The Eternals (1 Star)

Great actors. Awful film.

The sign of an obsessive collector is that he buys things he doesn't like in order to complete a set. That's what I do with the Marvel films. I hated this film the first time I saw it in the cinema. I liked it even less when I saw it streamed on Disney Plus. But I had to have it on my shelf next to all my other Marvel films.

I bought it in July 2022, but the Blu-ray has been lying unwatched on my shelf ever since. Today I finally plucked up the courage. I had great difficulty watching it all the way through. If it had been a non-Marvel film, I would have turned it off within an hour.

There have been on-off rumours about a sequel. Please, no! Let's forget that this abysmal team ever appeared in a film.

Watching the film today was self-inflicted torture. I shan't watch it again. I promise.

Success Rate:  - 0.3

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

The Eternals (1½ Stars)

Disney Wednesday #7

I gave "The Eternals" a bad review after seeing it in the cinema last November. I called it the worst MCU film so far. Since then I've been surprised to read positive reviews. Okay, there have also been negative reviews. The film has polarised critics, but it seems that most Marvel fans like it. Why?

I suspect that Marvel fans are moved by Jack Kirby nostalgia. "The Eternals" was his big story when he returned to Marvel in 1976 after a six-year absence. If this really is the case, can't they see that the Eternals in the film are far removed from the Eternals in the comics? Apart from that, I have to admit that I'm one of the few vintage Marvel fans who wasn't enthusiastic about Jack Kirby's comic. He was a great artist, but a mediocre writer. I know I'll probably get hate mail for saying that, but it's my honest opinion. He didn't have the magic of other Marvel writers like Stan Lee and Roy Thomas. Not even close.

When I watched the film today I made an attempt to like it. I deliberately looked for positive features. I felt sympathetic to Dane Whitman as a character, and Pip the Troll looks similar to the way he looks in the comics, but that's about it. It's a poorly made film with characters we don't care about fighting monsters we care even less about, then squabbling amongst themselves.

Let me give you a test. Name the Avengers shown in the MCU films. I'm betting that if you give yourself ten minutes you can remember all of them. Now name the ten Eternals. Very few of you will be able to name all ten. (I did this test myself and named seven of the Eternals). We don't know them.

Click here to read my first review. That says it all.

Success Rate:  - 0.3

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

The Eternals (2 Stars)

The bubble has burst. Marvel Studios began to create films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) slowly and cautiously in 2008 with "Iron Man". I emphasise the word slowly. Characters were introduced one at a time in subsequent films, leading up to the first Avengers film, when we finally saw them all together. Even after that new characters were only added slowly, characters such as Captain Marvel and Black Panther.

The box office successes showed Marvel that they have a cash cow. Endless millions of dollars were to be earned from churning out film after film. Two MCU films a year became three, and the quality was still maintained. Then four, and boom... the bubble has burst.

"The Eternals" falls flat on its face. It's not just the poor screenplay and the lacklustre directing. The whole concept is faulty. The idea is that ten beings called Eternals arrived on Earth in 5000 BC to eliminate a race of predators called the Deviants. After a series of battles over the centuries the Deviants were seemingly wiped out. The Eternals thought they could leave Earth, but their leaders, the Celestials, instructed them to remain on Earth, disguised as normal humans, never interfering in human affairs. They remained together as a group until 1450, after which they split up and settled in different parts of the world.

In the present day, presumably 2021, the Deviants return after centuries of hiding, so the Eternals regroup to fight them.

The film's biggest fault is the lack of character development. The ten Eternals are sprung on us, and we know very little about their motivation. After walking out of the cinema I couldn't even remember all ten of their names. The number of characters is too large. Instead of ten there should only have been five, or better still four. That would be a manageable number to hold the audience's attention.

Another problem is that the Deviants themselves are too inhuman. They're just big monsters that the audience can't relate to. Look at the other masterful MCU villains, like Loki and Thanos. We get inside their heads. We understand them, even if we don't agree with everything they do. But the Deviants are just a force of nature.

In fact, we can't relate to the Eternals either. When some of them are killed we don't shed a tear. On the contrary, I felt relieved that there were fewer characters running around.

The story is poorly told. The flashbacks to former times are so random that I groaned "Another one?" The film is poorly paced. After the final battle the film stutters from one quiet scene to another, almost as bad as the final scenes of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Then something big happens, and we think the action is starting again, but it quickly fizzles out.

And then there's the excessive use of CGI. If you give me more time I can probably think of other faults in this shoddily constructed film. Maybe my two star rating is too high. I want to forget this film was ever made.

The MCU can't get any worse. Can it? I dread the next film.

Tomb Raider 2 (2003) (4 Stars)

That's a terrific film poster. Angelina Jolie's pose, the upward angle, the dramatic text in the background. Everything is perfect. If I were ever bored enough to put together a list of the best film posters, this would be in the top 10.

I should have watched the two Tomb Raider films back to back, so that I could judge which one is better. After a two year gap I can't be 100% certain. I vaguely remember that the first film had more action, but the second film is visually more attractive. I'm sure I'll watch them again, eventually.

The film's premise is so infeasible that a good deal of suspension of disbelief is necessary, but once you've managed that step, the film is well written and ably performed by all the cast members. After an underwater earthquake, Lara Croft finds the sunken Luna Temple, which contained the greatest treasures of Alexander the Great. In the middle of the usual collection of of gold, silver and precious gems there's a glowing orb. This is snatched from her hands by Chinese bandits.

Back in England, MI6 agents tell her what the orb is about. It's a map with which to find the legendary Pandora's box. The box contains a deadly virus, for which there's no cure. A rogue scientist called Jonathan Reiss wants to unleash the virus on the world, after creating a vaccine that he'll only give to himself and a few dozen of those he considers worthy to survive. It'll be the start of a new world, with himself as the ruler. The box is hidden in a place called the Cradle of Life, where humanity was first created by the Gods.

It seems to me that the film is closely based on one of the Tomb Raider video games. It has the typical game strategy of having to solve one problem to advance to the next.

Lara Croft, played once more by Angelina Jolie, teams up with a former lover, Terry Sheridan (Gerard Butler). Their journey leads them across China, from Shanghai to Hong Kong, and then to the peak of Mount Kilimanjaro. There's even a gratuitous scene of the Great Wall of China. It's too short. It should have been extended. I've always been fascinated by the Great Wall of China.

An important feature of the film is Angelina Jolie herself. In the videogames Lara Croft was the archetypal busty videogame character. Thousands of teenage computer game nerds got off by playing with her.

This is what Lara Croft looked like on the box. Not too bad.

This is what she looked like on the computer screen. Ugh! Nerds got off on that?

Computer graphics have come a long way since 1995, but Angelina Jolie is what the nerds had been waiting for. A beautiful face, swollen lips and large breasts. I never played the computer game, so I don't have the same nerdy attachment to the character of Lara Croft, but I still find her attractive.

This is a good film, despite being savaged by critics. 

Success Rate:  - 0.3

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

Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil (3 Stars)

This is a sequel to the 2014 film "Maleficent". The first film was based loosely on the fairy tale of "Sleeping Beauty". This film follows the further adventures of Aurora, the now awoken sleeping beauty, when she wishes to get married. She needs to introduce her stepmother, the witch Maleficent, to her bridegroom's parents, the King and Queen of Ulstead.

The film presents Maleficent in a different light to the first film. In the first film she was evil, but with some good qualities that shone through. In the second film she's a good person, with some evil qualities that she can't quite suppress.

Overall, the film isn't up to the quality of the first film. It's entertaining, but not a film I'd feel inclined to watch a second time. I prefer Angelina Jolie when she's evil. She does it so well!

Tomb Raider (2001) (4 Stars)

I picked up this film today partly because I'm on a super-heroine kick at the moment, partly because I said I would re-watch the old Lara Croft films after I watched the new film. That was in March 2018. Was it really so long?

I vaguely remembered that the two films with Angelina Jolie weren't much good. After watching "Tomb Raider", sometimes called "Lara Croft, Tomb Raider" today, I wonder why I thought that. The film has its weaknesses, but it also has a lot of things in its favour. It's an exciting action film featuring a beautiful actress with two big guns. That's reason enough for me to take it seriously.

The plot is that the Illuminati are looking for two halves of an ancient mystic triangle which can only be combined once every 5000 years when all nine planets are in alignment. (That's the first plot weakness; more than three planets never align). The two halves can only be found using a key that only works at the beginning of the alignment. Whoever holds the triangle can control time. With one week to go the Illuminati don't even know where the key is.

That's where Lara Croft comes in. She finds a strange clock among the items left to her by her late father. She shows it to her fellow archaeologist Alex West, and he immediately recognises it as the key. He passes on the information to the Illuminati. They steal the key from Lara's mansion, so she follows them around the world to get it back, getting involved with the search for the triangle.

This rather tenuous plot is all the excuse that's needed for scene after scene of Angelina Jolie punching, shooting or stabbing the bad guys. She qualifies as a super-hero, even if her origin is in computer games, not in comics.

Angelina Jolie looks the part, even though she needed slight enhancing. She had to pad her bra to look big enough for the role. The end result looks spectacular. Most people who think of Lara Croft today imagine her as looking like Angelina Jolie's portrayal. She's the one that cosplayers model their outfits on.

Here are a few photos of the Canadian cosplay model Bianca Beauchamp. She doesn't need any bra padding.

Bianca is always alert.

Her two guns are ready to take out any danger.

Bianca has her eyes on you. Are you man enough to challenge her?

Even when she's undressed you shouldn't be over-confident.

You think she hasn't noticed you, but her fingers are already on the trigger.

Success Rate:  + 0.4

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

Maleficent (4 Stars)

This is a film claiming to tell the truth behind the fairy tale "Sleeping Beauty", written by Charles Perrault in the 17th Century and later retold by the Brothers Grimm. It would be more accurate to say that it tells the truth that was hidden behind the lies in the 1959 Walt Disney film with the same name. What I mean is, the 1959 film changed a lot of the details of the fairy tale. In particular, that film was the first time the evil fairy was named Maleficent. In turn, children's books written in the last 50 years have told the tale based on the film, not on the older stories. I think it would be fair to say that most people today know the Walt Disney version of the story.

I would rather not say too much about the new truths revealed by the film, since it's still in the cinemas, and that would spoil it for my readers who haven't seen it yet. It's a beautiful story of myth and magic, which I can strongly recommend. I was pleasantly surprised that the 3D effects looked so good. Angelina Jolie looks magnificent when she flies through the sky with her brown wings.

The Tourist (4 Stars)

This film was already reviewed by my guest writer Kaylena here. I knew almost nothing about the film before I bought it. I bought it for two reasons: I love Johnny Depp as an actor, and I love the city of Venice.

Frank Tupelo (Johnny Depp) is a mathematics teacher from America, in Europe as a tourist. When on the train from Paris to Venice, a mysterious woman (Angelina Jolie) approaches him and shows an unexpected amount of interest in him. She even invites him to share her hotel suite in Venice. But if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. Elise Ward is the lover of a man called Alexander Pearce, who is being hunted both by gangsters and the English police. Since Pearce has undergone plastic surgery, both the police and the gangsters think that Tupelo is really Pearce.

I enjoyed the film greatly, even though it moves slowly with very little action. Johnny Depp is brilliant, as always. I was happy to see a small part played by Rufus Sewell, one of my favorite actors. 4 Stars seems to be a fair rating, although I do have one problem with the film. I can't take Angelina Jolie seriously as a "beautiful woman". She may have been stunning 10 years ago when she starred in films like "Gia" and "Pushing Tin", but she's not aging well. She was 35 when she made this film, but she has the looks of a 55-year-old struggling to hold onto her youth. It's time for her to stop playing glamorous roles and progress into more matronly characters.

Click here to view the trailer.

Pushing Tin (3½ Stars)

I don't often watch films at random. I don't have television (i.e. I'm unable to receive television broadcasts) so I don't flick through channels and watch something out of boredom just because it's on. I plan my viewing carefully. I almost always know what I'm going to watch tomorrow. It might be a film I've seen before, or a film recommended to me, or a film I've read a review of. There's always a reason I watch a film. But not this one. I'd never heard of it, I just watched it. How did that happen?

I wanted to watch a film called "Mr. Holland's Opus", which was very strongly recommended to me by a friend. I checked online, and the DVD costs £3.50. Too much for me. But further searching told me that there was a box of three films that includes "Mr. Holland's Opus" for only £1.99. A good price, considering the usual rental price in England for one film is £2.50. So I bought it. And this is one of the other two films. I read the description on the box and decided to watch this first.

John Cusack plays Nick Falzone, a self-confident New York air traffic controller. As I understand now, after watching the film, air traffic control is not just about guiding aircraft through the sky so that they take off and land safely, it's also about doing this optimally with the least possible delays. This is a critical job in this area where three of the world's largest airports, JFK, Newark and LaGuardia are within 20 miles of one another. Nick is the best at his job, until Russell Bell (Billy Bob Thornton) is transferred from a smaller airport. Russell is eccentric and anti-social, but he's good at his job. He also has a beautiful wife Mary (Angelina Jolie) who is an alcoholic. After Nick has a one-night stand with Mary the professional rivalry turns into a personal battle.

The film is difficult to classify. It's not really a comedy, but it's not quite serious either. It shows the confusion of people sitting at screens all day arranging blips in a 3-D computer game with thousands of lives at stake. I found the film difficult to relate to. So far from my own world. I encourage any of my readers who have seen this film to leave comments

Click here to view the trailer.

SALT [Guest Writer] (3 Stars)

Evelyn Salt is a CIA agent and highly respected by all, including her boss, Ted Winter. Out of the blue, a Russian spy walks into their offices and offers a vital piece of information: the President of Russia will be assassinated during his forthcoming visit to New York City to attend the funeral of the recently deceased U.S. Vice President. The name of the assassin: Evelyn Salt. Concerned about the safety of her husband, who she cannot contact, she goes on the run. Winter refuses to accept that she is a mole or a double agent but her actions begin to raise doubts. Just who is Evelyn Salt and what is she planning?

I was waiting in anticipation when I first saw the previews on this film and I admit that I felt a little let down when I finally got a chance to see it. The action was great and there was never a time that I was left wanting more of that but the acting and plot just didn't keep me as engaged as I thought it would in the beginning which left me feeling a little disappointed at the end. In the end, I don't have much to say on this film except that it's not a DVD I would buy but only wait for to come on cable. For those that enjoy suspense thrillers I would say to check it out because it may be up your alley and all in all it was an okay film.

The Tourist [Guest Writer] (4½ Stars)

Elise (Angelina Jolie) sits next to an American tourist, Frank (Johnny Depp), on a train going to Venice. She has chosen him as a decoy, making believe that he is her lover who is wanted by police. Not only will they need to evade the police, but also the mobster whose money her lover stole.

It's important to note that this is the American remake of Anthony Zimmer, a French romantic thriller film released in 2005. Before I saw this movie I had decided to do some reading up on it and found this out which led me to learning more about the original and by the time I saw The Tourist, I had already known the entire plot or at least the general gist of it all. I can honestly say that I'm not the type of person where learning the spoilers ruin the experience of the movie for me but for those that feel this way I'll be careful not to share too much. [smiles]

The movie starts out with Elise being followed by the French Police and Inspector John Acheson (Paul Bettany - Priest) who has spent years hunting Elise's lover, Alexander Pearce, who owes £744 million pounds (nearly 2 billion USD) in back taxes and is believed to have had extensive plastic surgery to change his appearance completely. Elise receives a letter from Pearce instructing her to board a train to Venice and pick out a man who resembles Pearce, and make the police believe that this decoy is Pearce himself - this decoy turns out to be an American school teacher, Frank, played by Jonny Depp. As the film progresses, we soon learn that Pearce also in trouble with a mobster whom he stole 2.3 billion from and this puts Frank into further trouble as he has to avoid Inspector Acheson and Reginald Shaw - the gangster. The movie has it's funny moments - not belly laughs but more of quiet or inward chuckles of light amusement at Frank's predicament. There is also a strong underlying plot of romance running evenly with the suspense and thriller portion of it but it feels very well interwoven into one full story. Overall I really enjoyed this film and recommend it. It may not be for everyone as there aren't any huge action sequences to draw your attention except for a few shoot outs. But I enjoyed it so I guess that says something. Ha!

Off-Topic: Angelina's Right Leg

Last Sunday was the biggest day of the film year. The Oscar awards. As expected, "The Artist" (which I haven't seen yet) won the award for Best Film. But years after people have forgotten what film won the top awards in 2012 something else will be remembered. The real star of the Film Academy awards was Angelina Jolie's right leg. She visited the awards wearing a stunning black Atelier Versace gown with a thigh high slit on the right. Normally I would have no complaints about a woman trying to look sexy, but her show-the-right-leg pose was repeated identically so often that it was obvious she had spent hours practising it in front of the mirror. Whether standing alone on the red carpet or holding hands with her husband she struck the same pose with mechanical accuracy. Maybe the first few times she achieved the desired Wow effect, but by the time she went on stage to present the Best Screenplay awards the audience started to giggle as soon as she repeated the pose. Screenwriter Jim Rash was the first person to publicly mock her when he accepted his award.

I have mixed feelings about the whole affair. Angelina Jolie used to be a very beautiful woman, but in recent years she's deteriorated by losing too much weight. Just look at her arms! I feel sorry for her that she's become a laughing stock, but she only has herself to blame. Let's hope that she can bounce back and give us some more positive memories of herself.

Wanted [Guest Writer] (5 Stars)

 

A young man finds out his long lost father is an assassin. When his father is murdered, the son is recruited into his father's old organization and trained by a man named Sloan (Morgan Freeman) to follow in his dad's footsteps.

The anxious, clumsy and abused office clerk Wesley Allan Gibson (James McAvoy) has a hell and boring routine life: his obese boss humiliates him all the time and his girlfriend betrays him with his colleague and best friend during working period. When he meets the sexy Fox (Jolie), Wesley is informed that his father was a professional killer that belonged to an ancient organization called Fraternity and killed by the skilled and powerful Cross, a hit-man that has betrayed the Fraternity. Wesley learns that his anxiety actually is a manifestation of his latent abilities and he joins the society under the command of Sloan. Trained by Fox, he changes his personality and attitude, being prepared to face the dangerous Cross and find a hidden secret.

What more can a girl ask for in her movies? Action - check. Smexiness - double check. Intense scenes that keep you on the edge of your seat - check, check and check. I'm so glad that they discovered McAvoy and he's fast becoming one of my favorite actors if he continues to keep up these performances. I've never been the hugest fan of Jolie but she does an alright imitation of a mute (she's not actually mute she's just super anti-social) but she plays these roles the best I think - bad-ass chick with a chip on her shoulder. Freeman is just 5 star all the way for me in nearly every movie he plays in and this is really no exception even though his part isn't quite as large as some of his others even though...well I don't want to give away any spoilers but considering what his character is supposed to be in relation to the lead I think it was a bit underwhelming even if his acting skills were still on par. The whole story behind this movie is really intriguing and we start out in sympathy with the lead character. I mean who can't sympathize with someone who's life is as pathetic as that and shout with righteousness as we see him gain his own power throughout the movie and get a bit of his own back to triumph over the day? Honestly that's what dreams are made of and it lets us live vicariously through McAvoy. Truly a great film and will be going in my top 20 list if not my top 10! Bravo!

Alexander (4½ Stars)

There are three versions of this film: the original theatrical version, the director's cut, and the "final cut". The third version is supposedly structured differently to the first two. I can't comment on the differences because the third version, the final cut, is the only version I've seen. Judging by director Oliver Stone's introduction this is the way he really wanted the film to be, free of the constraints of having to satisfy the film studio, the critics or even the audience. As such this is a very self-indulgent film. Oliver Stone is saying, effectively, that he's made this version for himself.

Obviously this is a work of love. Stone states his admiration for the epic films he watched as a child, but he also admires the man Alexander. He has a fascination with the remarkable young man who achieved greater victories in a short lifespan than any other leader ever. Stone wants to show how he grew up, how he became king, how he triumphed and how he died at the age of 32 without leaving an heir.

Stone succeeds in imparting this fascination on the viewer. We feel Alexander's passion and his belief in his noble destiny as the son of Zeus. He see him torn between love and contempt for his ambitiously evil mother. We feel his idealism as he proclaims freedom from slavery in the kingdoms he conquers. Only when he becomes overcome with fanaticism to continue fighting, not stopping to enjoy the spoils of victory, do we finally feel alienated. Like seeing an old friend on a doubtful path I found myself calling out "Turn back, Alexander, before it's too late".

My main criticism of the film is that it took so long to get started. If it had showed Alexander's life chronologically I would have accepted the slow start. As it was the film begins with Alexander's greatest victory, the Battle of Gaugamela, but rather than start with the battle itself we have long discussions of strategy. I'll deduct half a star for that, but overall this is a brilliant film, a masterpiece.

I believe that the final cut that I'm reviewing here, sold under the name "Alexander Revisited", is no longer available on DVD. It's worth looking for if you can find a second hand copy.

Gia (4 Stars)

Yet another true story. That's three in a row I've watched. I must admit that I enjoy watching a film knowing that it's true. Truth is often stranger than fiction.

This is the story of the rise and fall of the American supermodel Gia Marie Carangi, in a career that only lasted nine years until she died at the age of 26. I admit that I had never heard of her before the film was recommended to me. I'm ignorant of the fashion world. Angelina Jolie's portrayal of Gia is poignant and moving, showing both the strengths and weaknesses of this remarkable woman.