The Toxic Avenger [2025] (4 Stars)

This is the sixth film in the Stuttgart Fantasy Film Festival.

What a beautiful film! I wouldn't say it's perfect, but it's a breath of fresh air after the poor films today. It's not meant to be a serious or meaningful film. It's just 90 minutes of unashamed violence, although the violence is so unrealistically that it made everyone laugh.

It's pitched as a remake of the 1984 Toxic Avenger film, but there are brief references to the characters in the first film. What I especially like is that the film was obviously made with a large budget, but a deliberate effort has been made to make it look cheap. It could have been made in the 1980's. Pete Dinklage is the perfect actor to play the Toxic Avenger, and a sequel is promised after the credits. I can hardly wait!

Maxxxine (5 Stars)

This film is often referred to as the third film in the X trilogy. I don't like to call it that, but I can't think of a better alternative. The three films star the actress Mia Goth in two different roles, as Pearl and Maxine. The correct order in which to watch them is "Pearl" (2022), "X" (2022) and "Maxxxine" (2024). That isn't the order in which they were released, but it makes sense. Take my word for it.

Pearl and Maxine are two women who share the same dreams of becoming big stars. The difference is that Maxine succeeds while Pearl fails.

The film can be compared with Quentin Tarantino's "One Upon a Time in Hollywood". Both films present the golden age of Hollywood, in 1985 and 1969 respectively. The difference is that Tarantino presents Hollywood as a glamorous city of dreams, whereas "Maxxxine" shows Hollywood as a sleazy place. Which is more accurate? I'll let people who've been in Hollywood decide.

I've rated "Maxxxine" higher than in my last review, but I still don't think it's up to the quality of "Pearl"

Success Rate:  + 0.2

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

Maxxxine (4½ Stars)

"Maxxxine" is the third film in the X trilogy. Sort of. "X" took place in 1979 and introduced the young woman Maxine Minx who wanted to become a big star. Mia Goth played two roles, Maxine and the old woman Pearl. The second film, "Pearl", took place in 1918, a prequel about the previous life of Pearl herself. "Maxxxine" takes place in 1985 and continues Maxine's story, so it's really the second film.

I've been waiting anxiously for "Maxxxine" all year. "Pearl" was the best film of 2023 – argue if you like, but I won't change my mind – so I expected "Maxxxine" to be the best film of 2024. I'm disappointed to say that it doesn't live up to my expectations. Almost, but not quite. It doesn't have the subtlety of "Pearl", but I can see it was never the intention. "Pearl" takes place on a remote farm in Texas, whereas "Maxxxine" takes place in the big, brash city of Hollywood.

In the last six years Maxine Minx has found success in the porn industry. Naturally, that isn't enough for her. She wants the whole world to know her name, but porn stars are only known by a select few. Even people who watch porn films don't know the names of the naked bodies rolling around the screen. And don't forget, the year is 1985. The videotape porn industry was still in its early years. Maxine needs to go to Hollywood.

She's hired for the leading role in a horror film. Admittedly, very few horror film stars get worldwide attention, but it's a start on her ladder to stardom. She's thrown into a myriad of problems. People are being killed by Richard Ramirez, nicknamed the Night Stalker. Someone is killing Maxine's friends. There are mass protests against horror films (presumably started by the video-nasty-phobia) outside the studios. And to round it all off, a private detective is stalking her who knows about the farmhouse massacre in "X".

There are a lot of flashbacks to "X". Would they confuse anyone who hasn't seen the first film? I don't know.

I intend to watch "Maxxxine" again next week. I might revise my rating.

JFK (4 Stars)

I was recently recommended this film by a friend. I'm thankful to him. It's 26 years since it was first released, and I'd vaguely heard about it, but for some reason I've never been inclined to watch it until now. When the film started I was a bit scared by the 3 hours 26 minutes running time, but I soon found it so fascinating that I couldn't tear myself away.

The film covers a controversial subject. On November 22nd 1963 President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. Within hours Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested as the prime suspect, but he was never put on trial because he was shot dead on live television two days later.

From the beginning there were doubts about the investigation. Lee Harvey Oswald swore he was innocent, but he was denied access to a lawyer. He was interrogated for 12 hours by the police, but no tapes were made.

Things remained calm, or rather swept under the rug, for the next three years. In 1966 Jim Garrison, the District Attorney of New Orleans, began to investigate the case. He was unable to name any one person as the shooter, but he was convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the killer. It was possible that he fired the first shot and missed, but the following five shots came from marksmen firing from three different angles. This is in contrast to the official Warren Report that claimed there were only three shots, all fired by Oswald. The evidence was arranged so neatly for the police to find that it looks like Oswald was set up. It's highly unlikely that he could have fired all three shots, even if there had only been three. His military record described him as a poor to medium marksman, and he was shooting from a difficult angle through foliage. Garrison asked three expert marksmen to hit a stationery target from the same room, and none of them succeeded. Lee Harvey Oswald was able to hit a person in a moving car.

Jim Garrison claimed that the assassination was orchestrated by the CIA, assisted by the FBI, the American military, the Mafia and anti-Castro Cuban immigrants. The motive was the dislike of Kennedy's pacifism and his intention to withdraw all American troops from Vietnam.

While it's not certain if Garrison was correct in all of his suppositions, there are too many suspicious circumstances surrounding the case. Many of the primary witnesses died soon after the assassination, some by accidental deaths and some by suicide. Somebody in a position of authority was doubtlessly trying to cover things up.

Do I have an explanation? No. I don't have access to enough information on the subject to form an informed opinion. The official documents on the subject were to be kept sealed until 2029, but their release was brought forward to 2017, with the exception of a small number of documents that President Trump decided should be withheld for a few more years. I expect no revelations from these documents. Anyone who wanted to act illegally made sure that nothing was written down.

The film is obviously one-sided, but it's a good film in its pacing and suspense. It's about as good as any legal drama can be.

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

X-Men: First Class (5 Stars)

I've read various articles that call the first X-Men film, made in 2000, to be the best super-hero film ever made. Even writers at Empire magazine subscribe to this opinion. I don't understand why anyone would say something like that. The best super-hero film is Sam Raimi's Spider-Man, made two years later in 2002. Usually I accept other opinions because I know that tastes differ, but in this case it's so obvious that "Spider-Man" is better that I want to shake the head of anyone who contradicts me.

Even among the X-Men films the first film wasn't the best. "X-Men: First Class" is a much faster paced and better crafted film. I consider it to be the best of the six X-Men films. It catches the essence of the early X-Men comics, even if it features different characters. Apart from Charles Xavier (Professor X), the only member if the original group that appears in the film is Hank McCoy, the Beast.

There's one thing that the X-Men films do better than the comics. That's the portrayal of Magneto. He was admirably portrayed by Ian McKellen in the first three X-Men films, and Michael Fassbender was even more impressive as a younger Magneto in "First Class". In the comics Magneto was aloof. He always wore a helmet, so we never saw his face. He was utterly evil. It wasn't until the 1980's, 20 years after his first appearance, that we found out his real name was Magnus. Later it was said that his name was Erik. First it was said that Magneto came from an East European gypsy background, but later he was said to be Jewish. Marvel went on to write stories to explain the discrepancies, saying that he used different pseudonyms in his youth and only pretended to be a gypsy. That was merely an attempt to fix a mess that should never have been there in the first place. In the 1980's Marvel continuity, the thing Marvel had been famous for since the early 1960's, was breaking down. Different authors wrote whatever they wanted without reading previous comics, and they contradicted one another. They made mistakes. The real Magneto, as created by Stan Lee, faded away some time in the mid-1980's and was replaced by the re-imaginings of less talented authors, despite the valiant attempts of Chris Claremont to hold continuity together.

I'm drifting away from the point I wanted to make. What I want to say is that the real Magneto was a big bad monster that we knew nothing about. The X-Men films develop his character. We know him. We sympathise with him. Even when he does wrong we see that he's trying to achieve good goals. This is the case in all six X-Men films, but never more clearly than in "First Class". This is a film that concentrates on the relationship between the two idealistic young men, Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr.

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

P.S. I want to keep my readers up to date on what television series have been keeping me away from my films lately. This week I've watched the whole second season of "Teen Wolf" and the first half of the second season of "Vikings". Maybe I should write something about "Vikings". Wait and see,

X-Men: First Class (4½ Stars)

Tomorrow I'm going to see "X-Men: Days of Future Past", so I rewatched "X-Men: First Class" today. It's a very good film, even though it jumbles up X-Men characters from the 1960's to the 21st Century.

Read my original review here.

One more photo of Mystique. Nude and proud. It's a shame she lost her nipples.

The Air I Breathe (4 Stars)

I already reviewed the film in October last year. What should I add to the review? Overall I've rated it less highly this time. I found on second watching that I was looking for a golden thread of hope, which was never clearly defined. Sure, there were happy moments, but maybe not happy in the way you would expect.

Forest Whitaker (Happiness) finds true happiness when he knows he is going to die. It's not even a happiness based on the promise of an afterlife, it's simply happiness that he has escaped a life of meaninglessness.

Brendan Fraser (Pleasure) also finds fulfilment in the events leading up to his death. He has been denied the pleasure of unexpected surprises, so being confronted with something he knows nothing about satisfies him.

Kevin Bacon (Love) saves the life of the woman he loves, but he still has to accept that she is married to his best friend.

Only Sarah Michelle Gellar (Sorrow) finds true happiness in the film. She is offered a way out. She is allowed to become anonymous and hide from her life of glamour and paparazzi.

I've read different reviews about which of the characters connects the others. The gangster called Fingers appears in connection with all four characters, though only slightly in connection with the doctor, Love. Others say that it's the doctor who connects everyone. In my eyes Sorrow is the true central character. The other three, Happiness, Pleasure and Love, all work together to give her a new start.

This is an interesting, haunting film. I'm sure I shall watch it again, at the right time. Click here to view the trailer.

X-Men: First Class (5 Stars)

My guest writer Kay already reviewed this film here.

Of the four X-Men films made so far this prequel is the best. From the beginning it drew me in with its excitement, drama and fast pacing. I quickly grew to love the characters of Charles Xavier (Professor X) and Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto). It's amusing to see the young Charles as a womanizer.

The film begins in 1944, but most of the events take place in 1962 against the background of the Cuban missile crisis. I can't fault the film as an opus within itself, but it takes great liberties with the chronology of the X-Men comics and the Marvel universe in general. Random characters are thrown together who were up to 20 years apart in their first appearances in the comics. Sebastian Shaw knew Magneto as a child? Mystique grew up as Professor X's sister? And Hank McCoy turned blue before the X-Men were formed? Tut tut tut..... Still, it was fun watching the characters I know and love. Even if they were anachronisms. I was surprised at the inclusion of Riptide in Sebastian Shaw's Hellfire Club, since he was a relatively minor character who wasn't introduced until 1986. The only character I didn't recognise was Darwin. I had to google to find out who he was, and he actually didn't appear in the X-Men comics until 2006. The reason for his inclusion must have been his skin colour; the film had to be politically correct and include at least one black mutant. Silly.

Click here to watch the trailer.

And click on this picture if you want to read about the REAL X-Men first class, as they were first portrayed in the comics in 1963. Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Angel, Iceman and the Beast. Those were the good old days.

Super (3 Stars)

The similarity with "Kick-Ass" is obvious, but this is a much darker and less moral film. Frank is a disillusioned "normal guy". He considers himself a failure, but he has one good thing in his life. He has a beautiful wife, Sarah, who gives him strength. Then things go bad. Sarah turns to drugs and becomes a crack addict. She leaves him to live with Jacques, a drug dealer.

In the midst of his desperation a Christian television programme motivates him to become a costumed hero. Super powers aren't necessary, all you need is the will to do good. So he makes a costume and calls himself the Crimson Bolt. He walks around town beating up drug dealers and thieves with a wrench. And also people who butt into lines in cinema queues. There's no difference between large and small crimes in his eyes. A girl who works in a comic shop, Libby, recognises him and joins him as his kid sidekick, calling herself Bolty. Together they go on a mission to kill Jacques and get Frank's wife back.

This is an ugly film, in many ways. It shows a man who has good intentions carrying out bad deeds to achieve his aims. For me as a comic book fan with a sense of idealism it hurts me to see a "hero" acting like this. Maybe it's a good film. But I didn't enjoy it. Sorry. It's one of those films where I feel like I have to wait a year and then watch it again. Maybe I'll appreciate it more then.

Click here to view the trailer.

X-Men: First Class [Guest Writer] (5 Stars)

Before I begin this review I would like to point out that I watched this with no prior prejudice against the entire Marvel and X-Men corporation. The only things I saw before this was the previous X-Men movies and the Wolverine movie staring Hugh Jackman so bear that in mind when reading this.

I loved this movie to be entirely honest with you. I'm a pretty simple person when it comes to my movies. I don't go to a movie to be confused, listen to thought provoking philosophers go on and on about the universe and try to convert me to some strange new cult way of thinking. I go there for the enjoyment of escaping away into a fantasy world where the impossible become probable for a few hours and this movie allowed it to happen.

So here is the story: In 1944, in Poland, the boy Erik Lehnsherr unleashes his magnetic power when his mother is sent to a concentration camp. The evil Dr. Sebastian Shaw brings Erik to his office and kills his mother, increasing his abilities through anger. In New York, the wealthy Charles Xavier meets the mutant Raven (Mystique) and invites her to live in his manor. In 1962, the CIA agent Moira MacTaggert discovers the existence of mutants working with Shaw and the invites Professor Xavier to recruit mutants to work for the USA government. Xavier teams up with Raven, Erik and a group of young mutants. Sooner they learn that the evil Shaw has the intention of beginning a nuclear war to destroy the world and increase his power.

I loved seeing the back-story of how Charles' and Erik's relationship grew and transformed by the end of the movie. It was probably the most touching and heart-wrenching part of the movie for me - to see two close friends become enemies. One thing that sort of confused me about their friendship and made it just a bit unrealistic for me was in how fast their friendship grew to such monumental proportions. From the way that they interact throughout the entire X-Men saga one would think they were childhood friends turned enemies. So unless their bond formed over a longer period of time than the movie suggests I had to question that. I enjoyed seeing some new faces and wonder where they went but otherwise it was a very good movie. I also really enjoyed the lead actors of this movie. I think James McAvoy, a recently discovered talent that I loved from the minute I saw "Wanted" (will do a review of that one later) and am glad he got to play such an iconic role and see that he did it justice. It was all so good I saw it three times in theaters. Haha!

The Air I Breathe (4½ Stars)

Happiness. Pleasure. Sorrow. Love.

This 2008 film is based on a Chinese proverb which says that it's impossible to know one of these emotions without experiencing the other three. The four leading characters in the film are named after these emotions.

Forest Whitaker is Happiness, a bank employee in a dead end job who knows there is more to life.

Brendan Fraser is Pleasure, a gangster's enforcer and debt collector, with the ability to see but not change the future.

Sarah Michelle Gellar is Sorrow, a famous pop star who is miserable despite her popularity.

Kevin Bacon is Love, a doctor who is dedicated to saving lives, but is tragically in love with his best friend's wife.

The four of them are brought together by their interaction with the gangster Fingers, played by Andy Garcia. All four of them find what they want by their chance meetings with one another. This is a deeply spiritual film, and with the multi-star cast it's difficult to understand why it wasn't more successful. Maybe it's too spiritual, too allegorical. Maybe the unusual naming of the four main characters is too abstract for the usual cinema fan. I enjoyed this film greatly, and I feel I may like it even more on watching it again. Wait for my next review.