Tommy (5 Stars)

The 1975 film "Tommy" was the best musical ever made up to that date. That's my personal opinion, of course, as a fan of rock music. I can't relate to the slushy orchestral arrangements of the 1940's and 1950's, even if I do like some of the films. The film is very different to the rock opera that it's based on, written by Pete Townshend and recorded by the Who in 1969. It's not just a matter of having different singers and different song arrangements. The film is very much Ken Russell's film, rather than Pete Townshend's. In his film commentary Ken Russell says that it was a mutual agreement that they share the film, Townshend's music and Russell's story, but I can't help feeling that Russell hijacked the concept and made it his own. That's something I would like to ask Pete over a beer if we ever met.

The special edition DVD in my possession contains a full commentary track by Ken Russell. I strongly advise all my readers to listen to it. Nowadays it's become standard for new films to include commentaries by the director, producer and main actors. Usually they only do it because they're expected to, so they're bored, they make random comments, and the final result is dull. This isn't the case here. Ken Russell considers the film a work of love, so he speaks lovingly and informatively about it. Rather than go into details about all the small anecdotes, which are better in his words than mine, I'll just point out one major fact gleaned from his commentary. In the early 1970's Ken Russell wanted to make a film about false religion. When he was given the chance to film "Tommy" he decided to use Townshend's music to make his film about false religion. This is the underlying reason for most of the changes to the music.

The story: The story takes place in England. Tommy is born on Victory Day, May 9th 1945. His father is an air force pilot lost in the war. After a few years alone his mother remarries, but in 1951 his father unexpectedly returns. His mother and step-father murder Tommy's father in front of him, which traumatises him and makes him deaf, dumb and blind. Over the years many cures are attempted, including sex, drugs and religion.

Then a miracle occurs. Despite his affliction Tommy is found to be an unbeatable pinball player. His skill earns millions, which his parents profit from. After this Tommy regains his hearing, speech and sight. Already revered as a pinball player, he's now considered a Messiah. He preaches the healing power of pinball to the lost. Tommy himself lives a life of simplicity, but the people who had hurt him as a child (his bullying cousin and his paedophile uncle) now support him and profit from him. Religion is big business. As time progresses Tommy adds rituals to his religion, and his followers rebel.

Interestingly, the film does not judge Tommy himself. When he takes on the role of Messiah there are no doubts, he really is a Messiah. But the religion built up around him is criticised. It's understandable that the religion created by his self-absorbed followers is bad. That's something anyone who has studied the history of Christianity has seen happen. On the other hand, the religion created by Tommy himself is also criticised. The Messiah made a mistake. So what is Ken Russell saying? If you're a Messiah, give people your message, but don't tell them what to do. Give them the freedom to accept or reject your message.

In 1993 "Tommy" was made into a broadway musical. This version was based on the original rock opera, not the film, so it's all Townshend without Russell's ideas.

Baader Meinhof Komplex (5 Stars)

This is the true story of the terror wave in Germany from 1967 to 1977 carried out by the Rote Armee Fraktion (Red Army Fraction), more commonly referred to as the Baader-Meinhof Gang. The film begins with the visit of the Shah of Persia to West Berlin, and it ends with the execution of German industrial boss Hanns Martin Schleyer. The film is made with documentary precision, and yet remains exciting throughout. All of the outdoor scenes were filmed in the same places that the original events occurred. Scenes well known from photos taken at the time are reproduced, including the exact positioning of cars and people in the scenes.

This 10-year period in German history is difficult for non-Germans to understand. The RAF were by their own admission terrorists, and yet they enjoyed great public support. At their peak opinion polls claimed that 25% of Germans under 30 were sympathetic of them. Why? The film attempts to answer that question, although it would have to be twice as long to go into the issues in full detail. After the Second World War Germany was divided into two parts, the democratic west and the Communist east. Germany, especially Berlin, was on the front line of the Cold War. Any east-west conflict would have begun in Germany. For this reason the West German government was anxious to suppress any elements in its own country that it saw as Communist. Mostly this suppression was aimed at university students. This is shown clearly in the example of the Shah's visit to West Berlin. When the Shah arrived German students chanted "Down with the Shah". A group of Iranian students (who were actually members of the Iranian secret police) attacked the German students. The German police reacted by brutally attacking the German students who attempted to flee. Although there were many injuries, the shooting of the innocent bystander Benno Ohnesorg by Karl-Heinz Kurras, a plain-clothes policeman, was the catalyst for future protests and the creation of the RAF. People expected justice, but when Kurras was brought to trial he was found innocent. It wasn't until January 2012 that it was revealed that evidence against him had been hidden from the prosecutors.

The film is divided into two parts. The first part shows the active years of Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin and Ulrike Meinhof. The second part shows their time in prison and their trial. They were three very different people. Baader was the spontaneous hothead who thought terrorism was fun. Ensslin was the intellectual who gave the group its political direction. Meinhof was the voice of reason. In the second part of the film we see Meinhof's mental deterioration after three years in solitary confinement and her suicide in 1976.

A problem that non-Germans (and even younger Germans) might have with the film is to know who everyone is. So many characters come and go in the film. Some are introduced by their first name only, others aren't named at all. A commentary track that explains who people are would be a welcome addition to future DVD and Blu-ray releases. A featurette could explain the history and importance of the characters in more detail.

The final words in the film, spoken by Brigitte Mohnhaupt to the other terrorists gathered around her after the news was reported of Andreas Baader's death, can be interpreted as a mission statement for the film, directed at the viewers: "You never knew the people. Stop seeing them as they never were." This is a good motive. 30 years later Baader and his gang are still controversial figures in Germany. Some see him as an evil Communist who wanted to bring down the West German government, while others see him as an idealist standing up to a re-emergence of Fascism in Germany. Baader is either hated, or he's portrayed as a glamorous rock star freedom fighter. Based on the knowledge of people who knew him personally, the film shows his strengths as well as his weaknesses. For instance, the RAF is known as the first terrorist group in which women had leading roles, but the film shows Baader as a sexist who regarded women as inferior members of his gang. "You cunts and your emancipation! It's all about shouting at your husbands!"

On October 18th 1977 Andreas Baader and Gudrun Ensslin committed suicide in Stammheim prison. In the same night Jan-Carl Raspe killed himself.

My only criticism of the film is that it follows the official line of events, rather than leaving them open for the viewer to judge. The suicide itself is very controversial, even today. Claims that the terrorists were executed in prison are dismissed as a conspiracy theory, but unlike other conspiracy theories a lot of facts speak for it.

Baader and Raspe killed themselves by shooting themselves. The idea that prisoners in Germany's highest security prison had guns in their cells is so ridiculous that it defies all credibility. The film shows Baader's lawyer giving him a gun during the trial, but there is no independent proof that this ever happened.

According to the autopsy Baader was shot in the back of the neck from a distance of 15 inches. This is an impossible feat. I attempted this myself, and the furthest I could hold a gun away would be 10 inches. Even if the autopsy is inaccurate, don't people who shoot themselves hold the gun against themselves, pointing it in their mouth or pressing it against their head? Holding the gun in an awkward position increases the chance of a non-fatal glancing wound, or even a wound that would lead to permanent crippling.

Gudrun Ensslin's body was bruised as if she had been beaten prior to her suicide.

Irmgard Möller also attempted suicide in the same night by stabbing herself four times in the chest, barely missing her heart. Is this possible? Four times? She survived, and ever since the incident she denies it was suicide. She claims that she was attacked by masked intruders in her cell.

In the night of the collective suicide there was a power failure in the prison, meaning that the prison was dark and the cameras didn't function.

One of the regular guards on the floor where the terrorists' cells were located was called away from his post for three hours and assured that he would be replaced. Nothing is known of who replaced him during this time.

Supervixens (5 Stars)

Russ Meyer is best known for making "Faster Pussycat Kill Kill", but I consider "Supervixens" to be his best film. It contains more comedy elements than most of his films, but it still contains all the characteristics of his later films. Meyer is my favorite ever director.

Russ Meyer's films take place in a world where the women are strong and the men are weak. The men fall into one of two categories: either they are intelligent and weak, or they are strong and stupid. The women are all intelligent, large-breasted and sexually aggressive. They control the intelligent men by overcoming them physically, and they control the physically strong men by intellectually outwitting them. Meyer's films take place in the southern deserts of the USA, where people live in poverty. The lines are always clearly drawn between black and white, there are no greys. It's always obvious who the good and who the bad people are. Good always triumphs over evil.

The film starts in a small town in Arizona. Clint Ramsay works at a gas station, "Martin Bormann's Super Service". Yes, his boss is the Martin Bormann, Hitler's private secretary who managed to flee at the end of the Second World War. Though it is commonly assumed that he fled to South America, several of Meyer's films show Bormann living in the USA. Clint is married to a beautiful but jealous woman called Super-Angel. They have a fight, and a neighbour calls the police. Police officer Harry Sledge breaks up the dispute.

Clint goes to Super-Haji's bar to get drunk. Harry stays at Clint's house to have sex with Super-Angel. Harry is unable to get an erection, so Super-Angel mocks him. In a rage he kills her and burns the house down. Clint is the only suspect. Super-Haji refuses to give him an alibi because he had refused her sexual advances, so Clint flees, heading west to an undisclosed destination, and the film turns into a surreal road movie. Everywhere he goes he is confronted by busty super-women who cause him problems, with names such as Super-Cherry, Super-Soul and Super-Eula.

Eventually Clint meets a gas station owner called Super-Vixen, and he moves in with her. But his happiness doesn't last long. Harry Sledge visits the gas station by accident, recognises Clint immediately and decides to lure him into the desert to kill him.

This is a film that could only have been made by Russ Meyer. I wish someone else would pick up the baton and make films in a similar style, but since he made his last film in 1979 nobody else has even come close. His films showed a lot of nudity, but they were never pornographic. His films are at the same time a critique on the impotence of men and the impotence of America as a country. I don't expect there will ever be another Russ Meyer, but I hope I'm wrong.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (5 Stars)

Time flies. Is it really nine years since I saw this film in the cinema? It hit me so hard that I couldn't stop thinking about it for weeks. Usually I wait a year for DVD prices to drop, but this is a film I bought immediately when it was released. I needed to see it again as soon as possible. This is still one of my all-time favorite films, probably second after "Lost Highway". This was also the film that made me a big fan of Charlie Kaufman, the writer of the screenplay. His stories are astounding. Other films of his in a similar vein are "Being John Malkovich", "Adaptation" and "Synecdoche, New York".

Joel Barish (Jim Carrey) and Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet) have been together for two years. They are complete opposites, which is what drew them together, but it's also the reason for their frequent arguments. Joel is quiet and withdrawn. He likes to spend his evenings at home reading. Clementine is loud and outgoing. She talks incessantly and likes to get drunk. After a particularly nasty argument Clementine goes to a doctor in New York who is offering a new procedure: memories can be selectively removed from the mind. She decides to have all memories of Joel erased so she can start a new life. When Joel finds out about this he decides to do the same and have Clementine erased from his memories. Half way through the procedure he changes his mind and fights to regain his memories.

Of course, there are other twists to the story, as we would expect from any story written by Charlie Kaufman. In particular, one of the doctor's assistants, Patrick (Elijah Wood), falls in love with Clementine when he sees her lying asleep, so he steals confidential information about Joel to act like Joel and present himself as her new lover.

The power of this film is in the way it's presented. Different layers of reality are shown at the same time. We see Joel asleep on his bed, drugged for the procedure. At the same time we see his memories of the previous two years, presented in reverse order, since that is the order in which they will be deleted. Then we see his struggles to create new memories as his virtual world decays around him.

Click here to view the very good trailer. I wish all film trailers had this quality. Not too long, and informative without giving away spoilers. I liked the film promotion at the time of its release. Instead of the big billboards we usually see for new films there were hundreds of small posters all over town, only about three foot high. This made the film stand out from all the other new releases. Less is more. On the other hand, I've found film posters online calling the film a comedy. Idiots! There is nothing at all funny about this film. It's another example of how proficient Jim Carrey can be as a serious actor.

Pulp Fiction (5 Stars)

Let's get back to posts for my Five Star Month after yesterday's sentimental off-topic post. And let's get back to Quentin Tarantino, who is probably my favorite director.

The film is supposedly an homage to the literature genre called pulp fiction, short novels published on cheap paper in the 20th Century. Wikipedia dates these novels from 1896 to the 1950's. This must refer to America, because I know from memory that they were published longer in other countries. My father purchased booklets referred to as "pulp fiction" until the late 1970's. In Germany similar booklets were sold until the 1990's. The most common stories in American pulp fiction novels were detective stories. The more recent stories were American old west stories (in England) and vampire stories (in Germany).

Nevertheless, I can't imagine a story like the one in Tarantino's film being contained in any pulp fiction novel. It seems too complex to be presented to the mass market of the early 20th Century. In fact, the film tells several stories which are (seemingly?) unrelated, apart from featuring the same characters. Of all of Tarantino's films, none has left such a mark. Even though it only won one Oscar (best screenplay) after being nominated in seven categories, it's now considered one of the best and most influential films of all time.

The story that begins and ends the film is the tale of a robbery in a restaurant carried out by two small-time crooks, Ringo (Tim Roth) and Yolanda (Amanda Plummer). They are overpowered by the professional gangsters Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vincent (John Travolta), who have stopped off for a meal.

Jules and Vincent are sent to pick up a (presumably stolen) briefcase belonging to gang leader Marsellus Wallace. After surviving a shoot out Jules experiences a spiritual enlightenment that turns his life around.

Butch (Bruce Willis) is an aging boxer hired by Marsellus to take a fall in the fifth round. Butch betrays his boss and makes a fortune by betting on himself to win. Wallace first sends Vincent to kill him, then attempts to take revenge personally.

Marsellus asks Vincent to take his wife Mia (Uma Thurman) to a restaurant. After going out Mia overdoses on cocaine and almost dies.

Click here to view the trailer. As with all of Tarantino's films it's a poor quality trailer, in this case too long and it fails to give any impression of what the film is about. All it does is show off the big stars.

Off-Topic: End of an Era

It was with sadness that I heard yesterday that the British music store HMV (His Master's Voice) has gone into receivership. This has been the largest music retailer in Britain for many years, and its closure marks the end of high street music sales. Not just music sales, this also affects film sales on DVD and Blu-ray. The company was first formed in 1902. Initially it specialised in manufacturing gramophone records and record players, but over the years it branched into retail and other entertainment items such as television sets. Eventually the manufacturing and the retail divisions were divided into separate companies.

But that's enough of the cold history. Let me give my personal memories. When I was 16 I became a frequent customer of HMV's branch in New Street, Birmingham. The first record (vinyl, of course) that I bought at the shop was "Carnival in Babylon" by Amon Düül II. This wasn't my first ever record, but maybe one of my first 10, and I remember buying it at HMV because it was cheaper than at Virgin Records. Over the following years I bought most of my records from Virgin, but I always checked HMV because it was sometimes cheaper.

The store changed with the times. It skipped the videotape revolution, but in the early 2000's it began to sell DVDs, and by 2005 the main Birmingham store (now in Bull Street) devoted more of its sales area to films than to music. In fact, I bought my very first DVD from HMV in 2002. It was "Army of Darkness".

So what happened? Some people are blaming HMV's demise on the advent of music downloading. I don't think that's the reason. As I already pointed out, HMV was selling more DVD's than CD's. I think the reason was the online revolution. People no longer want to buy from a store when they can get goods cheaper online. I am just as guilty of this. I almost never buy DVD's, CD's or books in a store. I order online. It's cheaper, and I like to save money. One reason for the cheaper prices online is the Jersey/Guernsey tax loophole. The Channel Islands belong to Britain, but they are not part of the UK. Because of this they have no sales tax (called VAT in the UK). If I buy a DVD or CD in a store I'm charged 20% sales tax. If I order the same item online from a Jersey or Guernsey mailorder I don't have to pay sales tax. High street stores can't compete with this.

There are still, and always will be, small specialist stores for those people who are unwilling or unable to order online. But HMV is the last giant to disappear from the streets. Farewell.

Kill Bill, Vol 2 (5 Stars)

A lot of people I've spoken to were disappointed with the second volume of the Kill Bill films after watching the first. I think I understand the reason why. "Kill Bill, Vol 1" attracted a lot of interest from martial arts fans who weren't necessarily fans of Quentin Tarantino. They were drawn to the action scenes, in particular those that took place in Japan at the end of the first film. In comparison, the second film is low key. For those expecting a big climax the final showdown between the Bride and Bill probably seems flat. Let's just say that they don't get it. Whatever action there may or may not be in Tarantino's films, the real battles are fought with words. If you doubt this, look at the conversation between Col. Landa and the farmer at the beginning of "Inglourious Basterds". The Nazi colonel's words cut and thrust sharper than any knife.

This film is more chronological than the first film, but within the chronology it relies on flashbacks. In the first film she battles with Oren-Ishii and Vernita Green. In the second she battles with Budd, Elle Driver and Bill. We also see the Bride's training with the old master Pai Mei.

Click here to view the trailer. It's another poor quality trailer that shows too much of the film.

Kill Bill, Vol 1 (5 Stars)

Even though I love this film, it's a difficult film to describe. It's an homage to the Chinese and Japanese fighting films of the 1970's and 1980's, even down to the fake Shaw Brothers logo at the beginning. The film is told in a non-linear way, a style already developed by Quentin Tarantino in "Pulp Fiction". This works well. It puts the action scenes at the beginning and end of the film, and the slow events (that happened first, chronologically) in the middle.

The film is about a hit squad of assassins, the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad. Uma Thurman plays the assassin codenamed Black Mamba. On the day of her wedding she is killed by the other squad members. Or at least, they think she's dead. The police find her alive, and she lies in a coma for four years. When she wakes up she goes on a mission to kill the other members of the squad, and then go on to kill the squad's leader, Bill. Her mission takes her around the world, and there are dazzling sword and martial arts battles. The whole film is made surreal by the soundtrack, which would be more typical for a spaghetti western.

Brilliance, sheer brilliance. Check out the trailer, which includes spoilers of things we don't find out until the second film. Strange trailer.

I just read through this review, and I don't feel happy with it. Maybe I'll write more next time. To make up for it I've added the photo of Gogo Yubari, played by stunningly beautiful Chiaki Kuriyama. 17-year-old schoolgirls never looked so hot.

Assault on Precinct 13 (5 Stars)

This was John Carpenter's second film, made in 1976, two years after "Dark Star". In my opinion this is his greatest masterpiece, even better than "Halloween", which he made in 1978. Some people claim this is a remake of "Rio Bravo". This isn't the case, even though the film obviously borrows ideas from "Rio Bravo". There's a thin line between plagiarism and homage.

The story takes place in Anderson, supposedly a bad area of Los Angeles. Maybe some of my readers who live in L.A. can comment on it. A man's daughter is shot by a gang member while she is buying ice cream. He chases and shoots the gang member, then flees to a police station when the gang pursues him. Unfortunately the police station has just closed and is only manned by a skeleton crew babysitting the station until it is emptied the next day. At the same time a bus taking prisoners to death row makes a temporary stop at the station to get medical attention for one of the prisoners. The gang ambushes the police station, which cannot call for reinforcements because the phones have been cut off. The police lieutenant has to defend the station with the support of the criminals, and a bond of friendship develops.

As my readers probably know, this film was remade in 2005. Unfortunately, the remake was a shambles that completely lost the magic of the original. John Carpenter made the film in 16 hours. It's amazing that the film that resulted had such a high quality. And it's just as amazing that the remake, which was filmed over a period of weeks, is so poor.

Dark Star (5 Stars)

When I first saw this film it blew me away. It was my favorite film for years. Maybe I wouldn't rate it quite so highly now, I've moved on, but it still deserves a five star rating.

This was John Carpenter's first film. It was made with a $60,000 budget, extremely low for a science fiction film, even back in 1974. When it was first released it was practically unnoticed by film fans and critics alike. There are no accurate records of the box office takings, but we can assume it was a flop. When it was released on videotape a few years later it became a cult hit. It just occurred to me that even though I use the expression "cult hit" a lot I don't know how to define it. I just read Wikipedia's definition, and though I'm not 100% in agreement it's pointed me in the right direction. A cult hit is a film that failed to gain sufficient commercial success to make it profitable, but it has a large number of fans who rate it very highly, to the extent that they discuss it passionately with like-minded fans. That's my full definition. It partially overlaps with what Wikipedia says, but I think my definition is more concise and more accurate. A cult film may or may not be acknowledged as good by critics. In fact, the opinion of film critics is irrelevant.

But let me get back to the film. This is a sci-fi comedy about a spaceship on a mission to blow up unstable planets. The crew of four are all eccentric, as is to be expected after spending 20 years in space. After travelling through an asteroid storm their ship sustains damage, and they have to fight to survive. Something about the personalities of the crew reminds me of "Mash". I can't help but think that this film was one of the influences for the tv series "Red Dwarf".

It's a shame the film is so poorly preserved. On my DVD both the picture and the sound are fuzzy. Nevertheless, it's still a very enjoyable film.

The Legend of 1900 (5 Stars)

Films can usually be slotted into neat genres. There are horror films, sci-fi films, thrillers, romance films, action films, political films, road movies, comedies, biopics, etc. One or two words sum up a film and you know what it's about before you watch it. Each of these genres have their own rules. Of course, there can be crossovers. I personally have a weakness for horror comedies and sci-fi comedies. But how often do you discover a film that is truly original? How often do you come across a film that is so unique that it doesn't fit into any two-word description? "The Legend of 1900" is a truly unique story.

The film is an Italian production, though made in English. It's a film of epic proportions, running to almost three hours and covering a timeframe of 50 years, though the main events happen between 1927 and 1933. The film stars Tim Roth as 1900 (yes, 1900 is his name) in the best performance of his career.

The film takes place on a cruise ship called the Virginian, which has its primary route between Southampton and New York, though it's mentioned that it sometimes visits other east coast cities and even South America. In January 1900 a baby boy is found abandoned when the passengers leave the ship. A coalman on the ship adopts him and gives him the name Danny Boodman T. D. Lemon 1900, shortened to 1900. The boy grows up on the ship, and he never sets foot on dry land, not once in his life. He becomes a prodigious piano player and gains such fame that some people travel on the ship just to hear him play.

During the Second World War the Virginian is used as a hospital ship for the Royal Navy. 1900 continues to play for the wounded and dying. Shortly after the war it's decided to destroy the ship by blowing it up at sea. 1900's best friend, trumpet player Max Tooney, is convinced that 1900 is hiding on the ship waiting to die with it.

I admit that this isn't a film for everyone. It rambles on for three hours and very little actually happens, as far as action or romance is concerned. It's the story of 1900, who we grow to know and love in the course of the film. He's painted before our eyes so vividly that by the time the film nears its end we feel we've made a new friend. If you want to see a film that's truly different, this is something for you.

Unfortunately, in America only a shortened version of the film is available. 40 minutes have been cut out, but it's still a great film. The full version is only available as an Italian import. Click here to view the trailer.

Crush (5 Stars)

Continuing my Five Star Month, this is another film about a younger girl in love with an older man. Unlike "My First Mister", this is a darker film that shows what can happen if the man spurns the girl's advances.

Nick Elliot (Cary Elwes) is an investigative reporter starting a new job in a new town. He rents an apartment in a better area. The landlord's daughter, Adrienne (Alicia Silverstone, starring in her first film) becomes obsessed with him and uses all of her womanly wiles to seduce him. The problem is that he is 28, but she is only 14. Though greatly tempted he resists her, which leads to her taking revenge on him. "If I can't have you nobody else will".

Alicia Silverstone is so delicious in this film. Adrienne is beautiful, sexy, intelligent and precocious. I find it difficult to understand Nick. I would have been unable to resist her. Apart from her beauty and overt sexuality, she was able to win praise for him by rewriting one of his articles. She would have been the perfect partner for him. Unfortunately, this was not only Alicia's first film, it was also her best. In the 20 years since "Crush" she's never played such a powerful role.

There is some confusion with the film's name. To my knowledge there are five unrelated films all called "Crush". This film was made in 1993. Another confusion is that in the DVD release Adrienne's name has been changed to Darian. I have no idea why, it must have been a lot of work to dub the sound whenever she name was spoken. Click here to view the trailer.

My First Mister (5 Stars)

This film is a work of genius. It's hard to understand why it hasn't received the fame it deserves. Read the online reviews. It's highly praised by those who have seen it. Unfortunately very few have seen it. It's a very deeply moving story about a relationship between two outcasts, two people who seem to be opposites, but they have an abject loneliness in common.

Leelee Sobieski plays Jennifer Wilson, a 17-year-old goth girl who spends her time alone in her room reading Anne Rice novels, writing poetry and talking to her dead grandmother. She is given a job in a men's clothing store by Randall Harris, a 49-year-old divorced man who spends his evenings at home reading magazines. Jennifer falls head over heels in love with Randall. Although he resists her romantic advances Randall takes Jennifer into his life, and an affectionate relationship develops.

The film is made very tastefully by Academy Award winning director Christine Lahti. Despite the critical subject matter it avoids anything scandalous. It was the first film I saw starring Leelee Sobieski, and she soon became my favorite actress. I don't know Albert Brooks from other films, but he is perfect for the role of Randall. After I watched the film today I sat crying for a long time. It's a moving film that anyone with any feeling at all for romance should watch.

The Truman Show (5 Stars)

How many of you have had the feeling you were being watched? You might have been walking along a busy street or sitting alone in your room when you felt like someone was looking at you. Don't worry, it's quite natural, as long as it only happens occasionally. If you feel like that all the time it's paranoia.

Truman Burbank lives a normal life as an insurance salesman. But then he finds out that he's being watched by the whole world, 24 hours a day. He has no secrets. Everyone knows everything he has ever done since the day he was born. Unknown to him he is the star of the world's biggest reality show. Everyone he knows, including his parents, his wife and his friends, are actors paid to interact with him.

I've never watched any film as often as "The Truman Show". I first saw it on television in 1999 and taped it. For some reason it spoke to me at that point in my life. Over the next few months I watched it two or three times a week. Every time I watched it I looked at the film from different angles and enjoyed it more.

If anything, the film is even more relevant now than it was when it was made. Reality shows were still new in 1998; today they have taken over television. They are relatively cheap to make. They don't need highly paid actors, they just need normal people who will appear on screen for almost nothing. Reality shows satisfy the voyeuristic lusts of the general public, whether it's "Big Brother" or "The Osbournes". In 1998 "The Truman Show" was an outlandish piece of fiction, today it's very feasible.

This was Jim Carrey's first role in a serious film. He's still considered a comedy actor, but his non-comedy films are better. "The Truman Show", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", "The Majestic", "Number 23", "Man on the Moon". All are brilliant and unforgettable films. Special mention should be made of Ed Harris, who plays Christof. This is the best film of his career. Una Damon also shines in her role as his assistant Chloe.

Click here to view the trailer.

Jackie Brown (5 Stars)

In a recent article in Empire film magazine it was said that even though "Jackie Brown" isn't as popular as Quentin Tarantino's other films it's probably his best film. I don't know what criteria this statement is based on, but I have to say that I agree. For a while I preferred "Kill Bill, Vol 1", but "Jackie Brown" is a film that grips me more. I'd now place it in my top 10 films.

"Jackie Brown" is a tasteful homage to the blaxploitation films of the 1970's and 1980's. "Blaxploitation", sometimes spelt "blacksploitation", is a strange word. It's an exploitation film that features black people, but my question is, in what way do these films exploit black people? Normal exploitation films include gratuitous nudity and sex, so I can understand the word. Nunsploitation films -- what an awful word! -- feature nude nuns, so I can understand the concept. On the other hand, blaxploitation films rarely contain sex scenes, they're just gritty urban crime films that star black actors. Nevertheless, the parameters are well defined, and Quentin Tarantino followed them to create this masterwork.

Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson) is a man with a plan. He has saved one million dollars from his business selling guns illegally, and he wants to retire. The problem is that more than half of his money is stored in Mexico. In cash. He uses an airline stewardess, Jackie Brown (Pam Grier), to transport the cash to him a bit at a time. She is caught by the police carrying $50,000, so Ordell decides to bail her out and kill her before she testifies against him. In the following complex but believable story Jackie hatches a plan with Max Cherry (Robert Forster), the bail bondsman. She tells the police she will deceive Ordell and trick him into letting her bring the rest of his money into America. She tells Ordell that she is deceiving the police and will make sure he gets his money. Now she has to remain cool and steal the money for herself while being observed by both the police and Ordell's gang.

Maybe I should write more about the film, but I'm sure I'll watch it again, so I can write more next time. A work of genius. Click here to view the trailer.

Falling Down (5 Stars)

I really love this film. I'm fascinated by it. The leading and supporting characters are painted larger than life, so real that I feel I know them intimately. This is brilliant filmmaking by Joel Schumacher, but it might also be something to do with the main two characters, played by Michael Douglas and Robert Duvall. I can relate to both of them in different ways. It's a difficult film to write about, maybe because of its nihilistic undertones that make it difficult to see any meaning or intention in the film. I'll try to describe the two interlocking stories as best as I can.

Bill Foster (Michael Douglas) is a happy family man who lives in a big ugly city. His life revolves around his wife, his daughter and his job in the defence industry, defending the America he loves against foreign threats. Then everything breaks down. His wife divorces him because she's afraid of him. He has never been violent to her, but she thinks that he might become violent. He loses his job due to government cutbacks. This was common in 1993, when the film was made, because America felt less at threat after the collapse of Communism and the end of the Cold War.

Obviously, Bill is a "good guy". But the unfair treatment by his wife, his employer and society in general push him onto a path of destruction. All he wants is to visit his daughter on her birthday, despite his wife having taken out a restraining order against him. He stumbles from one situation to another, in each of which he's victimised but comes out stronger and more bitter. He's assaulted by a shopkeeper after he complains about the price of a can of Coca Cola, but steals his baseball bat. He's assaulted by a gang, but steals their knife. He's assaulted by the gang a second time and steals their guns. In an army surplus store the owner attacks him, but he shoots him and steals his anti-aircraft gun. Heavily armed he walks across the city, not realising how negatively his innocent actions are perceived.

Martin Prendergast (Robert Duvall) is a police officer on his last day of the job before early retirement. He lives under the control of his neurotic wife, who has never recovered since the death (infant death syndrome) of their only child. First she insisted that he take a desk job to keep him out of danger, and now she has talked him into taking early retirement from the job he loves. He's the only one who makes a connection between the day's random incidents involving a man in a white shirt and tie. Ridiculed by his colleagues who don't consider him to be a real cop he works hard on his last day, eventually finding the strength to stand up to his wife and remain on the police force.

When the two men have their final showdown we expect some understanding, but there is none. When Bill says he doesn't know what he wants to do, Prendergast replies, "You know exactly what you were gonna do. You were gonna kill your wife and child". This was the last thing on his mind. But it's too late to defend himself. Bill has become the "bad guy" and has to die.

The film shows Los Angeles at its worst. A city of crime and injustice in the middle of a sweltering heatwave. It's not a cheerful film. It will leave you feeling depressed and unsettled. And yet it's a fascinating film that will make viewers want to watch it again and again.

Click here to view the trailer.

Death Proof (5 Stars)

In a recent interview Quentin Tarantino called "Death Proof" the worst film he's ever made. I agree. It doesn't stand up to his other masterpieces of cinema. But in this case Quentin's worst film is better than most other directors' best film. It's his respectful homage the the great car chase films of the 1970's and 1980's. It also has hints of "Faster Pussycat Kill Kill", which he promised to remake but probably never will. I'm still hoping he will change his mind, because he's the only director I know who is capable of doing justice to Russ Meyer's best known film.

"Death Proof" did badly at the box office, but I don't think this was because of the film itself. The marketing strategy confused today's cinemagoing audiences. It was released as half of a double bill with "Planet Terror". It was supposed to remind us of the good old days before home videos when an evening at the cinema was a main feature preceded by a B movie. Somehow people didn't get it. They're too used to seeing only one film, so when they were offered two films for the price of one they stayed away.

Kurt Russell stars as Stuntman Mike, a retired stuntman who now spends his time driving cars and killing pretty girls. He has a car that he calls deathproof, claiming that after the way he has rigged it up he can drive into a brick wall at 120 mph and survive. In the first half of the film we see him stalking four beautiful girls, then crashing his car head on into theirs. They all die, he survives. Of course he does; his car is deathproof.

14 months later he's on the road again. This time he's stalking three girls who are members of a film crew. But two of the girls are stuntwomen, so he's bitten off more than he can chew.

If this was Tarantino's worst film, how could he have made it better? The main improvement would have been a longer car chase. This was the main point of the film, after all. Instead of a 20-minute chase it should have lasted 60 minutes. More cars could have been involved, maybe even police cars, and we could have had a few explosions. But whatever else he did, Tarantino should have made the car chase long enough to get himself a place in the record books.

"Death Proof" is an affirmation of Tarantino's foot fetish. He shows close ups of toes in all his films, but never as many as in this one.

Click here to view the trailer. It's not a very good trailer, official or not. Sorry. They should let Tarantino make his own trailers.

Basic Instinct (5 Stars)

"Basic Instinct" is a first rate film that is well known for all the wrong reasons. If you mention it to someone they'll start talking about the grand opening in the interrogation scene. And they'll also point out that it features Sharon Stone, a "serious actress", in nude scenes. Yes, that's all true, but this film has so much more going for it. It's so perfectly crafted, everything from the character development to the suspense and action scenes, that it could be called the best film ever made. More than anything else I compare "Basic Instinct" to Alfred Hitchcock's films. It's the sort of film he might have made, about a washed out police detective investigating a beautiful blonde in a story full of twists, except it has more sex.

I think the story is well known. An ex-rock singer is found stabbed to death with an ice pick during sex. His girlfriend was a millionaire authoress who had written a book about a rock singer being killed during sex. The police detective who investigates her falls in love with her.

That's a simple enough story that could have been made into a very bland film in the hands of a less capable director. Paul Verhoeven rose to the task and created the greatest masterpiece of his career. The film is an ode to feminism, maybe a theme that Hitchcock would have avoided. The film is full of strong women and weak men. Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is the murderer, as the viewer realises very early in the film, but she uses her intelligence and sexual attraction to guide the police investigations, leading them to the conclusions she wants them to reach. She toys with detective Nick Curran (Michael Douglas), telling him that she's writing a book about him in which he will be killed after falling in love with the wrong woman, then tempts him to get closer to her.

In the famous interrogation scene Catherine Tramell opens her legs and lets the police officers see that she's wearing no panties. This is all about control. She sits self-confidently in front of a group of men who are nervous and sweating. Also interesting is her posture afterwards. Her legs are crossed in a way that almost but not quite reveals her crotch. This keeps the men staring at her, hoping for another flash between her legs, unable to concentrate on the interrogation. This is more effective than if she had simply sat with her legs open for the whole interrogation.

Nick is the main focus of her attention, of course. He's given up drinking and smoking, but she entices him to take up both again. While together in bed after sex she feeds him clues about a possible murder suspect, and he is too befuddled to doubt her. Despite the large number of deaths in her past – her parents, her college counsellor, her ex-lovers – he remains convinced of her innocence. She flaunts an ice pick in his presence. She ties him up during sex, to show him that she could kill him at any time if she wanted to.

Catherine's superiority over Nick is emphasised in many details that might not be obvious on first viewing. She's much richer than he is. She has two luxurious houses, he lives in a small apartment. Her car is better and faster than his. She always lets him know when he's welcome and when he isn't, such as initially rejecting his advances in the nightclub. She makes him put his life in danger for her, not just in the sex I mentioned above. She encourages him to pursue her on the road, which almost gets him into a deadly car accident.

Having said all of that, watch out for the smaller details for yourself. The characters are all believable, the scenery is beautiful, and the action is exciting. I can't fault the film in any way.

Lost Highway (5 Stars)

This is my favourite film. If ever a film deserved more than five stars this is it. Is there any way I can heap more praise on this film? Let me try to restrain myself and write a factual review, as difficult as it is.

Fred Madison is a sucessful jazz musician in Los Angeles. Very successful, judging by the size and quality of his home. The story starts when someone rings his doorbell and announces "Dick Laurent is dead". He looks through the window and the person has alrady left. Over the next few days a videotape is left on his doorstep each morning. The first day it's a video of the exterior of his house. The second day it's a video of Fred and his wife Renee asleep in bed. They call the police, but there's no evidence of a break in. The third day it's a video of Fred killing his wife in the bedroom, hacking his wife to pieces. Fred swears he is innocent, but the videotape is conclusive evidence and he's sentenced to death.

From this point on the story becomes weird. He's in death row awaiting execution. One morning the guards check his cell, and Fred is no longer there. In his place is a young car mechanic called Pete Dayton. Pete is released, since he hasn't committed any crime, but the police tail him looking for clues of his connection to Fred. Unfortunately, Pete is suffering from amnesia. He can't remember what happened the night before he appeared in the cell. His parents remember him being taken away by a mysterious man, but they refuse to tell him any more.

If you've never seen the film, stop reading now. After the pictures below I'm going to write some thoughts about the film's meaning, and spoilers are involved. Only read on if you already know the film.

Two random pictures from the film. The mystery man on the phone, and Pete in confusion after killing Andy.

Anyone who has watched "Lost Highway" already knows that it isn't an easy film to understand. Strange things happen. When the film was first released there were heated discussions in forums about the meaning of the film. Director David Lynch stayed out of the discussion, until a few years ago when he finally said that nobody had got it right. He might not agree with my explanation of the film, but I think that it will make more sense than what others have written.

Judging by what I've read, there are two main interpretations of the film, with several sub-variations. The one line says that Fred kills his wife because he can't satisfy her sexually, after which he has a mental breakdown and tries to invent a better new life for himself in which he is a virile young man. Those who believe this explanation point to the scene in the car at the end in which he is seemingly electrocuted, the electric chair being the act of reality that ends his fantasy. The other line says that Fred is caught in a time loop, as shown by the repeating of the words "Dick Laurent is dead" at the beginning and end of the film. So which is right?

The problem with the first theory is that it means almost everything in the film is a dream, something that didn't really happen. True, Fred says that he doesn't like video cameras because he likes to remember things his own way, not necessarily the way they happened. But if we accept this theory, the only thing that really happened in the film was that he killed his wife. There were no videotapes, no voice at the door, no mystery man at Andy's party. But the main evidence that Fred killed his wife was the videotape. I find the idea very dissatisfying that I am watching a film in which almost nothing that is shown really happens. I strongly doubt that a director of David Lynch's stature would make such a film.

The problem with the time loop theory is simply, how does it happen? I see the answer in the words that the mystery man speaks to Pete on the phone: "In the East, the Far East, when a person is sentenced to death, they're sent to a place where they can't escape, never knowing when an executioner may step up behind them, and fire a bullet into the back of their head". The place where the condemned man is sent to is the time loop, an impossible place to escape.

Who would have the power to do this? The mystery man, of course. He is the Devil, the one who only enters a person's house if he is invited in. Fred invited him in, and so did Pete. We aren't told why, but people have many reasons for making a deal with the Devil. Fred wanted wealth, Pete wanted success with girls? But an important question is, who is the condemned man waiting for the executioner? Is it Fred? Maybe it is; at the end of the film we see him in his car fleeing from the police, so his recapture is inevitable. But was Fred even guilty of the crime? I don't believe that he really killed his wife. He is sentenced to death on the basis of the videotape of the murder, but we never actually see his wife's body. On the contrary, we see her alive and well with Dick Laurent in the hotel. The one who is the condemned man is Dick Laurent. The time loop is wrapped around him. He has to be executed for the crime of making snuff movies. Fred is used to deliver Dick to the mystery man to be shot. Andy, who shares the guilt, is killed by Pete.

The question still remains what role Renee and Alice play in the plans. Fred and Pete are innocents who have allowed themselves to be caught up in something evil. Renee and Alice both seem to be evil. I don't have a conclusive answer. They are obviously the same person, or rather two sides of the same person, being used by the mystery man in his plans.

This is a complex film, but highly enjoyable. It shows a never ending nightmare, which at the same time terrifies and fascinates the viewer.

Inglourious Basterds (5 Stars)

Normally I would deduct half a star for the ugly misspelling. Yes, I know it's deliberate, but I still hate it. I'll let Quentin Tarantino off just this once because I want to include this film in my Five Star Month. It's a five star film, even if it has a one star name. I'm not even sure why the name is misspelt. Is it because there was already a 1978 film with the same name, just spelt correctly? That can't be the reason, there must be a dozen other names Quentin could have chosen.

But let's get to the film itself. It's a war film, but in so many ways it's not a war film. It breaks all the conventions, starting with the opening music that sounds more like the introduction to a spaghetti western. The ringleader of the American hit squad, Aldo the Apache (Brad Pitt) is a really disgusting character. I can't think of any other war film in which the Americans are portrayed as being so evil and bigoted. He says in his first speech that Nazis have no humanity and every son of a bitch found wearing a Nazi uniform has to die. But as everyone knows, Germans had no choice about fighting in the war. Any German who refused to join the army after being called up was shot.

The film is slow, not a typical action film, although it does explode into violence at key parts. What makes the film a masterpiece is its atmosphere. As in all of Tarantino's films the conversations between the characters are just as fascinating as what they actually do. Interestingly, there are two plots that run in parallel. The viewer expects them to meet one another, but although they converge they never quite touch. On the one hand we have Shoshanna, a French Jewess who owns a cinema and plans to assassinate the Nazi leadership when they meet in her cinema for a film premiere. On the other hand we have Aldo and his Nazi hunters, also planning to assassinate the Nazis at the same film premiere. Even though they have the same goal and unknowingly assist one another, Shoshanna and Aldo never meet. And then there's the final twist that reminds me of Friedrich Dürrenmatt's "Romulus the Great".

Click here to view the trailer.

Snatch (5 Stars)

This was Guy Ritchie's second gangster film after "Lock, stock and two smoking barrels". It was a much bigger hit, as far as the box office takings were concerned, maybe due to the big name actors Brad Pitt and Benicio Del Toro starring. It was slammed by the critics for not being original, they said that it was just copying the pattern of the first film. I agree that there is nothing new in the film, but I honestly don't care. This film is probably even better than his first.

A very large diamond is stolen in Belgium and brought to England to be fenced by Four Fingers Frankie (Benicio Del Toro). But one of the other robbers asks his brother, a gun runner called Boris the Blade, to steal the gem from him while he's in London. At the same time two small-time fight promoters, Turkish and Tommy, are attempting to buy a caravan from a crooked gypsy called Mickey (Brad Pitt). Confusion ensues when the gem is stolen, stolen again, lost and found. The body count is lower than in "Lock, stock and two smoking barrels", but the plot is just as chaotic. Gangs, jewel thieves, boxers, gypsies and a dog. A masterpiece.

Somehow Guy Ritchie couldn't keep up the magic. His later films were much weaker. But he's still young, he has a full career ahead of him.

Click here to view the trailer.

Ed Wood (5 Stars)

January is my Five Star Month, so I've been reviewing good films every day. But this is an extra special film that deserves more than five stars. I like just about any film that Tim Burton directs, but this is exceptional. It's the true story of Edward D. Wood Jr., supposedly the worst film director of all time. This biopic is one of my top 10 favorite films.

The film doesn't cover his whole life. He lived from 1924 to 1978, but it only shows his life from 1953 to 1959, the period in which he made his three most famous films: "Glen or Glenda", "Bride of the Monster" and "Plan 9 from Outer Space". His friendship with Bela Lugosi is touching and tragic, even though Wood is shown as tricking Lugosi into playing a part in a transvestite film.

I don't really want to say too much about the film, except strongly advise everyone who likes any sort of films to watch it. It's the best film about film-making I've ever seen. Let me just answer the question: was Ed Wood really the world's worst director?

It depends on what you mean. Wood's "goofs" in his films are legendary. Within scenes the light changed from daylight to night and back. Gravestones flopped backwards and forwards, obviously only made of cardboard. Flying saucers were visibly suspended by strings when they hovered. And of course, Bela Lugosi died during the filming of "Plan 9 from Outer Space", and the replacement actor who completed his part in the film didn't look even vaguely similar. But Ed Wood's films are always fast-paced and entertaining. They are never boring. The first film I ever bought on videotape was "Plan 9 from Outer Space", even though it's been called the worst film ever made. If it were really that bad, why would it still be available today?

Click here to view the trailer.

I still know what you did last summer (5 Stars)

They got the name of this film wrong. It takes place in July 1998, two years after the attempted murder of Ben Willis, so the title should be "I know what you did two summers ago". But I guess that isn't so catchy. Call it artistic license.

This sequel was less of a box office smash than the first film, though it still made a $20 million profit. Not too bad when you consider that Tom Cruise's "Rock of Ages" made a $60 million loss. Yes, I know that's a random comparison. Critics slammed the film as a repeat of the original. It is a repeat, as far as the formula goes, but why not? It's a teen slasher movie, so all we want to see is teenagers and slashings.

After the first film only Julie and Ray are still alive out of the four friends. Julie goes on holiday with some college friends to Tower Bay, an island in the Bahamas, but the killer is waiting for her. The island is cut off from the mainland by a storm and the killings begin.

I greatly enjoy this film, as you can see from my rating. In suspense and atmosphere it's the equal of the first film, maybe even superior. The film ends on a cliff hanger. There really should have been a third part. The story ended too soon.

Click here to see a weird trailer for the film. It consists entirely of footage not in the film.

I know what you did last summer (5 Stars)

This film was written by Ken Williamson, best known as the writer and producer of the Scream films. This was actually his first screenplay, but after writing the script he was unable to find any interest in it and it was shelved. He went on to write "Scream", which was a big success, so he dusted off his old script, it was filmed, and it was also a success, though not to the same extent. That's a shame. Though not as innovative as "Scream", I consider "I know what you did last summer" to be a better film. It's also a teen slasher film, but unlike "Scream" it contains no parody elements. This is a traditional horror film in the style of "Halloween". A seemingly unstoppable killer is stalking his foes, killing random bystanders as collateral damage.

On July 4th 1996 four friends, Julie, Helen, Ray and Barry, are driving home from a beach party after their last year at school. They hit and kill a man walking along the road. Since they've been drinking they decide not to tell the police. They pack the body in the trunk and drive to the sea to dump it. As they're about to push the body into the sea the man, not dead after all, sits up and fights back. The four friends panic. They beat him up and push him into the water anyway. They make a pact never to tell one another what they have done.

A year passes. The friends lose contact with one another, but they are forced to meet one another when they realise that someone knows their secret. Not only does he know their secret, he is seeking revenge. Is it the murder victim, still alive? Or a witness that they hadn't noticed?

Click here to view the trailer. It's a bit fuzzy, but it's the only copy of the original trailer I could find on YouTube.

King Kong (5 Stars)

People associate the name Peter Jackson with Lord of the Rings. Understandably. Between them the three films in the trilogy earned $2.9 billion at the box office, and the third film was awarded 11 Oscars, winning every category it was eligible for. And yet I consider "King Kong" to be his true masterpiece. The first time I saw the Lord of the Rings films (in the cinema) I loved them, I was wildly enthusiastic. The second time I saw them (on DVD) I still liked them, but I was cooler in my opinion. The third time I watched them I felt bored. Spectacular scenery, great special effects, interesting characters, but somehow it seemed empty, it didn't have the heart and soul that Tolkien's novels have. I doubt I'll watch the DVD's again. With "King Kong" the opposite is the case. I enjoyed it greatly the first time I saw it, and every time I watch it I like it more.

The first version of "King Kong" was made in 1933. The original screenplay was written by Edgar Wallace, based on a 1932 novel by Delos Lovelace. Some editions of the novel incorrectly name Wallace as the author. In the 1930's it was easier to cheat to make books more saleable. If tricks like that were attempted today there would be massive lawsuits. Edgar Wallace died before the film was made, and the screenplay was modified by various other writers including Ruth Rose. The film shows the influence of German expressionism. In my opinion it was the best film made in America in the first half of the 20th Century.

There was a remake of the the film in 1976. At the time it was very successful, but over the years critics have turned against it, saying it relied on special effects -- the best special effects available at the time -- rather than believable characters. It's been many years since I last saw it, so I won't give my own opinions.

And now to Peter Jackson's remake that was released in 2005. He was also critical of the 1976 version, and his goal was to get back to basics. He remade the original 1933 version without borrowing anything from the 1976 version. He also made the decision to set the film in 1933, not bring it up to date. This was the right decision. As a period film this is a masterpiece, even before the ship sets sale and leaves New York behind. Apart from the old-fashioned streets and cars we see the suffering of the Great Depression and hints of Prohibition. The attention to detail is meticulous.

The casting is so perfect that it's difficult to imagine anyone else in the major roles. Naomi Watts has a face that breaks into a gaze of star-struck innocence when she looks upon the monster. In her case this isn't acting, this is her natural expression that I've already seen in "Mulholland Drive" and "The Ring". Nobody else could have played Ann Darrow. Jack Black, who plays Carl Denham, fits into the era perfectly. He has the facial appearance of the early silent movie actors. If anything he reminds me of Gustav von Wangenheim. Adrien Brody is perfect as the sad-faced writer Jack Driscoll. Again, this isn't acting skill, Adrien has very distinctive facial expressions that are exactly what the film needs. Kyle Chandler plays the deliciously bland film star Bruce Baxter, who I don't believe was in the original film. A welcome addition to the story. Thomas Kretschmann was an inspired choice as the cool Captain Englehorn. And I could continue with all the other supporting actors. Has any other film ever been cast so perfectly?

The story? I'm sure everyone knows it already. A third-rate movie director, Carl Denham, gathers a small group of actors to make a film on a remote island. While there they find and capture a giant gorilla they call King Kong. They bring him back to New York, where he escapes, goes on a rampage and is killed. The story is made more poignant by the monkey falling in love with the film's leading lady, Ann Darrow.

Click here to view the amazingly dull trailer. At least it shows Naomi Watts' beautiful gaze.

Thelma and Louise (5 Stars)

Brilliant! There, I've used that word again! But I can't help it. Other reviewers have called this a neo-feminist road movie. I'm not sure what the "neo" part of that is supposed to mean. Sometimes "neo" as a prefix means extreme, sometimes it means hidden, sometimes it means a second wave. My guess is that even people who use the word "neo-feminism" don't agree on what it means.

Thelma Dickinson is an unhappily married wife. Maybe she isn't really unhappy, she just doesn't know any better. She dated her first boyfriend when she was 14, married him when she was 18, and ten years later they're still together. Though she still doesn't have children, she stays at home cooking and cleaning for her successful career husband. She suspects that there is more to life, but she doesn't know what it is. Her best friend Louise is a more independent woman, older, single, and working as a waitress. She has a boyfriend but doesn't want to marry him.

Louise invites Thelma to accompany her on a weekend trip to the mountains, to a cabin that her boss owns. Thelma is scared that her husband won't allow her to go, so she doesn't even tell him. The women stop off at a bar on the way, where they drink and dance. Thelma flirts with a man called Harlan, and when they want to leave he tries to rape her. Louise shoots him. They don't go to the police because they don't expect justice in a male-dominated world. Instead they go on the run, turning to crime to support themselves.

The strength of the film isn't just in the action, it's in the atmosphere. The slow guitar riffs are haunting. As they continue their journey west the scenery becomes more beautiful and the people become more ugly. In many way it reminds me of David Lynch's "Wild at Heart", made only a year earlier.

This is a well known film, frequently shown on television. I'd forgotten that it was made so long ago. 1991? It's still as fresh and enjoyable today, not at all dated. If you haven't seen it yet you're missing out. I hope my short review will tempt you. This review is typical for my style. A lot of film reviews are a complete summary from beginning to end. I don't like that. If I read a review of a film that I haven't yet seen I don't want to be told everything. I just want to know the film's premise, how it begins, and whether the reviewer thinks the film is any good.

Click here to view the trailer.

Evita (5 Stars)

This is a film that overwhelms me whenever I watch it. The powerful imagery and the emotional depth combine with the musical score to create an unforgettable experience. Madonna is so perfect in the title role that it's difficult to believe she was only chosen after a series of other actresses, including Michelle Pfeiffer and Meryl Streep, had turned the role down. This was the film that established Madonna as an actress after a string of poor quality flops. Or maybe it wasn't her acting abilities that helped her; as a singing performer she excels, which made her the ideal person for this role. When I first saw the film I was pleasantly surprised that Antonio Banderas was such a skilled singer. Jonathan Pryce's voice is average, but sufficient for the small number of lines he has to sing.

The film is based on a musical written by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd-Webber in 1976. It follows the path of Eva Duarte (played by Madonna), a poor girl who slept her way to the top in Argentina in the first half of the 20th Century. The film shows her repeatedly swapping lovers to get herself roles in films, but no judgement is passed. She was a poor girl in a poor country doing what was necessary to succeed. She reached the pinnacle when she became the lover of Juan Peron (Jonathan Pryce), a man with the potential to become the country's next president. While he was in power she became a symbol for the country, someone the country's poor people could relate to. The film continues up to her death of cancer when she was 33. Eva's life is presented to us through the eyes of a common man, Antonio Banderas as the "voice of the people", nameless in the film though called Che in the original musical.

The film glamorizes Eva's life, and even though it mentions the corruption in passing the darker sides are omitted. Juan Peron is presented as a "hero of the people", but he was also a Nazi sympathiser, and after the Second World War he personally granted asylum to any German war criminals able to reach South America. Argentina already had a large German immigrant community, so they were able to blend in.

The film was one of the first ever to be released on DVD. It also holds the record for the most costume changes in the film; Madonna supposedly wears 85 different outfits during the film. Maybe one day when I'm feeling bored I'll sit and count them.

On an unrelated topic... I've noticed that some people have been buying items via my blog. They're clicking on my pictures to open Amazon, then buying random items such as kitchen equipment. Thank you for this, whoever you are, because it earns me a small referral fee. I keep the advertisements in this blog to a minimum, because I'm more interested in speaking to people than making money. But if my regular readers nevertheless want to support me, thank you.

Batman (1966 version) (5 Stars)

I don't care what anyone else says. Forget all the rest, this is the best Batman film ever made. It's camp, it's corny, it's cheap, it's brilliant. (I seem to be using the word "brilliant" a lot this month, get used to it). Among all the thousands of films I've ever watched, this is one of the best, I'd rate it in my top three.

The film is a spin-off of the Batman tv series that ran from 1966 to 1968. Although regarded by many as the best television series ever made, it still hasn't been released on DVD due to the copyright holders not wanting to spoil Batman's new serious image. Fortunately the copyright is due to expire soon (50 years after the first broadcast), so I'm hoping that the original master tapes will find their way onto DVD.

The plot? Who cares, but I'll tell you anyway. Batman's greatest enemies, the Riddler, the Penguin, the Joker and Catwoman, team up to kidnap the members of the UN Security Council (called the United World security council in this film). But the strength isn't in the plot, it's in the individual scenes. Who could ever forget Batman climbing out of the water with a shark biting his leg, radioing Robin to bring him shark repellent Batspray? There are so many memorable scenes which still make me laugh after watching them a dozen times.

If you buy the DVD with the commentary by Adam West and Burt Ward, please listen to it. It's the most entertaining commentary I've ever heard. It's informative, it's introspective, but what overwhelms me most is that Adam West is such a nice guy. How could anyone not like him? When I first bought the DVD, one of the first I bought, I visited his web site and sent him an email, which he answered personally. He's a great guy.

Lock, stock and two smoking barrels (5 Stars)

This is the third film in my Five Star Month. Maybe I should stop counting, before I make a mistake like I did in my October horror films month. That was embarrassing.

This film was released in 1998, but I didn't watch it till more than five years later. I heard about it when it was released, I read the rave reviews, but I dismissed it as "not my sort of film". I don't watch gangster movies. But this film is unique. Well, it was unique at the time. Director Guy Ritchie made another film two years later, "Snatch", in a similar style. It was criticised for being too identical to his first big hit, but I actually prefer "Snatch", which I'll review later this month.

The film's plot seems very simple, but the twists and turns it takes make it difficult to keep up. Four friends get in debt to Harry the Hatchet, a London East End gangster who has made his fortune by selling pornography. They have only seven days to pay back half a million pounds before they start losing their fingers. They overhear their next door neighbours planning to rob a marijuana farm, so they decide to rob the robbers after the crime. The robbery is a success. The money is enough to pay off their debts, and they decide to sell the marijuana for extra profit. Unfortunately they offer the drugs to the gangster who owned the marijuana farm. This leads to an outbreak of gang warfare, with the hapless friends caught in the middle as bodies drop all around them.

And the smoking barrels? They can almost be forgotten in the middle of the mayhem, as a parallel plot, just as involved. Harry has sent thieves to steal two antique shotguns. By accident they were sold to the four friends to use as weapons in their robbery. Harry tries to retrieve them, not knowing that his debtors have them.

Overall a brilliant film, very British, touches of comedy and made great by the inventive film editing. Click here to view the trailer.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (5 Stars)

This is the second film in my Five Star Month. Unlike "800 Bullets", which I reviewed earlier today, this is a non-English film that found the appreciation it deserved. It was nominated for ten Oscars in 2001, of which it won four. I'm not sure, but this probably made it the most successful foreign language film ever, as far as the Oscars are concerned. The mix of action, drama, romance and beautiful cinematography makes it an all time classic.

The film has been described as "Sense and Sensibility with martial arts". I've never read Jane Austen's novel, but I assume this is meant as a compliment. There are several interlocking plots, but the main emphasis is on the romances between the principal characters. Li Mu Bai (played by Chow Yun Fat) is a warrior who has decided to retire from combat. Shu Lien (Michelle Yeoh) loves him, but has never found the courage to voice her feelings. Jen Yu (Ziyi Zhang) is the daughter of the governor of Peking. Her father has arranged her marriage with a suitable rich nobleman, but she would rather live an exciting life as a warrior. While travelling in the desert she is captured by a bandit known as Dark Cloud (Chen Chang). They fall in love before he sets her free.

I've enjoyed Chinese martial arts films for many years, but this was my first encounter with the fighting style mockingly called wire fu (sometimes shortened to wi fu). Instead of realistic fight scenes, such as those in films starring Bruce Lee, the actors' abilities are enhanced by hidden wires. This allows the film characters to defy the laws of physics; for instance, a character can jump and then change direction in mid air. Although wires can be used to enhance fight scenes while retaining realism, in this film no attempt is made to keep things genuine. This gives the fight scenes more of the surreal nature of a fairy tale. I've heard a lot of arguments for and against wire fu, and I myself prefer real fighting, but it does have its place. In this film, for instance, it is very effective.

A few words about the cast. Michelle Yeoh has long been my favourite martial arts actress. I've seen her in so many films that I can't remember where I saw her first. Chow Yun Fat is also an actor I greatly admire. Though he isn't as spectacular a fighter as Jet Li or Donnie Yen, he has an air of nobility that he projects whenever he walks onto the screen. This was the first film in which I saw Ziyi Zhang, but she has since become one of my favourite actresses. The combination of her acting skills and her youthful beauty fascinate me.

I expect many of my readers already know "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". People who would never usually watch Chinese films have seen it on television. It's very accessible, more easy for people to enjoy than hardcore Chinese fighting films such as "Ip Man". If you have never watched any Chinese martial arts films before this is a good place to start.

Click here to view the trailer.

800 Bullets (5 Stars)

Happy New Year to all my readers. I hope you enjoyed my blog last year, and I hope that I can recommend some good films to you this year that you might otherwise have missed. To start the new year I've designated January as my "Five Star Month". This month I shall only be reviewing my favorite films, films that I can give an unconditional five star rating. It won't be anything as crass as a top 20 countdown. The films won't be in any particular order. They'll just be my favorites.

I'm starting the month off with a dazzling film that has somehow slipped below the radar. It's the best Spanish film ever made, and it deserves to be ranked among the best films of all time. I'm not sure what the problem is, why it hasn't achieved the fame it deserves. It's not the language itself, other non-English films have achieved international fame. Maybe the problem is that the plot sounds so dull when it's described, so people don't give it a chance. I've talked enthusiastically to friends, only to get the reply "It doesn't sound like my sort of film". No words can do justice to the wild extragaganza that develops out of seemingly mundane circumstances.

Carlos is a 12-year-old boy who lives in Madrid with his widowed mother. He knows that his father died when he was young, but she refuses to talk about him. By chance he discovers that his father and grandfather used to be stunt men in spaghetti westerns. He runs away from home to find his grandfather, and discovers a western town called Texas Hollywood where wild west shows are enacted twice a day for paying visitors.

Sounds boring? You couldn't be more wrong. Carlos's arrival in the town sets off a chain of events that make national and international news. Although the film has comic elements, necessitated by the sheer absurdity of the situation, to call the film a comedy would be to do it injustice. It's a film about films, the change from the old world of cinema to the new. It's a film about changes in society. It's a film about family alienation. But most of all it's a film about a young boy trying to discover his roots.

Click here to view the trailer.