Invisible Man [2020] (4 Stars)

This is the third film in the Universal Studios rebooted horror franchise, which it calls the Dark Universe. The idea behind it is to make films about all of the classic characters from the 1930's and 1940's horror films, first individual films, then progressing to team up films. Hasn't Universal forgotten that the original team up films, like "House of Frankenstein" and "House of Dracula", were flops? As is often said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

The first two films in the Dark Universe were "Dracula Untold" (2014) and "The Mummy" (2017). Universal Studios has promised that one film will be released every year. Oops. They're doing their best. If they're trying to match the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, they're still years behind. "The Mummy" contained teasers for upcoming films about Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but "Invisible Man" can be considered a standalone film.

The new version goes in a completely different direction to the original version. The two films share some of the same names, such as Dr. Griffin, but they're so far apart that the new version can barely be called a remake.

The film follows a woman called Cecilia Kass, whose life is being controlled by her abusive husband Dr. Adrian Griffin. He's forcing her to live in a scientific compound against her will. Her only resort is to flee at night. She climbs over the wall, and she's picked up by her sister.

She goes to live with her friend James, a policeman. She suffers from paranoia, constantly fearing that Adrian will find her and take her back. She's happy when she reads a report that he's committed suicide in his lab, but her relief is short-lived. She has the feeling that somebody is in the house watching her, somebody that she can't see.

The film is very well made. The suspense is spine-tingling. After a slow start the energy increases in leaps and bounds. There are the (almost obligatory) plot twists towards the end, one of which I predicted. Unfortunately, some questions are left unanswered. That's deliberate, but I found it unsatisfying. Some areas are left vague, and while discussing the film afterwards with a member of the film group I realised that we had interpreted some things differently.

I'd like to watch it again, but not too soon. Maybe next year.

General: Everyone should blog

A few days ago I was in the Stuttgart city centre waiting for my train back home. There are large TV screens opposite the platforms to occupy the attention of people waiting. They display a variety of things, 30 seconds at a time, such as news headlines, adverts for new films, small puzzles and health tips. One of the tips that I saw stuck in my mind. It said that everyone should write for at least 10 minutes a day to keep his brain active. If you can't think of anything else, write a diary. The article called it "sport for the brain".

I agree. We all spend years learning how to write our mother tongue in school, but what happens when we leave school? The fewest of us carry on writing in our careers. Even those of us who go to university don't write much afterwards. When I worked as a software developer, most of my colleagues complained about having to write documentation for their programs. They were skilled at writing computer programs, but they had problems writing texts in German describing their programs.

It's not enough to send short, often misspelt sentences with your smartphone. Even social media posts aren't enough. To maintain active control of your language and keep your brain fit, you need to write small essays. There has to be a beginning, a middle and an end. The 10 minutes a day guideline is the same as with jogging. At first it's a chore, and you keep looking at your watch to see when the time is up. After a while you begin to enjoy it, and before you realise it you've sat writing for 20 minutes, 30 minutes or a whole hour.

If you want to buy a notebook and sit at home writing every evening, why not? That would be enough to keep your brain fit. But why leave it at that? Why don't you set up a blog and write your thoughts online? Don't worry about whether other people are interested in what you have to say. If you sit writing at home nobody will ever read your words, so if you write online and only one person in the world reads your blog, it's an increase.

What you write about is up to you. Maybe you have a hobby you want to rant about. Maybe you want to write about your dog, your grandchildren or your home town. If you can't think of anything else, write about yourself. Just write! Everything is good.

There are two free alternatives for blogging: WordPress and Blogger (Blogspot). I use the latter, and I'm convinced that it's the best choice, but I shan't go into the reasons now. Just trust me. Blogger, a Google product, is easy to set up. You'll be wooed with the possibilities of making money, but don't worry about that. Remember, you're writing to keep your brain fit, not as a source of additional income.

Maybe you'll pick a simple blog layout like mine. Maybe you'll pick something fancy and artistic. Blogger offers lots of standard layouts that you can change later. Just write. I recommend that you put at least one picture at the beginning of each post, to break up the monotony, but it's all about the writing.

Blogging isn't an alternative form of social media. It's something superior. When you post something in Facebook you're talking to your friends. When you write in your blog you're talking to the world.

If you're too busy to write anything for a while, don't worry. You can start again at any time. Your blog is there to continue writing, just like a notebook lying on your bedside table.

Maybe you'll change over time and want to distance yourself from your old posts. Don't delete your old posts. They're part of your history. Create a new blog, if you must, but I recommend against it. If I'd been blogging 30 years ago, I might have written things that I no longer agree with. There's no shame in changing your mind. It protocols your development as a human being.

Recommend other blogs. Add links to blogs that you like or blogs written by your friends. If this post of mine inspires you to begin writing a blog, as I hope it will, please add a link to my blog.

Just write!

You won't regret it.

Wine: Besigheimer Felsengarten Riesling Kastellan

Some of my readers might be wondering why I've stopped writing posts about wine. Is it because I've stopped drinking wine? Of course not! The opposite is the case. I still enjoy drinking wine on a regular basis. However, for me drinking wine is more important than reviewing wine. What I mean is, I don't sample wines at random just so that I can write reviews. I buy the wines that I know I'll enjoy, which are usually wines I've drunk in the past. If I've already reviewed a wine, it's unlikely I'll have something new to write about it a second time.

I'm happy with the Eberbach-Schäfer wines which I've reviewed in the past. They're good wines, and they're convenient. They're sold in a shop close to where I live.

A few years ago I liked to drink the wines of the Besigheimer Felsengarten vineyard. They were sold in a small shop in my village that closed 18 months ago. I would still drink the wines if the shop hadn't closed. A few days ago I saw some of their wines in a supermarket in a neighbouring town, so I grabbed a bottle.

This wine is made from grapes unique to this vineyard. I haven't been able to find a description of what makes the Kastellan grapes different to the standard Riesling grapes. All I can say is that the wine has a more powerful taste, somehow gritty, but in a pleasant way. Besigheimer Felsengarten also makes wine from normal Riesling grapes. It would be interesting to compare the two.

"Aromas of pineapple, peach and honey melon. Elegant, exciting, spicy, delicate".

I wonder who writes those descriptions. It must be a full time job.

Typeface: Brush Script

So far I've been making posts about typefaces used for writing normal texts. However, there's another important category of typefaces: decorative typefaces. It's more accurate to talk about decorative fonts, because in most cases there's only one version, not a whole family. Decorative fonts are used for advertising purposes, on posters or banners, not for longer texts.

Brush Script is a font that imitates writing with a thick brush, rather than a normal ink pen. It's a cursive font, in which the small letters link with one another. It was designed in 1942, and it became so popular that within a few years it was overused. Nowadays it looks nostalgic. There's a car repair garage near where I live, and the use of this font on its nameplate immediately makes the business look old-fashioned.

It's a visually appealing font, but as you can see in the character table, there's a break between the small letters W and X.

This example shows that the fault lies with the X. The small X is a design error. To create a link the upper left serif could have been extended, as in the small J, or a small serif could have been added to the bottom left corner. I prefer the former solution.

This is a font I use frequently, but only for one text. I use it for my digital signature when I write a letter. I always write my signature in double the size of the text, i.e. if I write a letter in 12 point Century Schoolbook, I sign my name in 24 point Brush Script. That's something I can recommend to anyone who doesn't have an X in his name.

The Witches of Breastwick 2 (3½ Stars)

Yesterday evening I heard the news about the death of Nikki Fritz, after a long battle with cancer. In order to remember her I pulled a DVD off my shelf with her name in the credits. In retrospect, this wasn't a good choice. Nikki Fritz appears in the film in a non-speaking role for only a minute, little more than a cameo.

This film has almost nothing to do with "The Witches of Breastwick", so the two films can be watched in either order. As much as I respect Jim Wynorski, I have to say that he was cashing in on the success of the first film, and he made a poor quality rip-off of his own work.

The similarities are that a man dreams about three witches, and then he meets the witches in real life. The house where the witches live is the same in both films, but that's where the similarities end. It's a different trio of witches, played by different actresses. The witches in the first film are malevolent, but in the second film they're attempting to help the man who's dreaming about them. The biggest difference is that the first film has a well written story, while the second film is just an excuse for a string of sex scenes. Yes, I enjoy sex scenes, but I want a bit more.

David, played by Frankie Cullen, has repeated dreams about being tied to a pole while three scantily dressed women dance around him. No sex, just teasing. Then a woman in black appears, and he wakes up. He calls it a nightmare, but I don't understand why. The only thing bad about it is that he wakes up. It's a dream I'd gladly have repeated in my head every night, especially if the three dancing girls are Rebecca Love, Lexi Lamour and ex-WWE wrestler Tylene Buck. And the woman in black is Nikki Fritz, but she's fully clothed. See the screenshot at the beginning of this post.

David visits a therapist, who gives him an address to visit. The three women from his dream are waiting for him. They're good witches, and they tell him that an evil witch from another world wants to enter our reality by having sex with him. Poor David. The only way to save the world is for the good witches to have sex with him so often that he's too exhausted for the bad witch to use him.

Wow! As plots go, that's pure minimalism. This isn't a good film, nowhere near the quality of the first film, but I've given it a better-than-average rating because it features hot girls.

I don't have time to watch any more films today, but tomorrow I'll make sure I watch a film with Nikki Fritz in a significant role.

Typeface: Bitstream Charter

The typefaces that I have written about so far have long histories, some reaching back into the 19th Century. They were all intended to be used for printing books and newspapers, and they were later adapted for digital use. The typeface Charter, more commonly called Bitstream Charter, is a child of the digital age. Matthew Carter, the founder of Bitstream Inc, designed the typeface for use on the low resolution laser printers in use at the time. 300 dpi (dots per inch) was the standard resolution. Most serif fonts looked poor at any size below 12 points.

Charter is a very efficient, no-nonsense font. There's only a slight difference in width between the thin and the thick strokes. The serifs are at right angles to the strokes, most of them rectangular, but the few that aren't rectangular (like the capital J) have only very slightly slanted sides. It's a font that can easily be used at 10 points on a 300 dpi laser printer.

The italic font is also attractive while retaining simplicity. My only complaint is the small Z, which seems out of character for the font. I would have preferred the upper and lower bars to be straight instead of curved. Instead of bulbs, the bars could have been terminated with small serifs, like the italic Y.

I've used a few terms in my posts so far, assuming they're easily understood, but maybe I should explain them here.

Font size is measured in points. There are 72 points to the inch, so 12 points is one sixth of an inch. This is a historical measurement from the days when fonts were made up of little metal blocks, so don't expect it to be changed any time soon. The point size of a font isn't the maximum height. It's the height of the capital M. This has led to the point size being referred to as the M-height. In modern literature it's more commonly called the cap height, but that's deceptive, because in some fonts the capital letters vary in height. The capital M is every font's guideline.

Another important measure is the x-height, which describes the height of the small letters, based on the small letter X. It's often said that a font has a small x-height or a large x-height. This is in comparison to the M-height.

In this example, Charter (left) has a large x-height, while Cheltenham (right) has a small x-height. Don't worry, I'll describe Cheltenham in more detail in a future post.

Some of the small letters have strokes that are higher or lower than the letter X. The strokes that rise above the X are called ascenders, and the strokes that fall below the X are called descenders. Q is usually the only capital letter with a descender.

The only small letter that has both an ascender and a descender is the italic F, making it the largest small letter.

The dots on the letters I and J, as well as the German special letters, are almost as high as the ascenders.

In the English language no capital letters rise above M, but the German special letters have dots above the top of the M.

Compare the word Milk in Charter (above) and Century Schoolbook (below). In the case of Charter, the dot is on a level with the top of the M, whereas the serifs of the L and K begin above it, making the complete height of the small letters more than the capital M. In contrast, in the case of Century Schoolbook the dot is below the top of the M, and the serifs begin on a level with the top of the M, rising gently above it towards the right. It's common for the ascenders to rise above the M-height, usually only slightly. Fonts in which the ascenders rise significantly above the M-height look eccentric.

Instead of a bold font, Matthew Carter designed a black font as a companion to the regular Charter font. It offers a bigger contrast than usual to the regular font. This was also necessary for low resolution laser printers, to be significantly different from the regular font. It emphasises the difference between the light and the heavy strokes, which can barely be noticed in the regular font.

A few years later a normal bold font was designed for the Charter typeface. It's a good font, but I personally prefer the black font.

In order, this table shows Charter Regular, Charter Bold and Charter Black. Charter Black has a bigger contrast than Charter Bold.

This is even clearer when emboldening individual words in a sentence. Charter Black looks better, don't you agree?

Bitstream Charter is my favourite typeface. Maybe it isn't as friendly as Century Schoolbook, but it has a minimalistic beauty that appeals to me.

Take Me High (4½ Stars)

Finally, after all these years, "Take Me High" has been remastered and released on Blu-ray. It wasn't even available on DVD until now, apart from a free DVD given away with the Daily Mail in 2012. It's a film I have a sentimental attachment to. I went to see it in the cinema with my girlfriend Jennifer – I've forgotten her last name – who was the most special of the many girlfriends that I had as a teenager. It was a summer love. I was in my second year of university, she was in her last year of school, and we were together every day in the summer holidays. Looking back, it's obvious to me now that she was messed up. But then again, I've always been drawn to messed up women.

I'm also sentimentally attached to the film because it shows Birmingham the way it looked when I went to university. It was filmed in 1973, but it probably looks familiar to younger people, because it remained this way until the 1990's.

In the photo above, Cliff Richard is walking along Gas Street. The Brasshouse is easily recognisable behind him. It's one of the few old buildings on Broad Street that's still standing.

This screenshot on the corner of Gas Street confuses me. Was there a church next door to the Brasshouse? It must have stood on top of the bridge.

This screenshot shows the top of the church.

This is the same street corner in March 2019, courtesy of Google Maps. The car dealership has been replaced by the O Bar. It's interesting to see that the restaurant Bar-Jee still has the same windows as in 1973.

The bridge under Broad Street in 1973.

The bridge under Broad Street in June 2018. It hasn't changed much. Just a few new buldings on the right.

I don't recognise this street. Can anyone help me? Where's Carl Chinn when I need him?

How many of you remember when cars drove past the Council House?

And past the Town Hall?

And along New Street?

That's Corporation Street, before the tram lines were laid.

Cliff Richard waves to his fans on the corner of New Street and Corporation Street, accompanied by the delightful Deborah Watling.

This picture confuses me. It looks like Corporation Street, but I thought Windsor Arcade connected the North Western Arcade with Bull Street. It's not easy to place some locations, because in the parade scene the images keep jumping from New Street to Corporation Street and back again.

I hope my Birmingham friends will leave comments on this post.

Typeface: Century Schoolbook

After featuring typefaces included with Microsoft Windows in my first three posts, I'm now turning to typefaces whose fonts were released by Bitstream Inc. Bitstream no longer exists as a company, because it was bought by its rival Monotype Inc in 2012, but its fonts have a lasting legacy due to their free distribution with Corel Draw and Word Perfect Office in the 1990's and 2000's. During their existence Bitstream created 1070 fonts, of which 818 were included with Word Perfect Office 2000. The Bitstream fonts are now being sold by Monotype for horrendous prices. For instance, if you bought the four fonts that I feature in this post, they would cost more than $150. If you are interested in legally acquiring Bitstream fonts, I advise that you look for an old copy of Word Perfect Office 2000 on Ebay, which should cost less than $30.

Century is the name of a typeface that was first developed in 1894. It rapidly gained in popularity, and many variant versions were created over the following years. Century Schoolbook was developed in 1919 for use in school textbooks. Logically. Despite not being well known online, it's still a typeface widely used by printers. I personally use it as my standard typeface when writing letters to friends. (I use Charter when writing letters to companies). It's a friendly, legible typeface, which is why it's so popular for early readers. It's not as economic as Times New Roman, which was developed for the tight constraints of newspaper print.

Compare the difference between Century Schoolbook (above) and Times New Roman (below). Century Schoolbook is made larger by longer horizontal strokes, larger serifs and thicker strokes in both axes.

The font that I use for my blog's title is Century Schoolbook Bold Italic. I've been using it since 2010, and I see no reason to change it now. A few years ago I considered Korinna Bold as an alternative, but after experimenting I couldn't produce pleasing results. I accidentally chipped off a piece of the bottom left serif of the first F, but I've grown so used to it that I wouldn't change it.

I consider the regular Century Schoolbook font to be an object of great beauty. Look at the large, almost triangular serifs on the capital letters E, F, L, T and Z. Especially the T. These serifs form a beautiful contrast with the horizontal, almost rectangular serifs used on most of the capital letters. The letters Q and R have a beautiful flourish, which seems almost playful in the case of the R. The capital J is extravagantly stretched, making it much wider than its equivalent in other fonts.

Look at the bulbs at the end of the small letters A, C and R, as well as the ascenders and descenders of the small letters F, J and Y. They're connected by strokes that form a loop, emphasising the bulbs.

The capital letters of the italic font are tilted versions of the regular font, but the small letters are beautifully redesigned, many with added flourishes. The small F has a surprisingly modest descender. The small Z is whimsical in nature.

The regular font of Century Schoolbook has a relatively small difference between the light and the bold strokes. In the bold font the difference is emphasised. This gives the bold font a more aggressive character than the regular font, which I'm sure was intended.

The bold italic font of Century Schoolbook is a perfect headline font, especially the capital letters. The aggressiveness of the bold font is tempered by being made italic.

I like Times New Roman, but Century Schoolbook is far more beautiful. Place the character tables side by side and you'll see what I mean. It's true that its full beauty is subliminal when used at small sizes, but that's true of all typefaces; a good typeface excels if it positively influences the reader without him noticing.

Guilty of Romance [extended version] (5 Stars)

Love. Sex. Money. Death.

They are all words.

Do the words have meaning?

Without experiences they have no meaning. But even after making experiences their meaning is questionable. They're just constructs in the language games that we play.

If we had never learnt the words, could we have made the experiences?

Words bring pain. Words bring regret.

We have to cry to understand what tears are.

This is the third time I've watched "Guilty of Romance", but it's only the first time I've watched the extended version. From what I understand, it's not correct to call it a "director's cut". The extended version is the film as it was shown in Japanese cinemas. The short version is what was released internationally. I think it's right to watch the short version first. The extended version has an extra 30 minutes, mostly the back story of the detective who is working the murder case. It's not just a back story; in the extended version the detective is the main character around whom the story is wrapped. In the short version she's relatively insignificant.

The short version is more about words. And love. And sex. And money. And death.

But the extended version does have a significant scene where the detective sees that all women around her are unhappy. Is it because they've learned words?

I need to watch the two versions back to back to be able to compare them.

I didn't realise until today just how philosophically deep this film is. I should have known before now. It's all laid out on the surface, but I was distracted by the sleazy sex and violence. The extended version actually has even more scenes that I find distasteful, but I managed to see through them to the deeper meaning.

Is Izumi beautiful?

Of course she's beautiful. Why does she have to look in a mirror to convince herself? It's ironic that the most beautiful women are the ones who are the most insecure about their bodies. It must be the fault of the men who don't accept them the way they are.

This is the third film in Sion Sono's Hate Trilogy. It's not obvious until late in the film who the characters are. Mitsuko (left) is the Hater; Izumi (right) is the Innocent. Until now I've considered it the weakest film in the trilogy, but after beginning to understand it I rate it just as highly. It's a film that needs to be watched several times to be fully appreciated.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.de