The People that Time Forgot (4½ Stars)

This is a sequel to "The land that time forgot", made three years later in 1977. This time I don't have to apologise for liking it. It's a much better film, mainly due to the higher quality of the actors. It was a box office success, but evidently not enough to save the company that made it, Amicus Productions. Amicus was founded in 1962 as a direct competitor to Hammer. Amicus made 27 films, of which 20 were horror films and five were science fiction. "The people that time forgot" was their last film. They went bankrupt in the same year. Amicus can't be blamed for this. The 1970's were the decade that wiped out the British film industry. Hammer was almost bankrupt after making "To the Devil a daughter" in 1976. Hammer attempted one last film, "The Lady Vanishes", in 1979, and then stopped making films altogether.

The film takes place shortly after the end of World War One, at the end of 1918. At the end of the first film Bowen Tyler threw a message in a bottle into the ocean with information on his location. The bottle was found after it floated northwards from the Antarctic. Major Ben McBride, a childhood friend of Bowen, sets up an expedition to search for him. When his team arrives they find that many of the natives speak English, because Bowen has been educating them. He spent two years with the Galu tribe, but now the Galus have been wiped out by the warlike Naga tribe and Bowen has been taken prisoner.

Patrick Wayne never became a famous actor like his father John, but he proves himself to be a very competent actor as Ben McBride. Sarah Douglas accompanies him as the photographer Charlotte Cunningham. She plays a more significant role than Sarah Penhaligon in the previous film. Patrick and Sarah bounce off one another well, as the macho man and the liberated female.

Dana Gillespie in 1977

I'll talk a bit about Dana Gillespie, who plays the part of the native girl Ajor. She made only half a dozen films from 1966 to 1978, because she concentrated on live acting. She was a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Parallel to that she followed a career as a pop singer. At the end of the 1970's she decided to follow singing as a full time career, and she's now recorded over 60 albums. Yes, sixty! That's an amazing number of recordings for a person to make and still remain widely unknown. She's the follower of an Indian guru, and 14 of her albums are spiritual music performed in Sanskrit.

Dana Gillespie in 2015

As is often true in the music business, it's not just about what you know, it's about who you know. I've been a fan of Dana's music since the 1980's, so I can verify that she has talent, but she needed a helping hand to get started. At school she was David Bowie's first girlfriend. He was 16, she was 14, and he followed her around like a lovesick puppy. It didn't work out, but they remained friends. When she wanted to make an LP of her folk songs he used his influence to get her a contract.

Dana Gillespie has never married. She was open about being bisexual in the 1970's when homosexuality wasn't accepted the way it is today.

David Bowie and Dana Gillespie

In the 1970's Dana Gillespie enjoyed notoriety because of a series of sex scandals. For instance, she was linked with John Stonehouse, the Labour member of parliament who worked as a spy for the Czechoslovakian government. Her antics were frequently reported in the News of the World. I don't even know if half the stories were true, but at least it meant that there were always new photos of her being published. I knew her face before I knew her as an actress, and long before I knew her as a singer.

Dana Gillespie in 1965

The Land that Time Forgot (4 Stars)

The last two days should suffice to show my readers how erratic my film ratings are. Yesterday I watched "Sicario", which is universally regarded as a good film and is expected to be nominated for several Academy Awards, but I only gave it three stars. Today I watched "The land that time forgot", a cheesy film with below average special effects even for 1974, a film that didn't win a single award, but I've given it four stars. For me it's all about whether the film gives me a certain feeling. I often use the expression that a film "speaks to me". Some films speak to me, others don't.

The film is based on a novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs. It takes place in June 1916. A German submarine sinks a civilian passenger ship crossing the Atlantic. Apart from the crew, the only survivors are the American Bowen Tyler and his English girlfriend Lisa Clayton. They see the submarine surface, so they leave their lifeboats and ambush the submarine crew when they go out for fresh air. Bowen tells the Germans to steer the submarine to America, but the German captain deceives him by travelling south. Low on fuel, the submarine drifts off course and they get lost. By accident they find a lost island called Caprona. This island is the home to dinosaurs and primitive human tribes.

The creatures can't be compared with the dinosaurs in Ray Harryhausen's films. The special effects are far inferior. In Ray Harryhausen's films the whole animal was always animated, including the face, so it was possible to see the emotions. The dinosaurs in "The land that time forgot" are rubber puppets. The eyes don't move, which makes the dinosaurs look like they're dead. The film was made with a low budget, and it shows.

On top of this, Doug McClure was never a convincing actor. His performance is hollow from beginning to end. Susan Penhaligon, who I've never seen apart from this film, is the worst. It's difficult to understand why she's in the film, apart from to offer eye candy.

And yet I've still given the film a four star rating. However many faults I see in it, I still enjoyed watching it today, and I'll probably watch it again.

Bedazzled (2000) (4½ Stars)

This 2000 film is a remake of the 1967 film with the same name starring Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. The original was good, the remake is better.

Elliott Richards is responsible for telephone technical support in an office in San Francisco. Due to his awkward personality he has no friends. For four years he's had a crush on a colleague called Alison, who has never even noticed him. One day he's approached by a beautiful woman who says he can have Alison or anything else he wants. The woman is the Devil, and she offers him seven wishes in exchange for his soul. After some hesitation he signs a contract and the wishes begin.

The problem is that the Devil tricks Elliott by giving him what he wishes for, but mixing in things that he forgot to mention. For instance, in his first wish he asks to be married to Alison, but he forgot to specify that she should love him, so he finds her having an affair with another man. Every wish he asks for is fulfilled, but there's always a catch. He's never happy with what he gets.

I have to ask why Elliott is so obsessed with Alison. I would have fallen head over heels in love with the Devil herself. Alison is a timid little mouse, not particularly attractive, but the Devil is beautiful, sexy and evil. That's everything I want in a woman. Judge for yourself.

Frances O'Connor as Alison

Elizabeth Hurley as the Devil

If a woman like that asked me to bite her apple my reply would be, "Just one apple? I'll eat the whole tree".

The film ends with a pseudo-religious message which effectively negates the whole threat of Elliott losing his soul. Heaven and Hell are just metaphorical terms. The Devil is friends with God anyway, it's all a game the two of them are playing. Blah blah blah. So Hell isn't really a place where we'll be tortured by Elizabeth Hurley for all eternity? I'm disappointed.

Sicario (3 Stars)

As the film explains to us in the first few minutes, "sicario" is a word used in Mexico meaning "hit man". What we aren't told is who the Sicario is. For most of the film we don't see any hit man. It's only at the end of the film that we see who the hit man in the title is.

This is a film about an FBI agent who specialises in hostage situations being asked to assist the CIA in an operation against Mexican drug smugglers. She is soon shocked to find that her new colleagues act recklessly, endangering innocent bystanders in gun battles with drug cartel members. Do the ends justify the means? That's her moral dilemma.

I can appreciate the film, but I couldn't enjoy it in the cinema today. It's too dark, too violent, too realistic. The action sequences are more like a war than any level of police operation. After watching the film I tried to find a message that I could take with me, something to make the film a positive work of art, but I couldn't. Everything is negative. There is too much evil on all sides.

A Simple Plan (4½ Stars)

After watching "The Gift" earlier today I thought I would watch another one of the films from the middle of Sam Raimi's career, between "Evil Dead" and "Spider-Man". "A Simple Plan", made in 1998, was higher rated by the critics and was even nominated for two Academy Awards, but it was a box office flop. (My personal definition of a flop is that it earns less than its budget at the box office). That's a shame. Maybe the film was too arty. It's a slow film in which very little happens, but the atmosphere is intense and overbearing.

It's the collapse of the American dream. Hank and Jacob are the two sons of a farmer in northern Minnesota. Isn't that the worst possible place to have a farm, a place where the ground is covered by ice and snow for months every year? A farm like that means hard work with very little to show for it. Hank, the younger son, is intelligent and capable of living a better life, so the farmer pays for him to go to college for four years. Hank returns home with a degree and gets a job in a grocery store. There's not much else to do in Minnesota. The cost of the college has bankrupted the farm, so the farmer kills himself. The older son Jacob is a failure in life and in love. He's never had a job, he's never kissed a girl. He just hangs out with his friend Lou, who is married but also unemployed.

One day in late December Hank, Jacob and Lou are in the woods hunting a fox that's been stealing chickens. They find a small plane covered by the snow. The pilot is dead, and there's a bag with four million dollars. Rather than report what they've found they take the money and leave the plane to be discovered when the snow melts in the spring. Hank says he'll keep the money, but not use it until they find out if anyone is looking for it. If the money is safe he'll split it with the two other men, if not he'll burn it.

So far so good. Is what they've done so evil? Technically, they're breaking the law, but is it so bad to take money from a dead man? He won't miss it. Apart from that, anyone who's carrying so much money is suspicious. He must be some sort of criminal. That's how they justify their actions. To be honest, if I found four million dollars in the woods I'd probably keep it as well. I wouldn't even feel guilty.

The problem is that there were three of them. If Hank alone had found the money he could have calmly taken it home and hidden it, not spending any of it until a few years later. The other two aren't so patient. Lou is in debt and wants a few thousand dollars to get out of trouble. Jacob wants money to buy back his father's farm. They both accuse Hank of wanting to keep all the money for himself, even though he has honest motives.

They become nervous, returning to the plane to check there are no problems. That's their first big mistake. They almost give themselves away, and they're forced to kill someone to keep their secret. From here on the situation escalates. More and more people die to prevent the money being found. The three men turn against one another in their greed. Despite promising that the secret would remain with them, Hank and Lou make the mistake of telling their wives about the money. The more people are involved, the more the simple plan becomes complicated by greed and deception.

In a way, I can understand why this film wasn't successful with the general public. It's too slow. Not much happens. Where are the big explosions and car chases? I've said it many times before, a film doesn't need an abundance of action to be good. Slow films can be good as well, if they're well made. "A Simple Plan" is a very well made film.

The Gift (2000) (5 Stars)

In my eyes this is a forgotten masterpiece. It was made in 2000 when Sam Raimi was still best known for "Evil Dead", before he hit the big time by directing "Spider-Man" (which I really ought to watch again soon, it's been too long). "The Gift" doesn't have the gore of "Evil Dead" or the action of "Spider-Man". It's a perfectly crafted super-natural drama. If anything, it's a perfect example of character development. We know and understand all the main characters and some of the minor characters. The film has an intricacy with various sub-plots bubbling beneath the surface, but it never becomes too difficult to follow.

Cate Blanchett is Annie Wilson, a single mother of three children, a year after the death of her husband in an accident at work. She makes money by laying cards to read the future.

Keanu Reeves is Donnie Barksdale, a good Christian man who hates Satanic fortune tellers and beats his wife.

Hilary Swank is Valerie Barksdale, Donnie's wife and Annie's main customer.

Giovanni Ribisi is Buddy Cole, a mentally disturbed young car mechanic whose only friend is Annie.

J. K. Simmons is absolutely amazing as Pearl Johnson, the town's sheriff. Despite his limited screen time his words and his mannerisms help us to know him inside out.

Greg Kinnear is Wayne Collins, a school teacher who's engaged to marry the mayor's daughter.

Katie Holmes is Jessica King, the mayor's daughter.

At the time "The Gift" was made Katie Holmes was still one of the main cast in the TV series "Dawson's Creek", in which she played the teenager Joey Potter. Katie was no longer a teenager, she was just blessed with looking young. "The Gift" gave her an opportunity to play an adult role, which shocked many of her fans at the time. When I lived in America I watched the first two seasons of "Dawson's Creek" on television and considered her to be the series' most talented actress. "The Gift" showed another side to her acting skills, and she has gone on to bigger success in recent years.

In "The Gift" Katie is brutally murdered. There are no eye witnesses. The only person who can help the investigations is Annie Wilson. Unfortunately, her gift doesn't mean that she can look at the cards on the table and see everything. She only has flashes of events, not enough to give the police all the answers, even if they were willing to believe her. She can't lay cards for herself, only for others, and if the person sitting opposite her is a sceptic she sees nothing.

The setting of the story in Brixton, Georgia makes the film even more appealing. The audience is caught up in the claustrophobic small town atmosphere. The church is everything, and if you're not a member you're an outcast. The church holds together. If one of its members is accused of a crime, however heinous, the rest of the congregation pulls together to protect him.

The film is perfect in so many ways. The slow plodding development of the plot is never boring. Even Keanu Reeves, who rarely impresses me as an actor, puts on an outstanding performance. If you haven't seen this film, look for it now. It's a masterpiece.

The Lobster (4 Stars)

The premise of this film is so ridiculous that it makes the film seem like one big joke. I've never sat in a cinema where the audience was laughing so loud, for the first half of the film at least. As the film progressed the laughter lessened. I went to see the film with seven other members of the Birmingham Film Group. We were unanimous about enjoying the first half of the film, but our opinions were divided on the second half.

The change in tone from the first to the second half is deliberate. This raises the question whether the film is intended to be seen as a comedy at all. Most reviewers call the film a black comedy. I prefer to call it a satire.

The film takes place in England in the near future. It has been declared illegal for people to be single. This is vigorously enforced. Anybody seen loitering in a public place by himself is challenged by the police to produce proof that he has a partner. But what happens to those who are single? They're sent to a hotel with other singles, where they have a chance to form a partnership. They have 45 days to find a partner, and if they don't succeed within this time they're transformed into an animal of their own choosing. The hero of the film is David, played by Colin Farrell, who has just been divorced from his wife after 12 years of marriage. On admission into the hotel he states that if he remains single he wishes to become a lobster.

There are those who reject the government's enforcement of partnerships. They call themselves loners. They run away from the city and hide in the woods. The loners follow the opposite path: they forbid relationships, and they severely punish those among themselves who form relationships, for instance by cutting off the lips of those who kiss. The loners are the enemies of the accepted society and have to be suppressed. The people in the hotel are given tranquilliser guns sent into the woods to hunt for loners. Captured loners are immediately turned into animals without being given a choice. Those who capture them are rewarded with an extra day before they have to find a partner.

Chatting up potential partners in the hotel is very strained. All the men wear the same suits, and all the women wear the same flower dresses. No individuality is allowed. People search for partners by looking for someone with whom they have something in common. For instance, two people with a limp, two people with a speech impediment, two people with a nosebleed.

The director Yorgos Lanthimos is making fun of different things. Obviously he's satirising mating rituals. Men and women are awkward in their attempts to make contact with one another. The preferred pairing of two likes is very much like the algorithms of online dating sites that assume people will be happiest with someone like themselves. The film is also a satire of political conflict. The government of the future has chosen the extreme policy of enforcing relationships, so the rebels decide to do the exact opposite. There's no common sense middle path.

The film has been almost universally praised by critics, including receiving three awards at the 2015 Cannes Festival. It's a fascinating film that deserves to be watched and discussed.

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (4½ Stars)

"American audiences can accept Tom Cruise breaking into a highly secured vault, but Cameron Diaz doing the same thing must be presented as a campy joke" (Scott Mendelson, film critic).

When I read that quote my first impulse was to reach for my phone to hire a hit man to take out Mr. Mendelson. After my initial flush of rage I calmed down and read his words more carefully. He's not saying that he sees it that way, he's saying that the American public sees it that way. Right. If he's making a social commentary he's correct. His life is spared.

Today's society claims to be liberated, but the idea of a woman being powerful is still thought of as something ridiculous. It has to be a joke. Women have a long way to go before they're considered equal to men, even in Hollywood representations. The two Charlie's Angels films offer some help in achieving this, despite being exaggerated and campy. These aren't three women who are just sexy, they aren't three women who are just strong, they're both.

"Charlie's Angels" was one of the most successful films of 2000, earning $264 million at the box office, making it the 12th most successful film of the year. So we had to have a sequel! Strangely, "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" was considered to be a flop, so a third film was never made. The reason why I say "strangely" is obvious when you look at the statistics. "Full Throttle" earned $259 million at the box office and was the 12th most successful film of 2003. It's difficult to understand why the film studios made such a fuss. There was hardly any difference in the earnings, only 1.8% less.

Critics also rated "Full Throttle" less favourably. They made remarks like "it's like a 90-minute music video". Even if that were the case, so what? Music and action go well together.

I was fortunate enough to see this film on the big screen. Back in 2003 I rarely visited the cinema, unlike now, when I go twice a week at least. It's a film worth seeing in the cinema. The stunts and special effects are amazing. They are even more exaggerated and unbelievable than in the first film, but does that really matter? This is fantasy escapism at its best. In the opening scenes the Angels fall off the side of the Great Wall of China and are caught by a helicopter. That's not very realistic, but it looks good.

Cameron Diaz as Natalie

Drew Barrymore as Dylan

Lucy Liu as Alex

Maybe the biggest factor in the films' success is the chemistry between the three actresses. They're having fun, and it shows. I already said in my review of the first film that I didn't like the 1970's television series. After the second film (supposedly) flopped it's been a long wait, but now it's finally been announced that a new film will be made with new actresses. Only Elisabeth Banks has been cast so far. The film has been called a "reboot", but that over-used word doesn't apply. The Angels were frequently exchanged in the TV series, so having new actresses in the next film will just be a continuation, "Charlie's Angels 3". Whether it will be good or not is another question. Let's wait and see. The first two films will be difficult to beat.

One last question for my readers. If you were a bad guy, who would you rather have beat you up? Tom Cruise? Daniel Craig? Or these three girls?

Charlie's Angels (4½ Stars)

I never liked "Charlie's Angels" as a television series. That might come as a surprise to the people who know me. I like tough girls, and I like sexy girls, and the Angels were both. I'm not sure what it was that prevented the series clicking with me. I'm old enough to have watched it when it was first broadcast in the late 1970's, and I gave it another chance when it was repeated in the early 2000's, but I still didn't like it. Maybe my problem was that I couldn't take the girls seriously. They were supposed to be tough in the series, but they weren't credible to me, unlike Diana Rigg in "The Avengers" who you just knew was tough.

Imagine my surprise when I saw the film. It was released in 2000, but I didn't see it until two years later on television. To me it was everything that the TV series wasn't. The three actresses, Lucy Liu, Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz, were awe-inspiring as they jumped and kicked their way through the movie. The action was over-the-top, even more camp than the TV series, but it was perfect for what it was: light-hearted escapism. After the first 15 minutes of the film I felt more for the three girls than I had for the original Angels in all the episodes I had watched.

I forget when I last watched this film. I just know that it was before September 2010, otherwise I would have written about it in my blog. I have too many DVDs and Blu-ray Discs. I don't have time to watch them all as often as I would like to.

Lust, Caution (3 Stars)

In 1938 six university students met in Hong Kong and put on patriotic plays to protest against Japan's invasion of China. They were young idealists that I can readily identify with. Unfortunately, wars are won with bullets, not plays. In 1941 Hong Kong was conquered by Japan in a battle that lasted less than three weeks. No more plays.

In 1942 the students meet again in Shanghai. They're now members of the resistance, assassinating key members of the Chinese puppet government put in place by the Japanese. Their worst enemy is a Chinese collaborator called Yee, the head of the secret police. He's too well guarded for the resistance to get to him. One of the students, Wang Jiazhi, becomes Yee's mistress and attempts to draw Yee into a public place where he can be attacked.

The story is well told and exquisitely filmed, as we would expect from the director Ang Lee, but the end result is unsatisfying. I found it disturbing that Wang is so weak and incapable of doing the job given to her. After all, why did she need to set up Yee to be killed by the others? Couldn't she have killed him herself when they were alone? The way Wang is portrayed in the film she's a disgrace to China and a disgrace to women in general.

Crimson Peak (4 Stars)

The film is set at the end of the 19th Century. Edith Cushing is the daughter of a rich businessman in New York. A young English inventor, Sir Thomas Sharpe, visits her father to ask him to invest in the development of a new clay mining machine. The father turns him down, but Edith falls in love with him, marries him and moves to England. The film follows the tradition of the Gothic romance novels of the 18th and 19th Century. The naive romance of the young woman is overshadowed by dark schemes of evil and madness.

Let me get out of the way that this isn't a horror film. It's a ghost story, but the ghosts, even though they look frightening, aren't necessarily evil. They aren't even the main agents in the film. They're peripheral to the plot. In the film Edith has written a novel and is searching for a publisher. It's criticised for being a ghost story, but she says that the ghost in her story is a metaphor, it's about a romance. That applies to the film as well. "Crimson Peak" is a love story, but it's a tragic, doomed love affair.

Tom Hiddleston (Sir Thomas Sharpe) and Mia Wasikowska (Edith Cushing) are two of my favourite actors. Their performances carry the film. Jessica Chastain seems like a caricature of Bette Davis in her role as Thomas' sister Lucille, but I'm sure this was intentional. As is to be expected from director Guillermo del Toro, the film offers bright beautiful colours with delightful cinematography. This is a film worth watching more than once.

Ip Man 2 (5 Stars)

They say that the difference between a serious film fan and someone who just watches movies is that the serious fan watches films in foreign languages with subtitles. As a generalisation that's pretty good. A casual film fan who only watches whatever the television throws at him and goes to the cinema for purely social reasons will never want to read subtitles. It demands a level of concentration that only a serious film fan would invest. Someone like me.

Anyone not used to foreign films might think that subtitled films are arty. That's not necessarily the case. It's an unfair prejudice to think that big action films are only made in America. "Ip Man 2" is a big budget action film that can stand up to American competition in its thrills and cinematic quality. There are a few countries where films are made with large budgets, in particular Germany, China and Japan.

So-called serious film fans look down on the dubbing of foreign films into English. I understand them. Most of the dubbed films I've watched have voices that sound dull and lifeless. That isn't because dubbing is bad in principle, it's because it's done so poorly. If more money were invested it would sound better. I lived in Germany for many years. In German cinemas the majority of the films shown are from other countries, and almost all of them are dubbed. Yet they sound good. What's the difference? In Germany film dubbing is a big industry. Famous film and theatre actors are hired to dub foreign roles. They spend time reading and re-reading the scripts, getting to know the character they are speaking for and understanding his or her motivation. The end result is amazing. If America (and England) invested more money in dubbing, subtitles would be less necessary.

"Ip Man" was made in 2008 and "Ip Man 2" in 2010. There were initially no plans to make a third film. The actor who plays Ip Man, Donnie Yen, was opposed to it, because he thought the two films were so good by themselves that a third film would only lower the standard. He's been persuaded to make one last film. "Ip Man 3" will be released on December 25th, 2015. I hope it won't be a disappointment. I'll let you know when I see it.

Brides of Dracula (4 Stars)

After Hammer Studios had great success with their remake of Bram Stoker's "Dracula" in 1958 they decided to make a sequel. While this sequel, made two years later in 1960, is doubtlessly a good film, so much has to be said about the false advertising. It starts with the film's title. Count Dracula himself doesn't appear in the film. He's mentioned on two occasions as a vampire who has been killed (in the 1958 film), and nobody expects him to return. The vampire in the film is Baron Meinster, so the film should be called "The Brides of Meinster". Somehow that doesn't sound as good, does it?

Then look at the film poster above. The blond-haired Baron Meinster is easily recognisable on the left, but who is the vampire on the right? He doesn't appear in the film. And who are all the women in the middle? Apart from Marianne (presumably the woman next to Baron Meinster) there were only two brides in the film. The artist exaggerated a bit.

Now to the plot. A young French woman, Marianne, is travelling from Paris to Transylvania to become a teacher at a girls' boarding school. On the way she stays the night at the castle of an old woman, Baroness Meinster. She sees that the baroness's son is being kept in chains. She frees him, not suspecting that he's a vampire. Marianne flees from the castle and meets Doctor Van Helsing, who has travelled to Transylvania to investigate the Meinster family. Marianne goes to the school to take up her teaching position while the doctor hunts for the vampire, who has now left the castle.

These are Baron Meinster's two brides, on the left Marianne's fellow teacher Gina, on the right an unnamed villager. Interestingly, Doctor Van Helsing decides not to kill them. After defeating the baron he leaves the two women unharmed. That's a good choice. I wouldn't have killed them either.

Doctor Who and the Daleks (4 Stars)

This film is hated by most Doctor Who fans. I'd like to make an attempt to defend it. It's a well made film which succeeds in what it sets out to accomplish.

In December 1963 the Daleks first appeared in the Doctor Who TV series. They returned in a second adventure in November 1964. This resulted in a phenomenon referred to as Dalekmania. Although the Doctor was the hero of the series, the Daleks themselves were the ones who received the highest acclaim. Something about them won the public's attention. They were feared and loved at the same time.

Back in the 1960's there were only three television channels in England, none of which were active for 24 hours. Television time was limited, and repeats of already broadcast programs were rare. Of course, there were no home video players in those days. This means that the original TV episodes with the Daleks were shown once, and that was it. Gone. If you watched them you were lucky, you could sit and remember them, but if you missed them you had to rely on what others told you.

That's where the film steps in. It was decided to remake the first Dalek adventure for the big screen, so that people would have another chance to watch it. The budget would be bigger, the actors would be better, and most of all it would be in colour. Instead of William Hartnell, who nobody seriously considered a good actor, Peter Cushing was picked to play the Doctor. An actor of his stature gave the Doctor a strength and credibility that none of the other actors had until Christopher Eccleston finally took over in 2005.

The main problem of making a film was that it was a standalone item. It had to appeal not just to Doctor Who fans, but to those who had never watched the series. It had to be easy to understand. In a TV series there can be mysteries that are slowly unravelled over the course of months or even years. In a film everything has to be wrapped up within 90 minutes. This meant that the Doctor couldn't be an alien. He was an inventor who lived in London and built a time machine. He was the eccentric old man who lives next to you and me.

Once you accept that the Doctor in the film isn't the same Doctor that we know and love from the TV series, everything makes sense. Think of it as another Doctor from a parallel universe. After the introduction of the characters is out of the way and the Doctor arrives on Skaro it's a very good story that mirrors the original TV episodes. Okay, I admit that it's amusing that the Daleks have lava lamps to decorate their control room, but maybe they have a sense of aesthetics as well.

Carry On Spying (4½ Stars)

This is the ninth film in the Carry On series, made in 1964. Click here for a list of all 29 films. Maybe I'll rewatch them all in order one day, but it won't be soon. Not this year, probably not next year either.

"Carry On Spying" is memorable for two reasons. It was the last film in the series to be made in black and white, and it's also the first film in which Barbara Windsor appears.

The film is primarily a parody of James Bond, although it does have hints of other films, such as "Casablanca" and "The Third Man". Kenneth Williams stars as a British secret service agent who has to retrieve a formula stolen by Dr. Crow, the head of the Society for the Total Extinction of Non-Conforming Humans (STENCH). The adventure takes him and his companions to Vienna, Algiers and back to London.

In my opinion this is the funniest of the Carry On films. I admit that it's dated. None of the Carry On films have aged well. Their humour seems so archaic. Today I found myself not just laughing at the jokes, I was laughing at the way the jokes were supposed to be funny.

---

I need to get my house and my DVD collection better organised. In my old house, where I lived until April this year, I had all my films in bookcases and easily accessible boxes. When I moved I had to leave two of my bookcases behind. I didn't have enough room for them in my new house. I had to store lots of my DVDs in boxes, and I made sensible choices, putting the ones in the boxes that I didn't think I would want to watch soon. My choices weren't perfect though. I decided to watch "Carry On Spying" last night, and I discovered to my horror that my Carry On films weren't in my bookcases. I had to search through the boxes in my storage compartment. As was to be expected, the Carry On films were in the bottom box at the back. That was frustrating, but I found it in the end.

Secret Life of Walter Mitty (4½ Stars)

To see the world, things dangerous to come to,

To see behind walls, to draw closer,

To find each other and to feel.

That is the purpose of life.

This is the story of a man who likes to live in his dreams, then one day decides to actually do something. When he does he finds that reality is much better than imagination. He should have realised this from the motto of Life magazine, where he worked for 16 years as a negative asset manager. On the other hand, when I was a teenager I wrote a lot of poetry, and in one of my poems I wrote:

"Life is a bore, it's better to dream".

That's interesting. It's so long ago when I wrote these words that I can't remember what was going through my head at the time. I was never as timid as Walter Mitty is in the film. I did do things. I went places, I met people, I dated girls. And yet I was still dissatisfied with life. I expressed my alienation from the world in my poetry. Maybe my life has turned full circle. After I left university I spent many years concentrating on real life. Now that I'm older I've turned back to dreams.

In 2006 I began to play Second Life. That was a very intense experience for me. It was a role-playing experience into which I totally immersed myself. I probably played Second Life intensely for about four years, until the end of 2010. After that the role-playing aspect died down, and Second Life was nothing more than a platform for me to chat with my friends. At first I had a lot of friends, but one by one they left, and there was less incentive for me to log on. I still have an active Second Life account, but I've hardly used it since 2013. It's not that I've given up completely. I might return one day, but I need a reason to do so.

Most Second Life users make a fantasy avatar to express themselves. Men make themselves excessively tall and muscular, while women make themselves look like busty Barbie dolls. Not me. For me Second Life was an attempt for me to hold onto my youth. My SL avatar was as close as possible to my real life appearance when I was 20. Average height, thin, not very muscular, long blond hair.

That's me as I look in Second Life. It's a pretty accurate copy of my appearance when I was younger, the body and the hair at least. I never wore jeans when I was younger. Practically all of my friends wore jeans, and I didn't want to conform, so I wore colourful trousers, red or green. As I got older jeans were no longer in fashion, so I started wearing them more often, and today I wear jeans all the time. I didn't start wearing sandals until I was in my thirties. Only the t-shirt is typical of what I wore at 20.

As you can see, in Second Life I wear a collar to identify me as a slave. But that's a story for another day.....

Bikini Carwash Academy (4 Stars)

This is a re-release of the film originally released as "Bikini Escort Company" in 2006. The new title at least makes sense. The original release was in a 4:3 ratio, the new release is in a more natural 16:9 ratio. The opening scene with the credits has been replaced, which is a shame, because the original credits scene featured the song "Space Age Mafia" by the Erotics.

What's curious is that the names in the credits sequence have been changed. In the original release the film was written by Sherman Scott, produced by Kimberly Ray and directed by Nicholas Medina. In the re-release the film is written by Darin Richards and produced and directed by Sherman Scott.

That's curious. Sherman Scott and Nicholas Medina are both pseudonyms used by Fred Olen Ray, but the former name is used for his serious films and the latter for his erotic productions. I don't know who Darin Richards is. It would surprise me if Fred hadn't written the film himself. Kimberly Ray is Fred's wife, and she has produced almost all of his films for the last 15 years, so it's strange that her name has been removed from the credits.

This is a fun film with a tenuous connection to "Bikini Carwash Company". On the other hand, all the bikini films made in the last 20 years have a similar plot. That's what makes them so good. Four college students have failed their final exams. They're told that they have one last chance. If they can take over a failing business and make it a success within two weeks they will be awarded a pass. So the girls find a carwash company, strip down to their bikinis and offer a handjob to their customers. By that I mean a hand car wash, of course. The customers can't drive in fast enough, and business booms.

I give myself some credit for the re-release of this film. I've wanted to buy it for years, but it's been selling on Ebay for prices between $400 and $700. It's a must-have for lovers of trash cinema. That includes me, but I couldn't afford the price. I sent Fred a message telling him the prices were so high, which he found amusing. He's been kind enough to re-release it so that his fans can buy the film for a reasonable price. Apart from that, it's an easy profit for him, even if he's only selling it for $10.

---

Addendum on 28th May 2023

Today I received a strange message from Google's Blogger Team, probably an automated message. It claims that this post contains sensitive material, so the post has been put behind a warning screen. I was advised to read the Google policy guidelines, which I have done, and I don't see any way in which it contains sensitive material. I also received messages about other posts which were borderline cases. Based on suspicious activity on my blog over the last 90 minutes, it seems like my blog is being targeted by a malicious person who's reporting random posts in order to disrupt my blogging. Maybe the posts aren't completely random, because most of them are about films directed by Fred Olen Ray.

Google's email address is from an account that doesn't accept replies, but it says that republishing the post will trigger a review. That's what I want. The Google Blogger Team can see that this post is completely harmless, and I also wish them to stop accepting the reports about my other blog posts.

I would appreciate an email from an address that I can reply to, so that this issue can be discussed.

Miss Meadows (3 Stars)

"There are bad people in the world, and they shouldn't be around the good people, especially the little ones".

Miss Meadows is a very well mannered young lady. She works as a substitute teacher for the first grade, although her job becomes permanent when the teacher that she's standing in for dies of cancer. She sings in the church choir, and she's a Sunday school teacher. Nobody uses her first name, they all call her Miss Meadows. Bizarrely, even her fiancé, the local sheriff, calls her Miss Meadows, and she calls him Sheriff. There's no unnecessary familiarity before marriage.

Behind her frail appearance there's an agenda. She feels it necessary to do what the law is too weak to do. She's a vigilante who kills men who prey on the innocent, especially those who harm children. We need more Miss Meadows in the world. Our soft bellied legal system believes in giving everyone a second chance, but paedophiles don't deserve a second chance. Having sexual desires towards small children is unnatural. It's not simply a crime that a person commits, it's part of his nature. The only way to prevent a paedophile re-offending is to kill him or lock him up permanently.

I love Katie Holmes as an actress, but something is missing from the film. It seems too bland, probably due to the lack of charisma of the supporting characters. To see Miss Meadows have extramarital sex seemed out of character for her, even though she kept her clothes on. The film has a lot of ideas, but somehow it misses the mark.

Azumi 2 (4½ Stars)

"War won't disappear. As long as there are people someone will start a war".

"Azumi 2" was made two years after "Azumi", but it begins where the first film left off, no more than a few days after the events of the first film. Azumi is travelling to meet her dead master's friend, Priest Tenkai, to discuss the strategy for assassinating the last remaining warlord, Masayuki Sanada. The priest says that no more assassination attempts should be made, because Sanada is too well defended. He thinks it's better to raise an army, but Azumi rejects this. She wants to prevent a new war at all costs. Why waste thousands of lives in a war when it's possible to prevent a war by killing a single person? However, it's not that easy. Azumi has to kill hundreds of soldiers to get to Sanada, as the picture above shows. (She's the one in the cape). In addition Sanada is protected by a trio of elite ninjas.

The second film has a lot more soul-searching than the first film. Azumi begins to question whether she's right to follow her mission. In the past she has never questioned right and wrong, she only had her mission to guide her. Now she meets others like Kozue, played by Chiaki Kuriyama, who also has a mission, the mission to protect Sanada. Is Kozue's mission any better or worse than hers? Can a war be prevented by killing? Isn't killing just an endless cycle? Whenever you kill someone the friends and relatives of the victims come seeking revenge.

A middle path is shown by Ginkaku, a bandit leader who looks identical to Azumi's former love Nachi. Living like a Japanese Robin Hood, he steals from the rich so that he can buy food to feed orphans. He tries not to kill, unless it's absolutely necessary, because he knows that each dead person means there will be another orphan.

Aya Ueto as Azumi

Chiaki Kuriyama as Kozue

From what I understand, the second film is closer to the spirit of the comics on which the films are based. In the comics Azumi frequently questions the morality of her path, as she often has to kill good people in order to achieve her final goal of preventing civil war in Japan. In "Azumi 2" the moral ambiguities come to the surface at the end, when it seems that Sanada is a noble man, also seeking peace in his own way.

Azumi (5 Stars)

"There are so many evil people in the world. Somebody has to kill them".

A Japanese Shogun, Master Gessai, has failed in his attempts to bring peace to Japan. He exiles himself to a remote mountain with 10 orphans, who he trains as assassins. Nine boys and one girl. As is to be expected the girl, Azumi, grows up to be the strongest of the fighters. In their final test the assassins, now teenagers, have to prove that they are totally ruthless. They are told to pair up with their best friend in the group, then they are ordered to fight to the death. Azumi kills Nachi, the boy she loves. After this the remaining five assassins are considered ready to battle against the three warlords challenging the rightful ruler of Japan.

The first warlord, Nagamasa Asano, is caught off guard and killed easily. This puts the second warlord, Kiyomasa Kato, on guard, and the rest of the film is about the battle against him. He has powerful servants and proves difficult to defeat. One by one the assassins fall, leaving Azumi to face him alone. What I mean is that she's alone, but he isn't. In the final scene she has to face 200 warriors to rescue her master.

"Azumi" is an adaptation of a long running Japanese comic book. The comic's extreme action was initially considered too difficult to portray in a live action film, but the director Ryuhei Kitamura has done an admirable job. Casting the young actress Aya Ueto in the title role was a stroke of genius. She was only 17 at the time the film was made, but she proved herself to be an action star of considerable talent. On the first day of shooting she received a head wound and had to go to hospital, but she showed true professionalism by returning to work the next day. As it turned out, the injury has left a small scar which will mark her forehead for the rest of her life. Instead of regretting it, she proudly calls it "Azumi's scar".

In case you're wondering about the third warlord, wait for the sequel.