Insomnia [American Version] (4½ Stars)

The original Norwegian "Insomnia" and the American remake tell essentially the same story: a police detective investigating a murder in a town where the sun never sets accidentally kills his partner and then becomes psychologically entangled with the murderer. However, the films differ significantly in tone, themes, characters and even in what they ultimately say about guilt and morality.

The setting

Original (1997)

The Norwegian film, directed by Erik Skjoldbjærg, takes place in northern Norway. The setting feels cold, isolated and alien. Even though the midnight sun provides constant daylight, the world seems emotionally frozen.

Remake (2002)

The remake, directed by Christopher Nolan, moves the action to a small town in Alaska. The landscape is grander and more picturesque. Nolan uses mist, forests and mountains to create atmosphere, whereas the Norwegian film often feels stark and oppressive.

The detective

This is the biggest difference between the two films.

Original: Jonas Engström

In the Norwegian film, detective Jonas Engström is already morally compromised before the story begins.

He arrives in the north under investigation by Internal Affairs. There are strong suggestions that he has previously falsified evidence and may have convicted innocent people. When he accidentally shoots his partner during a foggy pursuit, he deliberately covers up the truth.

The film gradually reveals that Engström's sleeplessness isn't simply caused by the endless daylight. It is caused by his guilt and by the collapse of the dishonest life he has built.

He is not a sympathetic hero. He is arrogant, dishonest and increasingly desperate.

Remake: Will Dormer

In Nolan's version, detective Will Dormer, played by Al Pacino, is much more sympathetic.

Dormer is also under investigation, but the circumstances are softened. His previous misconduct appears motivated by a desire to convict criminals rather than personal corruption. When he accidentally shoots his partner, he covers it up, but the film presents this as a tragic mistake rather than the action of a fundamentally corrupt man.

The audience is encouraged to feel sorry for him.

This changes the entire moral balance of the story.

The murderer

Original

The killer, Jon Holt, is intelligent, manipulative and disturbingly calm. He gradually becomes almost a mirror image of Engström.

The relationship between the two men is the heart of the film. Both have committed crimes. Both justify their actions. The detective and murderer become morally indistinguishable.

Remake

The killer is Walter Finch, played by Robin Williams.

Williams gives one of the most restrained performances of his career. Rather than playing the role as a monster, he portrays Finch as an ordinary, lonely man who committed a terrible act.

The remake spends more time humanising the killer. The cat-and-mouse relationship remains important, but it is less existential and philosophical than in the original.

The female detective

Original

The young detective investigating Engström is a relatively minor character. The focus remains squarely on the duel between the detective and the murderer.

Remake

The character is more important. She's played by Hilary Swank.

She represents the moral centre of the film. Dormer increasingly sees in her the idealism he has lost. This gives the remake a stronger redemption narrative.

The use of insomnia

Original

The insomnia feels almost physical.

The endless daylight becomes torture. Engström blocks his windows with blankets, tapes and cardboard, yet the light still penetrates. The film often feels like a nightmare in which reality is gradually disintegrating.

The audience experiences his exhaustion.

Remake

Nolan retains the concept, but uses it somewhat differently.

The sleeplessness becomes a manifestation of guilt and psychological pressure. It is important, but the remake is more interested in character relationships and moral choices than in making the viewer feel physically exhausted.

The Norwegian film is more oppressive.

The endings

This is perhaps the most important difference.

Original

The ending is bleak.

Engström survives but is exposed. There is no sense of redemption. The film suggests that guilt cannot be escaped and that moral corruption eventually destroys a person.

The conclusion is deeply pessimistic.

Remake

The remake moves toward redemption.

Dormer ultimately confesses the truth and encourages the young detective not to repeat his mistakes. After he is shot, he dies having finally accepted responsibility.

His final words, "Don't lose your way", transform the story into a cautionary tale about integrity.

The ending is tragic but hopeful.

Style and atmosphere

Original

• Minimalist
• Cold and clinical
• Psychological
• Ambiguous
• Art-house sensibility

The film often feels closer to a European character study than a conventional thriller.

Remake

• More polished
• More emotional
• Stronger focus on suspense
• Larger scale cinematography
• More conventional crime-thriller structure

Despite this, it remains one of Nolan's most restrained films. Viewers expecting the complexity of Memento or Inception may be surprised by how straightforward it is.

Which is better?

That largely depends on what you're looking for.

The Norwegian original is generally regarded as the more psychologically rigorous film. It presents a detective whose corruption is inseparable from the crime he is investigating. The moral ambiguity is unsettling and never fully resolved.

The remake is more accessible and arguably more emotionally engaging. The performances by Pacino, Williams and Swank are excellent, and Nolan adds a stronger sense of redemption and tragedy.

A useful way to think about them is this:

The original asks: "What happens when a corrupt man is forced to confront himself?"

The remake asks: "Can a good man who has done something terrible redeem himself?"

They start from the same premise, but they arrive at very different conclusions about human nature. The Norwegian film is darker, colder and more cynical. Nolan's remake is warmer, more compassionate and ultimately more hopeful.

Success Rate:  + 0.5

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

What Dreams May Come (4 Stars)

Is this a good film? A bad film? Or merely average? It depends on how you judge it. It's a perfect performance by Robin Williams in a deeply emotional film that made me cry at several points. That would normally guarantee a film a five star rating. But when the emotions died down, after a cup of coffee, I had to ask myself what junk I'd just watched. It presents an afterlife that matches no existing religion and would be ridiculed by any atheist or agnostic.

Robin Williams plays Dr. Chris Nielsen, a man who dies in a horrific car accident. As a ghost he follows his loved ones, from the hospital to his funeral. Then he falls asleep and wakes up in a painting. Yes, a painting. When he walks through the fields of flowers they squelch, because they're all made of paint. That's Nielsen's heaven. He's told by a man called Albert, at first his only companion in the painting, that everyone can choose his own afterlife, but Chris has subconsciously picked a picture painted by his wife. Later he travels to other afterlifes, for instance to a playful kingdom created by his daughter, who died four years previously. Just writing about it makes it sound even more ridiculous.

Finally Chris finds out that his wife is in Hell, so he abandons Heaven to go to find her and bring her back. That's a romantic notion, but would any religion, even one, envisage such a possibility? Added to all of this, the film's philosophy has reincarnation, but it's purely voluntary. Anyone who grows tired of Heaven can return to Earth as a baby.

So what's the bottom line? Is the film good or bad? Heaven is a personalised art project; Hell is a kind of psychological sinkhole; identity persists, except when it doesn't; rules exist, except when love overrides them. The film insists on emotional truth while playing fast and loose with its own cosmology.

At times, this contrast is almost jarring. The same film that treats grief with such grounded sensitivity also asks you to accept a universe governed by what amounts to sentimental logic. Love conquers all, quite literally; but not through any moral or philosophical framework that holds up to scrutiny, rather through sheer narrative insistence. It’s less theology than wish fulfilment dressed in painterly grandeur.

I think my four star rating is fair. Maybe more than the film deserves, but I'll stick with it.

Films can be judged by the people who like them. Leslie Colligan was my girlfriend for a few years while I lived in America. "What Dreams May Come" was one of her favourite films. In retrospect, it's easy to understand why. She had confused religious beliefs. She claimed to adhere to the ancient Celtic religion, but she also believed in Heaven and Hell and reincarnation. She was a confused person, so she was quick to accept the film's pseudo-theological babble.

By the way, this photo shows her sitting in front of my CD collection. This was one of the greatest tragedies in my life. When I became ill I gave her $5000, more than enough to mail the CDs to me, but her new boyfriend, Thomas Kuzilla of Dearborn Heights, Michigan, took the CDs into his own hands and attempted to sell them back to me. I lost all 1800 CDs, with the exception of six CDs that Leslie mailed to me behind his back. For all her faults, she had a good heart; Thomas was pure evil. Would Leslie journey into Hell to bring Thomas back? No; in the afterlife she'll know that he's not worth it.

Success Rate:  - 1.1

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

Bicentennial Man (5 Stars)

Netflix Thursday #47

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Success Rate:  - 1.0

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

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

Insomnia (5 Stars)

Two things amaze me about this film. First, why haven't I watched it for eight years? Second, why haven't I watched the original version for more than 12 years? Actually, there's a third thing that amazes me: why did I only give "Insomnia" four stars last time I watched it? It's possibly because I thought it wasn't as good as the original version, which I watched first. I'm not sure. I vaguely remember watching the original Norwegian version of "Insomnia" twice in my pre-blog days. I liked it a lot, which is why I gave the American remake a lower rating. It's been so long since I watched the original that I can judge the remake on its own merits, and it's excellent. The performances by Al Pacino and Robin Williams are outstanding, and it's a fascinating psychological drama.

It's a crime thriller, but it breaks all the rules. How often do we see a police detective taking a ferry with the murderer and not arresting him, despite having heard his confession?

Will Dormer is a highly successful detective in Los Angeles. He's solved many high profile cases. However, Internal Affairs is examining his most recent arrest. He planted evidence on a man that he knew was guilty, because he was afraid that a jury wouldn't convict him. That doesn't mean he's a bad cop. He just cut corners. Now he's worried that if the truth about this one case comes out, all his previous cases might be questioned. All the bad men that he's put behind bars might be released.

The only person who knows that Will planted evidence is his partner Hap Eckhart. The two are sent on a mission to aid the police in a murder investigation in Nightmute, a small town in Alaska. Less than 300 inhabitants. On the plane Hap tells Will that he's going to testify against him. That puts tension between the two men who used to be friends.

While chasing the murderer in the fog, Will accidentally shoots Hap. He thinks he might be accused of deliberately shooting him, so he claims the murderer shot him. The murderer, a local author called Walter Finch, witnessed what happened. He blatantly confesses the murder to Will, then offers to protect Will, as long as he plants evidence on someone else. Will is spiralling out of control. It's one thing to plant evidence on a guilty man, but another entirely to plant evidence on an innocent man.

The local police officer Ellie Burr is a big fan of Will Dormer. She wrote a paper about one of his cases when she was in police academy. She finds evidence that he lied about Hap Eckhart's death, but she can't believe that her hero has really crossed the line. She doesn't know what to do.

The film is called "Insomnia". That's because Nightmute is within the Arctic Circle. It's summer, and the Sun doesn't set. Will can't sleep. Ellie quotes something that Will once said: "A good cop can't sleep because a piece of the puzzle's missing. A bad cop can't sleep because his conscience won't let him". So the lack of sleep isn't just about the Sun shining at night.

I can still remember the main differences between the two versions. They're significant, but I shan't discuss them until I rewatch the Norwegian version.

Success Rate:  + 0.5

	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.

Absolutely Anything (4 Stars)

This is a witty comedy film from the hands of the Monty Python team, written and directed by Terry Jones. Neil Clarke (Simon Pegg), the schoolteacher responsible for class 10c, is selected at random from all of the Earth's population to receive absolute power. He can do anything he wants by speaking his wish out loud and waving his hand. This is a test by powerful beings from an alien race. If he uses his power for good the Earth will be saved, if he uses his power for selfish reasons the Earth will be destroyed.

It's noteworthy that this is the last film made by Robin Williams before his death. He performs the voice of Neil's dog Dennis.

The film is a cross between "Bruce Almighty" and "Bedazzled" (particularly the 2000 version with Brendan Fraser). Neil Clarke has godlike powers, but he has to be careful what he asks for, because if he formulates his words carelessly he doesn't get what he intended. For instance, when he wishes that he is on the bus he finds himself on the roof of the bus.

The question we asked one another as members of the film group is what we would do if we could do absolutely anything. The answers varied between winning the lottery and making David Cameron homeless. Both very good wishes. But what would I do?

First I would return to my youth. I want to look the way I did when I was 20. I would freeze myself at that point in my life and not age any more. I would keep my beautiful long blond hair forever.

Then I would want knowledge of all space and time. What good is being able to do everything if you don't know everything? I would want to be able to see everything that has happened everywhere in the universe. I would want to see everything that will happen in the future, including the variations if I want to intervene to stop a future event happening. I don't mean I want a vast canvas in front of me, I want to be able to zoom in and watch individual places or people, flipping forwards and backwards through their lives like pages in a book.

If I wished for these two things I wouldn't need any more. Living immortally young and always knowing the results of my actions would make me in control of my destiny. It doesn't mean that I could do whatever I want. It means that I would always do what's best for me, my friends and my community.

One thing that I would never use my power for is to make someone do something. That's Neil's biggest mistake in the film. Taking away someone else's free will is monstrous. If a girl only falls in love with me because I use my powers to make her love me I'll never be happy. I'd be making her my slave, and I don't want a slave, I want a lover.

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.

Bicentennial Man (5 Stars)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insomnia (2002 version) (4 Stars)

You don't get to pick when you tell the truth. The truth's beyond that.

This is the second film I've watched this week starring Robin Williams. As far as I know it's unique among his films. This is the only film in which he plays the bad guy. When Robin Williams first appears on screen, almost an hour into the film, our first instinct is to like him. After all, it's Robin Williams! It's a mark of his acting ability that he's subtly able to convince us he's an utterly reprehensible character, and by the end of the film we're desperate to see him arrested or killed.

Detectives Will Dormer (Al Pacino) and Hap Eckhart (Martin Donovan) are sent from Los Angeles to Nightmute, Alaska to help the local police solve the murder of a teenage girl. This is partly because the Nightmute police have had no experience of dealing with murders, but also to get Detective Dormer away from Los Angeles. The police's internal affairs division has suspicions that Dormer has been cutting corners to get convictions. However, on the plane Eckhart tells Dormer that he intends to testify against Dormer when they return to Los Angeles.

Dormer sets a trap and lures the killer to a cabin by the sea. The area is extremely foggy, and in the confusion Dormer accidentally shoots Eckhart. He realises that he might be blamed for deliberately killing his partner, so he fakes the evidence to make it look like the killer fired the shot. A day later the killer, a murder mystery author called Walter Finch (Robin Williams), rings Dormer and confesses to murdering the girl. But Finch saw Dormer shoot his partner, so he blackmails him to protect himself from arrest. Together Dormer and Finch make a plan to plant evidence of the murder on the girl's ex-boyfriend. Dormer's judgement is confused by a lack of sleep, due to the sun shining all day in the Arctic Circle.

This film is a remake of the 1997 Norwegian film with the same name. In lesser hands it would have been a disaster, but Christopher Nolan ably recreates it. The original takes place in Tromso, Norway, but the main differences are in the film's moral undertones. In the American film Detective Dormer is a good man who has sometimes done bad things to solve cases. The end justifies the means. In the original the detective's dark side is emphasised, and we have greater difficulty sympathising with him. As well as this, the film ends differently in the two versions. I don't want to give the story away by going into details. All I'll say is that the American film ties everything up neatly, whereas the Norwegian film leaves open ends.

What dreams may come (4½ Stars)

This is the first of a few films that I'll be re-watching to commemorate Robin Williams' death. "What dreams may come" is an obvious first choice, since it deals with the death and afterlife of a character that he plays.

Chris Nielsen (Robin Williams) meets Annie Collins (Annabella Sciorra) while on vacation in Switzerland. It's love at first sight. They marry within weeks. After this the film fast-forwards to a time when they have two children. The children die in a road accident. Four years later Chris is also killed in an accident. This is where the film begins.

After a few days of lingering on Earth, watching his wife and the others he has left behind, Chris finds himself in an afterlife which is based on his own imagination. He lives in the beautiful scenery of a picture that his wife has painted. The afterlife is a mosaic of connected areas that each dead person has created for himself. He can either stay in his own area or visit others. A former acquaintance, Albert, acts as his guide through the new world.

A few weeks later Albert informs Chris that Annie has died, but he can't see her because she has committed suicide, and all who commit suicide go to Hell. Albert refuses to accept this. He travels into the depths of Hell to find his wife.

This is a very beautiful film, both the imagery and the romantic elements. At its core it's a love story. Love is stronger than death. The theological aspects of the film are interesting. Heaven is whatever you want it to be. That's a slushy notion which very few religions or philosophies would accept unconditionally, but in the context of the film it doesn't matter. While watching the film I made notes of quotes that I found relevant, mostly words spoken by Albert, the spirit guide. Any of these quotes could be used as the introduction to a lengthy philosophical discussions

"Thought is real. Physical is the illusion".

"It's not all fire and pain. The real Hell is your life gone wrong".

"What's true in our minds is true, whether other people know it or not".

"You can see the dead in your dreams if you want to".

R.I.P. Robin Williams

Yesterday Robin Williams was found dead in his home, presumably as a result of suicide. I expect that the exact cause of death will be given in the next few days. One thing that I can say for certain is that he was a tortured soul. No amount or fame or riches can make a person immune to depression.

The best tribute I can give to Robin Williams is to talk about what he meant to me, as a film fan. When I hear his name, the first image that springs to mind is a scene from the Academy Awards about 10 years ago. He was sitting in the audience smiling, presumably amused by a bad joke told by the host. He looked so happy at the time. I can't remember what year it was or what films won awards that year, but I remember his face.

The first time I became aware of Robin Williams was round about 1995. That's probably later than most people, but at the time I lived in Germany and rarely went to the cinema. My real passion for films didn't begin until 2003, when I bought my first DVD player. My friend Robert Young, who lived in the same village as me, invited me to his apartment, and we watched "Mrs. Doubtfire" on video together. This was the first of many films that I saw him appear in.

People who know his career better than me refer to him as a comedian. I think of him as an actor, who has appeared in many outstanding roles. He was a talented actor who brought depth and emotion to whatever character he played. My favourite film of his is "Bicentennial Man", which I'll probably watch in the next few days. He may have left this Earth, but in his films he will live on forever.

Robin Williams
July 21, 1951 – August 11, 2014