The Last Unicorn (4 Stars)

A unicorn lives in a forest which is blessed by her presence. It's always spring, never too cold, never too warm. She wonders why there are are no other unicorns, until a butterfly tells her that she's the last of her kind. A red bull has driven the unicorns away, possibly to their death. The unicorn decides to leave the forest to find out if the oher unicorns are still alive. This is a risk for her. In the forest she's immortal, but when she leaves it she can be killed.

So she goes on a journey to find the red bull which is supposedly the servant of King Haggard. She's surprised to discover that nobody recognises her as a unicorn. People no longer believe in unicorns, so they don't see her horn and assume she's a horse.

When she encounters the red bull he wants to kill her, so a magician saves her by turning her into a beautiful woman. King Haggard's son falls in love with her. So what's more important? Finding true love or finding her fellow unicorns?

This is a delightful film that appeals to both children and adults.

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

Heaven's Gate (4 Stars)

This is an epic western, made in 1980, about the Johnson County War of 1890, in which hundreds of settlers from Eastern Europe were slaughtered by land owners. It follows the life of Jim Averill, a wealthy Harvard graduate who's been sent to Casper, Wyoming to supervise the hanging of a criminal. He becomes sympathetic with the plight of poor settlers from Eastern Europe after seeing a woman being beat up in the street.

The problem is that wealthy cattle owners let their animals graze on empty land between the mountains. When settlers arrived and staked claims, there was less land available. In addition, some settlers were accused of stealing cattle for food. The penalty for stealing a cow was execution without trial. That was within the law, because both the mayor and the sheriff of Casper approved of strict measures to combat anarchy. The most important organisation in the county was the Stock Growers Association, to which the mayor and the sheriff both belonged.

Averill finds out that 50 gunmen have been hired from Texas to carry out a final solution. A list has been made of 125 people who are to be killed. Averill's girlfriend Ella is also on the list. He organises a resistance, putting weapons in the hands of the settlers, but even though they outnumber the gunmen four to one their lack of skill puts them at a disadvantage.

"Heaven's Gate" is infamous for having been the biggest financial flop in film history at the time it was made, losing $40 million. It's blamed for having killed off the western as a film genre. The critics also hated it, some calling it one of the worst films ever made.

Maybe the problem for the critics was the film cuts. The original version was five and a half hours long, but it was cut to three and a half hours for the theatrical release. After only a week in the cinemas the film was withdrawn, and a year later it was re-released as a two and a half hour version. The version I watched today is dubbed the Director's Cut and was released on disc in 2012. It's three and a half hours long, but supposedly differs significantly from the original theatrical release.

How can you expect a film to retain its quality after such savage cuts? Certain things in the film weren't clear to me, and I'm convinced that my questions would be answered if I saw the additional two hours of footage. When Averill arrives in Casper and visits the Stock Growers Association, the sheriff tells him he's been barred from their meetings. When? Why? Averill seems to have a history in Casper. Everyone knows him.

Averill is also friends with Nate Champion, an enforcer for the Stock Growers Association. In an early scene Champion carries Averill back to his hotel when he's drunk. Friendships across enemy lines don't just happen. The two men have a history, and it looks like this history has been edited out.

Many critics today have reevaluated the film, based on the Director's Cut. I don't see anything particularly bad about it.

Before watching the film I knew nothing about the Johnson County War. Wikipedia's page is informative as a brief summary. The main characters of the film were real life people, but the film has changed the background of the main characters, Averill and his girlfriend. That's remarkable. In real life Ella Watson was a seamstress and a landowner, but the film portrays her as the owner of a brothel. She died childless, otherwise her descendants would be suing the film for slander.

Success Rate:  - 12.6

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

Spider-Man: Far From Home (5 Stars)

The first 23 films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe are referred to collectively as the Infinity Saga. The six infinity stones are shown repeatedly in the films, though their significance isn't always clear to the uninitiated. What I mean to say is, those who have read the comics written by Steve Englehart and Jim Starlin in the late 1980's and early 1990's know what the stones are supposed to be, but then they have to work out if they're something different in the films. Those who haven't read the comics can only scratch their heads in confusion.

We see the first stone, the Space Stone, in "Captain America" (the fifth MCU film). Starting in "The Avengers" (the sixth film) we see Thanos beginning to gather the stones to give himself great power. In the comics the united power of the stones makes him a God, but in the films they merely combine to become a super-weapon. He succeeds in gathering all the stones and using his weapon in "Infinity War" (the 19th film). The Avengers use the weapon against him in "Avengers Endgame" (the 22nd film).

Now we have "Spider-Man Far From Home" as a sort of epilogue. Thanos is dead and the stones have been scattered throughout the universe. Now we see the aftermath of the "Blip", as people have come to call it.

50% of the Earth's population disappeared, probably in 2018. The exact year of the disappearance is unclear, but what we know is that five years later, probably 2023, they returned without having aged. This causes more confusion in school than anywhere else. Children who were the same age are now five years older than one another. Peter Parker, aka Spider-Man, is one of those affected. It's 21 years since he was born, but he's still 16. This leads to ethical problems. Is he allowed to drink alcohol or isn't he?

Fortunately for Peter, the girl he loves also blipped, so she's still the same age as him. In the film (and in school) she's only referred to as MJ. That was the nickname of Peter's girlfriend and future wife in the comics, Mary Jane Watson. The film's producers have stated that in the MCU Spider-Man films MJ's nickname stands for Michelle Jones, but until that's verified in the films themselves I choose not to believe it.

MJ is cute, in a girl-next-door-ish sort of way.

The actress Zendaya Coleman was actually 22 when the film was made, but she looks like a 16-year-old in the film.

Tom Holland, who plays Peter Parker, is also 22. Let's hope they keep their young looks so they can make another few films together.

The super-villain in this film is Mysterio. He was one of Spider-Man's oldest and most deadly enemies. Incidentally, Sam Raimi wanted to cast Bruce Campbell as Mysterio if he'd been allowed to direct "Spider-Man 4".

He looks remarkably similar to the way Steve Ditko drew him in the comics. That's not something we can take for granted. The Marvel films get almost every costume wrong.

This is a better film than "Spider-Man Homecoming", though not up to the level of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films. Where will the Spider-Man franchise go from here? We need continuity. We don't want a reboot and yet another Spider-Man any time in the next few years.

Success Rate:  + 5.1

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

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (4½ Stars)

I haven't read the comics on which the Kingsman films are based. Maybe I should. The films are so good. They're like the James Bond films, but so exaggerated that they're almost a parody. They also seem to borrow ideas from the "Man from UNCLE" television series.

A surprise guest star in this film is Elton John, playing himself. In a film with exaggeratedly evil megalomaniacs and over-the-top secret agents, all that's needed to round it off is an excessively extravagant pop star. Was this the first time that Elton John met Taron Egerton, who would go on to play him in "Rocketman"? It's possible. If this was the beginning of their friendship, it must have influenced the development of the musical.

It's a different sort of role for Halle Berry as the American secret service computer expert. She doesn't have any of her usual sex appeal. Instead, she has a nerdy appearance that's very appropriate for her role.

Mark Strong is just Mark Strong. He's good in every role he plays. Whether he's a good guy or a bad guy, he's the quintessential tough guy. Mess with him at your own peril!

They make a good pair, don't they?

I've read that several Kingsman films are planned, not just a third film in the series. There will also be a prequel and a spin-off film. That's good news for everyone who likes crazy action films.

Success Rate:  + 2.0

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

Spider-Man: Far From Home (5 Stars)

Today I went to see "Spider-Man: Far From Home" in the cinema for the second time. The first time was in 2D, which I prefer. Today was in 3D. The best thing I can say about the 3D experience is that it wasn't intrusive. With the exception of the on-screen texts that announced the arrival in new cities, it didn't even look like 3D.

The only way I can enjoy the new Spider-Man films is my shutting my eyes and forgetting the original comics. After the tragic miscasting of Andrew Garfield, an attempt has been made to find an actor who looks and talks like the nerdy 1960's teenager that I loved when I was growing up. Tom Holland is a good choice. I've heard people summing it up, "Tobey Maguire was a good Peter Parker, Andrew Garfield was a good Spider-Man, Tom Holland is good at both". I agree. Arguably, Tobey Maguire was the best Peter Parker of all in his first film, but he slacked off in the other two films, for the simple fact that he was too old. Even though Spider-Man went through different life phases as he grew up, from a college student to a married man, he's best known as the young teenager from the early comics written by Stan Lee. His age was never explicitly stated, but he seemed to be 14 or 15. In "Far From Home" Peter Parker says that he's 16. That's close enough. Tom Holland was 22 when he made the film, but he looked like a teenager, and I hope he'll stay young long enough to make a few more films.

Immense effort must have been made into casting Peter Parker, but the supporting cast has been picked so badly that it can't possibly be a mistake. Nobody can make that many mistakes, it must be deliberate. Stan Lee's comics featured an all-white school in Forest Hills, New York. The new films force ethnic diversity down our throats. While it's true that Forest Hills isn't 100% white, as suggested by the comics, it only has a 3% black population, compared to 24% in New York City overall.

However, the biggest shock in the casting isn't about ethnicity, it's about MJ's hair colour. The studio has stated that MJ in the new films isn't supposed to be the same person as Mary Jane Watson in Sam Raimi's films, but in both films "MJ" is Peter Parker's love interest. In the comics she was famous for her red hair, a dark crimson colour that didn't look genuine. Kirsten Dunst was a more natural strawberry blonde, but she was still recognisable as the comic book character.

It's not just about the hair colour, it's about the attitude. Mary Jane was an out-and-out extrovert. She knew that men were crazy about her looks, and she enjoyed it. Eventually we found out that she had a deeper side, but she kept it well hidden, only showing her air-headed all-day party self to the world. The new MJ has a tomboy appearance and a goth attitude, and she's awkward with boys. That's a completely different MJ.

And I shan't even start on Aunt May.....

Spider-Man: Far From Home (5 Stars)

I've finally got round to seeing "Spider-Man: Far From Home", the 23rd film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's sad that it has to continue without Stan Lee. I was hoping that there might be a cameo that he filmed before his death, but none came. He's gone.

It's still too early for a full review, because I don't want to give away any spoilers. I'll just make a few points for now.

Mysterio says to Spider-Man that he's come from Earth-833, and Spider-Man's universe is called Earth-616. This is definitely a mistake, but whose mistake is it? Did the script-writer make a mistake, or did he deliberately put false words into Mysterio's mouth? Everyone knows that the Marvel Cinematic Universe takes place in Earth-199999, not Earth-616. Apart from that, where did Mysterio get the number from? Did he read it in a comic?

The girl in Peter Parker's class, MJ, confuses me. She's not Mary Jane Watson, but she's still Peter Parker's love interest. Curious.

It's good to see a romance finally developing between Ned Leeds and Betty Brant. After all, they got married in Amazing Spider-Man #156 (May 1976). This assumes that they're even meant to be the same characters. In the film they've swapped hair colours, they're younger, and Ned's even a different race.

You see what I mean? I've never understood why screenwriters need to change so much of what was written into comic book canon by Stan Lee. Oh yeah, it's a different universe, so they can write whatever they want? That's a lame excuse.

I'm so happy that J. K. Simmons has returned to play J. Jonah Jameson, the chief editor of the Daily Bugle. He last played the role in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films from 2002 to 2007, which supposedly took place in Earth-96283. Nobody else could possibly play the role.

I was surprised to see that most of the cinema audience stood up and left after the mid-credits scene. Usually German audiences are better educated and know they should wait for a post-credits scene. In this case it was an important scene which will have repercussions for the future films.

Happy Hogan is dating Aunt May? I'm sure every comic book fan has a sick feeling in his stomach.

Overall the film has a more juvenile atmosphere. It seems to be written for teenagers, which couldn't be said of the previous Spider-Man films, even "Homecoming". That's not necessarily a criticism. It's a good film. I can't wait to see where the MCU will go next.

Iron Man (4½ Stars)

Stan Lee said that this was his favourite cameo. It's a non-speaking role, only five seconds long, but there's something special about it. Tony Stark walks into a party and sees a man with his back to him that he greets with the words "You look great, Hef". When the man turns round we see that it's Stan. What the scene means is open to interpretation. Maybe it was Stan Lee himself, and Tony Stark mistook him for Hugh Hefner. Maybe Stan Lee was playing the part of Hugh Hefner. In a deleted scene (available on my Blu-ray disc) Tony apologises for his mistake, to which Stan replies "That's okay, I get this all the time". That would have removed the ambiguity. I believe the director removed this line of dialogue because he wanted to leave it open for the fans.

"Iron Man" is the film that kicked off the series of Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films, way back in May 2008. It was a brilliant marketing strategy that other film franchises are jealous of. It was all building up to the Avengers. The team members were introduced one by one in a series of films, and finally they were placed together. The MCU films are built on continuity, which was the strength of the 1960's Marvel comics. The same actors played the same characters from film to film, with only two notable exceptions:

Edward Norton played the Hulk in his MCU solo film, but he was replaced by Mark Ruffalo in "The Avengers". Supposedly Norton didn't want to be tied to one character for years, but if he hadn't wanted that he should never have taken the role in the first place. It's also the fault of the producers for not making him sign a contract that specified a minimum number of films.

Terrence Howard played James Rhodes in "Iron Man", but he was replaced by Don Cheadle in the subsequent films. The reason for this is well documented. He was too greedy. He was the highest paid actor in "Iron Man" with a salary of $4.5 million. For "Iron Man 2" he was only offered one million dollars. The reason was that Robert Downey Jr was still a relatively unknown actor when the first film was made, but he became famous as Iron Man and could demand more money for the second film, so Howard's salary had to be reduced to stay within the budget. Terrence Howard walked out, meaning the studio had to scramble to find a replacement actor. He didn't reckon with the consequences of his actions. Before "Iron Man" he was being paid between one and two million dollars per film. After refusing to appear in "Iron Man 2" he was never offered more than $500,000 for films, and most offers were closer to $60,000. Within a few years he was earning so little that he had to accept parts in television series. I'm not saying he's a bad actor; he's a very good actor. To be honest, I'm surprised at the reaction. Hollywood is ruled by greed, so why was Terrence Howard picked out as the one to be punished?

"Iron Man" has a lot in its favour. Despite being moved from the 1960's to the present, the story is faithful to the comics. If you don't believe me, read Tales Of Suspense #39 (March 1963) for yourself. Tony Stark is the same millionaire playboy (maybe a billionaire, due to inflation). He's an erratic genius. The only real change in his personality is that in the comics he continued to manufacture weapons, whereas in the film he turns pacifist. That's a sign of the times. In the 1960's Americans like Stan Lee believed that peace could only be achieved by force. Today people are more naive and think that peace can be achieved by negotiation. I'm glad that Adolf Hitler isn't alive today, otherwise pacifist leaders would be negotiating non-stop while he marched across Europe.

I don't consider Robert Downey Jr to be a good actor, but he was born to play the role of Tony Stark. He's an actor who can only play himself, but this "himself" fits the role of Tony Stark perfectly. It's like he jumps out of the pages of the comics.

One character who seems to have been born by accident is SHIELD agent Phil Coulson, played by Clark Gregg. He never appeared in the comics. He was only introduced into the films as a minor character running errands for Nick Fury. I don't think that the producers realised how popular he was until the fans complained when he was killed in "The Avengers". He had to be brought back. He had to be given bigger roles. He was made the lead character in the MCU television series "Agents of SHIELD".

The music in "Iron Man" shouldn't be underestimated. Tony Stark is a rock music fan, and this is shown in the film's soundtrack. There's no namby-pamby rap or r&b. That's all that today's generation of weaklings can handle. Tony Stark is a strong, hard-hitting man, and he likes powerful music. The film starts with AC/DC and ends with Black Sabbath.

This film also introduces one of the most important features of the MCU films: the after-credits scenes. Almost all of the films have a scene after the credits, of varying length and importance. These scenes are intended as a hook to introduce following films. Mostly. "Iron Man" has an example of a good after-credits scene. Nick Fury speaks to Tony Stark about forming a group called the Avengers.

Success Rate:  + 2.2

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

Bad Times at the El Royale (4½ Stars)

The film takes place round about 1970. The El Royale is a hotel on the border between California and Nevada. Not at the side of the border, but literally on the border. The border runs through the middle of the hotel. Half of the rooms are in Nevada, the other half in California. The rooms in California are a dollar more expensive. Higher state taxes? The bar is in the middle of the hotel, but because of different licensing laws alcohol can only be served on the California side of the bar, not in Nevada.

Four people check into the hotel on the same day: a Catholic priest, a female soul singer, a vacuum cleaner salesman who talks too much and a hippie-ish woman who doesn't want to talk at all.

The film's strength is in its suspense and the way the characters develop. In segments the story focuses on the characters in turn, and we learn that they all have secrets. None of them are what they seem to be at first. They all have different agendas that bring them into conflict with one another.

I can understand that some people might not like it. The plot is complex, maybe too complex for people who're looking for a relaxing evening at the cinema. This is a film where you have to pay attention to details. It's not too complex to understand, but you need to stay alert.

This is only the second film that Drew Goddard has directed, but his first film, "Cabin in the Woods", was remarkable for a first film. I had to see his second film. He's had more experience as a script writer for television series like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel".

Overall, this is an excellent film that I can strongly recommend. It's a film that I want to see again.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (4 Stars)

This is a sequel to the 2015 film "Kingsman". If you liked the first film you'll love this film as well. Don't expect anything different. You get more of the same: ridiculously exaggerated action and a barely credible plot about a megalomaniac who threatens the world's safety.

In this case, it's arguable whether the threat to the world is really a threat. A woman called Poppy Adams has a monopoly of the world's supply of illicit drugs, everything from marijuana to heroin. She's laced the drugs with a deadly poison that affects its victims in four phases.

(1) They get blue marks on their faces.
(2) They can't stop dancing -- Is that a bad thing?
(3) They're paralysed.
(4) After a few days they die.

Most of the Kingsman agents are killed in a deadly attack by Poppy, but the survivors travel to America to team up with Statesman, an American spy organisation, to save the world's drug addicts. I'm sure Donald Trump would have let them die.

The Kingsman films target audiences who want to forget the world outside, put their brain on standby and laugh for two hours. The critics hate it, which is no surprise to anyone, but I love it. Now I can hardly wait for the third film.

Watch out for Elton John parodying himself. He must have a big sense of humour to accept this role.

You're probably wondering why Colin Firth is in the film poster, because he was killed in the first film. That means that the film poster is a spoiler.

Hell or High Water (4½ Stars)

Two brothers go on a crime spree, robbing a series of banks in small towns in Texas. They're not typical bank robbers. Instead of raiding the safes they only take money from the draws, so they only collect a few thousand dollars from each bank. They don't rob people in the banks, only the banks themselves. Most importantly, they only rob branches of the Texas Midlands Bank.

They have a score to settle. Their mother has recently died, and because she was in debt to the bank her ranch will soon be claimed. Toby Howard has discovered oil on his mother's land, and he wants his children to profit from it, so they don't have to grow up as poor as he did. The mother was in debt due to taking out something called a reverse mortgage. I had no idea what this is, and even after reading about it I have difficulty understanding all the details. It's a special type of loan only available in America, Canada and Australia. Home owners aged 62 and over can take out a loan, using their house as security, which they don't have to pay back. Each month the interest is added to the loan balance. When the person dies the bank takes possession of the house, unless the relatives are able to pay back the complete loan immediately. To me this seems like a dirty trick for banks to get their hands on houses they want, and that's how the Texas Midlands Bank is portrayed in the film: a greedy institution exploiting the poor.

The boys have a perfect plan to launder the money they steal. They take it to an Indian casino in Oklahoma and buy chips. They bet a few dollars, and then they cash out the chips with a cheque written by the casino, so that the whole amount looks like winnings. They then deposit the money at the Texas Midlands Bank, and when they have enough they use the money to pay off their mother's debts.

But every plan, however perfect, runs into problems. The two brothers are pursued by a Texas Ranger who's three weeks from retirement and wants to end his career with a big success.

This is a gritty film, set in abysmally poor towns in Texas. The action comes in bursts when you least expect them. It's impossible not to feel sympathy for the robbers, fighting back against the power of the banks.

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

Iron Man (4½ Stars)

"I am Iron Man".

Those four words, the last words spoken before the credits rolled in the 2008 Iron Man film, were the film's biggest surprise. They were the film's biggest shock. They weren't a shock to naive cinema goers who were new to the intricacies of the Marvel Universe. They were a shock to hardcore Marvel fans like me who've known Iron Man since he first appeared in Tales of Suspense #39 in 1963. I've read his early adventures from the 1960's countless times. I grew to know and love him when I was a child. Maybe "love" is an over-statement, because he was the least charismatic of all the early Marvel super-heroes, but I did know him. I knew his mannerisms. I knew the way he spoke. I know that he would never have spoken the words "I am Iron Man".

Why was it deemed necessary to make this drastic change to the character? It's a bigger change than placing him in a different century, 45 years later in the present day world. It's an even bigger change than relocating the country of his super-hero rebirth from China to Afghanistan. Those were logical changes. Making him reveal his secret identity at the beginning of his crime-fighting career is totally illogical.

This was the film that kicked off the Marvel Cinematic Universe, usually referred to simply as the MCU. It's a series of films that feature different characters, but are all interrelated. So far (at the time of writing this review) there have been 13 MCU films. At the moment another nine films are planned, but the exact number might still change. The films are leading up an adaptation of Jim Starlin's Infinity Gauntlet mini-series, first published in 1991. It will be a very loose adaptation, since the original comics featured the Silver Surfer and Adam Warlock battling Thanos, with assistance from the Avengers. It's unlikely that the Silver Surfer will be brought back after he was poorly developed in the second Fantastic Four film, and Adam Warlock hasn't even been hinted at in Marvel films so far.

After that it's possible that the MCU will either end or be rebooted. The actors playing the Avengers and the other super-heroes are getting older and don't want to play the characters forever. Up until now Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal of Tony Stark is the most iconic, so it's difficult to imagine the MCU continuing without him.

Of course, the film has a cameo by the incomparable Stan Lee. If you blink you'll miss him. Tony Stark mistakes him for Hugh Hefner at a party. At least, that's what we see if we watch the extended scene which was cut from the film. In the deleted scene Tony Stark apologises for his mistake, and Stan replies, "That's okay, I get this all the time". In the version used in the completed film we only see the greeting, so it's more logical to assume that it really was Hugh Hefner being played by Stan the Man Lee.

King Kong [1976 version] (3 Stars)

After watching two films about Philippe Petit's tightrope walk between the twin towers of the World Trade Centre this week, I thought I would watch another film about those famous landmark buildings. The only other film I have in my collection is the 1976 version of "King Kong". In the other two versions (1933 and 2005) Kong climbs the Empire State Building, but in the 1976 version he climbed the recently completed World Trade Center. The film poster shows him standing with one foot on each tower, but he isn't that big in the film. The most he could do was jump from one roof to the other.

When this film was shown in the cinemas it was a big commercial success. In retrospect it's been recognised as a poor quality film. The problem isn't with the special effects, which were adequate for the 1970's and a big improvement on the capabilities of 1933. The problem is that the story was rewritten, and the new screenplay was far inferior. Instead of an expedition to make a film it's a journey to hunt for oil. There's still an actress in this film, played by Jessica Lange in her first film, but she's found adrift at sea in a lifeboat. She's so shallow and ditzy that she's annoying.

Another problem is that the poignancy of the romantic feelings between the ape and the actress are lost. Instead, Kong seems driven by sexual lust. Just look at his wild eyes when he looks at her.

He manages to pull off her top for a fraction of a second. I doubt audiences could enjoy this when the film was in the cinemas, but now that we have DVDs we can pause the film to see what made Kong's eyes so wild.

Peter Jackson showed how it should be done when he remade "King Kong" in 2005. He kept as close as possible to the original story, adding a few details but taking nothing away. Best of all, Peter Jackson set his new version in the 1930's. I admit that it was cute seeing the World Trade Center in the 1976 version, but apart from that the atmosphere was spoilt by setting it in the modern era.

Jeff Bridges challenged Jessica Lange to my favourite game, Backgammon. It seems like he was having trouble concentrating.

Iron Man (4½ Stars)

In typical New Marvel style the story of Iron Man's origin is retold. I wish that the films could take place in the 1960's, when the comics were first written, but I guess that the film makers thought the films would be more relevant if they took place in the present. One other change from the comics is that the heroes frequently remove their mask in a showdown. That is something that is totally incorrect. The masks -- or in Iron Man's case the helmet -- should stay on.

So what are the other differences here? In the comics Tony Stark designed his suit while captured by the Chinese. Pepper Potts was less efficient and less attractive. And Nick Fury wasn't black.

So no review here. I assume most of my readers have seen the film and know what it's about. If not, go rent it now.