was found.

I understand what happened. A bomb in a pub a few miles from London enraged the public. They demanded justice. The police needed to punish someone to calm the public anger. They arrested the first suspects they could find. The police inspector Richard Dixon was under pressure to put someone on trial. In the final scenes we see him conferring with an unnamed elderly man. A politician? A senior civil servant? It's not explained, but it suggests that he was acting on the orders of someone important.

I'd like to say something about historical inaccuracies in this film and in true stories in general. There are three different reasons for inaccuracies:

1. Mistakes

I'm not aware of any mistakes in this film. It was made in 1993, only four years after the events in the final scenes took place, so I assume that the director knew what he was doing.

2. Dramatization

There's one big inaccuracy in this film. Gerry didn't share a prison cell with his father. They weren't even in the same prison. The director says that the change was deliberate. He wanted to show the relationship between Gerry and his father. He also wanted to show that his father was a good non-violent man. The IRA were planting bombs, and the British army was driving tanks through the streets of Belfast, but Giuseppe Conlon was a quiet, hard working man who wanted his children to lead a good life. It's remarkable that he was angry with his son for stealing from a prostitute, despite the much bigger charges facing him.

Apart from this, the second half of the film would have been boring if we'd only seen Gerry sitting alone in his cell. That's what dramatization is about. It makes a film more interesting.

3. Protection of individuals

Police Inspector Richard Dixon doesn't exist. I'm sure that he's based on a real police officer who interviewed Gerry Conlon, but his name has been changed. This police officer performed terrible crimes, but he was never put on trial for his offences. We all know the saying "Innocent until proven guilty". If the film had named the police officer, he could have sued the director and possibly the film studios for slander. Personally, I wish he'd been named and shamed, but I understand why he wasn't.

"In the Name of the Father" is a stunning film. It's chilling to see how disgraceful the British legal system acted in the 1970's. Let it be a lesson to us all. May it never happen again. I hope not, but there's one thing that worries me. The film is available on disc in America, Germany and many other countries, but not in the UK, the country where it's most relevant. It's been brushed under the carpet. Does someone somewhere want the events in this film to be forgotten? It's unclear who first said "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it", but it's a true statement. I strongly recommend this film to everyone, especially to patriotic Englishmen like me.

Success Rate:  + 3.1

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.de

Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #11

The correct name of this film is "The Lost World: Jurassic Park", but I've turned it around. I think my alternative title makes more sense. If you object to this, you can leave me a comment complaining about it, but only if your name is Steven Spielberg.

I shan't go into too many details about the plot, because I'm sure all my readers have seen it. It's one of the films most commonly shown on television. It was made in 1997, four years after the first film, and the story itself takes place four years later. Dr. Hammond is still nominally the head of InGen, the company that genetically recreated the dinosaurs, but his health is failing, so the board of directors has given his nephew the power to run the company.

"Lost World" (as I prefer to call it) has more action than the first film. There's no need for further exegesis about where the dinosaurs come from. The first film explained everything. Apart from John Hammond, who we only see briefly at the beginning and end of the film, the only character who returns from the first film is Dr. Ian Malcolm. Hammond sends him on a mission to Isla Sorna, the breeding ground for the Jurassic Park dinosaurs. He's accompanied by the palaeontologist Dr. Sarah Harding, the cameraman Nick van Owen and the engineer Eddie Carr. The first two are presented in great details in the character development section, but we don't get to know Eddie Carr. This is a hint that he'll be killed soon.

That's Eddie in the middle. Rest In Pieces.

Sarah Harding. I can't help feeling that she's a last minute replacement for Laura Dern as the palaeobotanist Ellie Sattler in the first film. They have similar personalities, even though their careers are different.

This is Dr. Malcolm's daughter Kelly, who stows away on the mission. There's not much of a family resemblance, as Eddie remarks when he sees them together. Steven Spielberg needs to plant children in his action films, just as Stephen King puts children in his horror stories.

Camilla Belle was only 10 years old when she appeared in a small role in "Lost World". Since then she's appeared in more than 20 films, and she's also directed a few films. She likes cute little dinosaurs. It's not named in the film, but it's a Compsognathus. Does that knowledge make you any smarter?

The film's cinematography is darker than the first film's, underlining the darker subject matter. More scenes take place at night, but even in the daytime the colours are darker.

Unfortunately, this was the last film in the Jurassic Park franchise directed by Steven Spielberg. None of the following films live up to the quality of the first two films. On the other hand, there's a steady increase in the quality of the computer graphics as technology improved. "Jurassic Park 3" has the best graphics, even though the overall film quality is inferior.

As for a comparison of the first two films, I'm not sure I placed them in the right order. Maybe "Jurassic Park" is better? I don't know. I like the structure of "Lost World", with an epilogue that takes place in San Diego after the main part that takes place on the island of Isla Sonar. It reminds me of "King Kong".

Success Rate:  + 6.5

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

Inception (5 Stars)

"Inception" is an incredible film, and I'll start off by saying that it should have been included in my top 100 films list. It's unforgivable that I forgot it. It was directed by Christopher Nolan, who has a certain cult status today. He's well known for making films that show mind-bending views of reality. I own 10 of the 11 films he's directed. Many of his fans are so devoted to him that they buy all his films unquestioningly. I'm more selective, in his case anyway. The only directors whose films I buy without needing to see them first are Sion Sono, Zhang Yimou, Quentin Tarantino and Alex de la Iglesia. They're directors who have never disappointed me.

"Inception" is about a group of extractors, as they're called in the film. They enter a person's dream to extract knowledge that the person would never reveal while awake. This would be an interesting enough story in itself, but Christopher Nolan further complicates it by inroducing the concept of dreams within dreams.

The film follows the team as they try something more difficult. Instead of retrieving something from a person's mind, they want to implant a thought that will influence his decisions when he wakes up.

But getting back to my initial statements, blunders like this omission show how difficult it is to make a top 100 film list. I'll never attempt another list like this again.

Success Rate:  + 3.2

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

Clash of the Titans [2010] (4 Stars)

It's getting very difficult for me to write reviews at the moment. The people I'm living with are panicking. The first Coronavirus case has been reported in the village where I live. As a result a doctor's surgery has had to be closed until the staff have been tested.

People are afraid of dying. Why? I don't see any logic in the fear of death. If you're a religious person, you know what's going to happen after you die, so you can make plans for it today. To use religious jargon, "Get right with God".

If you're an atheist, you know that there's nothing after death. Dead is dead, so why worry about it? If you die you won't even know you're dead.

Maybe the problem is that you believe in a fickle, unpredictable God waiting for you after your death. That's the situation in "Clash of the Titans". Zeus created man, and he even says that he loves man, but he's selfish and does what he wants. So the crops fail two years in a row, even though the farmers prayed to him? Sorry, he was too busy chasing virgins to listen to prayers. And when you die you're in the hands of Hades, a cruel God who's fuelled only by his hatred for Zeus.

But nobody believes in Zeus and Hades today, do they? Maybe the trouble is that people don't know what they believe. People in the West have abandoned their faith in Christianity, but they're worried it might really be true. They get sentimental and feel religious when they walk into a beautiful church for a wedding, but the feeling wears off the next week at work.

"Clash of the Titans" is about a war between the man and the Gods. It's not that people don't believe in the Gods, they just don't want to obey them any more. The film's hero, Perseus, fights against the Gods, even though Zeus is his father. Would I have followed Perseus? That's the question I asked myself while watching the film. I think not. I would have followed the Gods, but it wouldn't have been blind devotion. I wouldn't have fought the Gods, but I would have attempted to educate the Gods. I would have told them to listen to mankind instead of partying all day long.

Maybe I'm someone who ought to be afraid of death. I'm an agnostic, someone who doesn't know what's after death. I'm still not worried. If there's a God waiting for me, he needs me to educate Him. (Or Her. Or Them). He needs me to tell Him what He's been doing wrong.

The first time I watched this film I thought it was almost as good as the original 1981 version. Today I changed my mind. It's a very slick, polished film with high quality special effects, but it's lacking the naive beauty of the original. In the original version, Perseus is rewarded for his labours by being allowed to marry Princess Andromeda of Argos. In the remake he turns his back on her, having fallen in love with Gemma Arterton as Io. I think my readers know which choice I would have made.

Success Rate:  + 1.9

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

Inception (5 Stars)

The last time I watched "Inception" in October 2014 I said I would probably write a longer review the next time I watched it. I'm sorry. Maybe next time. This is an excellent film, one of my favourite films ever, but it's difficult to write about.

Success Rate:  + 3.2

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

Clash of the Titans [2010] (4½ Stars)

It's taken me a long time to get round to watching this film. It was strongly recommended by my guest writer Kaylena in her review, but I was still reluctant to watch it. The problem is that I love Ray Harryhausen's version so much. For me it's perfection that can't be improved upon. On the other hand, the new version stars Gemma Arterton in one of her early films before she quit Hollywood, which is a reason to watch any film. It's not just her beauty and grace. She has acting skills which set her far above her peers.

Any doubts I had about the quality of the film were washed away within the first five minutes. The cinematography and special effects are perfect, as realistic as computer graphics can make them. Forgive me if it sounds blasphemous, but my first thought was "This is the sort of film Ray Harryhausen would make if he'd been born 50 years later". The flying horse, the Djinn, the winged monsters -- whatever they're called -- they all looked perfect.

Unfortunately, I found that the final scene was a letdown. I don't know what happened, why the portrayal of the Kraken was so disappointing. Maybe the special effects budget had run out by the end of the film. Maybe the director thought that an overpowering, invincible monster would be better portrayed by close ups with only a few complete  shots. Whatever the reason was, I'm disappointed. Compare the two Krakens:

Ray Harryhausen's 1981 Kraken.

The 2010 Kraken.

Do you see what I mean? Even though the older version is obviously a model, it looks more terrifying. It looks more real. Surely today's computers could have done a better job.

I think I detected something of a message in the film. Some of the dialogue seemed to be referring to religion in general, including today's Christianity, not just to the ancient Greek Gods. I'm not certain. Next time I watch it I'll pay attention to this aspect, and I might write something about it.

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

Brassed Off (5 Stars)

Like "Tamara Drewe", "Brassed Off" is a film about a woman who returns to her home town after a long absence. As in "Tamara Drewe" the woman's looks have improved greatly while she was away. In both films the woman drives the men crazy when she returns. That seems to be a popular theme in British films.

Tara Fitzgerald plays Gloria Mullins, a woman who left the north England industrial town Grimley to go to university. After that she took a job at British Coal as an administrative worker. In 1994, after an absence of 10 years, she's sent to Grimley to write a report on the profitability of the Grimley Coal Mine. The Tory government has already decided to close the mine, so her report will never be read. It's just something that has to be done so that British Coal can't be accused of being unfair.

Even though the government has made the decision, the miners are given a chance to vote on it. If they vote to close the mine they'll be paid £23,000 severance pay. If they vote to keep the mine open the executives will decide, and if they decide to close the mine the miners will only receive £15,000 severance pay.

When I was younger I couldn't care less about coal mines. To me they were big dirty pits whose workers die young. Now that I'm older I have a sentimental attachment to them. Both of my grandfathers were miners. My father's father was a miner all his life. My mother's father was a miner in his early years, but he changed careers after the Second World War. First he owned a betting shop. After that he trained to be a nurse, and he worked in a mental hospital for the rest of his life. I regret that I don't know more about his life. I visited my grandparents a lot when I was a child, and he was a nurse all the time I knew him. I should have asked him more questions. My grandfather died when I was 16, my grandmother died when I was 22. Years later I asked my mother about them, and all that she said was, "Your grandfather was a very good man, but your grandmother was a wicked woman". That was it.

"Brassed Off" is a more complex film than "Tamara Drewe". There are different plots intertwined. It's a love story. It's a political story. It's a social drama. It's a film about music. All four factors are of equal importance, which is what makes the film so powerful. The film's title refers to the Grimley Colliery Brass Band. It's an all-male brass band made up of miners that has been in existence since 1881. In exceptional circumstances women and non-miners are allowed to be members, but only if they were born in Grimley. Gloria Mullins is such an exception. She's the granddaughter of Arthur Mullins, the best trumpet player who was ever in the band. As the only woman in the band she's the centre of attention.

All everyone talks about in Grimley is the closing of the coal mine. It's a poor town, and the mine is the only large employer. Nobody wants the mine to close, but they're afraid it will close anyway and are too afraid to vote against the closure. The only exception is the band's conductor, Danny Ormondroyd. For him music is all that matters. He says that even if the mine closes the band will continue to bring joy to the people of Grimley. His opinion isn't shared by the people who have difficulty putting food on the table.

I consider this to be the best film of Pete Postlethwaite's career. His naive enthusiasm for music is moving.

The film has so many other strengths. Apart from the perfect acting the scenery underlines the story. It's all about England, the working class England that I grew up in. I grew up in Walsall, not south Yorkshire where the fictional town of Grimley is located, but it's a similar town with similar streets. (The film was shot in Barnsley). Maybe the town is too English, which could be alienating to foreign viewers. I love it! I'm amazed that it was a box office failure. How could anyone not like this film?

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

Alien 3 (4 Stars)

There has always been something bugging me about the Alien films, something I couldn't quite put my finger on. Now I've finally figured out what it is. There's a lack of consistency in the atmosphere caused by the swapping and changing of the director from film to film. The first four films were directed by Ridley Scott, James Cameron, David Fincher and Jean-Pierre Jeunet in turn. Ridley Scott and James Cameron are excellent directors, as they've proved over and over again. David Fincher was an unusual choice to direct "Alien 3", because it was his first film. I don't know why the studios were willing to take such a risk giving a young man (only 29) the responsibility for such an important film. He claims that the film didn't turn out the way he wanted because the producers didn't have enough trust in him, but that's a typical trait of beginners: blame everyone else.

Picking Jean-Pierre Jeunet for the fourth film was an even more unusual choice. He had only handled small budget movies at the time. He was thrown in at the deep end, although I have to say that the film he made showed some quality, even if it veered off in a different direction, stylistically, from the first three films.

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

Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

This was the first film I saw in the cinema after moving to America. I had never watched "Jurassic Park" before this, but I caught up by borrowing it on video from Blockbuster before I went to see the sequel. From what I remember I read about "Jurassic Park" in the newspapers while I lived in Germany, but I didn't go to see it because I thought dinosaur films are boring. I could hardly have been more wrong. "Jurassic Park" is now in my list of 30 films to watch before you die. See the list in the sidebar, and watch them all. Even watch the films again if you've already seen some of them. You won't regret it. If you watch one film a day it'll be a month to remember.

Burger King seems to have been the primary corporate sponsor for "The Lost World" in America. All of the Burger King television ads in early 1997 featured dinosaurs. I ate at Burger King often while I was in America. The price of the food was approximately the same at McDonald's and Burger King, but I preferred the taste of the hamburgers from Burger King. What I liked most at McDonald's was the milk shake and the soft ice cream. What was particularly good was that a local supermarket had vouchers for a free Big King burger on the back of their receipts. I was very short of money when I first arrived in America, so I used to walk around the car park to see if anyone had left his receipt in his shopping trolley. There were always a few, so I could go to the nearest Burger King with a handful of vouchers and eat for free.

After returning to England I didn't visit Burger King as often. Unlike America, there's a big price difference between Burger King and McDonald's. Similar food at Burger King costs two to three times as much as the equivalent at McDonald's. But the Burger King food does taste better, so I occasionally go in for a meal. It's just a shame that there aren't any vouchers for free hamburgers.

Inception (5 Stars)

I can't believe that it's been three years since I watched this film. Why did I wait so long? It's brilliant. The action is amazing, but the mind-bending plot is so complex that you need a scorecard to keep up. Wonderful. Maybe I'll write a longer review next time I watch it. I shouldn't wait another three years.

Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

In the second Jurassic Park film Richard Attenborough plays a smaller role. John Hammond, the man who founded the park, is now old and spends most of his time in bed. His nephew has now taken over the running of his company, Ingen. We only see Richard Attenborough at the beginning of the film, in his bedroom, and in the final scene in a television interview. Nevertheless, in these two short scenes he puts on a magnificent performance.

In the Name of the Father (5 Stars)

Gerry Conlon died on June 21st 2014 at the age of 60. He spent 15 years of his life in prison for a crime he didn't commit. That's 25% of his life, a big chunk for anyone to lose. The film tells the story of his time in prison and the events that led up to it. In my opinion, this was Daniel Day-Lewis' greatest role. He brings Gerry Conlon to life and makes him deeply sympathetic to the viewers.

I don't want to make a political statement about the imprisonment of Gerry Conlon and the rest of the Guildford Four. If a crime is committed the guilty ones should be punished. In my naive way of looking at things it's as simple as that. The police failed in their responsibility by arresting the wrong people, and the courts failed by finding them guilty. The police who arrested the Guildford Four were certainly heavy-handed. They used beatings and threats to force the suspects to confess. Gerry claims that he signed a blank piece of paper and told the police to write whatever they wanted. If his claims are true, the police officers should have been sent to prison, but they were found innocent of perverting the course of justice. Something seems wrong somewhere.

It's a very good film. Pete Postlethwaite also excels as Gerry's father Giuseppe.

Alien 3 (4½ Stars)

This is the third film in the Alien Tetralogy. I've called it "Alien 3" in the title, although the correct name is actually "Alien³", ie Alien cubed. Unfortunately the little 3 is hardly visible even on my average sized computer screen, so I dread to think what it will look like on a 15" laptop monitor. Or even a mobile phone, for the mini-surfers out there.

Once more the story latches on directly to the end of the previous film. At the end of "Aliens" Ellen Ripley went into the cryo-chamber to sleep on her way back to Earth. At the beginning of this film we see her spaceship catch fire, so she is ejected in an escape pod while still asleep. The pod crashes onto a remote planet which serves as a maximum security prison for violent sex offenders, all of them men who have committed murder or rape. There are only 25 men left in the prison, and they have become deeply religious, led by the inmate Dillon.

As soon becomes clear, the fire in the spacecraft had been caused by a stowaway alien that hatched from an egg. The alien now roams the prison killing the prisoners one by one.

The film is slower moving that "Aliens", though featuring more action than the first film. It surprised me to hear that director David Fincher has since disowned the film. Supposedly it was re-edited against his wishes after completion in ways that he disapproved of. Nevertheless, the finished product is enjoyable.

Clash of the Titans [Guest Writer] (5 Stars)

Princess Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) is the daughter of King Cepheus, who has gained a victory against the gods. The vengeful god of the underworld, Hades (Ralph Fiennes), demands that Andromeda is offered as a sacrifice or he will unleash the Kraken against Argos. A desperate King Cepheus asks demi-god Perseus (Sam Worthington) to find a way to defeat the Kraken. Perseus accepts the challenge because Hades was responsible for his family's death. He discovers that the way to kill the Kraken lies with getting the head of the gorgon Medusa.

I absolutely love movies that have to do anything with Greek Mythology and loved this movie to bits and pieces. This movie made me a huge fan of Sam Worthington and his work and it didn't hurt that it had some other favorites of mine - Ralph Fiennes and Liam Neeson. The story was engaging although I do admit that Sam's character annoyed me with his stubborn pride that constantly put the other supporting characters' lives in danger but I suppose that he can't help the way his character was written. The action and special effects scenes were very fantastical and really kept me on the edge of my seat and it even had a bit of romance for the ladies although it definitely wasn't a main subplot of the movie. It seems as if they had all their bases covered to appeal to the masses so kudos to them for that. This is definitely a movie I would recommend for action and fantasy lovers.

(I thought I had already done a review on this but perhaps I was wrong since I couldn't find it. If anyone else out there finds it, let me know. Sometimes I feel old and senile which is ridiculous at my age but oh well. Ha!)

Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

It's good to see that the number of readers of my blog is going up again, over 1900 pageviews per month compared with 1700 in February and March. I'm seeing a correlation between my reading figures and the number of posts I make, which is very encouraging. This means that I have a large number of regular readers who keep returning when I write something new. If the readership figures remained constant whether I post or not it would mean that my traffic relies on random visits from people who have done web searches.

This is the second film in the Jurassic Park trilogy, once again directed by Steven Spielberg. It was only four years since the first film, from 1993 to 1997, but in those four years huge leaps were made in technology. This means that the photo-perfect computer generated dinosaurs in the first film could be made even more realistic in the sequel. Where mostly single dinosaurs or small groups were shown in the first film it was now possible to show swarms of dinosaurs. If you watch the two films in a row (like I did, yesterday and today) the difference is obvious.

The plot: After the destruction of the original theme park in the first film we now find out that there's a second island containing dinosaurs that is used for breeding only. After being abandoned for four years it's discovered that the dinosaurs are thriving in the wild, so they are to be captured and brought to America (San Diego) to open a new theme park. But things don't go as smoothly as planned.

The first film copied the formula of "Jaws", but the sequel follows the structure of "King Kong". I'm referring to the 1933 version, which was accurately recreated by Peter Jackson in 2005. This leads to the ironic situation that the 2005 King Kong film seems to be copying "The Lost World", but they're actually both based on the pre-war film. The film structure is simple. A team goes to a remote island and meets monsters. They capture one big monster and bring it back to civilisation, where it runs amok.

At first I preferred "The Lost World" to "Jurassic Park". Now, after watching both films many times, I rate them equally. Apart from the improved special effects "The Lost World" has more action, more gore and is faster paced. "Jurassic Park" spends more time on character development and subplots. Both films are brilliant, but I still think that "Jurassic Park" is better material to study in film school.

Click here to view the trailer.

Inception (5 Stars)

Inception: the word means the beginning of something. That isn't the meaning of the word in this film. It's used to describe an innovative technology. If a "conception" is an idea that people have, "inception" is planting an idea into someone's head.

No date is named, wisely, but the scenario is the present day, maybe the near future. Everything looks familiar, but a new criminal technology has been developed. It is possible to enter another person's dream and persuade him to reveal secrets that he would never disclose while awake. This technology is called "extracting" and is the perfect means for industrial espionage.

Dom Cobb, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, is an extractor, the best in his field. He's hired to steal the secrets from a Japanese businessman, Saito, but fails because Saito is ready for the attack. Saito is nevertheless impressed with Cobb's skill and hires him to do a new job, planting a thought into the heir of a rival company to make him break up the company on his father's death.

The remainder of the film is a dizzying mix of visual effects and mind-bending plots. Cobb and Saito sink deeper and deeper into the heir's mind, until they're in a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream. Battles are being fought on all of the dream levels simultaneously. This is a complex film that requires the viewer to think actively in order to keep up with what's happening. Unlike films of similar complexity – "Donnie Darko", "Lost Highway", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" – there is no slow buildup. The viewer is challenged from the first minutes, and is even left dangling at the end. In the final scene the film ends while we're waiting to see if the top will stop spinning.

I didn't intend to watch "Inception". After its Oscar successes there seemed to be too much hype around it. Then two weeks ago there was a list of the 50 best films ever made in a German magazine. "Inception" was in first place, so I thought I'd check it out. And I'm not disappointed. Far from it. It's definitely one of the best films I've ever seen. Not the best, but in my top 20 at least. It's a film worth watching over and over again, so wait for my next reviews.

Brassed Off (5 Stars)

Please forgive me for being unpatriotic, but I'm not a big fan of British cinema. Not modern British cinema, anyway. Back in the 1960's British films were the best in the world, but in the 1970's the British film industry went into decline and hasn't recovered since. The problem is that there isn't enough money. It's not just about expensive special effects. The best producers and screenwriters are tempted to Hollywood by big money offers.

If you were to ask me which country's films I like the most I'd look at my DVD collection before giving an answer. What country were most of the films made in? America comes first. Then Germany. I have a whole bookcase full of German films. After that Japan and China come in as a distant third and fourth. And Britain crawls into fifth place.

I'm not saying that Britain never makes good films. "Slumdog Millionaire" was a great film. And then there's this film, "Brassed Off". Just describing the plot doesn't do it justice. In my opinion this simple little film is the best British film made in the last 30 years. Against the background of true events, it takes place in the north England town of Grimly in 1992. The coal mine which is the town's main employer is threatened with closure. Against this depressing scenario we see the story of one man who is fighting to keep the miners' brass band active. It isn't a comedy, although it does have a few funny moments. The late Pete Postlethwaite excels in his role as the band's conductor, a man with a passion for music above all else. This was the peak of his career. I know, I know... this is a film that doesn't sound interesting from its description, but I strongly recommend it, you won't be disappointed.