SIN CITY: A DAME TO DIE FOR

US, 2014, 102 minutes, Colour.
Mickey Rourke, Jessica Alba, Josh Brolin, Joseph Gordon- Levitt, Rosario Dawson, Bruce Willis, Eva Green, Powers Boothe, Dennis Haysbert, Ray Liotta, Christopher Meloni, Jeremy Piven, Christopher Lloyd, Jaime King, Juno Temple, Stacy Keech, Marton Csokas, Jude Cicolella, Jamie Chung, Julia Garner, Lady Gaga, Alexa Vega.
Directed by Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller.

In 2005, Robert Rodriguez’s strikingly visual film of Frank Miller graphic novels, Sin City, was received with some acclaim. It brought graphic novels vividly life, sometimes to ultra-graphic life, playing with black-and-white photography with unexpected splashes of colour, sinister locations, heavy on black, a range of characters whose facial features were those from comic strips rather than of realism. Visually, Sin City was most impressive.

However, considering the contents of the stories as well as the violence and frequent brutality of the action, Sin City, for many, was something of a depressing experience. Sin City was ugly, a highly amoral world, a world of violent vengeance.

Nine years later, here is a sequel.

The line-up for the cast of the original film was most impressive, many fine actors turning up in all kinds of situations. Several of the characters have returned and some of the original cast have returned, particularly Jessica Alba as Nancy, Mickey Rourke (heavily made up to look more than a touch monstrous) as Marv. But now Clive Owen has been replaced by Josh Brolin, Rosario Dawson as Gail, Powers Boothe as the sinister Senator Roark And Bruce Willis reappears as a ghostly presence.

We are introduced to the tone, style and look of the film with the prologue featuring Marv, his amnesia, his effectiveness with a gun. Then there are three stories.

The first one is quite interesting with Joseph Gordon- Levitt as a cocky young man who assumes that he can have success, as he says, with casinos and women. Off he goes to a casino, meets up with one of the girls there, Marci, and is successful at the slot machines. Off he goes, even more cockily, to play poker with Senator Roark and his odd associates. The young man can shuffle, cut, deal with dexterity – and can also win, to the humiliation of the Senator who does not take this lightly. And wreaks some brutal revenge. Stop! There is a 30 minute or so intermission in this story while we go on to another.

The second story introduces the character of Dwight, this time played by Josh Brolin, photographing a rendezvous between Ray Liotta and Juno Temple to get photos for Liotta’s wife. But, Liotta is more loathsome that we originally think and Dwight descends from the skylight to defend the rather avaricious young woman. Dwight is then contacted by Ava (Eva Green) who might seem to be a dame to die for but, of course, she is a much more ruthless, glamorous and seductive, femme fatale. She wants to use Dwight for her own purposes, wants to get rid of her husband (Marton Csokas), team up with an industrialist (Stacy Keach), while relying on the absolute loyalty and devotion of her chauffeur (Dennis Haysbert, substituting for the late Michael Clarke Duncan). Then she wants to get rid of Dwight, but he returns, with two sexy martial arts assistants and they wreak havoc on the security guards, the chauffeur and Ava.

Then it’s time to return to Jojnny’s story, his getting his fingers and wounds fixed by an eccentric Christopher Lloyd, and back to the slot machines, the Senator’s game, to confront and humiliate him again. Not something he takes lying down.

The third story concerns Nancy, from the original film (Jessica Alba), a dancer in a sleazy bar who wants to kill the Senator because of his causing the death of Hartigan. This means that Bruce Willis can only be present as a ghost, influencing Nancy, appearing just in time for her advantage against the Senator. She is helped by Marv as they ride by bike to the Senator’s mansion, get rid of all his security guards – often, as in the Dwight story, the film referred reverting to black-and-white animation which distances the audience while involving it in more massacre-like killings – and confront the Senator.

At the end, we see, from above, the skyline of Sin City, listening to some observations, which we already know quite vividly, of how evil it all is.

1. The graphic novels of Frank Miller? The contribution of Robert Rodriguez? The initial film, Sin City? Interests, graphic, plots, characters, visuals?

2. The visual style of the film, black-and-white photography, touches of colour? Framing of characters, sequences, action? Animation sequences? The effect on the audience, real/surreal?

3. The title, the dame to die for? Three stories and their connections? Sin City, Basin City? The visuals of the city, interiors, clubs, homes, the mansion, the highways, the countryside?

4. Robert Rodriguez, co-writing, co-directing, director of photography, editing, score?

5. The prologue, the focus on Marv, the character from the initial film? The visual appearance, Mickey Rourke inside the make up? His amnesia, the episode with the gun, the killings?

6. Johnnys story, his voice-over, confident young man, his appearance, his age, his comment about winning with casinos and women? His encounter with Marci? Going to the slot machines, his good luck, winning? The confrontation with the Senator, the other members of the game, the police official and his warnings to John? His abilities to cut, shuffle, deal? His winning, his being the Senator’s son, the Senator not owning him, in contrast with the son who was murdered by Hartigan? The condemnation of his mother as a whore? Walking the streets with Marci, the types and the attacks, the car, getting in, the Senator and his ugly attitudes, breaking the fingers, the shooting? The Senator and Marci’s hands and head? The lapse in time for the second story? And again, John seeking at the doctor, giving his shoes, the eccentricities of the doctor, the amount of healing for the amount paid? Fixing the fingers, the icy pole sticks? John going again to the game, winning, shopping and distributing with his left hand, his bluffs, the Senator shooting him? After the taunts about his public humiliation and everybody talking about it?

7. Dwight’s story, the voice-over, employed by Joey’s wife, photographing from the skylight, the sexual liaison, Joey and his decision to kill the girl, to go back to his wife and save his money? Dwight leaping down, fighting him, defeating, giving the girl a lift? The call from Ava? The four years absence, the purpose, the chauffeur and his tough attitudes, Ava, sexy, the swimming, the nudity? Her motivation, going to her husband, getting rid of him? The fat businessman and striking up a partnership with him? Her hold over the two police, their driving out, one killing the other and then killing himself? The explosion, Ava and the cuts on her face? The fight with the chauffeur, his losing an eye? Dwight’s return, disguise, his two associates, their martial arts, on the rooves of the building, sexy, killing the guards? The fight with the chauffeur, his death? And Ava?

8. Nancy, dancing at the bar, with the staff and the girls, her sitting in her room, contemplating the Senator as he played cards? Hartigan and his presence, ghostly, appearances, the past and the Senator’s son, his suicide, the newspaper headlines? Nancy and drinking, anger, feeling betrayed by Hartigan, the shooting practice, shooting from the stage? Cutting her hair, the wig? The plan? The friendship with Marv, his devotion to her, helping, the bike ride, the killing of the guards, the Senator in the mirror, her firing at the mirror? The distraction of Hartigan’s presence, her shooting the Senator?

9. The final comments on the bleakness of Sin City?

THE MAZE RUNNER

US, 2014, 113 minutes, Colour.
Dylan O' Brien, Aml Ameen, Ki Hong Lee, Blake Cooper, Thomas Brodie- Sangster, Will Poulter, Kaya Scodelario, Patricia Clarkson.
Directed by Wes Ball.

There have been so many Young Adult stories in recent years, from novels turned into films, which show dystopian societies, the revolt of young men and women, the power of the authorities and the need for rebellion, that these films form part of a now recognisable movie genre. The Maze Runner is an interesting addition to The Hunger Games series, the Divergent series, The Giver.

What it a group of older male teenagers found themselves in what seems the countryside, called the Glade, where they can’t remember anything about themselves except their names. They have managed to subsist, growing fruit and vegetables, no electricity, rough housing, and their having to get on well with one another, not knowing why they are there? And, surrounding the Glade is a very high wall, with an opening, into what they call the Maze. Some of them have been nominated as runners, going into the maze but having to get out before it closed its massive entry.

Some of them become ill, stung mysteriously, going into the maze to die.

At the opening of the film, a young man arrives, confused, Thomas, who immediately tries to run but is caught. He is given a tour of the Glade and finds that some of the group like him, especially Newt, an intelligent leader, and a chubby young boy, Chuck. On the other hand, there is the hostile Gally, who insists that the rules are the most important thing and that they can never get out of the Glade.

Thomas soon appears as a leader as well as critical of the group not trying to escape. At one stage, he rushes into the maze to save someone who has been stung. He encounters huge metallic monsters, called The Grievers. He and another runner, Minho, find a central metal core with a light in a Griever which may indicate a possibility for escape.

In the meantime, they are surprised when a young woman is sent up mysteriously from the elevator, knowing her name, weary, and then defensive against the males.

It must be acknowledged that the sequences of the young men in the maze and the pursuit by the Greivers is highly and adrenaline-pumping. And this is heightened when a group, as might be expected, try to escape through the maze.

There are intimations throughout the film, especially in Thomas’s dreams, where he sees laboratories and scientists going about their work. This is explained at the end – but not entirely because, as the mysterious Doctor announces before the final credits, they must move to the Phase.

The young cast is particularly strong, especially Dylan O’ Brien as the strong-minded and keen-witted Thomas. Young British actors who have appeared in a number of British films, Thomas Brodie- Sangster and Will Poulter, are particularly good as the sympathetic Newt and the obey-the-rules-at-all-cost Gally. Patricia Clarkson is also effective as the seemingly sympathetic doctor.

With the young people out of the maze, it will be interesting to see what happens in the Next Phase.

1. A Young Adult story, principally for male audiences? Dystopian societies? Post-apocalyptic societies?

2. The title, Thomas and his achievement, his leadership, leading the group out of the maze?

3. Thomas, the arrival, the elevator, the confusion, forgetting his name and his past, the reactions of the young men in the Glade, Thomas and his running, being caught? Alby, friendship, giving him the tour of the Glade? Gally and his animosity? Newt and his friendship?

4. The Glade, its look, the people at work, self-sufficient? Lamps and no electricity? Clothes? Rough accommodation? The food coming from the box and their growing it? One new member a month? The three years?

5. Thomas, his bewilderment, remembering his name, the dreams of the laboratories and his puzzle? People liking him, antagonism? Newt and his friendship and leadership, helping with the decisions? Three days of settling in?

6. The visuals of the maze, the elaborate sets, the movement, the monsters and their look, mobility, going into action, destructive and fighting?

7. The rules to be obeyed, Gally and his holding to the rules? Leadership? The nomination of the Runners? Minho and his leadership? Chuck, young, chubby, loyal to Thomas, helping?

8. Alby and Minho, in the maze, Ben and his being stung, deteriorating, going into the maze, expected to die? Alby and his being stung? Illness, carefully, his coming to consciousness?

9. Thomas going in, helping Alby, lifting him onto the wall? Minho and the attacks, fighting the monster, retrieving the central core? His taking Thomas to his reconstruction of the maze?

10. The arrival of Teresa, the surprise of a young woman arriving, the note and its saying she was the last? Her knowing her name? Going onto the tower, throwing the stones on the men in defence?

11. The picture of the monsters, their structures, their movement, destructive, the central core with the light on, the number, seven?

12. The attitudes towards Thomas going into the maze, his coming out, Gally saying he should be punished? His night in the cage, then his becoming an official runner, wanting to examine section 7? The monsters, opening up the doors, seeing the possibility of escape?

13. The maze and the visual changes, the attacks, people taken, destroyed? The small group, whether to take stands or not?

14. The group going with Thomas, the fights, the code, opening the exit?

15. The intimations in the dreams about the laboratories? The arriving in the labs, seeing the technicians dead, the video with the doctor explaining everything, her shooting herself, seeing the body? The message, the tests on the youngsters, for a post-apocalyptic world? Gally, getting out, the gun, his being killed, shooting Chuck, Chuck and the little statue for his parents, giving it to Thomas?

16. The board meeting, the doctor still alive, the explanation of the plan, the manipulation, the tests, the future?

17. The surviving children, going to the helicopter, the future – and the doctor talking about the Next Phase?

18. The contribution of this film to the growing number of dystopian stories from Young Adults, Hunger Games, Dive urgent, The Giver…?

WOMAN WANTED

US, 19, 110 minutes, colour..Colour.
Holly Hunter, Kiefer Sutherland, Michael Moriarty, Carrie Preston.
Directed by Kiefer Sutherland.

Woman Wanted is an interesting portrait of three very different characters. The film is based on a contemporary novel with the author, Joanna McClelland? Glass, writing the screenplay and having a supporting role.

Because of an advertisement in the paper, Emma, Holly Hunter at the best, comes to the household where a patriarchal father, Richard, Michael Moriarty excellent, lives in tension with his son, Wendell, Kiefer Sutherland who also directed the film.

She has an attractive personality, is good at her work, making the father and son comfortable, so much so that the father proposes. He is definitely of the old school and has a dark past concerning his wife, whom he has committed, and disappearing for two days after her death. This has all alienated his hypersensitive son who tries to write poetry, giving some examples to Emma and her taking things in hand and sending letters to publishers. He has been accepted.

Emma wants to have a child and things get complicated with her relationship with Richard and her spending a night with Wendell. She hopes that father and son will be more reconciled.

1. The contemporary story, but New England traditions? Academia, wealth, class?

2. The total, the advertisement, the woman from Richard, the woman for Wendell?

3. The provocative title? Emma in herself, her life, enthusiasm, work in the household, with Richard, the bond leading to love, the relationship, proposal? With Wendell, the interactions, his difficulties, sexual? Her desire to be pregnant?

4. In the home, the rules, relying on the traditions, expectations? Richard and his quiet life, research? The past, his wife, her illness, committed, his motives, his mistress even before his wife died? Her death and his disappearance to the mistress? Trying to cope? Wendell, his age, the tensions, growing up, reliance on his mother, his relationships, his woman friend, his poetry, moods, privacy, his room, seeing him and work with the answering service?

5. Emma, her age, her past life, her husband, the divorce, the world of the theatre, managing, an organised woman, arriving at the house, accepted for the job, the meals, cleaning and tidying? Sharing with Richard, his making her part of the family, evenings, the drink together, talking? His rules in the management? Wendell and his coping, his behaviour, meals, moods?

6. The maid coming in, not able to bend, cleaning windows, support to Wendell?

7. The neighbour, friendliness, and confiding in her, the religious dimension, support?

8. Wendell, the girlfriend, her arriving, the awkwardness, the relationship, the decision to go?

9. Wendell giving: is to Emma, and not showing them to Richard? The social, meeting the poets and editors, arranging for Wendell to sending problems, his waiting, nervousness, the letter, his being accepted?

10. Richard and his style, comfort, the proposal?

11. Wendell, his return, dependence on Emma, the sexual encounter?

12. Emma, her desire for a child, Richard and his anger, his apology? Wendell and his surprise? His decision to go? The way that Emma handled the situation with each of them?

13. Father and son, talks, the possibility of reconciliation, the new situation, the uncertainty as to who was the father, therefore responsibility?

14. Finally, Emma’s happiness with her child?

I’M SO EXCITED

Spain, 2013, 91 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Pedro Almodovar.

For many fans of the films of Pedro Almodovar, Spain’s leading director for more than a quarter of a century, with some great cinematic achievements, they might wish they were able to say with some conviction, ‘I’m so excited’. The characters in the film are over-excited, many of the audience much less so.

When Almodovar first began directing films in the 1980s, he had small budgets, but he had very good casts and plenty of imagination. In the post-Franco era, there was plenty of room for opening up dramas as well as humour, especially with satire. And that is what Almodovar did. Cheeky. He was cheeky. He was rude, capitalising on sending up sexual behaviour and attitudes and capitalising on his own gay sensibility.

With I’m So Excited, he seems to be returning to the style of 30 years earlier. For those who are happy to indulge in it, there will be plenty of enjoyment. For those who find the characters in the film overly over-excited, it becomes a bit tiresome, not as funny as all that.

He does start brightly, literally with all the pastel colours during the credits, then with cameo performances from Antonio Banderas and Penelope Cruz. Then they vanish from the film and we go aboard a flight to Mexico which, in the circumstances, has to circle around Spain and finally try to land at the La Mancha airport, something of a white elephant airport in the film as in real life.

It is important to say at this moment that many of the commentators have pointed out that the broad parody and satire is it the expense of Spanish society today, of the government, of people’s responses, of attitudes towards communication, towards crime, both financial and violent, about clairvoyants and drug dealers. Audiences who know Spain well and can make the connections will probably find that there is deeper comedy and meaning in the characters and events. Others might be at a loss and be surprised when such connections are made.

It is also a very gay film. The three male flight attendants are as camp as a row of tents. This is in their demeanor, their way of speaking, interests, relationships, the jokes with more than a touch of crassness at times, and the miming to the Pointer Sisters singing Cole porter’s ‘I’m so excited’. The two pilots are bisexual, leading to a lot of discussions about their relationships, a married man having to accept his preferences and the other being forced to acknowledge his preferences.

The stewards have drugged everybody in economy class as well as the flight attendants. Is this meant to portray Spanish society asleep and authorities keeping them asleep?

Then there are the half dozen passengers in first class who have not been drugged. One is a naive and over-eager clairvoyant, a middle-aged woman will who is anxious to lose her virginity, and achieves her ambition with an unconscious economy passenger. She has a sense of death around the plane and around one or other of the passengers. There it is the ageing film star who, it emerges, is really a madame and has made porn films. Next to her is a tall, dark handsome man to whom she’s attracted, only to find that there is more to his sinister character that she might have dreamed. There is a businessman who wants to contact his mistress who is being taken away to an institution and contacts another who relates to him what has happened and meets him at the airport when they land. There is another businessman, looking mightily suspicious, as well he might because of the reports of a bank going bust with the double dealings of this manager. Then there is a young couple, allegedly on a honeymoon, the groom keeping the woman unconscious by slipping her drugs throughout the flight.

Lots of goings on, lots of sexual behaviour, lots of jokes, but all at a very, one might say, superficial level, no matter what the satiric levels underneath. Perhaps this is Almodovar relaxing before he makes his next serious film.

1. The films of Pedro Almodovar? Comic, sardonic? Some allegories of Spanish society? The Hispanic world?

2. The title, the flight attendants, their singing the Pointer Sisters’ song? The economy passengers? First-class?

3. The airport, the plane, Antonio Banderas and Penelope Cruz and their jobs at the airport, not doing well, the danger with the wheel? Taking off, needing to land, circling, the final landing at the white elephant airport?

4. The stewards, the camp style, appearance, manner of talking, chat and gossip, sex interests, the bisexual pilot, the other pilot, the relationship with the steward, talk about the wife?

5. The passengers, the economy class, all drugged and unconscious? Meaning?

6. The first class passengers, caricatures or real?

7. The clairvoyant, middle-aged, her virginity, preoccupation with sex, premonition of death, the sex with the drugged man from economy class?

8. The financier, fraud, escaping, contact with his estranged daughter?

9. The alleged actress, really a dominatrix, her clients, sitting next to the charming man, the irony that he was a hitman with her as target?

10. The actor, his affairs, the phone calls, the mistress on the viaduct, suicidal, dropping the phone, the other lover catching it, talking with the actor, meeting him on landing?

11. The hitman, sitting next to the dominatrix, his target, yet falling in love?

12. The honeymoon couple, the husband and his drugged his wife, the sexual atmosphere?

13. The continued drinks, the mescalin, the talking, the confession, psychological striptease?

14. The landing, the empty airport? The film as an entertainment, a criticism, an allegory?

TIGER CRUISE

US, 2004, 88 minutes, Colour.
Hayden Panettiere, Bill Pullman, Troy Evans, Bianca Gibson, Nathaniel Lee Jr.
Directed by Duwayne Dunham.

Tiger Cruise is a Disney film of 2004, designed for the family, as well is something of a morale-booster and a plug for the Navy and sense of duty for American citizens.

The basic plot is quite simple, young relatives of personnel on a ship are invited annually to go for a cruise from Hawaii to San Diego to experience life at sea and understand what their relatives were doing. There are four children to focus on: Joey, a very little boy who likes ice cream and is to be with his mother on board, Tina whose sister is a pilot and she is an enthusiast, Anthony, surly African- American boy from New York who is not happy being on board and is resentful for a lot of the trip. But the main focus is on Maddie, Hayden Panettiere, who is longing for her father’s love and affection and wants to come to persuade him to come back home and leave the Navy.

There are many of the usual events on board, especially planes taking off and landing. But, the third day of the trip is 9/11. In the uncertain atmosphere, the ship is being put on alert, weapons taken aboard, no communications especially as no planes are flying over the US. The film focuses on the sense of duty and how the authorities handle the situation as well as the people on board, and the children. Maddie has been put in charge of liaison with the children by her father and gradually learns his sense of responsibility and understands it.

1. The title? Relatives of serving Navy personnel having a cruise with their family to understand and see the Navy at work?

2. 2004, the memories of 9/11? Recreating the period on the ship? In retrospect?

3. The focus on the four children going on board and their stories? Maddie, clashing with her sister, secretive from her mother? Tina and her admiration for her sister, incessant talking on the plane? Anthony, his father sending him to the ship, his brother’s request, surly? Joey, very young, farewelling his father, eager to see his mother?

4. Hawaii, the ships, the US Arizona site, recounting history, respect?

5. The children, meeting their family, coming on board? Tina and her officer sister, pilot? Anthony and his brother? Joey and his mother? Maddie and her father as second in charge? Being accompanied by the personnel, finding their bunks, the gatherings, the speeches, exhilaration at the trip?

6. The various days, numbered, activities on the ship, the children getting to know one another? Maddie and her discussions with her father, wanting him to give up the Navy and come home? His listening, talking with his wife on the phone, promises?

7. The disobedience, going onto the deck to photograph the planes taking off, their being caught, reprimanded by the captain, the information that there had been a death accident previously? Maddie and her apology? Anthony and his still being surly?

8. Chuck Horner, his son the cook, wanting something better for him, the cook and his sense of responsibility and enjoying his work?

9. 9/11, the effect, seeing the television footage, the closing down of all communications, the ship being put on alert, taking on more weapons?

10. The effect on the children, Maddie’s courage, her father asking her to be the liaison with the children? Anthony watching television and the news? The children crying and wanting to be together, watching a movie? The uncertainties?

11. Chuck, his anxiety about his brother in the Pentagon, putting pressure on Maddie’s father, her father standing firm, the brother missing? Chuck and his backing down, his talking to Maddie, praise of her father is a good officer?

12. Going into San Diego, families reunited, Maddie and her listening to her father, seeing his responsibilities, the situation, allowing him to go back to sea? Tina and a greater sense of realism? Anthony and his learning some lessons?

13. A morale booster of 2004 and a Disney family film, in the context of the experience 9/11?

TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES

US, 2014, 101 minutes, Colour.
Megan Fox, Will Arnett, William Fichtner, Whoopi Goldberg, voices of: Johnny Knoxville, Tony Shalhoub.
Directed by Jonathan Liebesman.


This is one of those films that is beyond review! If you see the title and think “not me”, don’t go. If you see the title and feel a movement of exhilaration, do go.

This version of TMNT delivers exactly what it promises. With the credits and the opening sequences, there is a longish explanation of the origins of the turtles, their mission, good versus evil on the streets of New York City, and the leadership of Splinter. Many of us knew all this already but it is handy to hear it again at the beginning of the film. But, the Turtles themselves are not fully seen until about 20 minutes in.

But that means that while we are waiting to see them, although they have been glimpsed in energetic action, it offers the opportunity to think about the absurdity of the whole thing. Turtles? Mutations? Ninja skills? – And teenage?

During the film we get several explanations of what happened in 1999, Dr O’ Neill and Dr Sacks working together, experiment with turtles, rats and other creatures, and a fluid ingredient that would mutate. Dr O’ Neill is killed but his little daughter, April, saves the turtles, puts them in the sewer where the transformation happens: they become virtually human as does their carer, the kindly rat, Splinter. For those not in the know or who have not followed the almost 30 year history of the turtles on screen, they will scratch their heads and think this is pretty silly, to say the least.

In many ways, the concept of the turtles was something of a jokey response to the action films of the 1980s. But, it took on, comic books, an animated series for almost 10 years, three feature films in the early 1990s, continued series and experiments with keeping the turtles in the headlines.

It must be admitted that the entry on the TMNT in Wikipedia has all this detail – and more, much more.

Back to this film. It has a bigger budget than before, has quite some spectacular special effects and action, plenty of martial arts fights for the fans, vehicle chases, especially through snow-covered countryside of New York State. At one stage, the Turtles are being drained of their vital fluids by the evil doctor but the process is halted and they are recharged with adrenaline. And that is the clue for the audience, so much of the action is adrenaline-charged (and our responses as well!).

The basic plot is an old one. Evil scientist wants to control the world and make money – and, within about 10 seconds of the final climax, it looks as though he might achieve it. He abducts the Turtles as well as the now adult April (Megan Fox). It does not give much away to say that the seeming benevolent patron of the city, Dr Sacks (William Fichtner) turns out to be the arch-villain, trained in Japan, expert in martial arts, with an extraordinary multi-blade robot weapon, Shredder.

This is something of a comeback for Megan Fox who has not received good reviews for the films she has made. However, she enters wholeheartedly into the action, is something of an intrepid reporter, having studied for four years, but relegated to frothy pieces, trying to persuade her camera partner, Will Arnett, that she has seen the Turtles, and trying to persuade her boss, Whoopi Goldberg, to let her investigate further. Instead, she gets the sack.

However, tracking down the Turtles, meeting Splinter, and realising that she was instrumental in the turtles being saved and their growing up to be these teenage warriors, she experiences so many action sequences and moments of peril that Lois Lane could well be envious.

And the turtles are definitely teenagers, the way they speak (although Leonardo is voiced by comedian, Johnny Knoxville), their brash ways of behaving, bickering amongst themselves, their taste in music…

These observations may help the undecided to make a choice, to go or not to go. If you should go and tend to enjoy some absurd and exhilarating action, you might well enjoy it.

1. The popularity of the Turtles? Memories of the past in comics, animation series, movies?

2. The big-budget, location photography, New York City, outside New York, the winter season? Action sequences? Special effects? The musical score, themes from the old television series?

3. The basic plot: science and experiments, rivalries, murders, the lust for power, wealth, domination? The role of the media, the reporter and her investigations? Conflict, dangers, the villain unmasked, the final crisis, split-second timing?

4. The introductions and explanations of the turtles, during the credits, graphic novel visual style? The possibility of this kind of experimentation? Impossibilities? Absurdity of the mutation?

5. The laboratories, the experiments, the mutations, searching for the fluid, Sachs and his killing Dr O’ Neill? The fire? The little girl, April, the turtles as pets, helping them, putting them in the sewers? The mutation, growing, speaking, thinking, Splinter and his wisdom, also mutated? The names for the former Italian Renaissance artists? The Turtles and characters, teenage behaviour, talk, martial arts, sense of mission?

6. Dr Sacks, his speech to the New York crowd, seen as a hero, April admiring him? Yet his wanting to dominate, his sinister past, his wealth, the mansion, his laboratories, the buildings in New York City? Shredder, the range of henchmen, his plans?

7. April, as a journalist, on her bike, wanting to get big stories, sent away, going by the docks seeing the Japanese gang members, the ship? Seeing the Turtles and their sign? The plans? Going to Dr Sacks, his friendship, supportive? Her fellow journalist, his taking the pictures, his mocking her and her claims? Her interviews and her thinking the items froth and fluff? Going to her boss, the boss not believing her and not having sufficient evidence?

8. The cameraman, the comic touch, living alone, his van? April relying on him? The turtles in the van, going to Dr Sacks’ mansion? The capturing of the Turtles, in the laboratory, transferring the fluid? Their becoming weaker? Transferring the fluid to Dr Sacks building in New York City? The scientists, verifying the tests?

9. April and the cameraman, the escape, the chases through the snow, the cliffs, the accident? April over the cliff, the Turtles to the rescue?

10. Shredder, the many knives, robotic, the many fight sequences?

11. Going to Dr Sacks’ building, the three Turtles being drained, getting the adrenaline, recovering, the fights, the gymnastics, the martial arts? Going to see Splinter, his revival?

12. The time limits, fights on the roof, with Shredder? The confrontation with the doctor, saving the day?

13. The happy ending for April, the cameraman, for the Turtles and their going to grow up and live and fight another day?

BLIND SPOT - HITLER'S SECRETARY/IM TOTEN WINKEL – HITLERS SECRETARIN

Germany, 2002, 90 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Andre Heller, Othmar Smidderer.

If you were told that you were to spend the next ninety minutes watching a film that was all interview, a focus on a talking head without any visual relief except the interviewee's change of clothes and, sometimes, watching herself on a video monitor, you might well beg out of the experience. But, you would be mistaken. This is an absorbing documentary, an interview with a woman who brings to life the last years of the Third Reich.

Traudl Junge was one of Hitler's private secretaries from 1942. He dictated his last will and testament to her. On the whole, she did not see much of Hitler until she was in the Bunker in the final days, although she was interviewed by him for the job.

Her description of those times becomes increasingly vivid and detailed as she warms to her subject (although it is a relief to hear her say at various times that she does not remember some things). The interview is at its most powerful in her recollections of the very last days, an eyewitness to Hitler's retreat into another world while still blaming the German people for not responding to his vision and their mission, especially to rid Europe of the Jews.

The important aspect of the interviews is Frau Junge's continually asking herself why and how as a twenty year old, she could have been so unquestioningly caught up in Third Reich propaganda, could have been charmed by Hitler's personality and not asked herself what was really going on. For decades, she did not give interviews but, finally, she was persuaded to talk to film-maker, Andre Heller, in 2001. Her testimony is honest, self-condemnatory, puzzled at herself as a young girl - and finding some small way to atone and to forgive herself. It is recording of interviews like this that remind us how important it is to have visual records for the future.

Sadly, Frau Junge died of cancer the morning after the film was screened at the Berlin Film Festival in February, 2002, at the age of 81.

RHINO!

US, 1964, 90 minutes, Colour.
Robert Culp, Harry Guardino, Shirley Eaton,
Directed by Ivan Tors.

Rhino is an action adventure film, Saturday matinee plot and characters, with an environmental message. While it is a film of the 1960s, with serious statements about the extinction of animals, which did not actually happen in the way predicted, it is nevertheless interesting in retrospect given 21st century attitudes towards the saving of animals, especially in Africa.

The plot is fairly straightforward. Robert Culp portrays a scientist who is interested in developing vaccines for the saving of animals, going out into the bush to track down the animals for experiments and for saving them. Harry Guardino portrays a hunter, fairly unscrupulous, trying his best to undermine the efforts of the doctor while still being friendly with him, and flirting with the district nurse, Shirley Eaton, who also has environmental concerns, and is committed to the health of the local people.

Initially, the doctor is threatened by a lion but is saved by the hunter. While they become friends, the hunter is doing deals with local big game hunters and poachers, having a couple of the locals as his on-siders, as they go on expeditions. In order to please the nurse, but also to get his hands on the medical preparations, the hunter agrees to go as guide on an expedition.

This gives the opportunity for the audience to see, 1960s style, a lot of the flora and fauna of Africa.

It also gives the opportunity for the characters to get lost, be in peril in the forests, experience final rescue.

The hunter has something of a conversion, though one wonders about the future. And the nurse goes looking for the two who are lost, shares in the adventures, but the hunter loses her attention and intentions and, of course, she is in love with the doctor.

The film was directed by Ivan Tors, He was best known as a producer of family films, Flipper, Around the World Under the Sea, Namu, the Killer Whale, Island of the Lost, Africa: Texas Style. The films he directed were rather more ordinary, including Zebra in the Kitchen.

DOWNFALL

Germany, 2004, 156 minutes, Colour.
Bruno Ganzs, Alexandra Maria Lara, Corinna Harfouch, Ulrich Mattes, Julianne Kohler, Thomas Kretschmann.
Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel.

What an ignominious end to one of history’s most arrogantly ambitious grabs for power.

Downfall is the picture of the last days of Hitler and of the Third Reich. It is based on two books, one of research, Inside Hitler’s Bunker by Joachim Fest, the other the memoirs of Hitler’s private secretary, Until the Final Hour by Traudl Junge and Melissa Mueller. (Just after her death in February, 2002, a documentary of interviews with Traudl Junge was released, Blind Spot, Hitler’s Secretary, a film well worth seeing to try to grasp how people could become so obsessed with Hitler and his vision).

With April 2005 being the 60th anniversary of Hitler’s death and May the anniversary of the end of the war in Europe, the German film industry has been revisiting its past. Downfall received some initial harsh criticism because it painted too ‘human’ a portrait of Hitler. A sensitivity towards Hitler being shown as a human being is understandable in those who suffered or whose families suffered because of the Nazis. But, day by day, Hitler related to people and drew their affection. To have a more ‘real’ portrait of him does not diminish the horror of what he said and did. It is to the credit of Bruno Ganz that his portrayal embodies all these aspects of Hitler.

Germans went to see the film in their thousands. It was then nominated for an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. Audiences outside Germany will find it a fascinating re-creation of momentous times.

The film runs for two and a half hours. Apart from a prologue where Hitler interviews six applicants for the post of his secretary and hires Traudl Junge, the film stays within the last ten days of the dying Reich. The audience is invited to perceive the personalities and the increasingly desperate situations from the sympathetic perspective of Junge while being able to see Hitler and the Nazi leadership for what it truly is: megalomaniac, racist madness.

Since Saving Private Ryan and Enemy at the Gates, films have been able to portray battles with realistic intensity. While most of Downfall takes place below ground, there are some devastating episodes of the attack on Berlin by the Russian advance, the meagre defence of the city by dwindling troops including youngsters.

While Hitler is central to the film, we see many of the other leaders, particularly the sinister Goebbels and his fanatical wife, Magda, who poisoned their children because she did not want them to live in a world without National Socialism. We see Himmler, Speer, hear about Goering and how Hitler volubly denounces them all as betraying him. His main support is Eva Braun who is shown as both shallow and blindly devoted.

The impact of Hitler from Downfall is that he is both man and monster. He seems to be ‘softened’ when we see him devoted to his dog, listening to the Goebbels children sing and be concerned about the welfare of his secretaries. But, then he rants and raves against his generals, knows that Berlin is lost but still shouts plans for armies to come to the city’s rescue. When challenged about the fate of the German people, he denounces them for not being strong enough to be faithful to his vision, that they deserve to be destroyed by the invading allies.

When we study history, we think in terms of personalities and events and how we are to interpret them. With a film like Downfall, we have the opportunity to put faces on characters, watch behaviour and listen to statements that we abhor and experience emotionally what otherwise might remain abstract insights. Recommended as an opportunity to revisit appalling history

1. A film 60 years after the events? After World War II? Hitler’s death?

2. The impact, reactions at the release of the film, in Germany, its presentation of Hitler? European responses? World responses?

3. The title, the perspective on Hitler?

4. Audience knowledge of Hitler, attitudes towards him? Towards the Third Reich?

5. The re-creation of the period, the 1940s, Germany, Berlin, the war situation, war action, the bunker and life within the bunker? The musical score?

6. April 1945, the approach of the allies, the defence of Berlin, the presence of the Russians? The generals, coming to Hitler, his giving them new orders, impossible to fulfil? Hitler and Eva Braun? The Goebbels family? Hitler and his attitude towards the end, feeling betrayed, denouncing the German people for infidelity, his mad strategies, growing desperation, firing generals and threatening them? Hitler knowing that he was to die, that he was defeated?

7. In the bunker, the range of staff, Traudl, her perspective? Their hopes? The personalities, the relationship with Hitler? The relatives? The medical student and his news about situations on the surface?

8. Hitler as a person, Bruno Ganz and his impersonation? The mania and madness? The charm? The relationship with Eva Braun, marrying her? His birthday? The children at the celebration, the song? Yet Hitler’s puritanical attitude towards smoking and drinking? Eva with the others, self-indulgence, having a good-time?

9. Traudl, the flashback to the interview, waiting with the women, earnest, the interview with Hitler, the nervousness with the typing, her being chosen, exhilaration, the three years of service, her experience at the end, the other secretaries, what they shared with Hitler, sharing the end? Traudl and her coming to her senses, in retrospect, amazed at her belief in Hitler?

10. Hitler, Eva, together, the marriage, the end, their deaths?

11. Goebbels, his role in the Reich, his advice? Magda Goebbels and her strength of character? The decision about the children, getting them into their pyjamas, into the room, administering the poison, their deaths? The parents’ suicide?

12. The medic, the situation, going to the bunker, the desperation, help?

13. The range of generals, the truth about their strategies, their concern, exasperation, Hitler and his impossible demands?

14. In the bunker, the eat, drink and be merry attitude, some surviving, the other suicides?

15. On the surface, the camera coming out from the bunker, surveying the surroundings, the devastation? The dead in the streets?

16. The Russians, their advance? The new recruits, the children, their loyalty, denouncing their parents, receiving medals?

17. The film offering an opportunity to look again at this episode, one of the key moments of the 20th century? Images enabling audiences to rethink?

HOLLOW MAN

US, 2000, 112 minutes, Colour.
Kevin Bacon, Elizabeth Shue, Josh Brolin, Kim Dickens, Greg Grunberg, Joey Slotnik, Mary Randle, William Devane, Rhona Mitra.
Directed by Paul Verhoeven

Paul Verhoeven has proved that a Dutch sensibility faced with Hollywood screenplays is not inhibited by American sensibilities: Robocop, Basic Instinct, Showgirls. He goes all the way.

This is a combination of the Dr Frankenstein story with The Invisible Man. The special effects, like those of The Cell, are well worth admiring. Once again, the movie asks what is possible in scientific experimentation (and makes us wince strongly with animal experimentation). Working on a special Pentagon project, brilliant but arrogant scientist, Kevin Bacon, decides to go beyond orders and inject himself with the formula to make him invisible. But he is truly a hollow man, no soul. The experience brings out the dark side of his nature full of jealousy, lust and murderous violence.

Another cautionary science tale.

1. Science-fiction for the turn of the millennium? A new Frankenstein story? The Invisible Man? Science experimentation and the creating of monsters?

2. The Washington’s setting, the city, the Pentagon offices, apartments, streets, laboratories? The musical score?

3. The title, Sebastian Caine, genius, conducting tests, indefatigable, instability and stability? His excitement, communicating the news to Linda? The experiments, the animals invisible? His pride? Lying to the Pentagon officials, and their admiration for his past, yet threatening to dismiss him? The process for the gorilla and visibility? The other animals? Sebastian and his control, self-centredness, prepared for risks?

4. His team, Linda and Matthew, the work together, the past relationship with Linda, her relationship with Matthew? The details of work in the laboratory? Sebastian putting down Matthew? His taunts of Sarah as a vet? Carter and his eagerness? Frank and Janice and the supervision? Each with their skills?

5. The decision for Sebastian, not telling the truth to the Pentagon, the process, the pain, the effect, Sebastian’s reaction, all calm, looking in the mirror, putting the sheet over him to see his shape, the plastic mould, his absent eyes? The light and translucent eyelids? Water and fire enabling the others to see him? The special goggles? His reactions, going into control, his sexual harassment? The group at the hotel, his standing by himself?

6. The audience having seen him watch the girl in the apartment opposite, touching Sarah, Janice, crossing boundaries? Going home, looking at the girl in the flat, going to her apartment? His joke about wonder woman ans the invisible man?

7. The Pentagon, the general, the hearing, his not giving the full information, the threats? Is visiting the house, drowning the general?

8. Lin, Matthew, the decision to communicate to the authorities? News of the death of the general? Phone lines cut?

9. Sebastian as a person, a new Dr Frankenstein, worse, amoral attitudes? The attacks, Janice and her death, in the cupboard? The lewd support from Carter, his death? Killing Frank? The assault on Sarah, breaking her neck? His vindictive words and attitudes?

10. Locking Linda and Matthew in, the fire spray, wounding Matthew? The confrontation with Lin, her getting out, the flamethrower? In the elevator, the drama, climbing the steps, the lift falling in the shaft, Sebastian and his pursuit, falling into the fire?

11. The happy ending?

12. Moralising science tale?