Dust Bunny (3 Stars)

Aurora is a 10-year-old girl who lives in an apartment in Manhattan with her foster parents. One night she discovers a monster under her bed. Her parents don't believe her – parents never do – so she sleeps outside her window on the fire escape to avoid the monster. The next day her parents are eaten by the monster, leaving her alone. She's witnessed her neighbour (an unnamed man played by Mads Mikkelsen) killing a dragon, so she asks him to kill the monster. Unfortunately, she's misunderstood what she saw. He actually killed a man wearing a dragon costume in Chinatown. The neighbour is a secret agent at war with enemy agents. He doesn't believe in monsters, but he agrees to help Aurora, even though it brings her into contact with the enemies attacking him.

There are many things about the film that I don't like, but I'll just name one problem: even though Aurora knows there's a monster under the bed, she returns home to sleep in her bed every night. That's totally illogical.

I don't intend to buy the film, but I'll give it another chance when it's available on streaming.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (4 Stars)

This film should have been called "Ghostbusters: The Next Generation". The original Ghostbusters have been replaced by younger actors. Almost replaced; they appear briefly at the end to join in the fight, but all they do is delay the enemies, giving the youngsters time to win the battle.

Phoebe and Trevor are the grandchildren of Egon Spengler. Phoebe (12) is a scientific genius, advanced far beyond her age. Trevor (15) isn't very smart, but he knows how to repair cars, so he isn't completely useless.

Lucky is a waitress in a local restaurant. She gets involved because Trevor has a crush on her. Can you blame him? Her age isn't stated, but I assume she's slightly older than Trevor, because he pretends to be 17 when he chats her up.

The boy called Podcast is probably the same age as Phoebe. We never find out his real name, but he calls himself Podcast because he has a podcast. Duh! It's the only thing that the small town of Summerville in Oklahoma is known for. I'd call myself Blogger, but after 27 years as Dancer I don't want to change my name. Yes, I know exactly when I started calling myself Dancer. It was when I signed up for my first Internet account in 1995. I had to pick a username for myself, and it quickly became my nickname.

There was a long delay with the film's release. It was completed in early 2020 and scheduled for release in July 2020, but it was delayed until November 2021 because of the Coronavirus pandemic. That stupid virus has messed up the film industry!

There's some name confusion over the film. Many call it "Ghostbusters 3", even though the 2016 film was previously called "Ghostbusters 3". Maybe it deserves the name more. It refers to the first Ghostbusters film, though not the second. Should it be called "Ghostbusters 2a"?

Whatever it's called, it's a good film, even if it's not as humorous as the previous films. I hope the promised sequels with the young cast will be made while they still look young.

Success Rate:  + 0.7

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

Ghostbusters [2016 version] (4½ Stars)

If I were a ghost I'd lie down and surrender to four sexy Ghostbusters like Kate McKinnon, Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig and Leslie Jones. I wouldn't take Chris Hemsworth seriously, with or without his hammer. He's just a stupid men that the girls keep around for his good looks. There's been gender reversal in films before, but I can't think of any other film where it's pushed as far as in this film. Why shouldn't women objectify men? Men have been objectifying women for hundreds, maybe thousands of years.

When I reviewed the first Ghostbusters film two days ago, I said that I didn't know whether the 2016 film is a sequel or a reboot. It's irrelevant what the director or the screenwriter says, I'm only interested in what the film itself says. The trouble is that the film itself isn't clear. It doesn't reference the original film, which makes it a matter of choice. The original actors appear in cameo roles playing different characters, which suggests that it's a reboot. So my decision is that it's probably a reboot.

Or a remake? In film jargon, a remake is when a single film is made again, whereas a reboot is when the first film in a series is made again with the intention of making a new film series. The correct word for this film is definitely reboot, because the post-credits scene contains a hook for a sequel. Whether or not a sequel will be made is in doubt. The fans rejected the film, and it was a box office failure.

I sometimes say, deliberately being provocative, that I'm the only person who likes "Ghostbusters 2016". The statement is obviously false, but I know that I'm in the minority. I'm willing to argue about the film with anyone, preferably over a glass of beer. It has a powerful villain (even if he's only a seedy hotel janitor), it has better special effects than the original, and it's funnier than the original. Most of all, it has four powerful women in the lead roles. Their gender isn't an object of humour, it's just taken for granted. The people who hate the film, most of whom hated it before they even saw it, consider it sacrilege that their four heroes from a classic film have been replaced by women. Is it misogyny? Of course it is! If a reboot had been made with male actors there wouldn't have been such an outcry.

Oh, and the film has a cameo by Ozzy Osbourne. That's a bonus in any film.

My Blu-ray contains two versions of the film, the theatrical version and an extended version. After watching both versions, I can definitely recommend the extended version. It's often the case that scenes are cut or shortened to improve the pacing of the theatrical version, but that's not the case here. I suspect that the extra scenes, approximately 17 minutes, were only removed to get the film's runtime below two hours. Nothing is superfluous in the extended version, it's a perfectly crafted film which only suffers from cuts being made.

Success Rate:  - 0.4

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

Ghostbusters 2 (3 Stars)

"Ghostbusters 2" was released five years after the original film, but it took a long time to get there. The cast of the original film (Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Bill Murray and Ernie Hudson) were unwilling to make a sequel, because they thought the original film was perfect in itself. When they finally agreed on making a film, it was delayed by scheduling problems. There were arguments within Columbia Pictures about how much money should be invested in the film. The only way to keep the budget low was for the main actors to agree on being paid a percentage of the profits, rather than a large salary in advance.

After the film was complete, it was badly received by test audiences, leading to rewriting and reshooting of many scenes, especially the ending. There were also last minute changes to make it more suitable for children. When it finally came to the cinemas there was a lukewarm response from the public, but the critics were unanimous in saying it didn't live up to the initial film.

Even though I didn't read about the film's production difficulties until after I watched it this evening, I could tell that something was wrong. "Ghostbusters 2" is missing the magic of the original. It's not as funny, and when the film tries to be serious the scary scenes aren't scary at all. The whole backstory with Dana Barrett's baby seems out of place. The main enemy (Vigo) isn't powerful enough to be considered a real threat, and the means used to defeat him (making the Statue of Liberty walk into Manhattan) are too ridiculous to be taken seriously, even in a comedy film.

"Ghostbusters 2" is a film that I find superfluous. There was no need for it to be made, from an artistic viewpoint, and it doesn't deserve to be remembered.

Success Rate:  + 5.2

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

Ghostbusters (4 Stars)

I didn't intend to watch this film again so soon, but my son Benjamin forced me to watch it. Oh wait, he doesn't do that. Let's just say that he asked nicely, and I didn't have it in my heart to say No.

My son's trouble is that he relies on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney Plus to watch films. Between the three of them he has a good, but not perfect selection. He's probably watched every horror film on Netflix and most horror films on Amazon Prime. He's able to play DVDs and Blu-rays on his Playstation 4, but he doesn't. What I'm trying to say, in my long-winded manner, is that after all these years he's never watched "Ghostbusters". That's a hole in his education.

So where's the franchise going from here? The first film was made in 1984. It could have been left alone, but a sequel was made in 1989. I still haven't watched it, I've just been told that it's not very good. I need to make up my mind for myself.

In 2016 a third film was made which nobody likes except me. It's called a reboot, and I even described it as a remake myself in my first review, but I don't think it's true. I'll decide next time I watch it.

In 2021 "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" was made, obviously a sequel to the first two films. And now a fifth film is planned next year. Will the film series continue at top speed? I hope so. Maybe it can be tied in with the 2016 film to prove that it's not a reboot.

Success Rate:  + 9.8

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

Ghostbusters (4 Stars)

Camp. Trashy. Cult. Those are just three words that can be used to describe this 1984 film. It tells the tale of three university academics who're forced to form a company after the university withdraws its funding. They specialise in catching ghosts. They have fancy devices called positron colliders, which can grab ghosts.

It all looks so easy that anyone can do it. Later in the film a fourth man without any academic qualifications joins the team. They shove a positron collider in his hand and he can start work immediately.

Their first customer is a concert cellist called Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver), but they don't get very far with her. When Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) visits her apartment he's more interested in chatting her up than taking her claims to have seen a demon seriously. Of the three men in the team, Venkman is the most sceptical. He always assumes that anyone who says he's seen a ghost is lying or delusional until he can see the proof with his own eyes.

The ghosts may be easy to catch, but the demons are more trouble. Dana is possessed by a demon called Zuul, the servant of a Sumerian God called Gozer. When Gozer enters our world he'll destroy everything he touches. The positron colliders won't be a match for him.

I enjoy the film, but it's technically very dated. Millions of dollars were invested in the film's special effects, but in 1984 they couldn't get much for their money. "Ghostbusters" hasn't survived the transfer to Blu-ray, because the high definition images make the film's weaknesses all the more apparent. For instance, in the final scene the New York skyscrapers look like cardboard.

But something about "Ghostbusters" has touched a nerve. It's still popular with film fans 40 years after its release. The cheap special effects are overlooked. The 2016 film shows what it would have looked like with modern special effects. Maybe it's Bill Murray's laid back humour that makes the film a success. Or maybe it's Sigourney Weaver's 1980's hairdo. Whatever it is, it's a film that has captured the imagination of a generation.

Success Rate:  + 9.8

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

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (4 Stars)

This is one of the films I missed due to being ill earlier this year. I was waiting to see it on a streaming service, but the Blu-ray was so cheap that I couldn't say No. 

"Ghostbusters: Afterlife" is the official title, but it's been marketed as "Ghostbusters 3", denying the existence of the 2016 Ghostbusters film that the fans love to hate. The best way to judge "Afterlife" is by comparing it with the 2016 film. It's not as over-the-top. It's (slightly) less comical. Instead of women, it features a new team of teenage Ghostbusters. Almost teenage. The youngest team member, Phoebe, is only 12 years old, which makes her a pre-teen.

Phoebe and her 15-year-old brother Trevor have ghostbusting in their genes. Their recently departed grandfather is Egon Spengler, one of the original Ghostbusters. After the events of the second film the Ghostbusters retired and took up normal jobs. That was 30 years ago. Only Egon was a dedicated (read "extremist") Ghostbuster who believed the biggest fight was yet to come. He left New York and settled in Summerville, Oklahoma, which he believed to be the hiding place of a Sumerian God which would bring about the world's end. He thought he could fight by himself – and he didn't have any support from his colleagues – but he died when his equipment failed. His daughter inherits his farmhouse, which she finds full of junk. Only Phoebe recognises that it isn't junk, it's scientific equipment. A boy in her class at school with the interesting name Podcast identifies the equipment, and the battle begins.

So which is better, "Afterlife" or the 2016 film? My instinct is to say the latter, but I need to watch all four Ghostbuster films back to back to make up my mind. I'll let you know what I think.

Success Rate:  + 0.7

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

Chappie (5 Stars)

Sometimes I don't understand myself. I've watched this film four times and only given it 4½ Stars each time. There's usually a reason why I deduct half a star from an otherwise perfect film. In this case, I don't remember what it was. This is a beautiful film about a robot that crossed over and became conscious. His artificial intelligence was advanced enough to be called real intelligence. Is that something that's possible in my lifetime? Maybe, maybe not. The goal is to create artificial intelligence that doesn't just imitate natural intelligence, it has to act, think and reason just like a human being. The example given by Chappie's creator is that an intelligent robot would be able to look at a painting and be able to say whether it likes it or not. My example is that an intelligent robot would be able to watch films and write my blog for me. That would be fascinating.

Chappie, the police robot that's given artificial intelligence, starts from the beginning. He has to learn how to talk. He has to learn moral values. He learns (as a necessity) what it is to have people lying to him. Yolandi loves Chappie as if she were his mother, and she wants him to grow up and live a decent life. Ninja wants Chappie to become a gangster and make lots of money. Which way will he develop?

The film should have been the first part of a trilogy. It's sad that the plans for the other two films have been abandoned. Several hooks were added for a sequel. "Chappie" has enough potential to lay the groundwork for first class sequels.

Success Rate:  + 0.1

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

Cabin in the Woods (5 Stars)

Radiate simply, the candle is burning so low for me,
Generate me limply, I can't seem to place your name, chérie,
To rearrange all these thoughts in a moment is suicide,
Come to a strange place, we'll talk over old times we never spied.

Somebody called me Sebastian,
Somebody called me Sebastian,
Work out a rhyme, toss me the time, lay me, you're mine,
We all know, oh yeah!

Your Persian eyes sparkle, your lips, ruby blue, never speak a sound,
And you, oh so gay, with Parisian demands, you can run around,
And your view of society screws up my mind like you'll never know,
Lead me away, come inside, see my mind in kaleidoscope.

Somebody called me Sebastian,
Somebody called me Sebastian,
Mangle my mind, love me sublime, do it in style,
We all know, oh yeah!

You're not gonna run, babe, we've only just begun, babe, to compromise,
Slagged in a Bowery saloon, love's a story to serialise,
Pale angel face, your eye-shadow and glitter is outta sight,
No courtesan could begin to decipher your beam of light.

Somebody called me Sebastian,
Somebody called me Sebastian,
Dance on my heart, laugh, swoop and dart, la la di da,
We all know you, yeah.

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

Ghostbusters [2016 version] (4½ Stars)

I know I only watched this film nine days ago, but I couldn't resist seeing it again. It has everything I want in a film: horror, comedy and strong women. Maybe not in that order.

One thing that I noticed in the Blu-ray release of this film is that the picture frequently stretches outside of the frame. This is obviously just a gimmick for the release on disc, because it's not possible on the cinema screen. Let me give you a few examples.

This is the usual aspect ratio of the film, 1920 x 804 pixels. The HD video format of the Blu-ray disc is 1920 x 1080 pixels, so there are black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.

 By the way, don't you think that intelligent women are sexy?

In this scene from the subway tunnel the sparks from Melissa McCarthy's machine shoot off the bottom of the frame. Framebusters! I have a "normal" HD television with a ratio of 16:9. I wonder how this scene would be displayed on a widescreen television with a 21:9 ratio. Would the bottom of the picture be cropped?

A few seconds later Kristen Wiig's machine shoots sparks out of the frame in both directions.

The ghost in the subway tunnel is too big to fit in the frame.

It's not all about sparks and ghosts doing the framebusting. There are more subtle scenes, such as Kate McKinnon needing extra room to do her gun-licking. Tasty!

It's not the first time I've seen this done. In "The Life of Pi" the dolphins jump out of the frame.

I've never known a film that so many people expected to be bad but ended up being so good. In my opinion it was all about prejudice. The original film, made in 1984, was so popular with fans that they couldn't imagine it being made with a new cast. That's the same as me not accepting the new cast in the rebooted Star Trek franchise. It was even worse for the fans that the new team would be all female. This drew out the lowest dregs of misogyny. When the first trailer was released on YouTube it received 12,000 Likes and 13,800 Dislikes within 24 hours, which showed how fans were polarised. That's approximately 45% who judged the trailer on its quality and 55% who rejected it because they were prejudiced. After two years the trailer has over a million Dislikes, making it one of YouTube's most disliked videos ever. Normally I would laugh about things like this, but the negative propaganda scared people away from the cinemas, and it ended up being only a lukewarm success. Plans to make a series of films with the new cast have been shelved.

I've cast three votes for the film. I "liked" the trailer. I laid my money down to see it in the cinema. I've bought the film on Blu-ray. If you like, my positive reviews in my blog can be considered a fourth vote.

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

Ghostbusters [2016 version] (4½ Stars)

Two years ago I said I would write a lot more about this film when I own it on disc. Guess what? I lied. You'll have to make do with a few screenshots instead.

And in case you're wondering who the four lovely ladies are, here are their names.

Don't they say that a picture is worth a thousand words? In that case this post is more than 8000 words long. That's my excuse for being lazy this morning.

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

Galaxy Quest (4½ Stars)

It's difficult to write something about this film that can do it justice. Let me just describe the premise, so that if you belong to the 0.1% of the world's population who hasn't yet seen it you'll want to run out and buy it.

There was a highly successful television series called Galaxy Quest. After it was cancelled none of the actors had much success, so they remained known for their Galaxy Quest roles. After 18 years they're still travelling from one science fiction convention to another, wearing their old costumes and repeating their old catchphrases to adoring audiences full of sci-fi geeks. They're getting sick of it, but as has-beens it's the only way they can make any money. The only exception is Jason Nesmith, the former ship's captain and main star of the TV series. He loves the adulation of the fans at the conventions, which alienates him from his co-stars.

Then they're approached by four people who look like typical cosplayers, but they're beings from the planet Thermia. They've watched the television episodes, including the reruns, for the last 20 years. The Thermians don't have a concept of fiction being used as entertainment, so they think it was recordings of things that really happened. They've come to Earth to ask Jason and his crew to save their planet.

A plot like that might fall flat on its face in the wrong hands, but look who's in the film: Sigourney Weaver, Sam Rockwell and the late, great Alan Rickman!

The film is a parody of Star Trek. Maybe the word parody is too strong. There isn't a one-to-one relationship between Star Trek and the Galaxy Quest crew, apart from Jason Nesmith himself, who's easy to recognise. The others are composite characters who have traits of different characters from the original Star Trek series and The Next Generation.

Admittedly, you'll appreciate this film most if you're a Star Trek fan or are at least well acquainted with it, but I still think that anyone will enjoy the humour.

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

Chappie (4½ Stars)

When "Chappie" was made it was intended to be the first film in a trilogy. After initial vague responses the director Neill Blomkamp has clearly stated that the sequels will never be made. His reason is that it didn't perform well enough at the box office. I don't understand that. It earned more than double its budget at the box office, which means that the film at least broke even.

Maybe Neill Blomkamp's personal cut wasn't enough to buy the new Porsche he was eyeing in the showroom. Whatever the reason, he's made up his mind, so there's no use in trying to persuade him. Maybe as time passes he'll think differently when he sees it growing in esteem as a cult film, but nothing that you or I can say will make any difference.

	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

Alien 3 (4 Stars)

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

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

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

Paul (5 Stars)

Do you like this review? If not, I invite you to write your own. If you want to become one of my fabled guest writers please leave a comment and I'll let you know how we can arrange it.

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