Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (4 Stars)

This is the third film in the Stuttgart Nights Festival.

The film's shockingly long title, which isn't shown on screen until the end of the film, is a quote from the judge when sentencing Ted Bundy to death.

The film shows Ted Bundy's life in episodes from 1969 to 1980. None of Bundy's killings are shown. For the first hour of the film this disturbed me, and I thought I was missing something. Then I got used to these omissions as I realised it wasn't what the film was about. The film shows Ted Bundy through the eyes of those who knew him, in particular the women who loved him. They didn't see his murders, and they didn't even believe they happened, so they aren't shown.

Throughout the film Ted Bundy, admirably portrayed by Zac Efron, is a smooth-talking charismatic man who always proclaimed his own innocence. Like the real Ted Bundy, if I hadn't known his background I would have been seduced by him and believed his innocence. How could such a perfect gentleman be a killer? It must be a mistake.

This is a film that I need to see again.

The Disaster Artist (5 Stars)

The best thing about reviewing true stories is that I don't have to worry about spoilers, especially if it's a story that's well known. In the case of this film it's even easier because the plot itself is so simple. Let's get the plot out of the way first:

Tommy Wiseau meets Greg Sestero in acting classes in San Francisco. They move to Los Angeles and make a film called "The Room", which is considered to be the worst film ever made.

That's it. No spoilers.

Tommy Wiseau was, and still is, a mystery. To this day nobody knows how old he is, where he comes from or how he became so rich. In 1998, when he met Greg, he claimed to be 19, but he was probably in his mid 40's. He said he was from New Orleans, but his accent sounded like he came from Eastern Europe. An investigator claims to have evidence that he was born in Poland, but Tommy has never confirmed it. As for the source of his money, it's a complete mystery. He invested six million dollars to make "The Room", and how much money he still has left is a closely guarded secret. Estimates range from $500,000 to $20 million.

Tommy Wiseau had unshakeable confidence in himself and the quality of his film. He thought it was good enough to win Academy Awards, even though it only earned $1800 in its opening weekend. Some people claim that the film has finally become profitable due to its notoriety as a bad film, but that's questionable. The midnight screenings at Arthouse cinemas don't earn much money.

Is it really the worst film ever made? That's a matter of opinion, and it depends on the criteria. I've seen films that I consider worse, such as "Jupiter Ascending". There's a common expression that says a film is "so bad that it's good", but I think that expression is only used by people who don't want to admit that they don't know what they're talking about. A film might have technical errors but still be exciting and enjoyable. Another film might be technically perfect but boring. "Jupiter Ascending" fits into the latter category. The best example of the former category is "Plan 9 from Outer Space", which used to be called the world's worst film.

I've only watched "The Room" once. I can't judge it impartially, and I don't even intend to try. I'll probably watch it again soon, but only in order to put "The Disaster Artist" into context. It's probably impossible to understand "The Disaster Artist" if you've never seen "The Room".

James Franco won the Golden Globe award for Best Actor for his role as Tommy Wiseau. This was well deserved, and I'm surprised he hasn't been nominated for the Academy Awards. The film is hilarious, and the cinema audience was in stitches. They weren't laughing with Tommy, they were laughing at him. Does Tommy care? I doubt it. If he'd made a good film he would have been forgotten by now. By making a bad film he's established himself as a legend.

P.S. If you haven't seen the film yet, make sure you don't miss the after-credits scene in which the real Tommy Wiseau appears.

Greatest Showman (5 Stars)

One thing I've found over the years is that it's easier for me to write about films that I don't like than films that I like. I have no problems in making a list of a film's faults. On the other hand, when I love a film I get writer's block. This evening I've sat staring at the screen for at least 20 minutes, not knowing where to start.

I went to the cinema this evening expecting something good. That's the same feeling I had when I went to see "La La Land" 12 months ago. As soon as Hugh Jackman opened his mouth and began to sing I was amazed. That's how I felt after the first musical number of "La La Land". That's where the similarities stopped. "La La Land" slumped after the first 15 minutes and never got its magic back. "Greatest Showman" succeeds where "La La Land" failed.

I was amazed at how good Hugh Jackman can sing. I never expected it from him. Zac Efron is also an amazing singer and dancer, but I knew that already. He was probably the best dancer in the film. Michelle Williams has a weak voice, but it was good enough for the film. Rebecca Ferguson amazed me with her singing talent. How has she managed to keep it secret all these years? As well as that, many of the performers that I'd never seen before, young and old, are excellent singers.

The film is about the life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, from his impoverished youth to the creation of the world's largest circus. He began his business as a freak show, but slowly added animals and athletic performers to become a fully fledged circus.

It's a powerful emotional story. I felt my eyes moistening on two occasions.

A lot of the criticism raised against the film is the lack of historical accuracy. This piqued my curiosity, so I spent some time reading about P. T. Barnum. None of what I read contradicts the film, but his life has been simplified. He did many more things than were shown in the film, but to include them all would have added hours to the film. He had four daughters, not two, but that doesn't disturb me. Maybe situations were dramatised, such as the first meeting with his parents-in-law after his marriage, but that's usual in true stories.

This is a wonderful film, and I can't find any valid criticisms to make me think otherwise. I strongly recommend it to all my readers.

Baywatch (4 Stars)

I can't remember exactly when I first saw the TV series "Baywatch". I vaguely remember seeing pictures of sexy looking girls in red swimming costumes which made me curious. That was in the ancient times before there was Internet, so I wasn't able to find out much about it. Finally I saw a couple of episodes on television, but I found the story so stupid that not even the sexual titillation of Pamela Anderson in a skin tight bathing suit could retain my attention. A couple of years later I heard that Carmen Electra would join the series, and I was a big Carmen Electra fan at the time, so I gave it another chance. I watched a few more episodes before giving up again.

What was so bad about the series? It was so shallow. It took place in an artificial world in which people's only purpose in life was to look good. David Hasselhoff annoyed me the most as the head lifeguard, Mitch Buchannon. Something about his silky smooth personality mixed with a touch of heartbreak rubbed me up the wrong way. Not just me. By this time, the late 1990's, I had an Internet connection, and it was common for people to express their hatred for David Hasselhoff. I joined in the heckling.

A few years later, round about 2005, David Hasselhoff appeared on Jonathan Ross's talk show. It was amazing. When he walked on the audience booed and hissed. David ignored the audience reaction and chatted normally with Jonathan Ross. It wasn't so much what he said, it was his attitude. His jovial personality won over the audience, and by the end of the show they were cheering for him. I was cheering as well. What a great guy! I still didn't like the series, but I'd become a David Hasselhoff fan.

I didn't intend to watch the film, but I watched the trailers, and it became apparent to me that the film would be a parody, making fun of the series. I've been a fan of Dwayne Johnson (the Rock) since "San Andreas" (I didn't like his earlier films), which was another reason to go.

I was laughing from the beginning of the film. The half a dozen episodes I'd seen of the series were enough for me to understand the brunt of the jokes. The film had some action as well, which I found unconvincing, but I didn't care. For me the film was all about the comedy. I enjoyed it greatly, and I can recommend it to anyone who hates the TV series.

Of course, all potential lifeguards must be carefully inspected. The new girl, Kelly Rohrbach, is given full marks by an unbiased connoisseur of the female form.

Bad Neighbours 2 (3 Stars)

"Let's do what parents do best: stop young people from having fun".

The original title of this film is simply "Neighbors", with the typical American incorrect spelling. Outside of America it's called "Bad Neighbours 2", which doesn't just correct the bad spelling, it's also more appropriate at explaining what the film's about by adding the word "Bad".

I didn't watch the first Bad Neighbours film. I don't usually watch films that star Seth Rogen. It's not that he's a bad actor, it's just that I associate him with crude humour. I'm not a prude, I'm okay with a certain amount of crudeness, but with Seth it's like he's trying too hard. He's being crude for the sake of being crude, and it isn't funny, it's just disgusting. I decided to watch "Bad Neighbours 2" because it stars Chloe Grace Moretz, one of my favourite actresses.

Before going to the cinema today the question in my mind was whether I would miss out by not having seen the first film. I needn't have worried. The film's dialogue helped me read between the lines, and I managed to figure out what the first film had been about. That's a well written sequel!

Mac and Kelly Radner have sold their house because they're expecting a second baby. Now the house is being held in escrow for 30 days. According to the explanation in the film this means that the buyers aren't yet sure they want the house. They've signed a contract, but they have 30 days in which to decide, during which they can come back and look at the house at any time. That's not how I understand the word "escrow", and after returning home I looked up the definition of the word, and it doesn't seem to mean what the film says it does, but let's leave it there.

Mac and Kelly are happy with the arrangement, until a newly founded college sorority moves into the house next door. There are wild parties every day that go on till the middle of the night. This would scare off the buyers, so Mac goes to war with the girls, in particular with the sorority leader Shelby (Chloe Grace Moretz).

Despite the abundance of young college girls, the film is remarkably lacking in sexuality. I say that as a criticism. Nevertheless, if my car were surrounded by college girls in bikinis I would give up the fight and surrender. I have my limits.

The film was pretty much as I expected. Crude humour from Seth Rogen that disgusted me. First class acting from Chloe Grace Moretz. The overall effect is average.

Chloe should have given Seth a good beating, That would have improved the film.