Star Trek: Beyond (3 Stars)

Some of my readers might be wondering why I'm giving the latest Star Trek film the same rating as the trashy sci-fi film that I watched yesterday, "The Interplanetary Surplus Male and the Amazon Women from Outer Space". That's an easy question to answer. I rate films in the context of what they're attempting to achieve and whether I think they succeed. "The Interplanetary Surplus Male" -- I have to shorten its name -- is a low budget film made for laughs. I laughed, but I didn't laugh a lot. Three stars. Average. "Star Trek: Beyond" is a big budget motion picture, intended to excite and thrill the viewer. I was excited, but not a lot. Three stars. Average.

I just can't relate to the new Star Trek films made since 2009. They're not right. How can they cast actors who weren't in the original series? I mean, just look at Zoe Saldana. She's a beautiful woman, nobody could deny that, but she's not Nichelle Nichols. Not even close. The same is true of all the other cast members. Chris Pine isn't William Shatner. It's tantamount to sacrilege to allow him to play James T. Kirk. Maybe if I'd never watched the original series I could appreciate the new films more.

Why couldn't they have made the films about another star ship and its crew who were active at the same time as Captain Kirk? That would have been better.

Idris Elba is the film's villain. Normally that would have excited me, because he's one of my favourite actors. However, I feel that he's wasted in his role as Krall. For most of the film he's unrecognisable. It's not just his face, even his voice isn't recognisable. It was a waste hiring such a magnificent actor for this role. They could have saved money by putting a random stunt man inside the costume for the film.

The battle in the final scenes looked very much like something taken from "Star Wars". That's my main criticism of the film: it's too Star-Wars-ish.

Supposedly a fourth Star Trek film will be made with the new actors. I'm dreading it. I thought that computer technology is now far enough advanced to recreate actors on screen. Bring back young versions of William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelly and Nichelle Nichols. That's the only way to make a good Star Trek film again.

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

The Interplanetary Surplus Male and the Amazon Women from Outer Space (3 Stars)

The planet Venus is inhabited by a race of females who are only able to have female offspring. Once every hundred years they visit Earth to find a man who can impregnate them. He has to be a perfect specimen with high intelligence, strong muscles and above all else great sexual stamina. After all, he's expected to have sex with thousands of women. They pick a university astronomy professor called Harvey Kirk and take him back to their planet. That's where the fun begins, or at least it should begin. Harvey is caught up in a revolution.

The film stars mostly women, and they're divided into two categories. Most of them are beautiful blondes, but the planet's leaders are played by female body builders.

This is Andrulla Blanchette. I think I'm in love!

Or maybe I prefer Lauren Powers?

But Jayne Trcka is so beautiful as well!

And then there's Valentina Chepiga, who plays Valkyr, the Queen of the Amazons. Luckily for Harvey he doesn't have to choose. He can have them all, but only once each. He has a lot of women to deal with, and it's business, not pleasure.

Harvey has to work hard. He's warned that if he fails to perform he'll be executed and another man will be chosen. It's no good saying he has a headache.

What I like about the film is its alienation technique. Harvey frequently stops and yells at the director, complaining about the poor lines he's been given. The director, off-screen, replies by telling him the lines are good but David (the actor's real name) is a bad actor. In another scene Harvey meets an Amazonian and says, "Aren't you a student in my university?" to which she answers, "No, I'm having to play two roles to cut costs". In yet another scene Harvey yells, "Cut! I'm not doing a scene with this woman. She scares me". The director tells him to shut up or he'll never get a role in another film. This was prophetic. This was David Rabius' first and last film.

What I don't like about the film is that there's no nudity. The whole film is about sex, and we see nothing? That sucks.

The only actor of note in the film is Michael Dorn, who appears as a bartender in a university bar. He must have been short of work between Star Trek episodes.

This isn't a good film, but it's good fun for what it is. Watch it once and have a laugh.

Place Beyond The Pines (2 Stars)

I've known about this film for a few years and had only heard good about it. After watching it today I don't understand why the critics unite in praising it. Rather than being a consistent narrative it rambles on from one story to another, changing the lead character in the style of a soap opera. For the first 90 minutes I had difficulty maintaining interest and almost turned it off. It was only in the last 45 minutes when Dane DeHaan's character was introduced that I began too enjoy the film.

The story is about a policeman who shoots a bank robber in the line of duty. He's plagued by guilt and leaves the police force to enter politics. 16 years later his son becomes friends with the son of the man he killed, not knowing about their connection.

The film takes place in three stages, like a play in three acts, with different characters who come and go:

1. The bank robber and his life.
2. The policeman and his moral struggles.
3. The policeman's son.

Maybe the film could have been made better, but I don't know how.

The seemingly random film title is the English translation of Schenectady, the name of the town in upstate New York where the film takes place.

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

Sorceress 2 (3 Stars)

This is a film that makes me sad. It's supposedly a sequel to "Sorceress", made two years earlier in 1995. I say supposedly because it's a completely different story with new characters. The only connection is that Julie Strain appears in both films. That isn't bad in itself, but what disappoints me most is that "Sorceress 2" uses footage copied from the first film. Why? For me that's the ultimate in bad filmmaking. When I first saw "Sorceress 2" I thought the opening scenes were a flashback to the first film. I could have accepted that. Then I realised that it was a new story using old footage, and I clenched my fists in rage. "So maybe Julie Strain wasn't available for this film", I assumed. That was another error. As the film progressed I saw Julie in newly filmed scenes, so why didn't she film a new scene for the beginning of the film? It's inconceivable.

The film has a plot typical for supernatural erotic thrillers. A witches' coven is ruled by three sisters who have lived for centuries by absorbing the life essence of men that they seduce. Now they want global domination by marketing cosmetics which will turn other women into witches. That's a ridiculous plot, but I could have swallowed it. What I don't like is that there's a man, Deacon John, who is controlling the witches. He seems irrelevant to the story. Couldn't the sisters just absorb him and carry on without him?

The film also stars Julie K. Smith as one of the three sisters. Usually, seeing the two Julies together in a film would be a guarantee for quality, but not this time. At the end a third film is announced, "Sorceress 3: The Sweet Spell of Success". It was never made. I'm glad.

I bought this film on DVD in 2005. It's now out of print. "Sorceress" has been remastered for Blu-ray. Don't expect to see a new release of "Sorceress 2" any time soon.

Drive (4 Stars)

After watching "Neon Demon" last week I decided to watch a few more films directed by Nicolas Winding Refn. Luckily several of them are available on Netflix. I'm beginning to get a feeling for his style now. He and his films have never been nominated for Academy Awards, but he's a favourite at independent film festivals, most notably at the Cannes Film Festival. His two most highly praised films so far have been "Neon Demon" and "Drive".

First of all I'll state my biggest criticism of "Drive": it's too short. The plot is complex, so 100 minutes isn't enough. A running time of 150 minutes would have done more justice to the subplots, as well as further developing the characters. Is there a director's cut lying in a draw somewhere?

Ryan Gosling is the film's unnamed hero. He's moved to Los Angeles to make it big, like so many other anonymous faces in and around the film industry. His job of choice is as a stunt driver. Nobody can crash a car like him. Aren't stunt men the most anonymous of all film stars? They're paid to remain unseen.

His relative success in Hollywood isn't enough to pay the bills. He works as a car mechanic. He also does freelance work as a getaway driver for robberies. It's all very impersonal. He doesn't want to make friends, he just does his job. He doesn't even speak to the crooks that he drives to and from crime scenes. They respect him for his driving skills, not for his personality.

He becomes romantically attached to his neighbour, a woman whose husband is in prison. It's a very underplayed romance. He's a decent man and respects the woman's marriage. When the husband is released from prison they make friends, and he offers to help him pay off debts to other criminals. He offers his services as a getaway driver to rob a pawn shop, but the robbery turns out wrong. Instead of the relatively small takings the Italian mafia is using the shop to store over a million dollars. The innocent driver gets caught up in a mob war in which he's the designated scapegoat. Or is he so innocent? That isn't clear. He might be a quiet person whose casual attitude makes other people think he doesn't know what he's doing, but he's more than able to handle himself in a fight.

The film is characterised by two features: bright colours and extreme violence. The style is very much like Quentin Tarantino's films, or at least it would be if there were more conversations. That's why "Drive" needs an extra 50 minutes. And, of course, Tarantino's films don't have such dazzling colours.

I can't help feeling that Nicolas Winding Refn is still slowly developing his style. His big masterpiece is yet to come. I can hardly wait.

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

Tomb Raider (2018) (4 Stars)

The rebooting of the Tomb Raider film franchise puzzled me. Didn't the original films, made in 2001 and 2003, say it all? From my vague remembrance of the films they were action-filled adventures, good fun to watch once but with no outstanding qualities. They were both moderately successful at the box office, and they were the breakthrough films for Angelina Jolie. I would have been happy if a third film had been made in 2005, but instead of that we've waited another 13 years, and now we have a new actress stepping into the shoes of the adventurer Lara Croft.

A review on the BBC's web site says that putting the 2001 and the 2018 films together is like comparing a Terminator with Postman Pat. That's amusing, but it's obvious what's meant. In 2001 the film began with Lara Croft already at the peak of her fighting powers. She was a virtually indestructible killing machine, every bit as powerful as the character in the video games on whom she was based. The 2018 film shows Lara earlier in her development, so it could be called a prequel. She isn't given her iconic twin guns until the final scene, which is when she first begins to look like Lara Croft.

There have been some complaints about the casting of Alicia Vikander from video game fans who say that she's too flat-chested to play the role. Other fans have answered that the character is more flat-chested in the recent video games. I've never played any of the games, so I've had to rely on fan pages that show comparisons of her appearance over the years. It seems to me that she started in 1996 with large breasts, her breasts were shrunk in the mid 2000's, but since then they've been growing again. Her breasts looked larger in the early games because her waist was unnaturally narrow, but that has been corrected over the last few years.

My opinion is that Alicia Vikander is slightly too flat-chested, but she's acceptable as the character. It's nothing that a good push-up bra can't put right in the next film.

Having said that, Alicia Vikander is an excellent actress, and she fills the role well. I don't know how old she's supposed to be in the film, I'd guess 22 or 23, but she's made up to look very young. In most of the early scenes she looks 18 at the most.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Walton Goggins appear as the film's main villain. He's an underrated actor that not many film fans know. I hope this film will boost his popularity. He has the skill to go a lot further in his career.

I feel tempted to watch the original Tomb Raider films again for the sake of comparison. Maybe.

The Paperboy (5 Stars)

In 1994 the Canadian horror film "The Paperboy" was made. In 2018, 24 years later, it still hasn't been released in England, America or even Canada. If you were lucky you might have been able to buy a copy of the Australian DVD release ten years ago, but it's now out of print.

Despite its practical non-existence, if you search online you'll find a lot of reviews. It's an insider tip for fans of horror films. They recognise its quality and speak about it in hushed tones. One of the film's most vocal advocates has been Joe Bob Briggs. When he presented it on Monstervision he called "The Paperboy" the most underrated horror film ever. His recommendation is enough to make anyone sit up and pay attention.

Today I watched "The Paperboy" with my son Benjamin, who's visiting me for a few days. He loved it, of course. He has good taste in films, and if anything he's easier to please than I am. He says of almost every film that he watches with me, "Will you give it five stars?" In this case the answer is a clear Yes. It's is in the list of my 50 favourite films.

What I like about the film is that I can relate to the main character, 12-year-old Johnny McFarley. I've never killed anyone, neither when I was 12 nor when I was older, but I can see myself in him. Maybe if I'd been tipped by tragedies in my life I could have turned out like him. There's a madness in him that I can see in myself. He wants a family. He wants to be loved. He's frustrated that his good deeds are misinterpreted by others. He lusts for his 16-year-old neighbour Brenda – as I also used to lust for older girls who were out of my league – but when she rejects him his feelings turn to hate. That's a step that I never took in my youth, because my intellect and my moral standards protected me, but how close was I to following a path of evil? I don't know. Probably a lot closer than I think.

Or maybe that's just the quality of the film. Maybe it's not just me. Maybe it would speak to the heart of any man who remembers what it was like to be young and confused, too hormonally imbalanced to make the right choices in life.

This is a film that I can recommend to anyone and everyone. I hope that it will eventually be remastered for Blu-ray. It deserves it.

The Mummy Returns (4½ Stars)

After watching "The Mummy" earlier today I had to watch the sequel as quickly as possible. It was made two years later in 2001, but the film's story takes place nine years later. Rick O'Connell and Evelyn Carnahan met in the first film; now they're married and have a precocious young son who's inherited his mother's intelligence and his father's reckless lust for adventure.

The back story is fleshed out in the sequel. In the first film the Mummy Imhotep mistook Evelyn for his lover Anck-Su-Namun, but now we find out that she's really a reincarnation of Nefertiri, Anck-Su-Namun's slave. That's an easy mistake to make. After 3000 years in the grave you can get people mixed up.

This is a very good film, but not quite up to the standard of the original. One of its weaknesses is in the use of CGI. In the first film the computer effects were used discreetly to add awe to the film whenever needed. In the sequel the computer effects are over-used and dominate the imagery.

I recommend the film strongly, especially if you're able to buy the trilogy as a box set in America and England.

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

The Mummy [1999] (5 Stars)

The last time I watched the 1999 version of "The Mummy" I said that it was "a great film that I should watch more often".  That was five years ago. I don't know why I've waited so long. There's no logical reason. After watching it today my first thought was "Wow! I should watch this again as soon as possible!" Some films are just perfect. By "some" I mean very few. "The Mummy" has everything in perfect proportions: action, suspense, humour and romance. Compare it with the 2017 version, which isn't bad in itself, but it isn't that special either. I can't remember why I gave it four stars. There must have been something I liked about it when I watched it, but whatever it was I've forgotten it now. It just wasn't memorable.

If you live in America or England you can buy the trilogy of Brendan Fraser's mummy films on Blu-ray for a very cheap price. Click the links below. In Germany it's cheaper to buy the films individually.

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

Ip Man 3 (5 Stars)

Here's a photo of Mike Tyson and Donnie Yen at the American premiere of "Ip Man 3" in Los Angeles, four weeks after I saw it in Birmingham. Donnie Yen might be a magnificent actor and an incredible martial arts fighter, but dress sense isn't his skill. Doesn't he at least have a wife who can tell him that neon green suits aren't in fashion?

In my opinion this was the best film of 2015, despite being slightly weaker than the two previous films. The filming for "Ip Man 4" began this month. I can hardly wait!

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

The Neon Demon (4 Stars)

Jesse is a 16-year-old girl who moves from Georgia to Los Angeles to become a model. On arriving she meets a photographer called Dean who takes her first photos. She uses these pictures to present herself to a modelling agent, who immediately recognises she has talent.

The modelling business is hard and merciless. As Jesse quickly rises to the top the other models ask her who she's been sleeping with to get so far. They don't believe that it's possible to become a top model without sleeping around. Jesse is naive and hardly believes what's happening to her. She's like a deer caught in the headlights, as her new best friend Ruby tells her. Ruby says that she's a makeup artist, but she doesn't admit that she does makeup for corpses to prepare them for burial.

The lights are bright, the music is loud, and Jesse's virginal innocence prevents her from seeing the dangers of the new world she's entered.

The Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn has a psychedelic style which is unique today. He has more similarity with 1970's directors like Robert Fuest. There's a distinct similarity with the colour contrasts of Stanley Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange". The clash between the superficial beauty and the depths of the horror beneath the surface is staggering. After watching "Neon Demon" you have to rub your eyes and ask yourself if you really saw what just happened. This isn't a film for everyone, but it's a film for viewers who like to be shocked.

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

The Homesman (4 Star)

This is the second time I've watched this film. It's difficult for me to give a clear judgement. It starts off perfectly. We see a strong, independent woman. She's willing and able to do things the men around her are too weak and too lazy to do. In the harsh environment of Nebraska in the mid 1850's she could ride and shoot better than anyone else.

If the film had continued like this I wouldn't have hesitated to give it a five star rating. But then she fell apart. She experienced one small setback, and she gave up. What was the author of the novel that formed the basis for the film trying to say? "Women can achieve a lot, but they can only go so far before men have to take over"?

Nevertheless, the film has a lot in its favour. The stark beauty of the environment stands out even more in contrast to the poverty of the town's inhabitants. This is an honest portrayal of life in the frontier towns, less glamorous that what's shown in traditional westerns.

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

Eugenie (1970) (3 Stars)

This is a loose adaptation of Marquis de Sade's "Philosophy in the Bedroom", filmed by Jess Franco in 1970. Curiously, he adapted the same story again in 1980. It would be interesting to compare the two films.

Eugenie is the 15-year-old daughter of a rich businessman who lives in Spain. Her father is having an affair with a Spanish noblewoman, Marianne de Saint-Ange. Marianne tells him that beautiful woman always come with a high price. When he asks her why a woman as wealthy as her needs more money she says that she doesn't want his money, she wants his daughter. The man gives his daughter permission to stay on Marianne's private island for a week during her school holidays.

Marianne and her brother Mirval live together in an incestuous relationship. They're also members of a secret society that practises extreme sado-masochistic practises. How extreme? They believe that the ultimate in sexual pleasure can only be reached at the moment of death. The elegant gentleman Dolmancé, played by Christopher Lee, is the leader of the society. He presides over wild orgies that frequently end with women being killed.

Marianne's intention is to educate, corrupt and destroy Eugenie. On the first evening Eugenie loses her virginity when she's raped by Mirval. On the second evening she's whipped and tortured by members of the society. On the third evening she's encouraged to commit murder.

The film left me shell-shocked. It's so lacking in morality, it's as if it takes place in a world where morals don't exist. Why was a film like this made? What inspired Marquis de Sade to write the book? It's as if the author and the film director wanted to shock the public just for the sake of it.

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

Der Hauptmann (4½ Stars)

Robert Schwentke is a German director, born in Stuttgart, who has had some success in Hollywood with the films "RED", "Insurgent" and "Allegiant". Now he has returned to his roots by making a film in German, "Der Hauptmann" ("The Captain"). It's a work of love for him. He presented the film in Stuttgart today, and he told the audience that it's a film he's wanted to make for 10 years. When he first wanted to make it he didn't know if he could find financing for the project, and he didn't feel that he had the technical competence. After 10 years of education in the harsh world of the Hollywood film industry he finally felt able to make the film, together with his fellow Stuttgarter Frieder Schlaich as producer.

The film tells the true story of how 19-year-old Willi Herold became a notorious war criminal in the final weeks of World War Two. With the exception of the opening scene, which Robert Schwentke invented to make the character sympathetic to the audience, the story is told as accurately as possible, based on written accounts and eye witness reports. As Schwentke said, it's a story that nobody could have made up. It all sounds too absurd to be true.

The film takes place in north Germany in April 1945, behind the front lines in the battle between the Germans and the English. The area is full of German deserters, and even the faithful few soldiers who are separated from their units are accused of deserting. Willi Herold, a deserter himself, finds an abandoned car containing the uniform of an air force captain. He puts on the uniform, and he recruits random soldiers that he finds roaming in the area. He drives with them to a German prison camp, claiming to have been sent by Hitler to examine morale on the front. The prisoners are all German soldiers, mostly deserters, some of them guilty of other crimes like theft or rape. They're being held until they can be put on trial. Willi Herold claims the responsibility for creating order. He says that it's wrong for German criminals to enjoy better comfort than soldiers fighting on the front line, so he orders their execution.

After the camp is destroyed in an air raid Herold and his troops drive to the closest town. He finds that signs have been put up welcoming the English, so his first act is to execute the mayor. He sets up his headquarters in the town's hotel, where he puts everyone on trial who he considers unpatriotic. He called it a "Schnellgericht", a "fast court". People were brought before him and the charges were stated. If he considered them guilty they were shot and dragged out of the courtroom dead.

The main question I asked myself while watching the film was "Why did he do it?" This was the first question asked by an audience member after the film. Robert Schwentke said that he deliberately left this question unanswered. It was a time of mass confusion, and normal men did evil things. He wants the audience to ask themselves what they would have done in Willi Herold's place.

For myself, and I emphasise that this is only a personal interpretation, I see parallels with "Taxi Driver". Willi Herold wasn't a bad man in himself. He was a youngster who wanted to fight for his country, but it was too much for him. When the enemy came he fled for his life. That's what I would have done as well. That left him on the wrong side of the law. He was a criminal. That was an existential problem for him. He wanted to do good. The military uniform he found gave him an opportunity to put things right. He denied his past and claimed to be a good German soldier. He punished those who had done what he himself was guilty of. He crossed the line, doing evil in order to redeem himself.

This is a chilling war film. It's cold. It's brutal. It's realistic. It's like no World War Two film I've seen before.

Red Sparrow (4 Stars)

This is another example of a film that I saw in the cinema that wasn't what I expected. Maybe it was the trailer that led me astray, maybe it was the lead actress's background. I expected "Red Sparrow" to be an action thriller like "Atomic Blonde", but it was closer to "A Most Wanted Man".

Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence) is a successful Russian ballerina. After an accident on stage she's unable to continue with her career, and she's worried that she will no longer be able to support her sick mother. Her uncle Ivan  Egorov (Matthias Schoenaerts) suggests that she join the Russian secret service. She is trained as a "Sparrow", an organisation of young, sexy agents who are trained to seduce enemy agents. Despite being rebellious during her training, she's sent on a mission to seduce an American CIA agent, Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton), in Budapest. Russia knows that Nash is receiving information from a mole in the Russian government, and they want her to find out the name of the mole.

The mission doesn't run as smoothly as planned. The CIA knows that Dominika is a Russian agent and attempts to recruit her. She's torn between the two sides, since she doesn't fully trust either spy agency. All she's interested in is looking after herself and her mother.

There are only a few action sequences in the film. It's fascinating to see the way spy business is carried out as a matter of routine.

Dracula's Fiancée (3 Stars)

An infant girl is laid on the steps of a convent in Paris, the Order of the White Virgin. That sounds innocent enough in itself. It's something poor unmarried mothers have been doing for centuries, putting their children into God's hands. But this child is different. As she grows older she exerts an influence over the nuns of the order. They all live to serve her, preparing her for the day she will marry someone they know only as "the Master". It's as if this young woman, whom they call Isabelle, is the White Virgin that their order was created to serve.

Of course, the film's title gives away who the Master is. Dracula has been living in a parallel universe for years. He can only return to our world after marrying his designated bride, Isabelle. It's a rather complex ceremony which you won't find in any other vampire books or films. First three nuns have to be sacrificed. Then Isabelle has to be tied to a wooden beam in the water while the tide is coming in. A grandfather clock is placed on the beach which is the doorway for Dracula to enter our world and take his bride. Does that make sense to you? If not, you should be watching "The Little Mermaid" instead.

Despite the best efforts of an aged vampire hunter to stop the ceremony, Dracula arrives to take his bride, and they all live happily ever after.

This is the last vampire film made by Jean Rollin, five years after "Two Orphan Vampires". It's his most ambitious film, showing that he had more money at his disposal. There's an orchestral score, and there are dozens of extras, things missing from his previous films. For me as a fan of his whole body of work I don't find it necessary. One thing does disturb me, though. Large parts of the film take place at night. Darkness isn't Jean Rollin's style. His films thrive by the use of daylight and bright colours.

This film is currently out of print, but I've been informed that a remastered Blu-ray release is planned later this year. Even though I consider this to be Jean Rollin's weakest vampire film, I still feel tempted to buy it.

The Flu

Nothing is as bad as the flu.
Torture would be nice compared to this.

The other day I noticed that Arnold wasn't looking so good,
And the more I thought about it I realised I didn't feel so good myself,
So I went and got the thermometer
And I took my temperature,
Arnold doesn't like thermometers.
I couldn't believe it,
It was a hundred and five,
So we dragged ourselves to the doctor.
The doctor said we had something called Shanghai A,
It was awful.
And although it was a couple of weeks ago
I remember it as though it were yesterday.

I start to shiver
And then I sweat,
The room is spinning
and my bed is wet.
My head hurts so much
I can't think,
My lungs hurt so much
I can't breathe.

What is as bad as the flu? -- Nothing!
What would be nice compared to this? -- Torture!

We start to shiver
And then we sweat,
The room is spinning
and our bed is wet.

My head hurts so much
I can't think,
My lungs hurt so much
I can't breathe.

Drink lots of herb tea
and chicken soup,
Bundle your neck up,
Wear a hat.

These are a few things you can do,
Don't take a chance or you'll get the flu.

---

I haven't been writing many reviews in the last few days. I've decided to explain why not with a song by Karen Mantler. I haven't even been watching films at home. My head hurts too much to concentrate. I just spend all day in bed.

Before you say "Everyone gets the flu", let me tell you that this isn't a normal flu for me. It's the worst flu I've had in 28 years. It's easy for me to remember. In the late 1980's I often had severe flus that knocked me off my feet. My doctor told me that it was caused by my tonsils. He said my tonsils were "sucking germs into my body", but he didn't want to recommend my tonsils being removed, because he said that removing tonsils at older ages can cause complications. Eventually I became so sick in early 1990 that he said there was no alternative.

In May 1990 I had my tonsils removed. There were no complications. But this changed my life completely. Until then I was getting the flu five or six times a year for two weeks each. Now I hardly got the flu at all. Maybe twice a year, and it never lasted more than a day. I didn't go to the doctor or take medication, I just spent one day in bed and I was healthy again. I used to joke about my one-day-flus. That lasted for more than 20 years. I'd never been so healthy.

The last few years I've had a flu twice that lasted for three days. That might not seem bad, but for me it was awful. Still, three days in bed was bearable.

Now I've had my first real flu since 1990. It's been dragging on for almost three weeks. I kept thinking it was getting better, but after a good day I relapsed again. The last four days have been the worst. I've even decided to take flu medicine, which I haven't done for 28 years. It's awful.

I haven't watched any films at home for the last six days, but I've listened to this song by Karen Mantler. More than once. You can find it on YouTube, but her music is brilliant, so I advise you buy this CD, the second CD in the Arnold Trilogy.

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

Das Schweigende Klassenzimmer (4½ Stars)

I wasn't properly prepared for this film. I didn't realise it was a true story until the end when photos were shown of the real life characters on whom the film was based. To put it more exactly, the film is based on a book written by Dietrich Garstka, one of the children in the school class. It's possible that several of the children are still alive today, so it would be interesting to hear their opinion about the film.

The film's title means literally "The Silent Classroom", but its English name is "The Silent Revolution". It takes place in 1956 in Stalinstadt, East Germany. Two boys from the 12th class of a grammar school (the last class before school graduation) travel to West Berlin to go to the cinema. It was easier to travel then, because the Berlin Wall wasn't built until 1961. While there they see news reports about the Hungarian Uprising against the Russian occupation. Russia sent in its army, using tanks and soldiers to kill unarmed civilian protesters. Thousands of people were killed, mostly in the capital, Budapest.

Back in Stalinstadt, the boys persuade their fellow students to hold a two minute silence at the beginning of the school day. The teachers are confused and don't know what to do. The fairly moderate headmaster tries to keep the protest secret, but the history teacher, who was present for the protest, tells others about it. Soon members of the Secret Service (Stasi) arrive in the school, followed by a senior government minister. As if this weren't enough, secrets come out that the parents have been hiding from their children for years.

This is a tale of grim terror. It's hard to believe what Germans had to endure during the Russian occupation. Russian soldiers abused their power, beating up anyone who spoke out against them. It's painfully apparent how the German Stasi copied its style from the Gestapo. Despite the claims of being a free socialist state, East Germany had all the characteristics of a Fascist dictatorship. All other opinions were shouted down and suppressed.

Mulan [2009] (4½ Stars)

"There are no heroes on the battlefield. Everyone is either dead or crazy".

This film is based on the legend of Hua Mulan, a woman who became a Chinese general in the 5th Century. Opinions are divided on whether she really lived or not, but she's considered to be a Chinese heroine. Even the current Communist regime in China claims that she's "one of us", in a futile attempt to give themselves legitimacy in the minds of the Chinese people.

There have been frequent portrayals of Hua Mulan in films. Disney made animated films about her in 1998 and 2004. This film, "Mulan", made in 2009, keeps closer to the legends.

The Chinese dynasty of Northern Wei existed from 386 to 534 AD. It was constantly under attack from the Rouran tribes, descendants of the Mongols. Hua Mulan's father is conscripted into the Wei army, but she thinks he's too old to fight, so she takes his place, pretending to be a man. Her battle skills lead to her promotion to general, and she leads the Wei army for 12 years.

I've watched a few films recently about women pretending to be men, including "Pope Joan" and "Tohuwabohu Total". I have to ask the same question in every film: how could she get away with it? Look at the photo above. Does that look even vaguely like a man? Hua Mulan lived with 10,000 men for 12 years and nobody suspected a thing? What's wrong with them? Am I the only man who can tell the difference?

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

Winter's Bone (3 Stars)

This is a very ugly film, in its essence and its style. There's a lot of beautiful scenery, but that's only a backdrop for the utter poverty in rural Missouri. "Winter's Bone" was nominated for four Academy Awards, and I have to admit that the acting is impressive, but I have a bad taste in my mouth when I watch films like this.

17-year-old Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence) has to look after her younger brother and sister. Sonny is 12, Ashlee is 6. She also has to look after her mother who is mentally ill and unable to talk. What about her father? He's been gone for over a year, and he's not missed. He worked in the family business of manufacturing drugs, everything from marijuana to amphetamines and cocaine.

Ree finds out that her father was arrested for drug-related offences, but now he's skipped bail. The bail bondsman comes to tell Ree that her father used the family house as security for the bail, so if he doesn't appear in court for the trial the house will be taken away from them.

Ree visits her relatives to find out where her father is. Eventually they admit that they killed him because he snitched on them to get a lenient sentence. Now there's no hope of him appearing in court.

None of the people in the film are pleasant. Some are slightly better than the others, but they're all rotten to the core. Maybe Ree is the best of them, but even she has her faults. She teaches her 12-year-old brother how to shoot so he can defend himself. Or maybe some of my American readers don't consider that to be bad.

This is an example of my film ratings being subjective. My definition of a 3-star rating, as stated in my sidebar, is "Okay, matter of taste". If you like this film leave me a comment and tell me why you like it. You can even write a full review if you want to. But it's not the sort of film I like.

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

Black Panther (4½ Stars)

This is it. This is the film people have been raving about all year. Judging by its initial performance it could be the most successful film of the year.

It's a great film, though not the best in the ongoing Marvel Cinematic Universe series. I think that "Captain America: Civil War" was a better film. Nevertheless, I can understand its popularity. It's the right film at the right time. In recent films it's been claimed that Hollywood films aren't black enough, i.e. they don't have enough black actors. In "Black Panther" almost every actor is black. Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis stand out as notable exceptions.

It's also a very empowering film for black people. The fictional central African kingdom of Wakanda is presented as the technologically most advanced country on Earth.

The film impresses in the way it combines futuristic technology with African culture. The tribal dances and rituals are a realistic mixture of what's practised in other African countries. The only unrealistic element is the way that women have leading positions in Wakanda, but if Wakanda is an advanced country it's logical that it's developed beyond the patriarchal societies that surround it.

This is the last film before "Infinity War", the climax of all the MCU films so far. Judging by the trailer T'Challa, the Black Panther, will play an important part. Sadly, I don't expect that "Infinity War" will live up to the comics on which it's based. Too much has been swapped and changed. But I'll give it a chance. It will probably be as good as any film based on comics can be.

Biutiful (1 Star)

I don't like films about cancer. I don't like films about any sort of illness. Those are topics I can talk about, but I don't want to watch them for entertainment.

Galaxy Quest (4½ Stars)

It's difficult to write something about this film that can do it justice. Let me just describe the premise, so that if you belong to the 0.1% of the world's population who hasn't yet seen it you'll want to run out and buy it.

There was a highly successful television series called Galaxy Quest. After it was cancelled none of the actors had much success, so they remained known for their Galaxy Quest roles. After 18 years they're still travelling from one science fiction convention to another, wearing their old costumes and repeating their old catchphrases to adoring audiences full of sci-fi geeks. They're getting sick of it, but as has-beens it's the only way they can make any money. The only exception is Jason Nesmith, the former ship's captain and main star of the TV series. He loves the adulation of the fans at the conventions, which alienates him from his co-stars.

Then they're approached by four people who look like typical cosplayers, but they're beings from the planet Thermia. They've watched the television episodes, including the reruns, for the last 20 years. The Thermians don't have a concept of fiction being used as entertainment, so they think it was recordings of things that really happened. They've come to Earth to ask Jason and his crew to save their planet.

A plot like that might fall flat on its face in the wrong hands, but look who's in the film: Sigourney Weaver, Sam Rockwell and the late, great Alan Rickman!

The film is a parody of Star Trek. Maybe the word parody is too strong. There isn't a one-to-one relationship between Star Trek and the Galaxy Quest crew, apart from Jason Nesmith himself, who's easy to recognise. The others are composite characters who have traits of different characters from the original Star Trek series and The Next Generation.

Admittedly, you'll appreciate this film most if you're a Star Trek fan or are at least well acquainted with it, but I still think that anyone will enjoy the humour.

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