Bohemian Rhapsody (4½ Stars)

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

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

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

Success Rate:  + 16.1

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

Nuremberg (5 Stars)

This is a powerful historical drama about the Nuremberg trials. It focuses on the army psychologist Douglas Kelley, who was assigned to monitor the mental health of 22 senior Nazi officers who were awaiting trial. Even though he dealt with all of them, the film shows only his dealings with Hermann Göring, Hitler's second-in-command.

Göring was highly intelligent, charismatic and a narcissist. Instead of hiding after the war, he surrendered to the allied troops, because he was certain that he would never be found guilty in a court of law. In actual fact, this is discussed at length in the early scenes. There was no legal precedent for putting the leaders of another country on trial. New laws had to be created to make the trials possible. As Göring correctly says, "I am a prisoner because you won and we lost, not because you're morally superior". At least, that's almost correct. The Nazis were morally inferior because they murdered six million Jews, but if Germany had won the war it would probably have been kept secret.

The performances by Russell Crowe and Rami Malek are brilliant. We can feel Göring's charming arrogance in every mannerism played by Crowe. Rami Malek plays Douglas Kelley as a slightly unhinged man, which is the characteristic of almost every psychiatrist.

Oppenheimer (5 Stars)

I'll watch any film made by Christopher Nolan, despite my disappointment with his last (almost) true film, "Dunkirk". Before going to see "Oppenheimer" I was tempted to read up on Robert Oppenheimer. I'd heard his name and I knew he had something to do with the first atom bomb, but I knew nothing about his life. Eventually I decided to watch the film first and inform myself later.

Imagine my shock when the film started as a courtroom drama. Almost a courtroom drama. It's repeatedly emphasised that it wasn't a court, it was a senate committee. The difference is subtle. If found guilty, Robert Oppenheimer wouldn't be sentenced to prison, but he'd lose his security clearance and his ability to work for the government.

The film shows three phases in his life: before the Second World War, during the war and after the war. They're easy to tell apart from the cinematography, with the post war scenes being shown in black and white. A slight criticism is that I only roughly know when they happen. I would have appreciated the dates, or at least the years, being flashed on the screen.

So far I've only skimmed the Wikipedia page on Oppenheimer. It's late at night. I'll read more about him tomorrow. All I'll do is give a very brief summary of his life. It's not spoilers, because people with more knowledge than me would have known it already.

Before the war Robert Oppenheimer was an internationally renowned expert in quantum mechanics. He wasn't a Communist, but he kept an open mind, and he attended informal meetings of Communists. During the war he was made the leader of the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb. After the war he was an adviser to the American government on the further development of atomic bombs, but his past history with the Communist party was dug up to discredit him, until he lost his security clearance and was no longer allowed as an adviser.

It's a powerful film. It's not exactly a pacifist film, although it could be interpreted that way. Oppenheimer built the bomb, and he was proud of his work, because it saved millions of lives. In 1945 America was planning to invade Japan, but every Japanese child from the age of 12 upwards had been given a rifle. It was estimated that at least nine million Japanese civilians would die in the invasion. In comparison, less than 300,000 died as a result of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, in the following years Oppenheimer had a What-Have-I-Done feeling, and he tried to persuade America not to make even bigger bombs.

Despite being shown in English, the film was almost sold out in Gloria, a cinema that has two large screens. The other screen showed "Barbie", also almost sold out. This made me happy. It's Gloria's most successful day since the Corona pandemic started in 2020. Cinema isn't dead, it just needs the right films.

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb (4 Stars)

This is a film that tidily completes the Night At The Museum trilogy. There should never have been a fourth film, even though the final scene leaves it open. Barely. And yet a fourth film was made last year as a Disney Plus exclusive. It's not even a live action film, it's an animated film. I swore I wouldn't watch it, but my grandson Oliver has found out about it, and he wants to watch it. So I'll have to grit my teeth and put up with it. It might be good, but somehow I doubt it.

The best scene in "Secret of the Tomb" is a fight between Sir Lancelot, Theodore Roosevelt and Larry Daley inside an M. C. Escher painting. It only lasts a minute, unfortunately. The fight could have lasted an hour, and it would never have got boring.

Success Rate:  + 0.9

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

Short Term 12 (2 Stars)

This film is about a care home for children. They're either orphans, or their parents have put them into the home temporarily because they're unable to deal with them. It's not stated what the minimum age is, but the children have to leave on their 18th birthday, whether they want to or not.

Grace Howard is the home's supervisor. She can sympathise with the children because she grew up in a foster home after her father was imprisoned for sexually abusing her.

There are lots of little stories being told in parallel. Each child leads his own life. The child who has the most screen time is Jayden, a 15-year-old who frequently practises self harm. She's also been abused by her father, although she doesn't have the courage to tell the police. She grows close to Grace.

Overall, this is a sad film, despite several small happy endings. I don't know what the film's message is supposed to be. It seems to be a selection of stories about random teenagers.

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

Night at the Museum 2 (3 Stars)

This is a good example of a poorly made sequel. "Night at the Museum" was a big success at the box office, so there was pressure to make another film. Some of the characters return from the first film, but most of them only appear in brief cameos. There's enough of the first film repeated to raise a smile, but not enough to make the viewer think he's in familiar territory.

The film takes place three years after "Night at the Museum". Larry Daley has given up his job at the American Museum of Natural History to pursue a career as an inventor. I like his idea of a fluorescent torch. When there's a power cut it's easy to find. I could have done with one of those when I lived in England. In Germany there aren't as many power cuts.

The museum is due to be modernised. The exhibits are to be replaced by AI-driven holograms. How dull!

The exhibits are shipped to Washington to be stored underground in the vaults of the Smithsonian. The magic tablet of Akmenrah that gives the statues life should have stayed in New York, but it's stolen by Dexter the monkey and taken to Washington. At the Smithsonian the wax figures come to life, including Kahmunrah, the evil older brother of Akmenrah. The tablet has other powers known only to Kahmunrah, including the ability to raise the army of the dead. Larry goes to Washington to retrieve the tablet and save the world.

The film is dull, and is only worth watching for the excellent performance of Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart. On the other hand, my grandson Oliver enjoyed the film. He liked the slapstick action and the airplanes. Maybe one day he'll write his own blog and give the film a better review.

Success Rate:  + 0.8

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

Night at the Museum (4 Stars)

Two years ago I sat down with my grandson Oliver to watch "Night at the Museum". At the time he'd never watched any films, only YouTube videos, so he didn't have enough patience to last the whole film. He gave up after 45 minutes. Today I tried again. Success! He loved the film, and he wants to watch the sequels.

I watched it in German, for Oliver's sake. Usually German dubbing is good quality, but this time I wasn't satisfied. The German dialogue is very fast and excited, even when the original English is spoken clearly. The voice actors put their own interpretation into the roles. I don't appreciate that.

No, the Hungarian bodybuilder Krisztina Sereny doesn't appear in the film. I can't think of anything else to write about the film, so the photo is my way of apologising. Is anyone interested in a gallery of her photos?

Success Rate:  + 3.2

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

No Time To Die (4½ Stars)

Amazon Friday #31

I've finally got round to seeing the latest James Bond film after missing it in the cinema last year. I like the film a lot, and I felt tempted to give it a five star rating, but I changed my mind at the last moment because of one thing: it's not a James Bond film.

I refuse to get into arguments about whether Daniel Craig is a good Bond or not. For me it's all about how the script has been written. Daniel Craig doesn't play the brash, sexist Bond that we've grown to love over the last 60 years. He stands mourning for his lost love, Vesper Lynd. She was a character in Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel, "Casino Royale", a book that was never filmed in the classic James Bond series, 1962 to 2002. It was finally filmed in the rebooted series in 2006.

There's no bad Bond girl. That's not right. James Bond always needs a sexy woman trying to kill him, whether or not she eventually succumbs to his charms. The only real good Bond girl is Ana de Armas as Paloma, but this is spoilt by her not falling into bed with him. Madeleine Swann is a character from a previous film, which is a no-no, as far as James Bond is concerned. His lovers never last from one film to the next, so I wouldn't count her as a Bond girl.

And James Bond as a father? Really? He's always careful that things like that don't happen.

Let's see what happens in the next film. Will it be another reboot? Or will it be a James Bond film without James Bond? It would be interesting to have Nomi return as the new 007, as long as the tables are turned. Lashana Lynch could play a sexist Jane Bond, and each new film would feature Bond Boys that she beds at a whim. I'd like that.

Success Rate:  + 1.1

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

Bohemian Rhapsody (4½ Stars)

True Stories #15

Name: Freddie Mercury

Lived: 5 September 1946 – 24 November 1991

Film dates: 1970 to 1985

Film made in 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Success Rate:  + 16.1

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

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb (4 Stars)

This is the third and final film in the Night At The Museum trilogy. It was made five years after the second film, and it brings the series to a close. Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) quits his job as night guard at the American Museum of Natural History and is replaced by Tilly (Rebel Wilson).

The film also offers closure in a sadder way. This is the last film made by the great Robin Williams before his suicide. He died after making the film but before it was released, so there's a brief dedication to him at the end.

The three films build a single piece of work, so I strongly advise that you watch them back to back in order. I almost watched them back to back, over a two month period, so I enjoyed them more than I did when I watched them in the past, not even in the correct order.

This is the film where Ben Stiller gets to kiss a monkey. Is that allowed on screen?

He's closing his eyes to lose himself in the passion.

Ben Stiller plays a second role as a Neanderthal called Laaa. This leads to him groping Rebel Wilson's chest. All men are animals, even if they don't show it in public. I'd like to grope Rebel Wilson as well, but I'm too much of a gentleman to give in to my urges.

You can read Rebel Wilson's mind. "That was disgusting! If I'd known what was expected of me I would have asked for more money!"

I've heard rumours that a fourth film is planned. Please don't do it. Leave it as it is.

Success Rate:  + 0.9

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

Night at the Museum 2 (3 Stars)

There's some confusion about the title of this film. According to the DVD box, its name is "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian". However, in the opening credits the title screen simply calls it "Night at the Museum". There isn't even a number two to distinguish it from the first film.

The film takes place three years after the original film. Larry Daley has left his job as a night guard and gone back to being an inventor. He's now having moderate success with his Glow-In-The-Dark Flashlight. (I'm British, so I prefer to call it a torch). It's a better idea than it sounds. If there's a power cut and you need a torch, you might not be able to find it in the dark. If the torch's outer casing is fluorescent, it's easy to find. I wonder if these torches are on sale yet.

Larry visits the museum and finds that almost all of the exhibits have been packed in boxes. It's been decided that traditional museums are too old-fashioned. The new museum is to be made up of talking holographic displays. Larry stays the night in the museum to say farewell to his old friends. The Tablet of Ahkmenrah is to remain in the museum, so they won't come to life any more in their new resting place, the underground vaults of the Smithsonian Museum in Washington D.C.

The next evening Larry receives a phone call from Jedediah. Dexter stole the Tablet, so now all the exhibits in the Smithsonian Museum have come to life. Kahmunrah, the older brother of Akhmenrah, has attacked and imprisoned the new arrivals from New York. He wants the Tablet, because it has untapped powers that will help him conquer the world. Larry goes to Washington to save them.

I'm sorry to say that this film doesn't live up to the original. Too much is illogical. In the first film the exhibits were at war with one another, but now they're united, even before they have to face a common enemy. In the first film there were constant communication problems, but now they all seem to understand English, even if they don't speak it. We see all the exhibits from the first film, but several of them, including Sacagawea, shown above, only appear in brief cameos. The new exhibits aren't funny, except for their randomness. The only exception is Amelia Earhart, played by Amy Adams.

Amelia Earhart is comical in the way she's portrayed. She's an independent woman, who doesn't need a man to tell her what to do, but she goes to the opposite extreme, taking any man she wants. In this case, any man means Larry. While he's struggling to save the world, he has to fight off Amelia's attempts to kiss him. It's very hard for him, because she looks insanely sexy in her tight fitting flying outfit.

That's still not enough to make it a good film.

Success Rate:  + 0.8

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

Night at the Museum (4 Stars)

Today I sat down to watch a film with my son Benjamin, who's visiting me this week. I shan't tell you what it was, because we were interrupted after less than two minutes, and we'll watch it again later this week, hopefully tomorrow. My grandson Oliver burst in and wanted to watch it with us, but it was inappropriate for someone his age. I wanted to throw him out of the room – gently, of course – but his mother (my daughter Gillian) said that if he really wanted to watch a film I should watch something suitable for him. I still had "Night at the Museum" lying on my desk after watching it two weeks ago, so it was the obvious choice.

I have to add, Oliver has never watched a film yet. He's started a few films, but he was never patient enough to finish. I thought I would give him a chance. I abandoned the as yet unnamed film and started "Night at the Museum". Oliver did well. He managed 45 minutes. He loved the chaotic scenes in the first night, especially when the monkey peed on Ben Stiller, but he got bored when the film slowed down again. Never mind. He left the room, so Benjamin and I watched the film to the end, even though we've both seen it before. A good film is always worth watching again. In fact, my definition of a good film is "a film that I want to watch at least three times".

I'm really glad that I watched it. Today I appreciated it even more than I did two weeks ago. I wonder how old Oliver will be before I can try to watch it with him again. Until then, maybe I can find a different film for him to watch. Maybe one of the old Disney animated films? It has to be something where there's action all the way, without any quiet lulls.

When the film was over, I asked Benjamin whether he wanted to watch "Dexter". Some of you might know what made me think about that series. He had never seen it, so he agreed, out of curiosity. I only wanted to watch one episode, the pilot, but he loved it so much that he insisted on watching a second episode. Benjamin will be with me all week, so I expect we'll watch the whole first season. Maybe more.

Success Rate:  + 3.2

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

Night at the Museum (4 Stars)

Today is only the second time I've watched this film. The first time was more than 10 years ago (i.e. before 14th September 2010) and I honestly don't know why I've waited so long. All I could remember about it was the comedy, the ridiculousness that museum exhibits should come to life at night, but there's a lot more to the film. There are serious messages packaged between the slices of humour. The messages aren't even hidden, they're so open that I really should have paid attention to them first time round.

Simply put, the film is about a man who takes a job as a night guard at the Museum of Natural History in New York, where he discovers that the exhibits come to life every night from sunset to sunrise. The film is based on a children's book, and the film is definitely suitable for young viewers. They will probably miss the serious messages, like I did.

Ben Stiller plays Larry Daley, a man who's divorced and struggling to keep contact with his son. That's a common theme in films. It doesn't get worse with repetition. If a mother gains custody of a child, she might refuse to let the child see his father for his own sake, if she thinks the father has an unstable life style. In this case, Larry is a dreamer who doesn't want to do a normal job. He has ideas about new inventions which he wants to market, but they're too impractical, so every company he founds goes bankrupt. The divorce court allows him to see his son Nick every weekend and every second Wednesday, but his lack of money has forced him to move into a tiny apartment which his ex-wife doesn't consider suitable.

So Larry is forced to get a steady job that will pay the bills and allow him to upgrade his accommodation. He applies for a job as a security guard at a museum. When I was unemployed 15 years ago it was recommended that I become a security guard, because that's a job any man can do. Wow. The nice man at the Job Centre thought I was so desperate that I'd take the job at the bottom of the pile? I've never regretted turning down his offer. It was an insult to a man with four years of university and managerial experience behind him. But I'm getting off the subject.....

The museum is downsizing because of poor visitor numbers, so Larry's job is to replace three elderly guards. They give him a book with hand-written instructions, but he doesn't bother reading them. What can be so difficult about a job that any man can do?

He finds out too late that the instructions are essential. Maybe not too late, because if he'd read them before nightfall he wouldn't have understood them. "Lock up the lions or they'll eat you"? That doesn't make sense. The museum's lions are only made of wax.

In the first night Larry has to play with a dinosaur, run from lions and fend off attacks from miniature cowboys and Roman legions. He decides to quit the job, until he realises that Nick finds his father's job interesting. He can give it a go for a few more days, if he finds out how to deal with the living exhibits. He reads books about them to find out how to deal with them. They might only be artificial creations, but when they come to life they have the personalities, strengths and weaknesses of their real life counterparts.

With the encouragement of Teddy Roosevelt, played by Robin Williams, Larry learns that he can be a success if he tries hard enough. Years of failed ideas are enough to make any intelligent man despair, but perseverance can work miracles. Quoting Shakespeare, President Roosevelt tells Larry that "some men are born great, and others have greatness thrust upon them". He's only a lowly security guard, but he can make a difference. He can win the respect of his son and maybe even find a new romance in his life.

There are other messages in the film, such as the value of brotherly love, but the most important message is the importance of perseverance. Sometimes the odds seem stacked against you, and maybe you're in a situation where it doesn't look like it's worth the effort, but if something is worth having it's always worth fighting for.

Success Rate:  + 3.2

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

On another topic, Google has recently introduced a new version of its blogger software. This is the first major update since I started blogging 10 years ago. Unfortunately, the new version was pushed out too quickly without being sufficiently tested. I'm coming across new bugs every day. Some are minor, but others cause me more work. There's a procedure to report bugs to the developer team, but there's no reply to bug reports, not even an automated response, so I don't know for certain if my bug report will ever be read. Google should have left the software the way it was before. It worked. That's all that matters. 

Here's a list of the errors I've discovered so far:

1. The attribute "imageanchor=1" is included when a new image is inserted, but if I switch from the HTML view to the normal compose view, it's removed. Without this attribute posts are displayed incorrectly on mobile phones, so I have to edit the HTML code manually to put the attribute back in.

2. After an image is resized, there's a box left in the edit window until it's clicked away. This is only a cosmetic error, but it's annoying.

3. When multiple images are inserted at the same time they are sometimes inserted in the correct order, sometimes in reverse order, depending on whether I click in the edit box first.

4. When an image is inserted, it's usually inserted at the end of the post, not at the place where I'm currently editing. Sometimes it works correctly, but mostly it doesn't. I haven't been able to work out the logic of this bug.

5. When I'm editing HTML on my mobile phone, it's not possible to enlarge the display.

6. If a post has a large number of labels, only the first few labels are displayed in the post list. Very annoying!

7. Now here's a very curious bug. If I have the stats open and open a second stats tab with Ctrl-Click on the word Stats, the current tab is reloaded with the default settings before opening  the new tab. If, however, I open the new tab by right-clicking on Stats and selecting "Open link in new tab", there's no error.

Bohemian Rhapsody (4½ Stars)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Success Rate:  + 16.1

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

Bohemian Rhapsody (4½ Stars)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb (3½ Stars)

This is the third film in the "Night at the Museum" series, and probably the concluding part of a trilogy. Only time will tell if there will be a fourth part, but somehow I doubt it. This film revisits and expands on the premise of the series, that museum statues are brought to life every night by a magical Egyptian artefact, the Golden Tablet of Akhmenrah. In this film the tablet begins to decay, causing the museum characters to sporadically return to inanimate forms during the night. The only person who knows how to solve the problem is the Pharaoh Akhmenrah himself, of whom a statue is currently on display in the British Museum of Natural History. Night guard Larry Daley, once more played by Ben Stiller, takes the tablet to London to re-animate Akhmenrah and ask him for help.

I have mixed feelings about the films in this series. The first two films are definitely not masterpieces, whatever that word means, but they're zany comedy romps that are worth watching at least once. The third film is no different. It made me laugh, but it's not a film I'm likely to add to my DVD collection

The film has sentimental value to me as the last film starring Robin Williams before his death by suicide in August this year. It was moving to see him on screen, and I regret that he didn't have a bigger role. Rest in peace.

The Master (4 Stars)

Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is an American sailor in the Second World War. When the war is over he is traumatised by his experiences and is unable to settle down. After doing a series of jobs he stows away in a yacht one night. When he wakes up the yacht is at sea, and he meets the yacht's owner, Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Far from being angry, Lancaster offers Freddie work on the yacht, and he also invites him to his daughter's wedding. Freddie soon discovers that Lancaster is the leader of a cult called The Cause, and the other passengers on the yacht call him Master.

Freddie becomes a close friend of Lancaster and joins the cult, even though the other members warn Lancaster against him. They think that Freddie is unwilling to get over his alcohol addiction and become a better man. Freddie also has problems with aggression. Whenever anyone insults Lancaster or The Cause Freddie beats him up. Lancaster says that he doesn't approve of violence, but makes no attempt to stop Freddie doing it again.

The fictional cult, The Cause, is obviously based on Scientology. In The Cause people advance through psychoanalysis rather than meditation. It is taught that perfection can only be attained by remembering and dealing with things that happened in past lives. Apart from the similarity in the teachings, the film mirrors conflicts that Scientology's founder L. Ron Hubbard had with his son and other family members.

The film created controversy as soon as it was announced. The similarities to Scientology were enough to make many cult members angry. Legal proceedings were avoided by never claiming the film was about Scientology, even though everyone knew it was. Apart from this, the film isn't directly about the cult; the central character is Freddie Quell, and it follows his spiritual journey, while The Cause and its members remain in the background, sometimes helping, sometimes hindering him.

The powerful performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman won them Oscar nominations. The only thing I would fault is that the film has no resolution. Freddie drifts into The Cause, remains a while and drifts back out with almost nothing to show for it. He hasn't become a better man. On the other hand, I'm sure that this was intentional. Other films by Paul Thomas Anderson, which he both writes and directs, have the same style. One of the things that screenwriters learn is that the characters in their scripts should follow arcs. They should start the film as one person and end as another. In a typical character arc a person begins either as weak or morally objectionable, and then the film presents challenges, at the end of which the person is stronger or a better person. This might be good storytelling, but is it the way real life works? Not necessarily. There's nothing wrong with experimental films that do without character arcs, but to me personally I feel that something is lacking.

Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (3 Stars)

As the poster above says, this is the finale that will last forever. Too true. It was unnecessarily stretched over two films to keep it going. This film has more going on than the first part, but it should still have been compressed. I estimate that the story from this second part could have been told in 60 minutes. Add that to the 40 minutes from the first part plus five minutes for the final credits, and we have 105 minutes, a reasonably sized film, instead of the four hour colossus that the studios forced on us. But even the final credits were stretched out to 12 minutes 28 seconds by listing actors who only took part in the first three films of the series. It's all so tiresome.

In this film Bella makes her first steps as a new-born vampire, while attempting to look after her daughter Renesmee. The Volturi fear what Renesmee might become when she is older, so they come to America to kill her. Carlisle Cullen gathers vampires from around the world to face the Volturi, not to fight against them but to peacefully persuade them that Renesmee will be harmless. In this film not only Jacob but all of the werewolves in his tribe stand at the side of the Cullens.

Obviously the fans loved it. The film made it into the top 50 highest earning films of all time. I suspect that the majority of the viewers were either fans of the books or people who had seen the previous four films and wanted to know how the story would end. It's not worth seeing in its own right.