Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

Steven Spielberg faced an impossible task with "The Lost World" (shortening the title). How do you follow one of the greatest blockbusters ever made? Instead of trying to recreate the magic, he made a darker, nastier and more chaotic film. Sometimes it works brilliantly. Sometimes it reminds you exactly why the original is untouchable.

The biggest difference is the tone. "Jurassic Park" was full of awe and wonder. Every dinosaur reveal felt magical, and even the terrifying moments were balanced by humour and a sense of adventure. "The Lost World" strips most of that away. Isla Sorna is a much harsher place, where humans aren't simply trying to survive but are exploiting the dinosaurs for profit. The film feels less like an adventure and more like a survival thriller.

Jeff Goldblum steps into the lead role as Ian Malcolm, and he carries the film with his trademark sarcasm and nervous energy. Malcolm is a very different hero from Sam Neill's Alan Grant. Grant gradually became brave because he had to. Malcolm spends most of the film desperately trying to convince everyone else that they're making a terrible mistake. Goldblum is entertaining throughout, but Grant remains the more satisfying protagonist.

The dinosaurs are even more convincing than before. Advances in CGI and animatronics make the creatures feel heavier, faster and more dangerous. Spielberg stages several unforgettable set pieces, especially the trailer hanging over the cliff and the attack through the long grass. These scenes rank alongside anything in the first film for pure suspense.

Where "The Lost World" struggles is its characters. Too many exist simply to become dinosaur food, and few leave much of an impression. The first film gave us characters we genuinely cared about, making every close encounter more suspenseful. Here, the spectacle often takes priority over emotional investment.

The final act remains the film's most controversial decision. Bringing a Tyrannosaurus Rex to San Diego turns the film into a giant monster movie, echoing King Kong and classic creature features. It's undeniably entertaining, but it also feels disconnected from everything that came before. Personally, I love its audacity, though I'm aware that others think differently.

Ultimately, "Jurassic Park: The Lost World" is bigger, louder and more action-packed than its predecessor. The dinosaurs are better, the action scenes are more elaborate and the danger feels more relentless. Yet it loses the sense of discovery, believable characters and perfect balance that made "Jurassic Park" a masterpiece.

It's an excellent sequel that dares to be different instead of repeating the original. That's admirable. But while it delivers some of the series' greatest action sequences, it never captures the wonder that made us fall in love with dinosaurs in the first place.

Success Rate:  + 6.5

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

Jurassic Park (5 Stars)

As most of you know, Sam Neill passed away this morning. I've decided to watch two of his films to remember him, "Jurassic Park" and "Jurassic Park III". He doesn't appear in the second film, but I'll watch it anyway. It's in my top 20 films, meaning it's a film which deserves to be watched repeatedly.

If there's one performance that defines Sam Neill's career, it's Dr Alan Grant in "Jurassic Park". Neill had already built an impressive filmography before Steven Spielberg's dinosaur epic, but this is the role that made him a cinematic icon. Decades later, it's still impossible to think of Sam Neill without picturing the moment he removes his sunglasses in stunned disbelief as dinosaurs once again walk the Earth.

Neill is the emotional anchor that keeps "Jurassic Park" grounded. Grant begins as a brilliant but emotionally distant palaeontologist who'd rather spend his life digging up fossils than dealing with children. Over the course of the film, Neill subtly transforms him into a reluctant protector, and every stage of that journey feels completely natural. Whether he's awestruck by the sight of a living Brachiosaurus, desperately outrunning a Tyrannosaurus Rex or quietly comforting two terrified children, Neill never lets the spectacle overwhelm the humanity of the character.

Spielberg's ground-breaking visual effects still hold up remarkably well, but they only work because the cast reacts with absolute conviction. Neill's expressions of wonder, fear and determination make the impossible believable. His chemistry with Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum gives the film warmth and humour, while his fatherly bond with Lex and Tim provides its emotional heart.

"Jurassic Park" remains one of the greatest blockbusters ever made because it balances breath-taking action with unforgettable characters. At the centre of it all is Sam Neill, delivering the performance of a lifetime. He's enjoyed a long and distinguished career, but this is the role that made him immortal. For generations of film fans, Alan Grant isn't just Sam Neill's greatest character; it's the performance that will always define his legacy.

Sam Neill
14 September 1947 – 13 July 2026

Success Rate:  + 14.4

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

Disclosure Day (3 Stars)

I saw the trailer for "Disclosure Day" frequently in the cinema, at least ten times during the Stuttgart Nights Festival. The trailer looked curious, to say the least, but I thought to myself, "It's a Spielberg film, and any film directed by Steven Spielberg has to be good".

I was being too optimistic. Today I sat down in the cinema, and despite the high quality production I had a sinking feeling in my chest.

Usually when I write about a new film I've just seen in the cinema I just tell my readers what the premise is. This time I can't do it. The film has a relatively simple premise, but it isn't revealed until late in the film, so it would mean giving spoilers to tell you what the film is about.

The film starts with two young people who have seemingly nothing to do with one another. Daniel Kellner is someone who's stolen secret data from Wardex, the company where he works. Margaret Fairchild is a television weather girl who suddenly becomes able to understand and speak every language, as well as gaining the ability to read minds. For the first hour the action jumps between the two people without telling us their connection. This irritated me, but I knew everything would be explained later.

Then it was explained. But I was still unhappy. Some things still didn't make sense.

Usually I would promise to write a second review with spoilers when I have the film on disc, explaining all the things I didn't like. Not this time. I have no intention of watching the film again, not even on streaming. I wasted two and a half hours of my life today. That's enough.

Steven Spielberg is responsible for some of the best films ever made. "Jaws" and "Jurassic Park" are just two examples. His name is a guarantee for quality. Usually. If "Disclosure Day" is the best he can do now, it's time for him to retire.

Ready Player One (4 Stars)

"Reality is the only thing that's real".

That's true, but the problem is, what do you do if you don't like your reality? Not everyone is dealt the same cards. If you're born into a poor family in America you have no chance of advancing. That's a fact. So I can understand the appeal of a virtual reality game like Oasis. Everybody is equal, or at least everybody starts out equal. Everybody can advance, based on his own skills. Everybody can win in-game wealth, which is simply called coin, singular.

You can play the game in different ways. You can keep your head down and play in a small environment, slowly gathering coin. That's not the way Parzival, real name Wade Watts, wants to play. There's a grand prize hidden somewhere in the game. Whoever finds it will be given unlimited wealth and complete control over the game. That's a lot.

The game reminds me of Second Life, which I played intensely when I was younger. I played the most from 2006 to 2010, spending hours every day in front of my computer. I still have an account, but I rarely play today. I found a place in the virtual world that suited me. I became a slave. I was surrounded by beautiful, dominant women. It was all I wanted. And no, I didn't gather coin. What need does a slave have of money?

Oasis has worlds within worlds. Parzival and his friends can visit a cinema to watch "The Shining". When they enter the doors they don't just sit on comfy chairs and munch popcorn. They enter the Overlook Hotel itself and face the terrors waiting behind every corner. It's easier to be a slave.

"Ready Player One" was released in 2018, and it highlights the problems of setting a film in the near future. In the introduction, Wade says "I was born in 2027, after the Corn Syrup Droughts, after the Bandwidth Riots". Let's wait another two years to watch the film again and see what's happened. The film itself takes place in 2045, when the world (America at least) has fallen into global poverty.

When the film was released it was a box office success, and it was generally praised by critics. I've read more recent reviews that describe it as a failure. "What went wrong?" is the question asked. It's common for old films to be re-evaluated, but the emphasis is on old. After 20 to 30 years critics can think things over and be less kind in their reviews. In the case of "Ready Player One" it's only been seven years. Have opinions changed so much in this short time?

Success Rate:  + 1.8

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

Catch me if you can (4½ Stars)

True Stories #19

Name: Frank Abagnale

Lived: 27 April 1948 – still alive

Film dates: 1963 to 1974

Film made in 2002

From one con man to another. Steve Russell was a master con man, but Frank Abagnale was possibly the greatest con man who ever lived. His expertise was forgery, which he mastered at a young age. By the time he was 17 he'd gained $1.3 million by fraud, and by the time he was 19 it was $4 million. That was the 1960's. Allowing for inflation, you need to multiply those figures by nine.

Maybe he was too greedy. If he'd stopped stealing after his first million he would have had enough money to last the rest of his life, and he probably wouldn't have been caught. That's the trouble with money. If you love money, you can never have enough.

Frank Abagnale left home when he was 16, because he was traumatised by his parents' divorce. He paid for his rent by writing cheques, but he could never stay in one place long, because the cheques bounced and he was evicted. He had the idea to forge cheques issued by banks the other side of the country. In the pre-Internet days this meant that it took weeks for the cheques to be recognised as fakes. In order to cash cheques he needed credibility. He did this by wearing a pilot's uniform. Everyone trusts an airline pilot.

He forged university certificates to become a doctor, and then a lawyer. All the time he was writing cheques. The FBI detected him. Agent Carl Hanratty pursued Frank from one side of the country to the other. A bizarre relationship developed between the two. They had respect for one another, as if they were boxers duelling in the ring. Frank rang Carl every year on 24th December to wish him a Merry Christmas. Wasn't he afraid of having his call traced?

Eventually Frank was arrested in France and imprisoned in very unsanitary conditions. The film doesn't tell the whole story. According to Wikipedia, "At Perpignan he was held nude in a tiny, filthy, lightless cell that he was never allowed to leave. The cell lacked toilet facilities, a mattress, or a blanket, and food and water were strictly limited". Carl had Frank extradited to America so he would be treated better. While in prison in America Carl frequently consulted Frank for help catching other cheque forgers. Frank's assistance was so invaluable that after four years he was released and hired by the FBI. He became the FBI's top expert on cheque forgery.

This is an excellent film directed by Steven Spielberg. As I've said before, Steven Spielberg never makes a bad film. Tom Hanks is a phenomenal actor, and Leonardo DiCaprio also has great talent. They bounce off one another by their contrast between a humourless, uptight FBI agent and a flamboyant young man.

Success Rate:  + 4.8

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

West Side Story (2021 Version) (4½ Stars)

This is the first film that Steven Spielberg has remade in his long career. If he had to remake any film, it was a bold move to pick this one. The 1961 version won 10 Oscars, so it's difficult to live up to the original. On the other hand, I trust Steven Spielberg to make good films. He's not my favourite director, but he's never made a bad film. If I go to see one of his films in the cinema I won't be disappointed, whatever it's about.

I can't comment on whether the new version as good as the original. I vaguely remember seeing it on television when I lived with my parents, but I can barely remember it. If it had been available on a streaming service I would have watched it in preparation. So I went to the cinema to see "West Side Story" as a new film. Except it wasn't completely new to me. As the film ran I realised that I knew all the songs. This must have been from hearing them on the radio as I grew up. My parents listened to BBC's Radio 2 for hours every day as background music. I didn't consciously pay attention to the radio, but the songs that I heard a lot were imprinted in my memory.

The film is overwhelming. It has a deep emotional depth. The dance numbers are nothing short of amazing. As a social commentary, the story is just as relevant today as it was in 1961. Racism and bigotry abounded then, and it still exists today. Maybe the difference is that racism was more acceptable then. I mean it was more acceptable on an institutional level. Nobody was arrested for making racist utterances. Today's racists have to be more careful where they utter their disgusting words.

My main problem is the lack of subtitles for the Spanish dialogue. On the way home I read an interview with Steven Spielberg in which he said that this was deliberate. He wanted typical English speaking Americans to feel excluded, the same way that the characters in the film feel excluded. I think this is a mistake, and I hope that subtitles will be added when the film is released on disc.

The film's story takes place in 1957, but there's a serious blunder in the props used. In a shop that sells comics we see an issue of X-Men. Oops! The first issue of X-Men wasn't released until September 1963.

Ready Player One (4½ Stars)

Amazon Friday #22

This is a science fiction film that takes place in a future dystopian world. Actually, it takes place in a world within a world. To escape the ugliness of the real world, almost everyone plays a virtual reality game called Oasis. People can either go there to relax and enjoy the beauty that's lacking in the real world, or they can compete with others. When a person is killed in Oasis, his wealth is dropped where he stands, and it can be picked up by other players. Unlike the Matrix, the person doesn't die in the real world. He can carry on playing, but his character is now a penniless newbie that has to start all over again.

The game's creator, James Halliday, died five years before the film starts. In a pre-recorded message he says that he planted an Easter Egg in the game. Do I really have to explain what an Easter Egg is? Google it! Whoever finds this Easter Egg will receive Halliday's wealth and his controlling share of the company. For five years thousands of people have sought for the Easter Egg in vain.

Enter Wade Watts, a teenage orphan from Columbus, Ohio. His avatar in the game is called Parzival. That's a very chivalrous name. He's determined to find the Easter Egg, not just because of the money, but because Oasis is a game that he intends to win.

Films that rely heavily on CGI are usually criticised, but "Ready Player One" is an exception. Most of the film takes place inside a world of computer imagery, so the CGI is essential. It's done very well. It makes Oasis look like a game that I'd want to play. Of course, I wouldn't get into fights in order to take other players' money. I'm a lover, not a fighter.

The real world scenes of "Ready Player One" were filmed in Birmingham, where I used to live. I immediately recognised the streets in the scenes filmed in Digbeth. Other scenes weren't so obvious, but I found articles online which told me where they are. For the film the streets were made even dirtier than they look in real life.

Plagiarism, anyone? The film's similarity with "The Matrix" is obvious, except in "Ready Player One" people voluntarily plug themselves in. There are multiple references to other films, such as "Jurassic Park", "Child's Play" and the 1933 version of "King Kong". The longest reference is to "The Shining". In a scene set in a world within a world within a world, Parzival and his friends find themselves in the Overlook Hotel.

Success Rate:  + 1.8

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

Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #11

The correct name of this film is "The Lost World: Jurassic Park", but I've turned it around. I think my alternative title makes more sense. If you object to this, you can leave me a comment complaining about it, but only if your name is Steven Spielberg.

I shan't go into too many details about the plot, because I'm sure all my readers have seen it. It's one of the films most commonly shown on television. It was made in 1997, four years after the first film, and the story itself takes place four years later. Dr. Hammond is still nominally the head of InGen, the company that genetically recreated the dinosaurs, but his health is failing, so the board of directors has given his nephew the power to run the company.

"Lost World" (as I prefer to call it) has more action than the first film. There's no need for further exegesis about where the dinosaurs come from. The first film explained everything. Apart from John Hammond, who we only see briefly at the beginning and end of the film, the only character who returns from the first film is Dr. Ian Malcolm. Hammond sends him on a mission to Isla Sorna, the breeding ground for the Jurassic Park dinosaurs. He's accompanied by the palaeontologist Dr. Sarah Harding, the cameraman Nick van Owen and the engineer Eddie Carr. The first two are presented in great details in the character development section, but we don't get to know Eddie Carr. This is a hint that he'll be killed soon.

That's Eddie in the middle. Rest In Pieces.

Sarah Harding. I can't help feeling that she's a last minute replacement for Laura Dern as the palaeobotanist Ellie Sattler in the first film. They have similar personalities, even though their careers are different.

This is Dr. Malcolm's daughter Kelly, who stows away on the mission. There's not much of a family resemblance, as Eddie remarks when he sees them together. Steven Spielberg needs to plant children in his action films, just as Stephen King puts children in his horror stories.

Camilla Belle was only 10 years old when she appeared in a small role in "Lost World". Since then she's appeared in more than 20 films, and she's also directed a few films. She likes cute little dinosaurs. It's not named in the film, but it's a Compsognathus. Does that knowledge make you any smarter?

The film's cinematography is darker than the first film's, underlining the darker subject matter. More scenes take place at night, but even in the daytime the colours are darker.

Unfortunately, this was the last film in the Jurassic Park franchise directed by Steven Spielberg. None of the following films live up to the quality of the first two films. On the other hand, there's a steady increase in the quality of the computer graphics as technology improved. "Jurassic Park 3" has the best graphics, even though the overall film quality is inferior.

As for a comparison of the first two films, I'm not sure I placed them in the right order. Maybe "Jurassic Park" is better? I don't know. I like the structure of "Lost World", with an epilogue that takes place in San Diego after the main part that takes place on the island of Isla Sonar. It reminds me of "King Kong".

Success Rate:  + 6.5

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

Jurassic Park (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #12

Blogging is all about momentum. For years I've been used to my daily rhythm of watching a film every day, then writing about it.

Watch. Write. Sleep. Repeat.

What I'm trying to say is that after taking a short break from blogging it's difficult to regain my momentum. I took a break last week to catch up on watching TV series. I watched the third season of "Vikings". At first I only wanted to watch a couple of episodes, but it's so brilliant that I couldn't stop. The murder of the monk Athelstan by Floki was a shock. For me, Athelstan was the series' most fascinating character. A man caught between two religions. As he said at the beginning of the third season, "I love Jesus, but I've chosen Odin". The whole subject of the two religions, along with the strong character development, is what makes "Vikings" so appealing. The Vikings and the English both consider their respective religions to be the true religion, and there's no way for the two to meet, except for Athelstan. His murder has destroyed the only bridge between the two religions.

Today, most people only know the Norse religion – what's it called anyway? Odinism? – from the Marvel films. Odin is Anthony Hopkins with an eye patch and Thor is Chris Hemsworth strutting about arrogantly. I read the Norse myths as a young teenager. I read them as stories, not taking account of the religious aspects.

Maybe I should write more about "Vikings" at a later date. Maybe when I get to the fourth season. I'm getting off topic now. I ought to be writing about "Jurassic Park". Did you forget?

Oops! Wrong dinosaur! I had this unused screenshot from "Bikini Jones" that I needed to share with you.

This is a dinosaur from "Jurassic Park". The difference in quality might not be apparent from the two screenshots. To fully appreciate the superiority of the computer animation, you have to see the dinosaurs moving. When the film was made in 1993, "Jurassic Park" had the most realistic dinosaurs ever. However, due to the restrictions in computer speed, they were used sparingly. 

Steven Spielberg might not be my favourite director, but I respect him as the greatest living director. He knows how to make films, and a Film Studies course could be wrapped around his films without mentioning any other director. In the series "Dawson's Creek" the title character, Dawson Leery, was obsessed with Steven Spielberg. He made frequent references to his films throughout the series, and his dream was to become a director like Spielberg. His films all include strong character development. There's a Spielberg Style, as I like to call it. His films start off with an action scene to get the audience in the mood. Then the films slow down, introducing the main characters, one by one. After that there's a slow build up to the big action scenes. That's the pattern he follows in "Jurassic Park". That's the pattern he followed in "Jaws". They're two excellent films, made 20 years apart, each using the best that the technology of the day had to offer.

The characters in the film are stereotypes. I don't say that as a criticism. By using standard stereotypes, the audience can relate to them. We know who they are and what makes them tick, even before we see the details of their characters. Dr. Alan Grant is a stuffy archaeologist. He would rather sit alone digging than communicate with others, and he avoids children as much as he can. Dr. John Hammond is the carefree millionaire. Dr. Ellie Sattler is a friendly, sociable palaeobotanist who assists Dr. Grant in his work. (For those of you who, like me, don't know what a palaeobotanist is, it's someone who studies old fossilised plants).

Then there are the kids. Dr.  Hammond's grandchildren are present in the dinosaur park, adding human interest. Everyone can relate to young children.

If anyone thinks this is the best film ever made, I won't argue with you. It's a candidate for the top spot. I have difficulty deciding which is better, "Jurassic Park" or its sequel, "Lost World", which I intend to watch tomorrow. "Lost World" has superior graphics, due to the rapid advances in computer technology in the 1990's, but "Jurassic Park" has a better story. Watching them back to back will help me judge them better.

Success Rate:  + 14.4

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

Ready Player One (4½ Stars)

There's something special about Steven Spielberg. Over the last 40 years he's become a director that everyone knows. I'm bold enough to claim that he's the only living director that everyone knows, He makes films that appeal to the masses. He makes Blockbusters with a capital B. He's probably the best director to study if you want to learn how to make films. He has a modus operandi that might be repetitive, but it works. His films start with a bang; something big and exciting happens. This draws the audience in. Then it all slows down. We meet the important characters, and they're all described to us in great detail; we know them and we feel for them. After this the pace slowly builds up throughout the film, leading to a mighty climax.

We see this in his science fiction films, his adventure films, his war stories and his political thrillers. Whatever the genre, Steven Spielberg knows what he's doing, and he does it right.

I'm not saying he's the best director alive. He's not my favourite director. What characterises Steven Spielberg is that he doesn't take risks. His formula works, so he sticks to it. He's not a director like Quentin Tarantino, who dares to subvert genres and tread new territory. Steven Spielberg might not make the best films, but he never makes a bad film. Never. If you don't know what to watch, pick up one of his films. You won't be disappointed.

"Ready Player One" takes place in the near future, 2045. It's always dangerous naming the exact year. If I'm still writing my blog 30 years from now I'll review this film again to show you what the problem is. I think you can imagine it though. Compare it with "Until the End of the World", a science fiction film made in 1991. A critical plot element was that in the near future, the year 2000, everyone would be making video calls. That was a reasonable assumption, and I don't doubt that the technology was already available to replace telephones with videophones in 2000, but people didn't want it; they didn't want to be seen in the early morning with uncombed hair, so they stuck with voice-only telephones.

Let's get back to the film. In 2045 everyone lives in poverty. Everyone except for the elite few, of course. Trailer parks are the norm. The world has become so ugly that people prefer to live in virtual reality. There's a virtual reality game called Oasis that almost everyone plays. It offers whatever you want. You can play it for free and collect virtual currency in the world by completing tasks, with the option of cashing out and making money for the real world. You can also put real cash into the game to give yourself a head start. However, there's the risk that you can be killed within the game, which will strip you of all your virtual cash, and you have to start again.

The creator of Oasis, James Halliday, announced a quest before his death. He said that there was a prize hidden within the game. The film calls this prize an Easter egg, but I believe that's the wrong expression. The prize can only be won after finding three keys. After receiving the prize the winner becomes the owner of the game and very rich in the real world. The film follows the adventures of Wade Watts, an 18-year orphan who lives in Columbus, Ohio.

I would love to be able to play a game like Oasis. A few years ago I played a game with a similar concept, Second Life. It wasn't a Virtual Reality game, everything happened on the computer screen, but my vivid imagination made up for what was lacking in the technology. My avatar is what's shown above: a skinny boy who wears blue jeans, a Ramones t-shirt and sandals. Sometimes I wore a Slayer shirt, but the Ramones shirt was my favourite. I played Second Life (SL) very intensely, for hours every day, from 2006 to 2010. My first year was spent wandering around. SL is an enormous world, and there is so much to discover. After a year I found a purpose. I became a slave. I spent the next three years serving Miryam Robson, whom I called my Goddess. Whatever skills I had I devoted to her. I built her a castle to live in. I was her disc jockey playing her favourite music at her parties. When she wanted amusement she stripped me naked and whipped me till I screamed.

I wasn't her lover. Firstly, I wasn't worthy of her. How could a slave be a Goddess's lover? Secondly, she was a lesbian. Whenever she was with one of her lovers she locked me in a cage to keep me out of the way. If she was feeling kind towards me she let me watch. If not, she blindfolded me. I hated being blindfolded, because it meant I had to stare at a black screen, but I knew my place.

In 2010 Miryam had problems in her real life which made it difficult for her to be in SL very often. She thought it would be a temporary problem , but eight years later she's still rarely online. We stay in touch outside of the game by email, but it's not the same. I wish she would return.

I remained in SL for about two years, waiting for Miryam to return. I did other things. I bred and sold horses, which made me quite rich inside SL, but eventually I got bored. I still have my account, but I rarely log on, maybe once a month to check if any of my old friends are online. I knew a lot of people apart from Miryam, but most of them have moved on. SL is only as good as the friends you make, and if the friends depart there's nothing left.

A Virtual Reality game like Oasis would be a big thrill for me. Maybe I could be a slave again. Or maybe not. There can never be another Miryam in my life.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (4 Stars)

This is the third film in the Indiana Jones series, made in 1989, five years after "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". Today is the first time I've watched it, thanks to a cheap box set that I picked up in the Black Friday sales. Online, of course. Do you think I'm stupid enough to go to a store and get into a fight? If a little old lady bashed me over the head with her umbrella I wouldn't stand a chance anyway. I don't hit women, not even in self defence, so she could easily rip the box set out of my hand.

Indiana Jones doesn't have the same reservations as me. He's a serious adventurer, so he hits women when he has to. Admittedly, some women are evil, like Dr. Elsa Schneider. But that makes no difference to me. If an evil woman wants to hit me, let her get on with it. If all men thought the same as me women would take over the world, but is that such a bad thing?

This film is about the biggest quest of all: the search for the Holy Grail. There have been legends about quests to find the Grail, quests which may or may not have taken place, for over 1000 years. Various films have been written on the subject, including this one. The Grail is connected with Jesus Christ, but it's not completely certain what it is. Most commonly it's a cup, as in this film, but other legends describe it as a cloth, a plate or a stone. What's common to all the legends is that it somehow imbues eternal life.

Indiana Jones is an archaeologist in a general sense, searching for ancient artefacts all over the world. In this film we meet his father, Dr. Henry Jones, who has an obsession with the Holy Grail and has spent all his life trying to find it.

The search for the Grail leads through Venice, considered by many to be the most beautiful city in the world. It's one place I'd like to visit at least once. If I ever write a bucket list I'll put a holiday in Venice in first place. But I doubt I'll write a bucket list. Most of what I'd write on it would be unrealistic things, like walking on the Moon, so when I get to the end of my life I'll look at the list and feel depressed that I've hardly done anything I wanted to.

The search for the Grail also leads through Berlin. There are a few cities which claim to be Europe's capital city, for instance London, Paris and Rome, but it's my personal opinion that only Berlin has a right to the title. Since the film takes place in 1938 it's the height of the Third Reich. One thing that has always attracted me to Nazi Germany is the military regalia, the imitation of the symbols of the Roman Empire. I can well understand that simple people who didn't know the evil beneath the surface were filled with pride when they saw this display of German might. I too might have been ripped along for a while. Remember, there's no shame in believing something that's wrong. There's only shame in being blind to facts that prove you're wrong.

I enjoy "The Last Crusade", even though it's not up to the level of "Temple of Doom". Buy the box set, like me. You won't be disappointed.

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

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (5 Stars)

After my poor review of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" last week I was waiting for people to leave comments complaining. None came. That makes me feel justified in my criticism. It was a silly film which received completely unjustified praise. Based on the lack of contradiction everyone agrees with me. However, if there is one Indiana Jones fan out there who was too shy to respond to my article, I hope that my five star rating of "Temple of Doom" will make him happy. This film has everything that the first film doesn't. Right from the parody of the Rank gong in the first few seconds I knew the film would be something special. Then the Chinese version of "Anything Goes" left me wide-mouthed and amazed. And Harrison Ford's appearance in the bar like a 1930's James Bond. If the film had stopped there I would have been happy.

But the film didn't stop there. It was action all the way. When it comes to making action movies, Steven Spielberg is probably the world's best director. I wouldn't say that he's my favourite director. I mean that he's technically perfect. If there are rules that students learn in film school on how to structure a film, he follows every rule. He takes no risks. I prefer Quentin Tarantino because he takes risks and breaks the rules, but Steven Spielberg is so perfect that he couldn't possibly make a bad film.

Let's just forget that "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was ever made. I'm not contradicting myself by saying it was a mediocre film. The problem was that it was influenced by George Lucas too much. That dragged the quality down. "Temple of Doom" is Steven Spielberg's film all the way.

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

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (3 Stars)

I watched this film three years ago. In my review I was very critical of it, but I thought I would give it another chance. My opinion hasn't changed since then. It's not up to the level of Steven Spielberg's other films, neither in character development nor in emotional depth. It's mildly entertaining as an action adventure, but the poor plot lets it down. Worst of all are the third-rate special effects in the final sequence where the Ark goes ballistic. It looks like the budget was exhausted before they finished filming. I honestly don't understand why the film was so successful. If you want to watch a good film about an archaeological dig in Egypt try "The Mummy".

If any Jewish rabbis can explain why a female ghost emerged from the Ark to kill the German soldiers please leave a comment.

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

Jaws (5 Stars)

Before I sat down to write this review I checked my alphabetical list of posts to see what I wrote the last time I watched "Jaws". I was totally shocked to discover that it wasn't listed, meaning I haven't watched it for at least six years. That's hard to believe. It was one of the first films I bought on DVD. I'm sure I watched it several times, either alone or with my wife. My second wife, Nicola, loved films with sharks and crocodiles. Her favourite film was "Lake Placid", and "Jaws" wasn't far behind. There's probably a psychological reason for her fascination with giant sea creatures.

Made in 1975, this was Steven Spielberg's second film as director (or third, if you include "Duel"), and it was the film that made him famous. When students study film making they can examine any film directed by Steven Spielberg to see how it's done. The other way round, if there's a list of things needed to make a good film I'm sure that Spielberg ticks all the boxes when making a film. The mixture of suspense, action and character development is always perfect.

The shark itself is hardly seen in the film. This is partly in order to increase the suspense by keeping the enemy creature anonymous, attacking from nowhere, but it's also because of the technical limitations of the time. Computer imagery wasn't available, so a mechanical shark had to be built. If it had been shown in lengthy scenes it would have looked artificial, so the viewer only gets brief glimpses.

For me what makes the film great is the perfect blend of the three characters who team up to hunt the shark in the second half of the film. There's the veteran shark hunter who knows it all from experience. There's the young shark expert who knows everything from books. And there's the experienced police officer who hates water. They start off despising one another for their lack of experience in their respective fields, but as the hunt develops they learn how to work together. A bond of friendship and respect develops.

However often I watched my "Jaws" DVD I shan't watch it any more. I've bought the remastered Blu-ray release. It's amazing, utterly amazing. How can such an old film look so good? On the Blu-ray there's a featurette about the restoration of the film. Even with high end computer hardware and software available months of work were necessary. Sometimes three hours of work were needed to restore a single frame, only 1/24th of a second. What they have achieved is phenomenal. I don't even know who "they" are. Are they artists, film editors, computer graphics artists or something else. Whatever their job description is, "they" are wonderful. In an interview Steven Spielberg says that the film included on the Blu-ray is even more beautiful than what he created 40 years ago.

One of my current problems is that since moving to Germany I don't have a computer with a Blu-ray drive. That means that I can't add relevant screenshots to this post. I had a similar problem when I reviewed "It follows", for which I wanted to add snapshots of the sketches from the film's storyboard. I'll have to make up for this by adding sufficient screenshots in my next reviews. I'm sure I shan't wait more than six years for next time.

Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

This was the first film I saw in the cinema after moving to America. I had never watched "Jurassic Park" before this, but I caught up by borrowing it on video from Blockbuster before I went to see the sequel. From what I remember I read about "Jurassic Park" in the newspapers while I lived in Germany, but I didn't go to see it because I thought dinosaur films are boring. I could hardly have been more wrong. "Jurassic Park" is now in my list of 30 films to watch before you die. See the list in the sidebar, and watch them all. Even watch the films again if you've already seen some of them. You won't regret it. If you watch one film a day it'll be a month to remember.

Burger King seems to have been the primary corporate sponsor for "The Lost World" in America. All of the Burger King television ads in early 1997 featured dinosaurs. I ate at Burger King often while I was in America. The price of the food was approximately the same at McDonald's and Burger King, but I preferred the taste of the hamburgers from Burger King. What I liked most at McDonald's was the milk shake and the soft ice cream. What was particularly good was that a local supermarket had vouchers for a free Big King burger on the back of their receipts. I was very short of money when I first arrived in America, so I used to walk around the car park to see if anyone had left his receipt in his shopping trolley. There were always a few, so I could go to the nearest Burger King with a handful of vouchers and eat for free.

After returning to England I didn't visit Burger King as often. Unlike America, there's a big price difference between Burger King and McDonald's. Similar food at Burger King costs two to three times as much as the equivalent at McDonald's. But the Burger King food does taste better, so I occasionally go in for a meal. It's just a shame that there aren't any vouchers for free hamburgers.

Catch me if you can (4½ Stars)

This is the true story of Frank Abagnale, one of the most successful con men ever. His criminal career began when he ran away from home at the age of 15. He forged cheques worth more than four million dollars before he was 19. The film is supposedly accurate as far as his crimes are concerned, but fictionalises the relationship with his father.

The film is directed by Steven Spelberg and stars Leonardo DiCaprio as Frank Abagnale. To get the fictional aspects out of the way first, it was important to present Frank's love for his father as his motivation for his crimes. This makes his character more sympathetic to the audience than if he had been shown as a selfish cold-hearted criminal. In 1963 (when Frank was 15) his father had lost money in his business and was facing bankruptcy due to IRS payment claims. I think this is something that could only happen in America. In England (and most other western countries), if a company loses money no tax is due. In America the Inland Revenue levies taxes on a company's profits, even if the profits are subsequently lost later in the year. This leads to the absurd situation that people with no money are expected to pay high tax bills. Young Frank felt that the government was robbing his father -- which is true, if it really happened the way the film portrays it -- so he swore to steal the money back from the government and give it to his father.

When his parents divorced Frank ran away from home rather than decide which parent to live with. His first attempts to cash cheques failed, until he had the idea of pretending to be a pilot. In a pilot's uniform he had no problems cashing forged cheques, because everyone trusts a pilot. Pilots have a reputation as being something special, even more than judges or doctors. It's a mixture of the responsibility and the uniform. Last year I visited a night club and met a group of American navy pilots who were stationed in Cosford, near Wolverhampton. They were in full uniform. They told me that it wasn't compulsory for them to wear their uniforms when off duty, but they did so "because English girls go crazy about the uniforms". It was true. Girls were practically fighting to get near the pilots. Maybe I should buy myself a pilot's uniform.

Of course, it wasn't just the uniform. Frank Abagnale was a skilled forger. As well as cheques he forged certificates, enabling him to work as a doctor and a lawyer. Throughout his short but highly successful criminal career Frank was pursued by the FBI agent Carl Hanratty (played by Tom Hanks), and the two developed a respect for one another.

After his arrest in 1969 he was given short prison sentences in France and Sweden. He was then extradited to America and sentenced to 12 years in prison. This sentence was cut short when he was offered a job in the bank fraud development of the FBI, where he worked for 26 years. No criminals were a match for his skills of fraud detection.

The real Frank Abagnale.

It's been a long time since I last watched this film. Maybe 10 years. I'm not sure why I waited so long. I have a great respect for Steven Spielberg as a director, but there are only a few of his films that really grip me. His films are too smooth, too perfect. "Catch me if you can" has enough of a rough edge to make it a thrilling film. I also consider it to be Leonardo DiCaprio's second best film, second only to "Titanic".

Frank's escape from police custody when being extradited to America seems so ridiculous that it couldn't possibly be true, but I've found out that it really did happen as shown. He jumped out of a moving plane while it was taxiing on the runway at JFK Airport. He managed to break through a fence and flee across country before finally being apprehended.

The prison in France was even worse than how it's shown in the film. According to Wikipedia, "At Perpignan he was held nude in a tiny, filthy, lightless cell that he was never allowed to leave. The cell lacked toilet facilities, a mattress, or a blanket, and food and water were strictly limited". That sounds disgusting. Were things really so bad in France in 1970?

Bridge of Spies (4 Stars)

I was poorly prepared for this film. I didn't realise it was a true story until the end of the film, when the further development of the main characters was described in the informational texts.

In 1957 a Russian spy called Rudolf Abel was arrested in Brooklyn. James Donovan, an insurance lawyer played by Tom Hanks, was requested to defend him in court. He did this to the best of his ability, convinced that every man deserves a fair trial in the American legal system, but nobody else shared his opinion. Even the judge is shown to have made his mind up about Abel's guilt before the trial begins. It's just a show trial, to pretend to the world that American justice is fair. It isn't fair. When Donovan says that the evidence against Abel should be dismissed because it was gained without the use of a search warrant the judge refuses, saying that it's a matter of national security, which is more important than the fine details of the law.

Nevertheless, a bond develops between Donovan and Abel. Donovan sees Abel as a soldier in a war, and he's fighting faithfully for his own country, Russia. That earns his respect.

In 1960 an American spy plane is shot down over Russia, and the pilot, Francis Powers, is captured. Russia suggests, indirectly, a prisoner exchange. They can't call it an exchange, because they don't do exchanges. They say they will free Powers as a sign of good will if America first frees Abel as a sign of good will. They want there to be a few months between the releases to stop it looking like an exchange.

This is where James Donovan is called in again. He's sent to East Berlin in 1961 (shortly after the construction of the Berlin Wall) to negotiate the exchange. His work is hampered by the lack of agreement between Russia and East Germany. At that time America (and most other countries) didn't recognise the existence of East Germany, which called itself the Deutsche Demokratische Republik, the German Democratic Republic. America considered East Germany to be a region of Germany that had been annexed by Russia. The East German government considered itself to be independent, Russia's partner rather than Russia's slave. This all led to a lack of cooperation between the Russian and German officials in East Berlin. When Donovan made agreements with the Russians the Germans refused to allow them, and when Donovan made agreements with the Germans the Russians refused to allow them.

The problem with East Germany between 1945 and 1990 is that it was Russia's ally, but it was never a Communist country, except in name. East Germany was the continuation of Nazi Germany in its social and political structure. East Germany had a single party system, a dictator and a secret police that suppressed all opposite to the government in words and deeds. The persecution of Jews continued in East Germany after the war, even if they were no longer murdered. Jewish cemeteries were destroyed and Jewish property was confiscated by the state. High ranking Nazi officials were allowed to carry on working in East Germany.

The film is very gritty and realistic. It's not a chest-beating patriotic film in which America is the good guys and Russia is the bad guys. Everyone is as bad as everyone else. The only good man is James Donovan, caught in the middle and standing up for what he believes is right.

Jurassic Park (5 Stars)

30 films to watch before you die, #14

God creates dinosaurs.

God destroys dinosaurs.

God creates man.

Man destroys God.

Man creates dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs eat man.

Woman inherits the earth.

That's not quite an accurate summary of the film, but people who have seen it know where it comes from. This is in every way a typical Steven Spielberg film. It starts off with a bang, then goes back and introduces the characters, slowly building up to a dramatic conclusion.

Steven Spielberg has made many magnificent films during his career. Let me just pick out three of them for further viewing.

• Jaws (1975)
• E.T. (1982)
• Jurassic Park: The Lost World (1997)

Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

In the second Jurassic Park film Richard Attenborough plays a smaller role. John Hammond, the man who founded the park, is now old and spends most of his time in bed. His nephew has now taken over the running of his company, Ingen. We only see Richard Attenborough at the beginning of the film, in his bedroom, and in the final scene in a television interview. Nevertheless, in these two short scenes he puts on a magnificent performance.