Blade 2 (4½ Stars)

What a contrast to "Captain America Brave New World"! That was a boring film which will be the latest in Marvel's series of box office flops. "Blade 2" is an exciting action film that gets everything right. What's gone wrong with Marvel since 2002? Oh wait, I know. It was bought by Disney and put under the control of Bob Iger, a businessman who would rather promote his version of the DEI agenda than make good films. Whenever one of his films flops he shrugs his shoulders and continues on as before, demanding a pay rise for his efforts. Walt Disney must be turning in his grave. Bob is 74, well into retirement age. Shouldn't he be sent to an old people's home, so that he can be replaced by someone who knows what he's doing?

I described the plot in my last review, so I'll only add a few words here. My readers who aren't Marvel fans might be excited to see Donnie Yen's name in the credits. Don't get too worked up. He has a minor role and can easily be missed. His potential is wasted. We only see him performing one kick in the whole movie. He was the film's fight choreographer, so he was probably slotted in as an actor at the last minute. He was already on the set, so it saved the trouble of hiring someone else.

This is a better movie than "Blade", and the main reason is that Blade himself is a more likeable character. In the first film he was very remote, but now he's a more sympathetic person. He even smiles. Even if a character is remote and emotionless in comics, he has to show more emotions in a film to win over the audience. In "Blade 2" Wesley Snipes wins me over.

Success Rate:  + 0.9

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

Name of the Rose (4 Stars)

This is the last film in the "Best of Cinema" series for this year. The 12 films for next year still haven't been announced.

This afternoon I mentioned to a relative that I was going to the cinema, and she asked me what I was going to see.

"Name of the Rose", I replied.

    "That's a good film. Haven't you already seen it?"

"Yes. I have it on Blu-ray".

    "Then why are you going to see it in the cinema?"

At this point I threw up my hands in the air in frustration. What a silly question! There's a world of difference between watching a film at home and in the cinema. Maybe, just maybe, I'd accept the question if I had a home cinema with an enormous screen, 90 inches or more. My television is a mere 48 inches. But even then, it's a different experience sitting with other cinema fans in a dark theatre watching a film. I picked up some things that I'd never noticed at home. Some of the people in the audience laughed at times. I'd never noticed the humour, but they were right.

Added to this, "Name of the Rose" has recently been remastered in 4K, so the picture isn't identical with what I have at home on Blu-ray. That's one of the conditions of the "Best of Cinema" series: all the films have been remastered in 4K. The picture was splendid, from the opening minutes when Sean Connery and Christian Slater approach the abbey in the hills.

I go to see all of the "Best of Cinema" films, as long as I'm not kept away by sickness or family commitments.

And I'll continue going to the cinema on a regular basis as long as I'm able to walk.

Success Rate:  + 2.4

Nightmare Alley (5 Stars)

This is a wonderful film by Guillermo del Toro, whose last film, "The Shape of Water", won him two Academy Awards for the Best Film and the Best Director. Considering his previous successes, it's amazing that his new film has been so under-promoted. No trailers were shown in the cinema in the weeks leading up to its release. I saw a poster hanging outside the cinema, the one shown above, but del Toro's name wasn't apparent. I didn't know that the film was by him until a friend pointed it out to me. I immediately knew I had to see the film.

"Nightmare Alley" has been described as neo-noir. I don't know what that word means, and I doubt anyone else does. It's just a word thrown about to describe crime films. It was also claimed that "Nightmare Alley" is a remake of the 1947 film with the same name. That's not true. It's the second adaptation of the book called "Nightmare Alley" by William Gresham. The new film isn't in any way based on the old film. Any similarities are the result of having the same source material.

The film begins with Stan Carlisle killing a man. We find out more details as the film continues. Stan goes on the run and joins a carnival. He's fascinated by Zeena, a mind-reader. It seems real, but Stan is told it's all a show perfected by her husband Pete. Stan moves into their house and learns from Pete. He eventually leaves the carnival and sets himself up as a mind-reader.

Stan meets a psychologist, Dr. Lilith Ritter, who sees through his fake readings, but is nevertheless impressed by his talent. Together they devise a scam to get money from rich people in New York. She gives Stan information about them from her therapy sessions which he can use when reading their minds.

For me it was fascinating to hear the tricks of fake psychics. William Gresham must have done a lot of research to find out their secrets.

The film is a slow burner. The suspense slowly builds for more than two hours. We know that Stan's steady rise to the top of his profession will finally result in a fall, but how will it happen? The viewer is left in suspense until the end of the film. It's an excellent film, and I'm glad I didn't miss it.

Name of the Rose (4 Stars)

There was a lot of excitement about this film when it was released in 1986. As far as I know, it's been mostly forgotten. Am I right? Obviously, serious film fans like me still remember it, but how many people under the age of 40 have seen it or even know it exists? It's not on frequent television repeat, which is the way older films are usually remembered. Even if it's offered on a streaming service, it's unlikely to be noticed.

In 1327 delegates from the Franciscan and the Dominican monks arrive at an abbey in northern Italy to discuss the poverty of Christ. The debate runs to extremes, even asking whether Jesus owned the robe that he wore. Obviously, the main question is whether modern Christian factions are allowed to be wealthy. The Franciscans were – and still are? – ascetic monks, wearing simple clothes and eating simple meals, whereas the Dominican monks lived in luxury.

William of Baskerville is a highly revered Franciscan monk, despite being accused of pride in his own intellectual facilities. There are a series of suspicious deaths in the abbey. William is more interested in finding the murderer than in the theological debate itself.

A murder mystery set in the 14th Century? That's an original idea. The film is based on a novel with the same name by the Italian philosopher Umberto Eco. He said he was glad that the film encouraged people to buy his book, but he doubts many people managed to read it all. The book, which I haven't read, supposedly contains long theological debates which are absent in the film. He claims that they're too boring for typical cinema fans. That's possible. I felt tempted to buy the book myself to see if it's really so boring, but after 30 years I still haven't got round to it. Only €6.69 for the Kindle edition in Germany. I'm still tempted, but I might wait another 30 years. At the moment I'm reading "Bulldog Drummond" on my Kindle.

The themes in the film would make me laugh, if they weren't so tragic. A blind man is responsible for looking after one of the largest book collections on Earth. Torture is used to obtain confessions of heresy. A mute woman is asked to repent of her sins, and when she doesn't answer she's sentenced to be burnt at the stake.

I have the film on Blu-ray, supposedly remastered, but the picture quality is below average. Some older films have been better preserved than others. The film is still enjoyable and worth purchasing. It's currently out of print in most countries. I have the Swedish edition, which is available from Amazon.

Success Rate:  + 2.4

Romeo is bleeding (4 Stars)

There are many films that people call film noir or neo noir. Mostly I disagree with the description. Even Wikipedia claims there are problems giving a definition of film noir. I don't see a problem. As I see it, there are a few details that have to be adhered to, and everything else is optional.

Film noir is about a crime. The protagonist is a man trying to solve the crime. He's hindered in his work by a deadly woman, a femme fatale. That's normally considered enough for critics to give it the label film noir, but there's one essential feature that's often missing:

Film noir is told from a first person perspective. The male protagonist is present in every scene. There's a voiceover that tells us what he's thinking. We're put inside the protagonist's head and we see through his eyes. If this aspect is missing, it isn't film noir, whatever the experts might tell us.

"Romeo is bleeding" is a true film noir. It's about Jack Grimaldi, a corrupt policeman. He has everything a man needs: a good job, a beautiful wife and a beautiful mistress. But this isn't enough for him. He's greedy and wants more money. He works for the mob, giving them information on the safe houses where turncoat mobsters are being held while waiting to give evidence.

Mona Demarkov is the former lover of the mob boss Don Falcone. When she's arrested she offers a deal to escape prosecution. She's too much for the police officers who escort her to the safe house. She almost kills Jack, and then she escapes by taking the gun off a young officer. Don Falcone blames Jack for her escape and gives him the task of finding and killing her within three days. Jack says this is impossible, but he needn't worry because she finds him first. She offers him $300,000 if he fakes her death. That's a good offer, but it's not sincere. She flirts outrageously with him, keeping him too aroused to realise that she intends to kill him.

It's a very good film. Lena Olin is the perfect femme fatale. It's a role she was born to play. No man can resist her deadly charm. Today is the first time I've seen the film, and I need to watch it again soon.

Success Rate:  - 3.0

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

Star Trek 10: Nemesis (3½ Stars)

This was the least successful of the Star Trek films, but even if it had made more money it would have been the last film starring Patrick Stewart as captain of the Enterprise.  There are different factors that make it a final film. William Riker and Deanna Troi get married, rounding off the romance that's been simmering ever since the first episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation". There's also the death of Data, and it's difficult to imagine a new film in the series without him.

The enemy in this film is a man called Shinzon, who was cloned by the Romulans from Jean-Luc Picard's DNA. It gives a new meaning to the words "We're the same, you and I", which have been spoken by screen villains in varying forms for the last 50 years. It would have been too corny for Shinzon to say this, but I was still disappointed that he didn't.

Shinzon has advanced to become the leader of the Romulans, and he has a plan of how to destroy the Earth, but it's more important to him that he can defeat Captain Picard. He's obsessed with him. Captain Picard is Shinzon's nemesis, more than the other way round.

I find this film less appealing than any of the Star Trek films that went before. Something about it seems too laid back. Even when facing major crises, Captain Picard and the other members of his crew carry on talking calmly. It's as if they're burnt out after so many television episodes and so many films.

But don't they make a beautiful couple? I wish Will and Deanna all the best for a long, happy life together.

Success Rate:  - 0.9

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

Fantastic Beasts and where to find them (3 Stars)

I avoided this film when it was shown in the cinemas two years ago. My friends in England warned me against, telling me things like "It's not as good as Harry Potter". Today I spontaneously decided to watch it at last after it popped up as a Netflix recommendation.

I can see what my friends mean. What stood out in the Harry Potter films – I never read the books – was the complexity of the plot. So many interesting stories were interwoven into one another. In fact, I found the films too complex for younger children, but a friend of mine with a young daughter contradicted me. Her daughter was nine when the first film was released, and she sat on the edge of her seat throughout the film. Needless to say, she returned to watch all of the sequels.

I wonder if young children were just as enthralled by "Fantastic beasts and where to find them". If anything, I'd say that it's more suitable for children. More childish.

The film takes place in 1926. Newt Scamander is a young English wizard who travels to New York with a suitcase full of mystical animals. He's a conservationist. The possession of these animals has been outlawed in America because they're too uncontrollable. If they escape the possibility is too big that they'll be seen by non-magical people. It's a strict law everywhere that magicians should remain hidden from the normal population.

Newt's main reason for his visit to America is to release a large animal, a Thunderbird, into its natural habitat in Arizona. This is complicated when three of his animals escape from the suitcase in New York shortly after his arrival. It's a difficult time. There are rallies of an organisation called the Second Salemers, who preach the evil of witchcraft and want to kill all wizards and witches.

While in New York Newt is given board by two sisters, an ex-hunter of dark wizards and a mind-reader. Another important character is Jacob Kowalski, an aspiring baker who has no magical abilities.

The film was successful, with a success rate of +2.5, which is quite respectable, though not as high as the Harry Potter films, which scored between +4 and +8. Its success is probably due to the popularity of the Harry Potter films. The real test will be the success of the sequel, which is in the cinemas now.

Success Rate:  + 2.5

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

Blade 2 (4½ Stars)

I'm happy to say that "Blade 2" (or "Blade II", if you prefer) is much better than the first film. I accredit the improvement to the new director, Guillermo Del Toro. Whatever he touches turns to gold.

Damaskinos, the lord of the vampires, sends a delegation to Blade to ask him for a truce. He needs Blade's help to eliminate the Reapers, a new type of vampire that is spreading through Prague and could soon cover the whole world. Due to a new virus the Reapers are a type of vampire mach two. They feed on both humans and vampires, but if they feed on a vampire they turn the vampire into another Reaper. The Reapers are immune to garlic and silver, and it's impossible to stake them because of their hard chest. They heal within seconds from any wounds. Their only weakness is sunlight, to which they seem to be more sensitive than normal vampires.

Over the last two years Damaskinos has been training an elite group of vampires, the Blood Pack, which was supposed to be used to kill Blade. Damaskinos says that Blade should lead the Blood Pack in his battle against the Reapers, which creates a lot of tension.

The biggest problems come from Dieter Reinhardt, the former leader of the Blood Pack, who immediately challenges Blade's authority. I've always liked Ron Perlman as an actor, but in this role he's breathtaking. He's mean and he's evil, but he has such a cool attitude that it's impossible not to like him.

Guillermo Del Toro said in an interview that it was important for him to distance himself from the sensitive type of vampires created by Anne Rice. He wanted his vampires to be monsters. That's not a new idea, the vampires in the first film were already cold-hearted and cruel.

This thinking was behind the design of the vampire lord Damaskino. He's not supposed to look attractive. But don't you think he looks like the Master from the first season of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"? On the other hand, Damaskino's daughter Nyssa doesn't look ugly at all, and her evil tendencies are under control. She looks like she's stepped out of the pages of the Vampire Chronicles.

Not even Blade can keep his hands off her.

The Reapers look totally disgusting. Look at that mouth! I'd never let one of those things bite me, not even if it were a woman. If there are any female Reapers, that is. Nothing is said about their gender, but all the Reapers shown in the film are male.

I criticised Wesley Snipes' acting in the first film, but I can't fault him this time. Maybe it's the presence of a superior director that's drawn more out of him. It could also be that Wesley has grown into the role. Blade is a difficult character to play. He's someone who doesn't reveal his emotions, even though the emotions are there bubbling beneath the surface. In "Blade 2" Wesley Snipes portrays this trait perfectly. He doesn't show full emotions, he just gives a hint of emotion when he's dealing with his partner and best friend Whistler. That's something I didn't think he could do after watching the first film, but he's proved me wrong.

I regret waiting so long, 14 years, before watching this film for the first time. If any of my readers haven't seen it yet you need to, after watching the first film, of course.

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

Enemy at the Gates (5 Stars)

This film is based on the Russian World War Two hero Vasily Zaytsev. A lot happens in the film, and if it weren't for the dates of key occurrences flashing on the screen we wouldn't realise that the film only covers a two month period, from September to November 1942.

Vasily came from a poor peasant family. As a child he was taught how to hunt by his grandfather. In 1942 he was sent to Stalingrad as one of many soldiers, but it became immediately obvious that he was exceptionally skilled as a marksman. He ignored the normal German soldiers and specialised in killing German officers. He was made the leader of a newly created sniper division in which he was able to pass on his skills to other soldiers. He didn't teach anyone how to shoot -- only the best marksmen were allowed to join his division -- he taught them his tactics, how to hide, which targets to shoot, which to let live.

When I saw this in the cinema in 2001 I was in awe. It's like no other war film I've ever seen. There's no glory. There's no honour. It's just two armies, the Russian and the German, desperately fighting for the heap of bricks that are all that's left of a once mighty city. Even the integrity of the sniper at the centre of the story can be questioned. It's been said that snipers are the most cowardly of all soldiers. A sniper doesn't stand up and fight man to man, he hides in the shadows and kills opponents who have no chance to fight back.

In 1942 Germany already had the upper hand in Stalingrad. It looked like the Russian forces would be driven back towards Moscow. This one man, Vasily Zaytsev, was instrumental in halting the German attack. According to the official figures he killed 257 Germans in three months.

I can't think of any other film in which Jude Law acts so magnificently. As Vasily Zaytsev he's young and nervous, only gaining his calm when a rifle is in his hands. We feel for him, we urge him on in his battles.

Ed Harris, on the other hand, is a wonderful actor in every film he appears in. This is just one of many brilliant performances in his long acting career. He plays Major König, a German sniper sent to Stalingrad to take out Vasily. The battle between the two is nothing like the fast moving action films that we see every week in the cinema. It's a battle of wits. The two men stalk one another, both trying to remain invisible, hiding for hours waiting to make one single shot.

The battle of the two snipers is just as ugly as the town that serves as their battleground. They have to crawl through the mud and hide among piles of corpses.

This is a highly underrated film. Why don't more people like it? Maybe it's because the film's hero is a Russian? We shouldn't let ourselves be biased by modern day politics. A good film is a good film, whoever the film's heroes are. If you've never seen this film, watch it and tell me what your immediate impressions are when the credits roll.

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

In the Name of the King (4 Stars)

When I watched this film in 2016 I complained that it was too short. This week I bought the director's cut. The original theatrical version is 118 minutes long, and the director's cut is 156 minutes long. The extra 38 minutes greatly improve the film. That's my opinion, at least. The critics aren't convinced. The film still has a whopping 4% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It's about time I stopped referring to that site as if it had some relevance.

As far as I can tell, most of the extra footage is invested in longer battle scenes, but I did recognise a scene with Leelee Sobieski that's not in the theatrical version. This scene tells us a bit more about her character Muriella, the magus' daughter. Jason Statham's character, Farmer, is also better rounded than I remember it from the other version.

Ron Perlman impresses me more every time I see him. The first time I saw him was in "Name of the Rose", one of the few films that I watched in the cinema in the 1980's. Then I forgot about him until "Enemy at the Gates" in 2001. (Those are two films I need to watch again). However, it wasn't until I saw the TV series "Hand of God" that I said, "Wow! This guy is brilliant". I can appreciate his older performances better now. He never does anything wrong.

As far as the acting is concerned, he's similar to Leelee Sobieski, who also appears in the film. They both have a calm, composed way of speaking, but they're both able to switch to displays of deep emotions within seconds. As is to be expected, they're the two actors who carry the film, not Jason Statham in the lead role.

Overall the acting is of high quality. Ray Liotta performs solidly as the evil wizard Gallian, while Matthew Lillard puts on a typical over-the-top performance as Duke Fallow. I wish I could see more of him, but in recent years he's specialised in voice acting for animated films. Burt Reynolds is disappointing as King Konreid. He used to be one of Hollywood's best actors, but he seems to have lost his talent with the passing of years.

The film's greatest weakness is the computer graphics. Castles look artificial, and in distant army scenes it's obvious that the scenes are computer-painted. The film's budget was $60 million. Couldn't a few million have been spent on better computer artists?

"In the Name of the King" is based on the computer game "Dungeon Siege" which was released in 2002, but the similarity to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy is so strong that it borders on plagiarism. The primitive Krug look like Orcs, there are two rival mages who used to be friends, and even the shots of the four warriors walking across the mountains look like scenes from the Lord of the Rings films.

I know my readers are already desperate for more screenshots of Leelee Sobieski. Let me give you just one picture. You can click on it to enlarge it it if you need a new Windows wallpaper.

What's that? You want more? Are you sure? Here's the proof that I'd do anything for my readers:

That's Kristanna Loken with Leelee in the last picture. I like tall girls. Leelee is 5'10" and Kristanna is 5'11". They're big, they're tough and they carry swords. How could anyone fail to fall in love with them? If I were in the army facing them I'd have to surrender. My right hand would be quivering too much to hold my sword.

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

P.S. The Amazon UK link is to the normal edition. The Director's Cut has only been released in America and Germany.

Drive (4 Stars)

After watching "Neon Demon" last week I decided to watch a few more films directed by Nicolas Winding Refn. Luckily several of them are available on Netflix. I'm beginning to get a feeling for his style now. He and his films have never been nominated for Academy Awards, but he's a favourite at independent film festivals, most notably at the Cannes Film Festival. His two most highly praised films so far have been "Neon Demon" and "Drive".

First of all I'll state my biggest criticism of "Drive": it's too short. The plot is complex, so 100 minutes isn't enough. A running time of 150 minutes would have done more justice to the subplots, as well as further developing the characters. Is there a director's cut lying in a draw somewhere?

Ryan Gosling is the film's unnamed hero. He's moved to Los Angeles to make it big, like so many other anonymous faces in and around the film industry. His job of choice is as a stunt driver. Nobody can crash a car like him. Aren't stunt men the most anonymous of all film stars? They're paid to remain unseen.

His relative success in Hollywood isn't enough to pay the bills. He works as a car mechanic. He also does freelance work as a getaway driver for robberies. It's all very impersonal. He doesn't want to make friends, he just does his job. He doesn't even speak to the crooks that he drives to and from crime scenes. They respect him for his driving skills, not for his personality.

He becomes romantically attached to his neighbour, a woman whose husband is in prison. It's a very underplayed romance. He's a decent man and respects the woman's marriage. When the husband is released from prison they make friends, and he offers to help him pay off debts to other criminals. He offers his services as a getaway driver to rob a pawn shop, but the robbery turns out wrong. Instead of the relatively small takings the Italian mafia is using the shop to store over a million dollars. The innocent driver gets caught up in a mob war in which he's the designated scapegoat. Or is he so innocent? That isn't clear. He might be a quiet person whose casual attitude makes other people think he doesn't know what he's doing, but he's more than able to handle himself in a fight.

The film is characterised by two features: bright colours and extreme violence. The style is very much like Quentin Tarantino's films, or at least it would be if there were more conversations. That's why "Drive" needs an extra 50 minutes. And, of course, Tarantino's films don't have such dazzling colours.

I can't help feeling that Nicolas Winding Refn is still slowly developing his style. His big masterpiece is yet to come. I can hardly wait.

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

Alien: Resurrection (4 Stars)

On the face of it this is a strongly feminist film. The two lead characters are powerful women, and it easily passes the Bechdel Test. The men in the story are stupid or insignificant. Whether or not it qualifies as a feminist film decides on which level you look at. As the film progresses we find out that neither of the women is really a woman. The actresses are women, of course, so it's up to you to decide whether you're judging it by the actresses or the characters.

Ever since the first film the Alien films have been a mixture of science fiction and horror. In this fourth film the horror aspect is in the foreground. It's probably because the new director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, felt more comfortable with horror than science fiction. Whatever the reason, it isn't a bad film, but the atmosphere and the mood are far removed from the minimalist setting of "Alien".

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

In the Name of the King (3½ Stars)

This is the 24th film starring Leelee Sobieski, made in 2007. It was actually filmed in 2005, but there was a lengthy post-production process. This was the director Uwe Boll's 12th film, but it was his first big budget production. Up until then his films had cost a maximum of $3 million, but this time he had a budget of $60 million at his disposal, and he didn't want to make any mistakes. The film still made a loss anyway. It only earned $13 million at the box office, plus $30 million in DVD sales, which made it officially a flop.

I know Uwe Boll is the director people love to hate. I already discussed my feelings about this in my reviews of "Bloodrayne 3" and "Postal". Let's just judge "In the name of the king" on its own merits.

My main problem with the film is that it's too short. We're thrown right into the action from the start, and it's difficult to see what's going on. Apart from that, the characters aren't well developed at the outset, although we do get to know them slowly as the film progresses. The film would have profited from another 30 to 60 minutes build up. There's a big mythology in the background, and I would have liked to know more about it before the action started. On the other hand, I've found out that there's a director's cut that's 40 minutes longer than the version I watched today. Maybe that would solve my problems.

The film is based on the video game "Dungeon Siege" which was released in 2002. I expect that people who have played the game will judge it on its similarity to the game. Uwe Boll admits that he's not a game player, but he let someone play the game in front of him so that he could see what it's like.

The film is about a man called Farmer, played by Jason Statham, an orphan adopted by a family in a small village. The land is caught up in a civil war when the king's nephew tries to overthrow his uncle. He's first in line for the throne, but he's too impatient to wait for his uncle to die. It's a tale of swords and sorcery, with rival magicians fighting on each side. There's also an army of dog-like creatures called the Krug, not too different from the Orcs in "Lord of the Rings". The king is assisted by wood nymphs, under the leadership of Kristanna Loken. Leelee Sobieski is the daughter of a mage loyal to the king, but she's also willing to carry a sword into battle.

Leelee has a brief scene at the beginning in which she passionately kisses the rival mage Gallian. That brings the total to one film that contains a simulated sex scene and five films with passionate kisses. That makes the percentage of films in her career so far with sexual stuff to either 4% or 26%, depending on whether or not the kisses are included. This is far below the 90% that she claims are necessary in films today.

I've never considered Jason Statham to be a good actor, but he's suitable as an action hero. When he plays the main role in a film you can expect exciting fight scenes, not emotional depth. The film contains a lot of battle scenes, both one on one and armies clashing. The final showdown between Jason Statham and the enemy mage is remarkable. It makes up for many of the weaker scenes earlier in the film.

Last week Uwe Boll announced that he's decided to retire from film making. He's only 51. I've listened to a few interviews in which he explains his decision. He gives more details in the German interviews. He sees himself as a champion of independent film making. With few exceptions he considers the big budget Hollywood films to be trash, although he praises a lot of the low budget independent films. Uwe Boll has financed most of his films himself out of his personal savings. Despite mediocre box office results he's managed to make money from most of his films, though only with the help of German state subsidies. He's said that he personally can make one million dollars profit from a typical film, but if he makes two million dollars loss from a film it wipes out the profit from his last two films. He now feels that the independent film industry in general is too risky for him. He's a gambling man who's decided to quit while he's ahead. That's sensible. At the moment he has enough money to live on for the rest of his life, but one unsuccessful film could change everything.

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

Alien: Resurrection (4½ Stars)

So what happened here? After watching "Alien 3" you must have thought the story of the Aliens (with a capital A) was over. Ellen Ripley committed suicide to kill the Queen Alien growing inside her chest, making a neat end to the trilogy. Yet now they're back. The Aliens have been brought back from the dead, and so has Ripley.

The story takes place 200 years later. Mankind has made great scientific advances without learning the need for caution. Having heard about the Aliens of the past, the United Systems Military thinks that if they resurrect them they can use the Aliens for medical research. To do this, they regenerate Ripley and the Queen growing within her from blood that has been stored since her suicide. The Queen is resurrected normally, but Ripley is no longer fully human, because her DNA has been mixed with that of the Queen. Ripley tries to warn the USM of their mistake, but instead of being cautious they breed another 12 Aliens from the Queen.

This is a good film, which once more neatly closes the Aliens saga. But please, let the story rest now, we don't want any more films!

Oops... what did you say? I'm too late with my warning? They already made "Alien vs Predator"?

Outlander (4 Stars)

This 2008 film cost $47 million to make. When it was released it earned $160,000 in the USA. Ouch. It did slightly better abroad, earning $5 million worldwide. Judging by these figures it was an epic fail. And yet it isn't a bad film. Not at all.

The film stars top Hollwood actors. Jim Caviezel, John Hurt and Ron Perlman are usually a guarantee for a good film. It has a large cast of supporting actors and extras. The special effects are competent. The story is a cross between the legend of Beowulf and Michael Moorcock's sword and sorcery novels.

The date is 709 AD. A space ship crashes in Norway. Only one member of the crew survives, Kainan, but unknown to him a murderous monster has stowed away on the craft. This monster, called a Moorwen, begins to destroy Viking villages, killing everyone. Kainan has to unite warring Viking chiefs to battle the Moorwen.

I don't know why the film flopped. Bad marketing? Maybe nobody knew what to make of it. Most alien spaceships crash in Manhattan, not in Norway. The American audience can't relate to it. This is a film worth watching. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it.

Desperation (3½ Stars)

In the middle of Nevada there are subterranean monsters, mistreated Chinese workers seeking revenge, shapeshifters, doubtful Christian theology... this is a mixed up story. I haven't read the book, but the film certainly doesn't make much sense. Too many non-cohesive ideas.

On the plus side, Ron Perlman is an excellent actor. I've always liked him, but he seems to be getting better with age.