The Father (3 Stars)

As I've mentioned more than once in my blog, I dislike films about dementia. It's a subject that disturbs me. I witnessed my grandfather suffering from dementia. I witnessed my friend Brian Farmer suffering from dementia shortly before he was murdered. I had already heard about this film and knew that it was critically acclaimed, so my rating is purely subjective.

Anthony Hopkins plays a wealthy man who lives in London. His daughter has been caring for him, but now she has to move to Paris. What will become of him?

What makes "The Father" unique is that it shows dementia through the eyes of the sick person. This isn't even clear in the early stages of the film. As the film progresses we slowly piece things together and see what's really happening.

The performances are excellent by all involved. What else can you expected from actors like Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman? I'm sure most of my readers will enjoy the film more than I did.

Success Rate:  + 4.0

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

Dark City (5 Stars)

After watching the theatrical version of "Dark City" in May, I decided to watch the director's cut today. It's noticeable how much has been re-edited. The only thing about it that I dislike is the way Kiefer Sutherland screams when he's approaching Shell Beach. That's a comment for my readers who already know and love the film. It'll confuse anyone who's never seen it, so my advice is that you go out and buy it straight away, preferably on Blu-ray. I'm not aware that it's available on any streaming services.

Rufus Sewell plays John Murdock, who's at the centre of a conspiracy. He wakes up at midnight in a bath tub with amnesia. He doesn't even know his own name until he looks at his driver's licence. There's a dead woman in the next room. He's the prime suspect in a murder investigation. Six prostitutes have been killed, and John doesn't know whether or not he's innocent.

John's wife Emma is a night club singer. John left her three weeks ago, but she thinks he's innocent.

Frank Bumstead is a lonely, brooding detective who's determined to find the murderer. The closer he gets to solving the case, the more he realises that it doesn't make sense. The last detective who was working on the case went insane, telling everyone that there is no case. It's all a game.

This is Melissa George's first role as a prostitute called May. John visits her to test himself. He wants to know whether he's capable of murder.

The psychiatrist Dr. Daniel Schreber is the only man who knows what's happening, but nobody believes him.

This is a brilliant film. It's a mystery that will thrill you from beginning to end.

Success Rate:  - 1.0

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

Dark City (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #37

This is an amazing science fiction film with aspects of film noir and added hints of German expressionism. Calling it science fiction is already a spoiler, because the film opens without revealing its genre. After the first 15 minutes the mystery could still go in any direction, and even when there are supernatural occurrences the viewer is unsure what to make of them.

Today I read the Wikipedia page and found some interesting thoughts that weren't on the page the last time I read it. I'll quote them in full:

Theologian Gerard Loughlin interprets "Dark City" as a retelling of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave". For Loughlin, the city dwellers are prisoners who do not realize they are in a prison. John Murdoch's escape from the prison parallels the escape from the cave in the allegory. He is assisted by Dr. Schreber, who explains the city's mechanism as Socrates explains to Glaucon how the shadows in the cave are cast. Murdoch however becomes more than Glaucon; Loughlin writes, "He is a Glaucon who comes to realize that Socrates' tale of an upper, more real world, is itself a shadow, a forgery". Murdoch defeats the Strangers who control the inhabitants and remakes the world based on childhood memories, which were themselves illusions arranged by the Strangers. Loughlin writes of the lack of background, "The origin of the city is off-stage, unknown and unknowable". Murdoch now casts new shadows for the city inhabitants, who must trust his judgment. Unlike Plato, Murdoch "is disabused of any hope of an outside" and becomes the demiurge for the cave, the only environment he knows.

Today I watched the original theatrical version, which is spoilt by an ugly voiceover in the opening scene. The director Alex Proyas has confirmed that the studio forced him to add the voiceover against his will. A Director's Cut was released 10 years later, removing the voiceover and making many small changes. I welcome the omission of the voiceover, but I have mixed feelings about the other changes. The additional 10 minutes footage is noticeable, but makes no difference to the film's quality. The musical score is different in places, and is definitely inferior in the Director's Cut.

My recommendation is: if you've never seen the film, watch the Director's Cut. You'll enjoy it. You won't be aware of any problem with the music, so you won't have anything to regret. Nevertheless, I consider the Director's Cut to be unnecessary. It would have been enough to add a second audio track to the theatrical version without the opening scene's voiceover.

I intend to rewatch the Director's Cut soon. Maybe next week. That's only a Maybe, so please don't hold your breath while you're waiting.

Success Rate:  - 1.0

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

Judy (5 Stars)

This is a film I've wanted to see for months, not because I'm particularly a fan of Judy Garland, but because I like true stories ("biopics") in general. The film has received positive reviews, but I would have gone to see it anyway.

The film tells the story of her visit to England in her later years. It wasn't stated in the film when this happened, but I read her life story on the bus after the film, and it was in 1968. Her marriage to Micky Deans is shown out of sequence, i.e. it must have been after the stage appearance at the end of the film, but I suppose you can allow film makers some artistic license for dramatisation purposes.

There are flashbacks to Judy's film career as a teenager, ages 14 to 15, but not many. There are just enough to explain the background of the later events.

In 1968 Judy Garland was deeply in debt. Hotels would no longer give her a room because of unpaid bills. Nobody was interested in her in America. She was out of fashion. Nobody wanted to pay money to see a 46-year-old child star. She was advised to go to England, where she had a large fan following. Her shows were sold out weeks in advance at the Talk Of The Town nightclub in London.

At first things went well, but she was no longer used to the strict routine of daily shows. On some evenings she performed badly due to alcohol and drug abuse. (It's not stated in the film what the pills are that she keeps swallowing, but her life story describes them as amphetamines). Her contract was terminated early, and the club owner threatened to sue her.

In parallel we see her custody battle for her two small children. Her ex-husband Sidney Luft wants to keep the children to make sure they go to school. They love their mother, but they're ashamed of her out-of-control lifestyle.

Judy's ups and downs in the few months of the film's story are uplifting and heart wrenching. Renee Zellweger's performance brought tears to my eyes, especially in the later scenes. She won the Best Actress award at yesterday's Gilden Globes ceremony. She deserves it. Let's wait and see if she wins the same award at the Academy Awards next month.

Dark City (5 Stars)

This is one of the best films ever made, if we turn a blind eye to the horrible voiceover at the beginning, a blunder that was fortunately removed in the Director's Cut. I included "Dark City" in my list of 30 films to watch before you die, so if you haven't seen it yet I have only one question: Why not?

Rather than write any more about the film today I'll point out a few details that you might miss if you only watch it casually. It has to do with some newspaper clippings that John Murdock finds in his coat pocket concerning a serial killer who has been murdering prostitutes. All of the following screenshots can be enlarged by clicking on them.

In the first newspaper clipping the headline reads "Killer Strikes Again", but carry on reading. The text of the article has nothing to do with a serial killer, it's about a battle between America and Japan in World War Two.

The headline of the second newspaper clipping is "Hunt for Murderer Continues", but the article's text is very curious.

A very casual woman and a man that didn't mind were very much in evidence in the police records lately. An old hatter near Castlemaine came home to find his domicile invaded by a strange woman. He admitted that he didn't mind, and next day she proposed that he should give her a legal status as his wife. As he was still indifferent, the banns were called, but before their conclusion the lady was missing.

Eventually he found her habitating with with another man. He still didn't mind, and allowed that he was willing to marry her, but before the wedding day had arrived the bride wandered into matrimony with another casual stranger, and brought the husband in to live with the late intended. He didn't mind, and continued that way until the newcomer decided to turn him out and did it in a half minute.

Very strange. The same text is repeated in the next column.

The third newspaper clipping has the headline "Street Walker Killer still at large", but read on. The article's text is the same story of the man who didn't mind that was in the second clipping. Was the man who didn't mind a killer?

The fourth newspaper clipping has the headline "Police Baffled by Murders". I'm more baffled why the article about the man who didn't mind is repeated yet again.

The fifth newspaper clipping is perhaps the most interesting. The headline reads "Killer Stalks City's Street Walkers", but the article's text has nothing to do with the murders. The picture is too blurred to read much of the article, but one paragraph is clear in the second column:

Of no less importance was the common recognition shown of the fact that any menace from without to the peace of our continents concerns all of us and therefore property is a subject for consideration and cooperation. This was reflected in the instruments adopted by the conference.

Does that sound familiar to you? I recognised it straight away. It's the same text that's written in the newspaper in "Basic Instinct" and "A Horse For Danny".

There are only five words I can use to describe these five newspaper texts.

Sloppy. Sloppy. Sloppy. Sloppy. Sloppy.

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

Gods of Egypt (4 Stars)

How can the critics get things so wrong? This film was given advance reviews calling it a poor film, and yet I came out of the cinema today highly satisfied. Were the critics watching a different film to me? Or have they just lost track of what the general public likes? The job of a good film critic is to advise people whether to see a film or not. That's my opinion. Any praise or criticism of a film should relate to that. It shouldn't just be about telling the public whether a film is politically or socially relevant. The public goes to the cinema to be entertained.

Does "Gods of Egypt" entertain? The answer is a resounding Yes. The film has sword and fist fights. It has flying Gods. It has battles with giant monsters. I was thrilled from beginning to end. I expected nothing less. The film was directed by Alex Proyas, responsible for masterpieces like "Dark City" and "The Crow". He was justifiably annoyed at the critical reception of his film, calling the critics deranged idiots. He claims that they don't make up their own minds about films, they just look over the shoulders of the other critics, copying the opinions of one another.

A lot of criticism of the film when it was being made was that the majority of the actors chosen for the roles are white. In fact, all the film's major characters are white; only the supporting characters and the extras are black. I can understand the logic. "Egypt is in Africa. The people who live in Africa are black. So a film about Egypt should use black actors".

Unfortunately, this line of thought is based on ignorance of anthropology. The film's date isn't stated, but we can estimate that it takes place between 2500 B.C. and 2000 B.C. At that time the population of Egypt was Caucasian. It's unclear when dark skinned people (presumably invaders from central Africa) moved into Egypt, but some scholars put the date as late as 300 B.C., after the death of Alexander the Great.

There are three types of evidence we can use to determine the hair and skin colour of the ancient Egyptians: ancient paintings, mummified corpses and literary descriptions.

The drawings of people in the pyramids and tombs shows the skin varying from pale, to gold, to pink. No drawings show people with black skin. None at all. The hair colour varies from yellow, to brown, to black, but the majority of the drawings show people with red hair.

Recent DNA tests have shown that the majority of the mummified corpses had red hair. It's more difficult to determine the skin colour because of the decay of the flesh over time.

Combining the evidence of these two sources, we can deduce that the majority of the Egyptians from 1500 B.C. to 1000 B.C. had pale skin and red hair. Light blond and dark blond hair existed, but it was less common.

The problem with the literary descriptions is that they're more recent, from 350 B.C. onwards. The descriptions of Egyptian statesmen are inconsistent. Some describe them as dark skinned, and others as having a ruddy complexion. This suggests that the population of Egypt was already a mix of various races by this time.

What happened to the red-haired people of Egypt? There are two possibilities. One is that the red-hair genes were weak, and they were wiped out by intermarriage with other races. The other possibility is that the people migrated northwards to Scandinavia and the British Isles. This could have been a speedy journey (like the current migration from Syria to Germany), or it could have been the slow drift of a migrant people over the course of hundreds of years. A third possibility is that the red-haired people were slaughtered as rebels or inferior during or after the rule of Alexander the Great, but there are no historical reports to support this.

In case all this talk about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians is too complex for you to follow, what about the other features of the film? It shows Gods and men living side by side. Is that something you want to argue about? Not me. As far as I'm concerned it just shows that it's a fantasy film. We don't have to quarrel about details. Moreover, in a scene which takes place in space we see that the Earth is flat. Any critic who sits down and writes, "The film gets it wrong; the world isn't really flat" just doesn't get it. He really is a deranged idiot.

Dark City (5 Stars)

30 films to watch before you die, #20

This film, made by the Australian director Alex Proyas, was a financial flop when it was released in 1998. It was filmed with a budget of $40 million, but only earned $27 million at the box office. However, it was later recognised as a cult classic, and after being released on DVD enough copies were sold to make it profitable. More than $13 million of DVD sales? That's healthy.

Visually, the film could be mistaken for film noir. It's literally a dark city, a city in which the sun never shines. There's a murder mystery, but as the film progresses it becomes less and less relevant. It's more important to find out the secret hidden in the city. The first person to discover the secret is Detective Walenski, but what he uncovers drives him mad.

The similarity between this film and "The Matrix" is unmistakable. Roger Ebert went as far as to say that "The Matrix" recycled the premise of "Dark City". Obviously the Wachowski Brothers were strongly influenced by "Dark City", but as is often said, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Alex Proyas hasn't made many films in his career, but you might want to check out

• The Crow (1994)
• I, Robot (2004)
• Knowing (2009)

Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter (4½ Stars)

This is one of those films that I sat down to watch with the completely wrong expectations. I expected it to be a camp comedy. I mean, with a name like that what do you expect? And even the trailer seemed to point in that direction. But I was wrong, very wrong. This is a very serious film that doesn't play for laughs. The figure of Abraham Lincoln isn't ridiculed in the slightest, he is presented as a true hero, fighting for the country that he loves so much. History isn't changed in the film, the vampirism is cleverly woven into the historical events that children learn in school.

When Abraham was a child he witnessed his mother being killed. Years later he finds out that the killer was a vampire, so he works as a vampire slayer before entering politics. When he becomes president he learns that the true reason that the South wants to retain slavery is so that the slaves' blood can be used to feed the large vampire community in the South. The southern leaders enlist vampires to battle at Gettysburg. As the only person in the government who knows the truth of what is happening he has to devise a plan to defeat the army of the undead.

The quality of this film is astounding. It starts slowly and builds up momentum towards the end. I won't post a link to the trailer. It's awful. Just watch the film, and prepare to be amazed. And I shouldn't forget to mention Rufus Sewell, one of my favorite actors, especially when he plays a villain. He sends shivers down my spine whenever he enters a scene.

The Illusionist (4 Stars)

This is a fascinating story that takes place in Austria at the end of the 19th Century. The story starts in Hungary, where a young boy called Eduard, a carpenter's son, meets a travelling magician and begins to learn conjuring tricks. He meets the Duchess Sophie von Teschen while she is riding, he shows her his tricks, and they fall in love. But in those days a romance between a pauper and a noble was not allowed, so he leaves to travel the world, studying magic at the feet of the world's greatest magicians.

15 years later he returns and appears in Vienna using the stage name Eisenheim. He dazzles audiences with tricks, and the police inspector becomes a fan of his, watching closely at all times to discover the secret of his tricks. Prince Leopold, a man with ambitions to become ruler of Germany, visits the performances, and we see that his fiancee is Duchess Sophie. The romance flares up again, leading to retaliation from Prince Leopold.

For me the real stars of this film aren't Edward Norton and Jessica Biel, who play Eisenheim and Sophie. Rufus Sewell and Paul Giamatti, who play Prince Leopold and Inspector Uhl, are the ones who dazzle with their on-screen presence. Rufus Sewell, though not so well known, is an outstanding actor. I first saw him in "Dark City", but I find him most suitable when playing a bad guy, such as King Agamemnon in "Helen of Troy". Very few actors are as skilled at playing evil characters. Maybe Gary Oldman, I can't think of anyone else at the moment. Paul Giamatti excels as the police inspector who means well, but has to do what the prince says if he wants to keep his job.

Click here to view the trailer.

Dark City (5 Stars)

A man wakes up suffering from amnesia. He has a knife at his side and a dead woman is lying in the next room. The police suspect him of being a serial killer, but how can he prove to them he's innocent when he even suspects himself? As he dodges the police he's also pursued by a group of mystery men dressed in black. The only person who knows the truth is a psychiatrist who limps around the city giving cryptic clues as to what is happening.

This is one of the best films I've ever seen. If you haven't yet seen it I advise against reading other reviews, because it's difficult to say more than a few words without spoiling the film's mystery which unfolds as it develops.

The film was released in the same week as "Titanic" and suffered as a result at the box office. It was filmed on a budget of $40 million, but only earned $27 million in the theatres. Since then it has gained great critical acclaim. It's a film that is worth watching over and over again.