Julia's Eyes (4½ Stars)

This is my horror film #5 for October. I bought it on a friend's recommendation without even seeing a trailer for it, so I didn't know what to expect. But I have to say, it's an incredible film. It's one of the most terrifying films I've ever seen. Its strength is built up on suspense, and it has just enough gore to give it an additional shock element.

Julia and Sara are twin sisters. They both suffer from a degenerative eye disease. Sara's condition is more advanced, and she is the first to become blind. Unable to cope with her situation, she hangs herself in her cellar.

Though miles away, Julia feels Sara's death. Together with her husband she finds Sara's body. Since she suspects that there is more to the death than a simple suicide, she remains in the house to investigate. Julia's own eyesight becomes progressively worse, and at the same time she senses that someone is watching her, taking advantage of her poor eyesight. When her husband also commits suicide, hanging himself from the same rope, she becomes certain that someone or something is stalking her.

Brilliant. I've deducted half a star for the red herrings in the mystery, which I find out of place. Overall this is a five star film. And it's a difficult film to follow. What shall I watch tomorrow?

Click here to view the trailer.

Scream XXX (3½ Stars)

This is the second film in my October horror month. Or maybe the fourth film. I only decided to watch a series of horror films yesterday, but I had already watched "Tamara" and "Strippers vs Werewolves". It's a matter of definition.

"Scream XXX" isn't directed by Axel Braun, but as executive producer his influence is visible, even though the camerawork is rougher than what he would have delivered us. This film really is a parody, but that is what is to be expected from a film about a parody. It follows the metafilm structure of "Scream 2" and "Scream 3". We see the adventures of the cast, called by their real names, trying to make a film while being murdered one by one by an unknown killer. In many cases we don't know whether what we see is happening inside or outside the film until the camera pulls back and we see the camera crew.

A good film, though not up to the standard of those directed by Axel Braun himself.

Click here to view the trailer.

This ain't Dracula XXX (4½ Stars)

Today a friend of mine told me that she watches horror films every day in October to build up to Halloween. I don't know whether I'll watch a horror film every single day, but I'll definitely watch more than usual this month. I'm starting today with Axel Braun's version of the Dracula story. I've lost count of how many times the original Bram Stoker story has been remade. At least 50 times already, in so many different forms, from F. W. Murnau's "Nosferatu" to today. It's the most filmed story ever. Visually this film leans towards Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 version.

Evan Stone gives a masterful performance as Count Dracula. In my eyes he is more impressive than Gary Oldman. His love scene with Mina in Renfield's cell is the tenderest performance I have ever seen from him. He kisses and caresses her before he removes her gown to have sex. The first scene where the three brides seduce Jonathan Harker in his sleep is the sexiest vampire scene I've ever seen.

As I've mentioned when reviewing other films directed by Axel Braun, his films are called parodies, but that's the wrong word to describe them. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a parody is "a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule". There is no element of comedy or ridicule in this; the film is a respectful homage to vampire films of the past, but with additional sex scenes. Maybe the reason for calling it a parody is that parodies can copy other pieces of work without being guilty of copyright infringement?

This is a film for all vampire fans, whether or not you like pornography. Brilliant!

Click here to view the trailer.

Unknown (5 Stars)

*** Review deleted ***

The Return (2 Stars)

I've been a fan of Sarah Michelle Gellar ever since her days in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", and I really want to see something good from her, but she has the knack of picking poor films. "The Return" is a mess. It attempts to build up suspense, but it's spoilt by an unintelligible plot with too many sidetracks and a final plot twist that doesn't really make sense.

When Joanna Mills was 11 and lived in Texas she was separated from her father in a fairground and was scared by a mysterious man. She is so traumatised by this that when she was older she moved as far as she could away from Texas. Now that she's 25 she works as a sales rep for a truck company and has to return to Texas for a job. She takes the opportunity to return to her home town. There she meets the mystery man again. And a creepy man who tries to rape her after she rejects his advances in a bar. And another mystery man who saves her, and then tells her he's been wrongly accused of killing his wife. And then Joanna has visions of his wife. Confusing? Yes. Disappointing? Very. Come on, Sarah, you can find better films than this.

Click here to view the trailer.

Strippers vs Werewolves (3 Stars)

Scott and Lucy are a young couple who are keeping secrets from one another. Lucy hasn't told her boyfriend she's a stripper. Scott hasn't told his girlfriend he's a werewolf.

One day Lucy is dressed up as a sexy schoolgirl giving a private dance when the customer turns into a werewolf. Lucy does what comes naturally: she pokes her school pen into his eye with enough force to pierce his brain. Since it's made of silver it kills him. The local werewolf gang decides she has to die, which puts Scott in a difficult position. Eventually a full scale battle breaks out when the werewolves attack the strip club.

This British film has a lot of promise. It features outstanding actors like Billy Murray, Martin Kemp, Sarah Douglas and Robert Englund. I find it's spoilt by the chaotic film editing, especially in the first half of the film. We keep jumping from one scene to another and back for no apparent reason. Despite being set in a strip club there is only very occasional nudity. It could have been better.

Click here to view the trailer.

Reservoir Dogs (5 Stars)

This is a film that's impossible to adequately describe to anyone who hasn't seen it. It doesn't slot into any of the usual film genres. It's a fim about a diamond robbery, but the actual robbery is never shown. We only see the events that happen before and afterwards. The majority of the film takes part in the claustrophobic atmosphere of a warehouse the gang use as a hideout after the robbery. They know they have a traitor in their midst who tipped off the police, and they argue with one another who it was. Sounds boring? Believe me, it isn't. This was the first film that Quentin Tarantino directed, and his strength is in character development. The conversations between the main characters are more important (and often more entertaining) than the action itself. Hotheaded Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) and the cool pragmatist Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) bounce off one another in the face of the psychopathic Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen).

I feel I should write more about this film, but I don't know what to say. In my opinion it's a classic that film fans will still be talking about 100 years from now.

Click here to view the trailer, even though it fails to give a good impression of the film.

Red State (4½ Stars)

Three teenage boys, all virgins, meet a middle-aged woman online who says she wants a foursome with them. But as they say, if something seems too good to be true it probably is. When they arrive in the woman's trailer she drugs them, and they wake up in a church building where the charismatic preacher is talking to his congregation about sin. The three boys have sinned, so they will receive their punishment from God by being executed. One of the boys escapes just long enough to call the police, but the church visitors are heavily armed and it turns into a siege.

Although there is a certain amount of action, especially towards the end, the film's strength is in the character development. The acting is first rate throughout, and the viewer has no difficulty understanding the characters and their motivation. The outstanding actor is Michael Parks who plays the role of the preacher. Quentin Tarantino calls him the world's best actor, and his performance in this film makes me see why.

It's obvious that writer/director Kevin Smith had David Koresh and the 1993 storming of Waco on his mind when he made this film, but doesn't push the comparison down our throats. Some people might not like the film because it's slow in parts, especially the extended sermon. I consider it a masterpiece.

I highly recommend that you watch the trailer.Unlike many other trailers, it gives a realistic summary of the film without giving away too much of the plot.

Tamara (3 Stars)

This is a perfect example of a deceptive film poster. What do you expect when you see the picture above? A film about a pretty girl who gets revenge on her enemies by walking round school chopping them up with an axe? That's certainly what I expected. Not even close.

Tamara is a high school plain Jane who has a crush on her English teacher. She casts a love spell to win his love. Her classmates find out about her crush and play a cruel prank on her, making her think he's interested in her. The prank results in a fight and they accidentally kill her. They bury her in the woods, but a side effect of the carelessly cast love spell is that she comes back to life, stunningly beautiful and cruel. She now has powers of hypnotism, which she uses to make her classmates and other enemies kill themselves.

When the film started it seemed like a clone of "Carrie". When Tamara turned sexy I enjoyed it even more. But the main negatives for me were the gore. Some people might like images of kids cutting their own tongues out, but it makes me sick. That's the main reason for the relatively low rating I've given it. If you don't mind gore, take a look at it.

Click here to view the trailer.

Donnie Darko (5 Stars)

When this film was first released in 2001 it was a box office flop. It was ignored by critics and moviegoers alike. At the time it was released I lived close to a large cinema and remember seeing it advertised. The photo of the large bunny rabbit in blue shading made me think it was a cheap horror film, so I ignored it. After its release on DVD people started noticing it, and soon it developed a cult following. I first took notice of it when talking to two friends of mine. One of them said that "Donnie Darko" was her favorite film, and the other replied "Yes, it's the best film ever made". That made me run out and buy it the next day, and wow! It's one of the best films I've ever seen.

I'll take a different path in this review. Usually I avoid spoilers, but I want to write an explanation of the film. If you've never seen the film, stop reading now. Go out and buy it. I recommend the original version. The director's cut has better music, but it's padded out by explaining things left vague in the original, making it less enjoyable. The spoilers follow the picture, so scroll down at your own risk.

I've read many interpretations of the film, and there are none I completely agree with. A guide to interpreting it is the excerpts from Roberta Sparrow's "Philosophy of Time Travel" that are included as DVD extras. Reading them isn't essential to understanding the film, but it helps.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF TIME TRAVEL

Chapter One: The Tangent Universe

The Primary Universe is fraught with great peril. War, plague, famine and natural disaster are common.

Death comes to us all. The Fourth Dimension of Time is a stable construct, though it is not impenetrable.

Incidents when the fabric of the fourth dimension becomes corrupted are incredibly rare.

If a Tangent Universe occurs, it will be highly unstable, sustaining itself for no longer than several weeks.

Eventually it will collapse upon itself, forming a black hole within the Primary Universe capable of destroying all existence.

Chapter Two: Water And Metal

Water and Metal are the key elements of Time Travel.

Water is the barrier element for the construction of Time Portals used as gateways between Universes as the Tangent Vortex.

Metal is the transitional element for the construction of Artifact Vessels.

Chapter Four: The Artifact And The Living

When a Tangent Universe occurs, those living nearest to the Vortex, will find themselves at the epicenter of a dangerous new world.

Artifacts provide the first sign that a Tangent Universe has occurred.

If an Artifact occurs, the Living will retrieve it with great interest and curiosity.

Artifacts are formed from metal, such as an Arrowhead from an ancient Mayan civilization, or a Metal Sword from Medieval Europe.

Artifacts returned to the Primary Universe are often linked to religious Iconography, as their appearance on Earth seems to defy logical explanation.

Divine intervention is deemed the only logical conclusion for the appearance of the Artifact.

Chapter Six: The Living Receiver

The Living Receiver is chosen to guide the Artifact into position for its journey back to the Primary Universe.

No one knows how or why a Receiver will be chosen.

The Living Receiver is often blessed with a Fourth Dimensional Powers.

These include increased strength, telekinesis, mind control, and the ability to conjure fire and water.

The Living Receiver is often tormented by terrifying dreams, visions and auditory hallucinations during his time within the Tangent Universe.

These surrounding the Living Receiver, known as the Manipulated, will fear him and try to destroy him.

Chapter Seven: The Manipulated Living

The Manipulated Living are often the close friends and neighbors of the Living Receiver.

They are prone to irrational, bizarre, and often violent behavior.

This is the unfortunate result of their task, which is to assist the Living Receiver in returning the Artifact to the Primary Universe.

The Manipulated Living will do anything to save themselves from Oblivion.

Chapter Ten: The Manipulated Dead

The Manipulated Dead are more powerful than the Living Receiver. If a person dies within the Tangent Dimension, they are able to contact the Living Receiver through the Fourth Dimensional Construct.

The Fourth Dimensional Construct is made of Water.

The Manipulated Dead will manipulate the Living Receiver using the Fourth Dimensional Construct (see Appendix A and B).

The Manipulated Dead will often set an Ensurance Trap for the Living Receiver to ensure that the Artifact is returned safely to the Primary Universe.

If the Ensurance Trap is successful, the Living Receiver is left with no choice but to use his Fourth Dimensional Power to send the Artifact back in time into the Primary Universe before the Black hole collapses upon itself.

Chapter Twelve: Dreams

When the Manipulated awaken from their Journey into the Tangent Universe, they are often haunted by the experience in their dreams.

Many of them will not remember.

Those who do remember the Journey are often overcome with profound remorse for the regretful actions buried within their Dreams, the only physical evidence buried within the Artifact itself, all that remains from the lost world.

Ancient myth tells us of the Mayan Warrior killed by an Arrowhead that had fallen from a cliff, where there was no Army, no enemy to be found.

We are told of the Medieval Knight mysteriously impaled by sword he had not yet built.

We are told that these things occur for a reason.

---

The plot, at its simplest, is this: an alternative parallel universe has occurred spontaneously, and due to its instability it threatens to create a black hole and destroy all of reality. Donnie Darko is chosen as the saviour to prevent this happening.

Is it God who appoints Donnie to this task? That's unclear, although the film does mention God briefly, and the religious symbolism is unmistakable. Donnie saves the universe by sacrificing himself. Like the Mayan warrior and the mediaeval knight mentioned in chapter 12 of "The Philosophy of Time Travel", Donnie died crushed to death by an airplane engine.

Now the full plot, with my interpretation:

On October 2nd 1988 Donnie is woken up by a person wearing a rabbit costume and led to a golf course. The person, who calls himself Frank, tells Donnie the world will end in 28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes and 12 seconds. When Donnie returns home he sees that an aircraft engine has fallen from the sky onto his house. Nobody knows where it came from. This is the metal artifact described in Roberta Sparrow's book.

From this point on Frank guides Donnie's actions. Donnie floods the school basement, he vandalises the school mascot, and he sets the house of a local motivational speaker on fire. These are not random acts. Frank is one of the "Manipulated Dead", and he guides Donnie to seemingly random acts of vandalism that will steer events towards the final solution. Flooding the basement leads to school being cancelled, which in turn leads to Donnie dating Gretchen, so that when Frank kills Gretchen Donnie takes revenge and kills Frank. This is Frank's death within the Tangent Universe, after which Frank gains powers and is able to travel back in time to guide Donnie. Setting the house on fire leads to the speaker's child pornography collection being discovered by firemen, so the sports teacher Kitty Farmer decides not to accompany the school singing team to Los Angeles, leading Donnie's mother to be in the plane when the lightning hits it and the engine falls off.

Donnie saves the universe by catching the airplane engine as it falls and projecting it into the real universe. His death was a necessity.

One thing that I've missed in other reviews is a comparison with "Lost Highway". If you scrape away the surface the two films are so similar that writer/director Robert Kelly must have been influenced by it. The main difference is that the time loop in "Lost Highway" is supernatural, whereas "Donnie Darko" is scientific. Maybe I'll go into this in more detail when I review "Lost Highway".

Click here to view the trailer.

The Dark Knight (4½ Stars)

This is the second film in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. The death of Heath Ledger, the actor who played the Joker, before the film's release led to a lot of interest by people who would otherwise not have considered watching the film. However, the film stands on its own merits. It doesn't need off-screen scandals or tragedies to support it.

The film is a significant improvement over the first part in the trilogy, "Batman Begins". The first film failed to capture the atmosphere of the Batman comics. "The Dark Knight" presents us the Batman that comic readers know and love. In the first film I had my doubts about Christian Bale in the title role. Here we see that he's grown into the role. I was disappointed that Bruce Wayne's love interest Rachel Dawes had to be played by a different actress. Maggie Gyllenhall doesn't bring the same warmth to the role as Katie Holmes.

The film suggests, though not explicitly, that Batman is actually the cause of the plague of super villains in Gotham City. This is a topic that has been frequently explored in the comics. The presence of a masked vigilante has provoked the rise of a new breed of villains to oppose him. Could Batman really save the city by retiring? I think not. In the same way, the general availability of guns in the USA is responsible for the height of violent crime, but if private gun ownership were forbidden tomorrow it would only make crime worse.

I have mixed feelings about Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker. He's a scary villain, but is he really the same Joker that we know from the comics? For me Cesar Romero will always be the actor who most accurately portrayed the Joker.

Click here to view the trailer.

The Innocence of Muslims (unrated)

This is the film that has had the whole world in a frenzy for the last few days. It has provoked the murder of the American ambassador to Libya, the burning down of the German embassy in Sudan, and countless other acts of violence.

So what is the film about, and why are Moslems getting so excited about it? I can't give it a rating, because I've only seen a 14-minute excerpt on YouTube. I shall buy the film when it becomes available on DVD, even though it seems to be of exceedingly poor quality. Supposedly it's an anti-Islamic film. This isn't supported by the excerpt I've seen. It looks like a religious satire, unusual when dealing with Islam, though common in dealing with Christianity. The best example of a Christian religious satire is "The Life of Brian". The problem is that Moslems in general have been brought up with too many inhibitions to be able to appreciate satire. I would have expected them to have lightened up after making a fool of themselves over the 2005 Danish cartoons. They still need to learn how to laugh.

On the other hand, it's all a lot of fuss over a poor quality film that would never have become well known if it had not been for the protests. Some cynics have even suggested that the film's producers paid Moslem groups to riot. It's time for a high quality film to be made about the life of Mohammed. It should be factual, neither praising nor attacking Islam, simply showing the life of the man who invented Islam. My personal choice of actor to play Mohammed would be Jake Gyllenhaal. Most people around the world would welcome an informational film. Some Moslems would decry it without even seeing it, because they are afraid to find out the truth about Mohammed. But the truth is necessary in order to have an open discussion.

Click here to view an excerpt from the film. It's possible this link will be broken soon.

Off-Topic: The English Genitive

As my regular readers already know, I am passionate in my support of the English language. I adhere strictly to correct spelling, and by "correct" I mean British spelling. I grudgingly accept that my American cousins spell certain words differently, but I still dislike words like "color" and "traveler". They grate on me whenever I read them.

This article is about the correct spellings of genitive words in English using apostrophe-s. Fortunately this does not differ on the other side of the Atlantic, so my American readers can read on. When I went to school I learnt that genitives are formed by adding an apostrophe and the letter s, unless the word ends in an s, in which case only an apostrophe is used. For plurals no apostrophe is ever used. Those were the rules, no exceptions. Since leaving school I've read a large number of books and magazines, and I've realised that there are exceptions to these rules. I recently had a heated debate with someone just as passionate about the English language as I am, because he refused to accept any exceptions. That's why I have decided to make this off-topic post.

First, what is an apostrophe? In handwritten English it's usually identical to a comma, but raised slightly higher than lower case letters. In computer typography it's simplified to a vertical bar. In the case of serif fonts the top of the bar is often thicker, making it look like a rounded triangle, as in the image above.

Let's take an example of correctly formed genitives:

The books belonging to a school: The school's books.
The books belonging to schools: The schools' books.

Both are pronounced the same, but are spelt differently. In spoken conversation the meaning would usually be made known by the context. In written English the spelling tells the reader which is meant.

Now for an exception. What do we call the daughter of a boss? In spoken English nobody would hesitate to pronounce the word identically to the plural form "bosses", but how is that spelt? My purist friend rejects the exception and would write "the boss' daughter", even though this spelling does not reflect the pronunciation. I believe he is wrong. Correct is:

The daughter of the boss: The boss's daughter.
The daughters of the bosses: The bosses' daughters.

This is an easily definable exception. Whenever a word ends with a double s, the genitive is formed by adding apostrophe-s. So we would also write "the ass's tail" and "the Goddess's temple".

With singular words ending in a single s the case is less clear cut. It is best to follow the pronunciation. In the case of the planets we talk about "Mars' surface" and "Venus's surface". If there is any doubt it's never a mistake to omit the s after the apostrophe. Nobody would complain about "Venus' surface".

For the sake of completeness, let's consider the formation of plurals. Is it always incorrect to use an apostrophe to form plurals? Here too there are exceptions which are generally accepted.

1. An apostrophe is used to form the plural of numbers.

I rolled three 5's in a row.
He went to school in the 1920's.

2. An apostrophe is used to form the plural of single letters.

Remember your p's and q's.
This sentence contains five e's.

3. An apostrophe is used to form the plural of abbreviations.

He completed three PhD's.
I own over a thousand CD's.

There seems to be some controversy over the third exception. Many people would accept the first example but reject the second. I've heard it said that an apostrophe can only be used in the plural if the abbreviation ends with a small letter or dot. However, this doesn't seem to be backed up by common usage in books and magazines. I'm not sure about this rule myself. I haven't been consistent in my spelling, even in this blog. I used to write "DVDs" and "CDs", but now I prefer "DVD's" and "CD's".

Mantis in Lace (2 Stars)

Although I heard about this 1968 film many years ago I've only recently been able to buy it. Everything I had read about the film made it seem like an absolute shocker about drugs, violence and sexual depravity. Watching it today it seems very tame. As an exploitation film it doesn't exploit enough.

The story is about a stripper called Lila. ("Lila" was the film's original title, but it was later renamed). She takes a customer back to where she lives in an old warehouse belonging to her father. The customer gives her LSD and she experiences a bad trip. She kills him during sex, then hacks his body to pieces. After this she goes on a killing spree, inviting customers to the warehouse, taking drugs and killing them.

The plot as described above could have led to a very good film. But it fails to deliver. The film has many faults, but I'll concentrate on the plot. Many things are suggested, but are left unclear. Obviously the first encounter with LSD is with her first victim. After this she becomes addicted. But what is unclear is whether she had intended to kill him anyway. It's not certain whether the warehouse really belongs to her father, since later in the film a real estate agent arrives who thought the property was deserted. Why would a young woman live in such barren surroundings if she didn't plan to commit a crime? The childhood flashbacks during her trips show that she's become unstable through a history of abuse.

This is a prime candidate for a remake. The film could be made much better today.

Young Bruce Lee (4 Stars)

This is a difficult movie for me to review. The film is well made and enjoyable to watch, but it's not at all what I expected. It's not the Bruce Lee I expected to see.

The film (released in the USA under the name "Bruce Lee, my brother") is based on a biography written by his younger brother. It deals with Lee's life from his birth in 1940 up to 1959. He was born in San Francisco, but his parents returned with him to Hong Kong in 1943. His father was an actor, and he used his connections to get Bruce roles in films from his early childhood. In 1959 he left his family to return to America.

What troubled me about the film is that it didn't portray Bruce as the hero I've known and admired for many years. His success as an actor made him arrogant in his teens. He frequently got into street fights. His motivation for learning martial arts in the school of Ip Man wasn't spiritual, it was so he could win his fights on the street. I assume that this is a true portrayal of his character. His brother obviously admires him, so he has no reason to put him in a negative light. He's showing the way Bruce really grew up, as a troubled teenager caught up in first the Japanese, then the British occupation of his country.

The film should be watched by all fans of the legendary Bruce Lee, and even those who don't know much about him may enjoy it. Click here to view the trailer.

Bruce Lee (on the left) in a 1950 film.

Shoot 'Em Up (2 Stars)

A man known only as Mr. Smith is sitting at a bus stop when he witnesses a pregnant woman being pursued by men with guns. He rushes to her rescue and helps to deliver the baby while still in a gun fight with the men. He goes into hiding with the woman, but he is discovered and the woman is shot. He thinks this is the end of the problems, but more men come after him attempting to kill the baby. He struggles to find out why it's so important that the baby has to die.

The whole film is a series of gun fights strung together by a scanty plot. Everything is played for shock value to make the viewer gasp as he sees it. This isn't negative in itself; I can enjoy a film that has little or no plot if the action appeals to me. But if there is a plot, it has to make sense. This is the main reason why I didn't enjoy the film. The explanations which Mr. Smith finally finds for the bounty on the baby's life are very thin and difficult to believe. The film is a showcase for Clive Owen's acting talents, but the story is disappointing.

Click here to view the trailer.

Iron Sky (4 Stars)

This is a Finnish film, made in English and German. At the end of World War Two a group of Nazis escaped and flew to the Moon, where they built a secret colony on the dark side. In 2018 they decide to return to conquer the Earth.

"Iron Sky" is a fascinating film which is difficult to pin down to any one genre. The summary of the plot makes it sound like a B-Film which could have come from the pen of Roger Corman. And yet it isn't. There is raking political satire, mostly anti-American, and a multitude of subplots that make it far too complex to be a B-Film. The anti-American message is probably why the film has never been released in the USA. American audiences allow American directors to criticise the American way of life, but they don't tolerate criticism from foreigners

Although made with a relatively small budget, only $6 million, the special effects make the budget look much bigger. This is a film worth watching, though a lot of the humour might be lost on European audiences. The American president in the film is left unnamed, but she looks very much like Sarah Palin.

Despite the strange decision made by the UK distributors to only show the film in cinemas for one day, it was a huge box office success. The viewing figures on the one day were enough to make it into the top 10 films for the week.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (3 Stars)

I bought this film a long time ago, February 2011, and I only just watched it. It's been lying near my computer for the last 18 months. That's unusual for me, and it might surprise my regular readers who know that I'm a big Marvel fan.

Let me explain. Yes, I'm a big Marvel fan. Yes, I'm a big X-Men fan. But for me the X-Men that I know and love are the original line-up: Cyclops, Iceman, Angel, Beast and Marvel Girl. These were the members for the first 66 issues, from 1963 to 1970. After this the comic was cancelled for a few years, and the new group was introduced in Giant Sized X-Men #1 in 1975. Only Cyclops remained from the original team, although Marvel Girl and Angel returned later. I greatly enjoyed the stories of the new team as written by the new English author, Chris Claremont. But for me the new team had one weakness: Wolverine.

The X-Men were always young kids. Even though the ages were never explicitly stated (due to the Marvel habit of their characters hardly aging over the years) there is evidence that suggests Marvel Girl was 14 when she first joined the group. Iceman would have been slightly younger, while the rest of the group were a couple of years older. The new members in 1975 were all youngsters, probably in their late teens, except for Wolverine. Wolverine was older, seemingly in his 30's, although in later comics we found out that he's over a hundred years old.

My problem wasn't just his age though. The major problem for me is the type of power he had. Whereas the other mutants in the X-Men had powers to help them fight, Wolverine's powers were specifically geared for killing. He had razor sharp claws that could cut through flesh and bone. Wolverine wasn't like the squeaky clean heroes of the 1960's, he was an anti-hero, someone who would rather kill a villain than capture him. This sort of anti-hero slasher became popular in the independent comics of the 1980's and later. I don't know if Wolverine was the first ever hero of this type, but he was the most famous one and became a pattern used for new heroes. It probably says something about society that 1980's comic readers preferred Wolverine and those like him to the good guys of the 1960's.

So this is the reason I waited. I bought the DVD because I'm a completist, I need to have all the X-Men films. And yet it took me a long long time to bring myself to watch it. The film itself is okay. It's based on Wolverine stories that were written in 2001. Whether Chris Claremont ever intended things like this when he first developed the character 25 years earlier is doubtful. The film's screenplay is the same confusing mix of storylines written decades apart that we see in the other X-Men films, especially "X-Men: First Class". It alienated me that Cyclops met Wolverine before they both joined the X-Men. The film isn't too bad, and Hugh Jackman plays the title role admirably, but the story just doesn't excite me.

Click here to view the trailer.

Pink Floyd: The Wall (5 Stars)

It's been 10 days since my last post. I've been catching up on watching television series this week, in particular "Torchwood", "Dexter" and "La Femme Nikita". But now I'm back! It's weird that my blog's reader numbers increased while I wasn't writing though.

This is a very emotional film for me. It touches me in a way that no other film does. Every time I watch it I cry. It doesn't matter how often I watch it, it hits me every time.

The film is a semi-autobiography by Roger Waters. He tells the story of his life, highlighting key incidents which he portrays in dreamlike imagery: the death of his father; his alienation in school; his prolonged childhood illness; his marriage; his wife's infidelity. The end result is a mental breakdown during a concert tour in America.

Strangely, the director Alan Parker calls this film a failure and he doesn't understand why people like it. Maybe in retrospect he doesn't feel like the film told the message that he wanted it to. Whatever the reason, "The Wall" will always be one of my favorite films. And it will always make me cry.

Alien 3 (4½ Stars)

This is the third film in the Alien Tetralogy. I've called it "Alien 3" in the title, although the correct name is actually "Alien³", ie Alien cubed. Unfortunately the little 3 is hardly visible even on my average sized computer screen, so I dread to think what it will look like on a 15" laptop monitor. Or even a mobile phone, for the mini-surfers out there.

Once more the story latches on directly to the end of the previous film. At the end of "Aliens" Ellen Ripley went into the cryo-chamber to sleep on her way back to Earth. At the beginning of this film we see her spaceship catch fire, so she is ejected in an escape pod while still asleep. The pod crashes onto a remote planet which serves as a maximum security prison for violent sex offenders, all of them men who have committed murder or rape. There are only 25 men left in the prison, and they have become deeply religious, led by the inmate Dillon.

As soon becomes clear, the fire in the spacecraft had been caused by a stowaway alien that hatched from an egg. The alien now roams the prison killing the prisoners one by one.

The film is slower moving that "Aliens", though featuring more action than the first film. It surprised me to hear that director David Fincher has since disowned the film. Supposedly it was re-edited against his wishes after completion in ways that he disapproved of. Nevertheless, the finished product is enjoyable.

Aliens (5 Stars)

This is the sequel to "Alien", made seven years after the original. Ridley Scott did an admirable job in the original, but he passes the baton to James Cameron for the second film. It surpasses the original, and received critical acclaim. It was nominated for seven Oscars and won two. That was unusual, since science fiction films are usually ignored by the Academy Awards.

The story starts where the first film left off. At the end of the first film Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) climbs into a cryo-chamber to sleep for the 10 month trip back to Earth. In the second film her vessel is rescued after going astray and drifting for 57 years. At first nobody believes her story about the creature which killed the rest of her crew. A colony has been set up on the planet where she claims the alien life form was discovered, and nothing has been reported. Until now. Contact is lost with the colony, and Ripley is enlisted to accompany the rescue mission. As the film's title suggests, the rescue team encounters not one but many aliens.

Although not quite living up to "Terminator", made two years earlier, the film strengthens James Cameron's reputation as a masterful director of science fiction films. The acting is strong throughout, I couldn't name any weak links. Sigourney Weaver is maybe a strange choice to carry the lead role in the Alien films. She isn't the typical beautiful Hollywood actress; she's very plain. And yet she fits the role perfectly.

I expect that most of my readers have at least seen the first Alien film, maybe all of them. If not, I recommend watching them all. The special effects might not live up to Cameron's later films like "Avatar", but the suspense and action make them better films.

Here on Earth (2 Stars)

Jasper (Josh Hartnett) and Samantha (Leelee Sobieski) live in a small town. They've been lovers since they were children. He works on his father's farm, she works in her mother's restaurant. It's one of those towns where you're born, live your whole life, and die. Just outside town there's an expensive private school. The school is for boys only, so they go into the town to pick up girls, but in general they're despised by the locals. Kelley (Chris Klein) gets into a fight with Jasper, and a bout of road rage leads to Kelley's car crashing into Samantha's restaurant and destroying it. The judge sentences the two boys to "community service", saying they have to take part in the rebuilding of the restaurant. But Samantha is fascinated by the rich out-of-town boy, and a romance develops.

If that were all that happens the film would have been okay. I could have accepted it as a light-hearted romantic drama. But tragedy strikes. Things get steadily worse, and though the viewers hope for a happy ending none comes. The film is depressing. On top of that is the unconvincing performance from the two male leads. I wasn't previously acquainted with Chris Klein, but he seems bland and uninteresting. I've never liked Josh Hartnett as an actor, except for maybe "Pearl Harbor". Leelee Sobieski is a brilliant actress and easily outshines the rest of the cast, but she can't make up for the depressingly morbid plot.

The trailer can be viewed here, and it makes the film look like a happy romp. But it isn't. I can't recommend it.

General: Where have all the readers gone?

This is something that's been on my mind for a long time. My readership figures, as reported by Google, fluctuate a lot. For the past nine months I've averaged around 90 readers a day, which I was happy with. Then suddenly, on June 29th, the number fell to 28. And then 24. And the number has been under 30 ever since. It seems strange to me that my readership figures fell by two thirds in one day. It doesn't seem like a natural loss of readers. Maybe Google changed its algorithms so I haven't been featured so high on the search pages any more? That's the only explanation I can think of.

Not that I want the numbers to be high for the sake of it. I want to know how many people are really reading my blog. 30 a day is a good number if they are real readers. I often suspect that people come to my page by accident. They do a search for a film they want to download, Google sends them to me, then they curse when they find it's only a review. Shucks, I'm sorry I don't support global film piracy!

The best way for me to know that my blog is being read is by readers leaving comments. So please, tell me what you think about the films I review. I know that my reviews are often very brief. Deliberately. I don't always have a lot to say about a film. If you want to know more ask me a question. I read all the comments in my blog, and I reply to almost all of them.

Alien (4½ Stars)

I remember the first time I watched this film. It was 1981. My best friend Chris worked as a lab technician at Walsall Teacher Training College (which has since become part of the University of Wolverhampton). Among his other duties he was in charge of the weekly film club. I remember that I visited the club three weeks in a row to watch the films that he had personally picked for the students to watch. Chris had excellent taste. The films were "Carrie", "Dark Star" and "Alien". It was the first time I'd seen any of the three films, and they all made an impression on me. Yesterday I watched "Alien" again for the first time in 30 years.

"Alien" has a simple plot, but it's a well crafted film. A mining space ship is on its way back to Earth. During the journey they answer a distress signal from a small planet, and they pick up a stowaway. It's a small creature that grows by feeding on the crew members. Although set in space it's more of a horror film than a science fiction film. The eerie silence and lack of music for most of the film adds to the atmosphere. This is an all-time masterpiece.

Chloe (4 Stars)

Dr. Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) is a successful gynaecologist who works in a small town. Her husband David (Liam Neeson) is a music professor who works in New York City and only returns home at weekends. She suspects him of being unfaithful to her, so she hires Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), an exclusive call girl, to test her husband's fidelity. As we find out, David had never cheated on his wife before, but he is unable to resist Chloe's powers of seduction. Then things spiral out of control. Chloe goes on to seduce Catherine's teenage son and Catherine herself.

The film's plot is fascinating. I admit to having been excited by the naked scenes. Amanda Seyfried is a very beautiful woman. And yet I have the feeling that it could have been better. Something is missing. I'm not sure what.

The alternate endings included on the DVD are worth watching. Especially the ending with the voiceover by Catherine. They point out something (I don't want to spoil it by telling you what it is) that the director probably intended to say in the film, but was never made clear. He should have put the message across better.

Click here to view the trailer.

Borat (5 Stars)

There are very few films that can make me laugh out loud when I watch them. Especially not the third or fourth time. I forget how often I've watched this film. It's sheer brilliance. It's probably the funniest film I've ever seen. I like it even more than the other two films in the Ali G trilogy, "Ali G in da House" and "Bruno".

The original concept of Ali G was a character created in 1998 by the British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen. Ali G appeared as a stereotypical undereducated British Jamaican. He interviewed leading personalities from the world of business, politics and religion, shocking them by making politically incorrect statements. He also preyed on them, tricking them into agreeing with his views. This concept only worked for a few years, for as long as Ali G was unknown. In 2003 he made a new television series in America, where he was still unknown and could fool people once more.

Due to Ali G becoming well known, Cohen created two new characters. One was Borat, an anti-semitic news reporter from Kazakhstan. The other was Bruno, a gay Austrian fashion expert. They both first appeared in the "Ali G Show" before carrying on to star in their own films.

The film "Borat" shows the character travelling to America to find out about American culture and how it can help the people of Kazakhstan. The full name of the film is actually "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan". It follows the pattern of a simpleton mocking those he meets.

The film was a big success in America and the rest of the world, but it also had a lot of problems. Most of the people who appear in the film weren't informed that they were being filmed, and they were shocked to see themselves being made fools of on the big screen. The government of Kazakhstan also made an official complaint, stating that its country is not fairly represented.

The official film trailer doesn't do it justice, but watch it anyway. This is a film that everyone should watch.

Star Trek (2 Stars)

As you can tell from the photo above, this is a review of the 2009 Star Trek film that effectively rebooted the franchise. Now don't get me wrong. I'm a big Star Trek fan. I love all the television series from the original series in 1966 up to "Enterprise" in 2005. I even liked the animated series in 1974, though I admit that the plots are more shallow than the other series. I enjoyed the first 10 films, even though most of them are weaker than the television series. And yet, I hate this reboot. It's awful. Maybe even 2 stars is too much for it.

I would have been happy if the film had been made with a different premise. Maybe the story of a different starship making voyages at the same time as the USS Enterprise. That would have worked. But to cast new actors playing the original characters that have since become part of the world's cultural heritage..... that's blasphemy! Only Karl Urban is a passable replacement for DeForrest Kelly as Leonard McCoy. Chris Pine is awful as Jim Kirk, and Zoe Saldana is so inept at playing Lt. Uhura that she should be banned from ever acting again. Zachary Quinto, an actor that I greatly like after seeing him in "Heroes", does the best he can as Spock, but he just isn't Leonard Nimoy. Simon Pegg is a reasonable choice for Scotty, but he overdoes the comedy. John Cho is utterly forgettable as Sulu. Anton Yelchin is a very poor replacement for Chekov, and also out of place, since Chekov wasn't part of the original crew of the Enterprise; he joined the ship in the second season of the original series.

As for the plot: the backstory with Kirk's father is unnecessary. The love affair between Spock and Uhura is so wrong that it made me want to throw a brick at my television screen. The only good thing about the film is the appearance of Leonard Nimoy as the old Spock. He alone has saved the DVD from being dumped in my trash.

No, I refuse to give you a link to the film trailer. Forget it.

Bikini Jones and the Temple of Eros (4 Stars)

This is one of the best of Fred Olen Ray's soft porn films of the last few years. The beautiful Christine Nguyen stars in the title role as a relic hunter trying to steal a statue which hides a hidden map to a secret tiara that will make its wearer the ruler of the kingdom of Moronica.

As I already mentioned in my review of "Housewives from another world" a lot of people don't see the point in soft porn. The sex isn't real, it's just people making movements together with the camera pointing from angles that hide the fact that there's no penetration. And yet there's a lot of it. In soft porn movies the fake sex scenes are more important than the plot. To answer this question, compare the sex scenes in a hardcore and a softcore film. The women in soft porn films are more glamorous. They are idealised, they look more beautiful than the real thing. The men as well, if you like that sort of thing. In contrast, the women in hardcore films are sweaty and natural. Soft porn films are about fine art. And Fred Olen Ray's films belong to the best in the genre.

Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat (4 Stars)

Count Mardulak (David Carradine) is an ancient vampire who's grown tired of centuries of killing. He takes his clan to America and settles in the deserts of Utah, where he founds a town called Purgatory. A vampire town, no humans. In order to survive he hires experts from outside who are able to create artificial blood. They live at peace until Robert Van Helsing (Bruce Campbell) arrives, refusing to believe that the vampires are really living peacefully. At the same time a rebellion starts of vampires who want to return to the "old ways" of killing humans to survive.

This is a low budget film made, which might not be immediately obvious because it was made with a large cast. It's not completely serious, as you can probably imagine. A must for Bruce Campbell fans.

Amazing Spider-Man (5 Stars)

I confess that I was very skeptical about the reboot of the Spider-Man film franchise. Sam Raimi did such a good job with the original trilogy that it seemed superfluous to start again only 10 years after the first Spider-Man film was released.

It might seem strange to viewers not acquainted with the original comics that Gwen Stacy is presented as Peter Parker's love interest. In the Sam Raimi films Mary Jane Watson was his lover, and Gwen Stacy was only introduced in the third film. Let me make it clear now, as all comic fans will agree, that only the comics themselves are canon. The stories in the comics are what really happened. The films are just adaptations, more or less accurate interpretations of the stories told by Stan Lee and the writers after him. Gwen Stacy first appeared in Spider-Man #31 and was indeed Peter Parker's first lover. Mary Jane Watson was introduced 11 issues later. Mary Jane didn't become his lover until after Gwen's death in Spider-Man #121. Incidentally, the rumours are that Gwen's death will be shown in the third film of the new trilogy. Let's wait and see.

Rather than review the film, let me talk about the differences between Spider-Man in this film and the first Sam Raimi film. My main problem with the new film is the actor in the title role. Andrew Garfield was a poor choice. He looks nothing like Peter Parker did in the comics. The hair is wrong. He looks too tall. Tobey Maguire, on the other hand, was perfect. Born for the role.

Apart from the physical appearance, Peter's clothing in the new film is wrong. He should wear glasses, not contact lenses. He shouldn't wear cool clothing like a hoody. And he definitely shouldn't carry a skateboard around. Peter Parker was a nerd in the comics, but in the new film he just doesn't look nerdy enough.

I don't like the fact that Peter is fast to take revenge on the classroom bully Flash Thompson after gaining his powers. In the comics he took great pains to retain the appearance of being weak.

In the first film the webbing was part of Spider-Man's transformation, while in this film it fires from a mechanical webshooter. The new film is more accurate in this respect. Peter Parker was a science expert and invented the artificial webbing himself.

The costume is less accurate in the new film than it was in the first. When I saw the photos months ago I was dismayed. In the film itself it doesn't matter so much. The costume details are hidden by the action.

Of course, the whole origin story in the first film is close to canon. Peter was bitten by a spider on a school trip. His uncle was shot by a robber after Peter had taken part in a wrestling match. The new film changes the facts, but the changes don't spoil the story.

Click here to view the trailer.

Embrace of the Vampire (4 Stars)

Another vampire film, but I didn't forget this one. This is one of the sexiest vampire films ever made, with some unforgettable scenes, especially the scene in which the unnamed man played by Martin Kemp is turned into a vampire by three beautiful naked vampiresses. But let's start from the beginning.

Martin Kemp is a nobleman who is ecstatically in love. Round about the 16th Century, it seems, though the date isn't stated. His relationship is cut short when he becomes a vampire. The fate of his lover isn't stated, which is strange, because he searches for her for hundreds of years. Yes, a small hole in the plot. Eventually he finds her, reborn as a 17-year-old college girl called Charlotte, played by Alyssa Milano. Just in time. After three days, at midnight, he will die forever. This date coincides with Charlotte's 18th birthday, but Martin can avert his death if he drinks Charlotte's blood before this moment, and only if she's still a virgin. Yet another strange reinvention of vampire mythology. It gets confusing, doesn't it?

Unfortunately Charlotte has a boyfriend called Chris that she loves deeply. Martin wants her to leave him voluntarily, rather than taking her by force or killing him. But he only has three days to win Charlotte's heart.

The film's imagery is beautiful, but the plot has more holes than Swiss cheese. At the beginning we see Martin as a man deeply in love with Charlotte, so we sympathise with him and want him to succeed. As the film progresses it seems that all he wants is to drink her blood to prolong his life; he even says that the act will be without emotion. At this point we begin to boo and hiss.

The film has achieved a certain notoriety though Alyssa Milano's nude scenes. Before this she had been famous as a child star, and three years later she reached the peak of her career starring in the TV series "Charmed". Even today, 17 years later, nude screenshots from the film are plastered all over the Web. Just do a search for "Alyssa Milano nude" and you'll see what I mean. I've never understood the fascination with nude celebrities. It must be an American thing. American society is so uptight, which leads to men getting excited when a mainstream actress can be seen without her clothes. In Europe nobody cares. Serious German actresses have no hesitation to appear nude if the plot requires it. The same applies to England, where actresses like Helen Mirren and Kate Winslet have appeared naked countless times. In Alyssa's case it goes one step further. Her mother, Lin Milano, went as far as to create a company called Cybertrackers to hunt down people posting nude photos of her daughter online and threaten them with legal action. This is a sad case of a mother not respecting her daughter enough to accept the choices she's made in her life. Alyssa's nude images will exist forever, on the Internet and on DVD. She claims success, saying that all the sites that she finds are closed down, but she's fighting a losing battle, as a simple web search will prove.

Blood: The Last Vampire (4½ Stars)

After realising I'd forgotten all about "Vampyres" last week I looked through the vampire films in my bookcase to see if there were any other forgotten films. And I found this one. I picked it up, tried to remember what it was about, and nothing. Not even the film's description on the back rang a bell. So I watched it. And..... wow! This is a film that certainly doesn't deserve to be forgotten.

This is a British live action remake of a Japanese anime film. The film takes place in 1970 in Japan. The background is a war that has been going on for centuries between vampires and humans. Although it is hinted that there are vampires all over the world, in this film we only see Japanese vampires. With the exception of  a sports teacher played by the great English actor Colin Salmon. Protecting humanity from vampires is an ancient organisation called the Council, which is based in America but has agents all over the world. Apart from killing vampires the Council also prevents the general population from discovering the existence of vampires. The Council is assisted by Saya, a 400-year-old Japanese girl who has a human father and a vampire mother. Saya refuses to become a full member of the Council and is only working with them to gain information about the whereabouts of Onigen, the demon who killed her father.

After hearing about a series of killings at an American air base the Council arranges for Saya to go undercover, posing as a schoolgirl at the base's high school. She soon discovers that the school itself contains vampires, including her classmates and the aforementioned sports teacher. Saya becomes friends with Alice McKee, the daughter of General McKee who is in charge of the base. When the general finds out about the vampires he is executed by Council agents to prevent the secret being spread. This leads to Saya having to fight against the Council as well as the vampires.

The action is fast paced, choreographed by Hong Kong action director Corey Yuen. The vampires are realistic, despite their ability to walk in the sunlight. As I've said before, every vampire film reinvents vampires. The plot is well written and logical, and the characters are well developed.

Click here to view the trailer.

Confessions of a Window Cleaner (5 Stars)

When I was a teenager this was one of my favorite films. I still enjoy it a lot, even though there are other films I like more now. It's the first and best of the Confessions films, starring Robin Askwith. The Confessions films are based closely on the Carry On films, but with more nudity. Maybe they're a mix between the Carry On films and "On the Buses", since there's a family element. The Carry On films were very typical for the 1960's (even the films made in the seventies were sixties-ish), but the Confessions films are typical for the 1970's. It's a shame that only four films were made. They were all classics and landmark films of an age gone by.

Robin Askwith stars at Timmy Lea, a young window cleaner employed by his brother-in-law. At the film's start he's still a virgin, but that doesn't last long. His sexual encounters are all while he's working, of course. This is bawdy British humour at its best. I very strongly recommend it to everyone, especially to Americans who enjoy British comedy.

Troll Hunter (4½ Stars)

There's been a lot of buzz about this film ever since it was released in 2010. Usually when a film receives a lot of hype I avoid it. Often the praise is exaggerated, or it's only based on spectacular special effects that barely disguise a poorly written story. In this case I had higher hopes. Simply because the film is Norwegian. Norway has a small film industry, so the stories that make it from screenplay to the screen are filtered. Only the best seep through.

I wasn't disappointed. "Troll Hunter" imitates the style of "Blair Witch Project". We see an amateur film crew from Volda College following a man called Hans who claims to be a troll hunter working for an official government agency. At first they are sceptical, but as they follow him they see the proof of his words.

I can't really say much about the film to recommend it. Just watch the trailer.

Man from Uncle: The Karate Killers (4 Stars)

"The Man from Uncle" was an American television series that ran for 105 episodes from 1964 to 1968. It featured the adventures of two spies, Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin, played by Robert Vaughn and David McCallum. The weekly tongue-in-cheek fast-moving international espionage makes the series seem like a low budget version of the James Bond films. This is no coincidence. Ian Fleming was hired to help design the series, and his style can be seen especially in the first year.

Although set in the age of the Cold War, this is very much an anti-Cold War series. Uncle (United Network Command for Law and Enforcement) is a secret organisation that relies on international cooperation. The organisation is based in New York, but Illya Kuryakin is a Russian agent. No, not a dissident, we occasionally hear him making statements in favour of Communism. He is a loyal Russian patriot who has been assigned to Uncle to aid them in battling global threats. The main threat comes from the evil organisation Thrush. Unlike "Uncle", we never find out what "Thrush" stands for.

As far as I know, the Man from Uncle films are all re-edited versions of television episodes. The scenes were extended by adding out-takes, usually involving short nude scenes that were "too hot for TV". The plot for this film is typical for the not-so-serious nature of the series.

A scientist has accidentally stumbled on a formula to extract gold from sea water. He wants to hand the formula over to Uncle, but since he is afraid that an evil power -- in this case Thrush -- could get their hands on it he scatters the formula "to the four winds". Dr. True's wife has been divorced four times, and she has a daughter from all five marriages. The doctor sends a signed photo of himself to his four step-daughters, who live in four different countries. Each photo contains a segment of the formula. Napoleon and Illya have to reach the four girls before Thrush gets to them. The four girls are totally different; the only thing they have in common is that they are all fast to lose their clothes. But the fifth girl, his own daughter, is the one who unknowingly holds the key to interpreting the formula.

This is light-hearted fun. If you like the early James Bond films you'll enjoy this as well, even though it's been shot on a much smaller budget.

Illicit Dreams 3 (3½ Stars)

Jim is a retired baseball player. His wife is killed, and the police suspect that he is the murderer. In order to clear himself Jim assists the police in finding the killer. He is certain that the killer is one of the women he has had an affair with, But there were so many that it's difficult to narrow it down.

The real star of this film is the police detective, played by Ross Hagen.

Illicit Dreams 2 (3½ Stars)

Jeff is a fashion photographer who is still grieving over the death of his wife in a car accident. After five years alone he begins to date the advertising chief of a large cosmetics company. But the romance does not go as smoothly as he expects.

This is an erotic thriller. This is a film genre that is a crossover between traditional thrillers and soft pornography. Typically there's a murder, someone has to solve it, and during the solving of the case the main character has sexual encounters, often with the murder suspects. The best known film in this genre is "Basic Instinct". Unlike "Basic Instinct", almost all erotic thrillers are low budget productions that are never shown in cinemas. They make money for the filmmaker by being rented in video stores, or by being shown on television film channels. Films like this were very common in the 1990's, but they're losing in popularity now.

There was a series of three Illicit Dreams films. They have nothing to do with one another. They have also been released with different names, which is something that always distresses me. The second film, which I'm reviewing now, was released in 1998. The DVD cover features a photograph of Julie Strain, who only appears in the third film. They must have got confused. I wish the film companies would put more effort into DVD releases.

Vampyres (4 Stars)

Have you ever bought a film, watched it, and then forgotten all about it? You look at a DVD on the shelf, you're sure you've watched it, but you can't remember what it's about? That's the case with this film. Amazon tells me I bought it on July 20th 2004. I probably only watched it once. With a title like this it's no surprise I bought it. I'm fascinated by vampires and vampire films in general, so I've bought quite a lot of DVDs like this without knowing them.

Now my memory is refreshed. This is a British horror film made in 1974. It's in the style of the later Hammer Horror films: less suspense and more nudity. Two beautiful women, Fran and Miriam, live in a remote country mansion. They pick up men on the road, take them home and seduce them. After having sex they kill the man and drink his blood. The problems start when Fran falls in love with a victim and keeps him alive.

The plot is a bit confused. A young couple are camping near to the mansion. When Fran meets her she says she recognises her and is glad to meet her again after such a long time, but this is the last we hear of it. This loose end is left dangling. Fran and Miriam are not typical vampires.They become vampires by being murdered and returning as bloodthirsty ghosts. Strange. Every vampire film and television series reinvents vampires. Somebody needs to define the parameters of what is and isn't a vampire.

Nevertheless, this is enjoyable escapism. It's not up to the standard of the 1960's Hammer Horror films, but it's worth watching.

Z (5 Stars)

Today was the fourth time I've watched this film. It's unusual for me to remember every time I've watched a film. That shows what an impression it's had on me. The first time I saw it was when I was quite young, early teens I think. I saw it in the cinema with my mother. The second time was when it was shown on television. I remember discussing it with my friends in school the next day. The third time was years later, 1997, when I rented it from Blockbuster. I watched it with my girlfriend, who found it boring. For years I've been trying to get it on DVD. Last week I finally managed to get a Korean import. Region 3 NTSC, but that's why I bought a multi-regional DVD player.

"Z" was the breakthrough film for Greek director Costa-Gavras. In 1970 it was nominated for five Oscars, of which it won two. The story is set in an unnamed European country, although it's obvious that the events are closely based on the Greek revolution of 1960.

The leader of an opposition party holds a speech in the capital, condemning the fact that foreign powers have stationed missiles in his country. His views are popular, and he's the favorite to win the next elections. After the speech he's run over by a car and dies a few days later. It seems like a random accident, but an independent judge is brought in to investigate the case. He's assisted by a young reporter who was the only one who took photos on the night of the accident. Slowly he digs through the lies and cover ups until he discovers a conspiracy that is not just a local matter, but has its roots in other countries.

I can hardly praise this film enough. It's a masterpiece. Even though it's 40 years old, it's not at all dated. Just dress the people in different clothes and let them drive more modern cars, then you could imagine that the film is taking place today.

Schoolgirl Report 10 (3 Stars)

This is the 10th film in the German Schoolgirl Report series, and the second film directed by Walter Boos. The outer frame of the film is the classroom in a girls school, where the teacher is discussing the concepts of morals and laws in our society. Laws were originally created based on moral values, so that the things judged to be "wrong" were made illegal, but in today's society it's possible to do something immoral that isn't against the law.

1. The teacher tells the girls about a colleague of hers, Dr, Hensel. He had to appear before a prosecution lawyer accused of raping a 17-year-old girl in his class, Susanne. He in turn tells the lawyer what happened, opening the second inner story. He tells the lawyer that he visited Susanne at home to give her English lessons, which was all that happened. Interestingly, the action showed on screen contradicts what he is telling the judge in voiceover. We see him giving her alcohol and having sex with her when she was drunk. After this a boy called Bert presents himself to the lawyer, saying he had witnessed what really happened. He followed Susanne to the teacher's house and spied on them through the window. He saw Susanne strip naked and attempt to seduce the teacher, but he resisted her advances. By hitting her, of course. The only way men can resist young girls in these films is by practising violence as an alternative to sex. After this Susanne wanted to accuse the teacher of raping her to get revenge for being spurned. She was still a virgin, so she asked Bert to have sex with her to provide proof that intercourse had taken place.

2. Inga sits in the class daydreaming about her own sexual experiences. Her first few times had all been disappointing because she slept with inexperienced boys who came too fast. Then she met Freddy, who was a fantastic lover. Freddy considered Inga to be a nymphomaniac, so he arranged for two of his friends to rape her. She ran away after this, but a young student called Rolf saw her crying and comforted her. And they lived happily ever after.....

3. Kati is 17 and dislikes her young stepmother, Angelika. She tells her boyfriend Frank that she will have sex with him if he seduces her stepmother first. Frank has an affair with the stepmother while Kati secretly takes photos. She shows the photos to her father, and her parents get divorced. But when Kati wants to give Frank his reward he isn't interested because he's in love with Angelika. And to top it all off, her father presents his new fiancee, her classmate Paula.

4. The teacher notices that one of the girls, Seffi, is missing from class. We then see the story of why she's missing, not told by anyone, just blended in. Seffi has a boyfriend called Karli, but their parents never give them a chance to be alone. After reading "The Exorcist" Karli has a plan. Seffi acts like she's possessed by a demon, ripping her clothes off and peeing on the floor. Ugh. Karli comes to the village wearing a false beard and dressed as a monk. Seffi's parents invite him to cast the demon out of their daughter. Karli locks himself in Seffi's bedroom and they have sex. Unfortunately the father recognises Karli afterwards and rips off his robe, sending him away naked.

5. Iris sits in class thinking about her lovers. She had a rich older lover called Walter, the chief of a chemical company. He had given her her own apartment to live in. Walter's nephew Franz saw them together and told Walter's wife about the affair. Walter broke off the relationship, but allowed Iris to keep the apartment as a parting gift. Iris saw Franz watching her, so she took him back to the apartment and seduced him. And then rejected him. Punishment for telling on her? Probably.

Then the bell rings and the girls leave the school. Iris sees Franz waiting for her outside the school. Franz proposes, but says that he'll allow Iris to do whatever she wants. And this really is the end.

This is be the weakest of all the Schoolgirl Report films so far. Whereas the girls in the previous films seemed natural in their sexuality, all the girls featured in this film seem artificial. Not one of the scenes seems like something that could really happen.