Spider-Man 2 (5 Stars)

Why doesn't Marvel make films like this any more? I hate it when my friends say that Marvel films are bad, because I can't argue with them. Most of the new Marvel films are average quality at best. Look at my ratings. I'm honest. There were a few good films at the beginning of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), but ever since "Avengers Endgame" the quality has been sliding. What's wrong? Too many films? Not enough care to find good writers? Or is it just incapable managers looking after Disney and Marvel Studios?

Sam Raimi was the perfect choice to direct the Spider-Man trilogy. If it had remained a trilogy. He already had plans for two more films, but the studio didn't agree. Then the Spider-Man franchise was rebooted with Andrew Garfield. I like to pretend that the "Amazing Spider-Man" films were never made. Shall I ever watch them again? Probably not. But I can watch the original trilogy (2002 to 2007) again and again.

As my regular readers must have realised, I was disappointed with this year's Fantasy Film Festival. Most of the films were average to poor. For this reason I've made a decision. Every time I watch a film that I rate less than four stars, I'll watch at least two five star films, preferably from my top 100. I need to stick with quality. In theory, I could watch my top 100 films one after another for years, never bothering to watch any new films. They're all films that are good enough to watch over and over again.

Success Rate:  + 1.9

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

Prince of Persia (3 Stars)

This is one of Gemma Arterton's American films that she made early in her career. She's now said that she'll never make films in America again, after feeling ashamed of the quality of "Hansel and Gretel Witchhunters". She felt it was a poor film, even though it was successful at the box office. I shan't argue with her, even though I disagree with her decision. She's more interested in producing artistic films than in making a lot of money. I respect her for that.

Interestingly enough, I recently received a comment from an anonymous reader telling me I should watch more good films. He gave me a few examples of directors I should watch, while telling me to stay away from Adam Sandler and Marvel movies. I totally disagreed with what he wrote and the way he wrote it. I'll watch any film in any genre, whether it's a Hollywood blockbuster or an obscure independent film, as long as I enjoy it.

There's a certain snobbishness among film fans who claim to know which films are better than others. Maybe they're people who've been to film schools, or maybe they're just people who read certain highbrow magazines. The wisest words I've heard on the subject are from the German director/producer Wolf C. Hartwig. Whether or not you like his films, you have to agree that he knew what he was talking about. He claimed that the measure of a good film is that it's a film people want to see. Not everyone, of course. There are different tastes. But if a film makes money, it's a good film. In an interview he singled out Rainer Werner Fassbinder, who was also named by the anonymous reader in his comment. To paraphrase his words, Wolf C. Hartwig said that people say Fassbinder made good films, but nobody wanted to watch them, which makes them bad films.

I've watched a lot of Fassbinder's films. I was in the middle of working my way through two box sets when I started writing my blog in 2010. You can find reviews of the last few films I watched. I bought the (relatively expensive) box sets because people had told me his films were good. I watched them with an open mind, and I didn't like them. I'll never watch them again.

Don't let anyone tell you you shouldn't watch a film because it's bad. Watch it for yourself. Make up your own mind. If a lot of people like the film, you can say it's a good film. If you like a film that few others like, you might have to grudgingly accept that it's not such a good film, but if you personally like it, don't let everyone else put you off. If you're a Fassbinder fan, go ahead and enjoy his films, but don't try to tell people the films are good.

Success Rate:  + 0.2

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

Harold and the Purple Crayon (4 Stars)

Books are magic. In a way, they're more magical than films. When a child picks up a book he's carried away into another world, empowered by his own imagination. In 1955 the American author Crockett Johnson wrote a book called "Harold and the Purple Crayon". It was about a boy who lived in a world where everything he drew became real. Despite his Godlike powers, Harold was lonely, so he drew animals to be his friends, Porcupine and Moose. However, Harold wasn't completely alone. He heard the voice of Crockett Johnson speaking to him. He considered him to be his father, which was partially true.

Rather than being an adaptation of the book, the film takes place on a meta level. One day Crockett stops speaking to him, so Harold decides to travel to the real world to find his father. As if the outside world is any more real than Harold's world. That's a question for philosophers to discuss. It's a strange new world, much bigger than he expected. Most wonderful of all, he now has a three-dimensional body. At first Harold travels with Moose, but he's later joined by Porcupine, both of whom have acquired human bodies.

The film is hilarious, most of the humour stemming from Harold's childish naivety. Zachary Levi carries the title character with his spotless comic timing. The other characters, though also funny, are overshadowed by his performance.

I'm surprised to hear that the film has received poor reviews. I can't fault it. It was made as a children's film, and I find that it succeeds within the parameters of children's films.

After seeing the film I want to buy the book. For my grandson. That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it.

Spider-Man: No Way Home (5 Stars)

Today I watched the "More Fun Stuff" version of the film in the cinema. That's a silly name. Couldn't they just have called it the Extended Version? That would have been more dignified.

I'll refrain from writing about the film itself, even though I didn't say much about it in my past reviews. I'll just comment on the More Fun Stuff changes. The added scenes, a total of 13 minutes, are almost entirely at the beginning of the film, apart from a new after-credits scene. In my opinion, the new scenes don't improve the film at all. They're mostly interviews which just slow the film down. I'm not saying the scenes are bad, I'm just saying that it doesn't matter whether they're in the film or not. If there's a More Fun Stuff Blu-ray release, I'll only buy it if it's very cheap.

The original theatrical version had an after-credits scene that was effectively a trailer for "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness". The More Fun Stuff version has an after-credits scene with Betty Brant praising her fellow students on being accepted into college. It's a cute scene, but totally unnecessary.

Here are a few sketches used in the final credits. They're simple but beautiful. I wish I were a gifted artist. Or even an average artist. I can't draw at all. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'm a zero.

Success Rate:  + 8.4

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

Spider-Man: No Way Home (5 Stars)

This is the 27th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). If you think that I must be smart to remember something like that, you're over-estimating me. I have a list of the films in a spreadsheet which I keep open while writing about MCU films. I also have little green stickers on the spines of my MCU Blu-ray discs, so I know what order they should be on my bookshelf.

Logically, "No Way Home" (I'll abbreviate the title) continues from the 26 previous MCU films, but it's unique in that it incorporates elements from non-MCU films. The film is all about the multiverse, so it re-introduces characters from previous versions of Spider-Man. In particular, we see the previous actors who played Spider-Man reprising their roles.

Three Spider-Men! Or should I say three Spider-Mans? What's the rule for the plural of proper names? Someone who's as fanatical about the English language as me ought to know the answer to that question. Please don't ask me when we meet in person, because I'd be sure to turn bright red.

Welcome back, Spider-Man #1, played by Tobey Maguire from 2002 to 2007. He's aged in the last 15 years. Haven't we all? I wish they'd used makeup to make him look younger.

Welcome back, Spider-Man #2, played by Andrew Garfield from 2012 to 2014. His career was cut short when "Amazing Spider-Man 3" was cancelled. I was never happy that Peter Parker's father was made an important character, but I wish the third part of the trilogy had been made to tie up the loose ends. The final scene of "Amazing Spider-Man 2" introduced the Rhino, possibly as a member of the Sinister Six, but the next film was never made.

Accompanying the Spider-Mans into the Marvel Cinematic Universe are Doctor Octopus, Green Goblin, Sandman, Electro and the Lizard. Strangely, the wrong version of Venom was drawn into the MCU. Eddie Brock from Earth-TRN688 arrived, not Eddie Brock from Earth-96283. I assume this was a blunder, because there's no logical reason for it.

The story is continued in the 28th MCU film, "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness", which I plan to watch later this week. The two films couldn't be more different. "No Way Home" is a serious film, whereas "Multiverse of Madness" is spoilt by too much humour. Still, I'm biased in favour of Sam Raimi, so I'll make an effort to enjoy "Multiverse of Madness" when I watch it again.

Happy Hogan uses a CPAP machine to get eight hours of undisturbed sleep.

This is Zendaya's third film as Peter Parker's girlfriend MJ. She looks more attractive in each film. Remind me to publish a photo gallery showing her development from film to film.

Tasty! I'd visit her café for a donut every day.

Peter Parker doesn't have a sweet tooth. He just orders a cup of coffee.

One question is left unanswered, in this film at least: are there just three Spider-Mans or many many more? Maybe there are many versions of Mike Hood aka Dancer in the multiverse. Some of them probably write better blogs than me. I should meet them to get a few pointers. Or maybe I'm a singularity who only exists in one universe. Until then, don't forget:

I am Dancer.

Success Rate:  + 7.5

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

Spider-Man: No Way Home (5 Stars)

I finally got a chance to see the new Spider-Man film today. It's been sold out for the last two weeks, unlike "The Matrix Resurrections", which hasn't been so popular with cinema audiences.

I don't want to give away too much for a new film, so I'll restrict myself to what we see in the trailer. At the end of "Spider-Man: Far From Home" it was announced to the world that Peter Parker was Spider-Man. This has disrupted his life, so he visits Doctor Strange and asks him to cast a spell to make everyone forget who he is. The spell tampers with the multiverse, so we see various enemies from other versions of Spider-Man appear to challenge him.

To get technical: this film, along with the whole of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), takes place in a universe called Earth-199999.

Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films take place in Earth-96283.

The Amazing Spider-Man films take place in Earth-120703.

Don't blame me! I didn't invent these numbers!

On a less technical level, after the merging and alliances of various film studios, there was a push to reconcile the different versions of Spider-Man with one another. This idea scared me. It's a recipe for disaster. I was pleasantly surprised that the film turned out so well. It's chaotic. Anyone who walks in who hasn't watched dozens of Marvel films over the last 18 years won't have any idea what's going on. Nevertheless, "No Way Home" accurately captures the style and atmosphere of Marvel comics. The plot gets ridiculous as it progresses – no spoilers! – but it fits the story.

Maybe just one spoiler: Wong is now the Sorcerer Supreme? That's just silly!

Spider-Man 2 (5 Stars)

This is the second film in Sam Raimi's brilliant Spider-Man trilogy. As I've said in past reviews, one of the greatest strengths of these three films is the casting. Actors were chosen who looked like the characters in the comics. Alfred Molina looks so much like Doctor Octopus that it's difficult to imagine anyone else ever playing the role.

I recently read that when the first Spider-Man film was planned in the early 2000's Stan Lee requested permission to play J. Jonah Jameson. I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, I admire Stan Lee so much that I'd love to see him in a large role rather than a brief cameo. On the other hand, J. K. Simmons played the part so perfectly that I wouldn't want to see anyone else. Supposedly Steve Ditko based his drawings of J. Jonah Jameson on Stan Lee. I shan't say anything else about it. Whichever decision I make, I'll regret it tomorrow.

Success Rate:  + 1.9

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

Spider-Man 2 (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #23

I watched this film out of order in my Top 100 countdown. I know that I'm erratic, but in this case I had a good reason. Can you figure it out?

While watching "Spider-Man 2" today I tried to figure out why most fans like it more than the first film. Is it because there's more action? That's the only reason I can think of. In all other respects the first film is either equally good or better.

I like the way that the opening credits are scenes from the first film. It's a kind of summary of "Spider-Man", which was made two years earlier. It's not detailed enough to explain things to anyone who didn't see the first film, but the collection of photos is detailed enough to bring everyone else up to speed.

Peter Parker cradles his dying Uncle Ben in his arms.

Peter stands over Uncle Ben's grave.

The Kiss! This is one of the most iconic scenes in the first film, and there are references to it in the two other films in the trilogy. I praised Sam Raimi for sticking close to the original comics, but this kiss is something new that he's injected into the story. It's done so respectfully that I can't criticise him for the novel idea. It fits the film so well. The MTV Movie Awards have a prize for the Best Kiss. This category is sadly missing from the Academy Awards. Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst won the award in 2003. That's the least that they deserve. It wasn't just the Kiss of the Year, it's the Kiss of the Century.

But for all the passion, the Kiss wasn't enough to seal the relationship. Peter Parker walked away while Mary Jane looked on wistfully.

Now Peter can't get away from her. Wherever he goes, he sees her photo on the wall.

The villain of the second film is Otto Octavius, also known as Doctor Octopus. In the comics he's a purely evil character. "Spider-Man 2" portrays him as a complicated character who has noble motives, despite the crimes that he carries out to get what he wants. This makes for a more interesting film, I admit. In Stan Lee's early super-hero comics there was a sharp distinction between good and evil.

In the comics Aunt May disliked Spider-Man, but she praises his nobility as a hero in this film. That's unfortunate. It added to the poignancy of her relationship to her nephew that she thought Spider-Man was a villain. She even preferred Doctor Octopus to Spider-Man, as we see in Amazing Spider-Man #115.

And it almost comes as far as marriage in Amazing Spider-Man #131.

That's something that Sam Raimi let slip through his fingers. He couldn't have gone as far as a wedding in a two-hour film, but he could have spiced up the story with a budding romance between Aunt May and Doctor Octopus. Instead of this he shows Doctor Octopus already being married.

Despite all of this, it's still an excellent film. Maybe it should be a few places higher in my list, even if it's not as good as "Spider-Man".

Success Rate:  + 1.9

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

Promising Young Woman (4 Stars)

Cassie is 30 years old and works in a coffee shop. She lives with her parents and has never had a boyfriend. By all accounts she's a failure in life. And yet, she used to go to a medical school. She was one of the best students, but she dropped out after two years. What happened to her?

It's all because of her best friend Nina. They grew up together, they went to school together, and they went to college together. One evening she got drunk at a party, and she was raped by one of their fellow students. Nobody believed her story. There were other party guests who saw everything, presumably all male, and they kept quiet. She dropped out of college and died a short time later, presumably suicide.

You'll notice that I've already used the word presumably twice. If I continued with a full plot summary I'd have to use the word many more times. There are lots of things that are hinted in the film, not explicitly stated. In the two cases above, it's easy to guess what happened. It's obvious. In later scenes it isn't so clear. That annoyed me.

But getting back to Cassie, what's she doing with her life? Every Friday she goes to a club and pretends to be drunk. She waits for a man to take her home. She keeps a log in her diary of whether the man takes advantage of her in her drunken state. She makes black and red marks in her diary, to show whether it was a good man or not. Presumably. If it's a bad man she reveals that she's still sober at the last moment.

By chance she finds out that Nina's rapist, now a successful doctor, is about to get married. She steps up her activities and prepares to take revenge on him and those closest to him.

I felt slightly disappointed after hearing all the praise heaped on the film. To me it seemed uneven. There are some very good scenes, whereas others are less convincing. Over the years she's gone to the houses of strange men, presumably hundreds of men, and nothing bad has ever happened to her. What are the chances of that? The film is an interesting new slant on rape'n'revenge thrillers, but its uniqueness is what makes it weaker.

"Promising Young Woman" has already been released on disc in Britain and America. Its cinema release in Germany has been delayed by the cinema lockdowns.

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

Don't Let Go (4 Stars)

Jack and Garrett Radcliff are two very different brothers. Jack is a policeman. Garret is a drug addict. Garret's daughter Ashley dislikes her father, so she has a strong relationship with her Uncle Jack, She rings him every day to tell him what's going on in her life, sometimes asking for advice, sometimes just chatting. Jack is unmarried and doesn't have any children of his own, so Ashley is a substitute daughter for him.

One day Ashley is hysterical when she calls Jack at work. There are gunshots in the background, and then the call is cut off. Jack drives to Garrett's home and finds the family dead. The official verdict is that Garrett shot his wife, his daughter and finally himself while he was high on cocaine, but Jack finds clues that someone else was responsible.

Ten days later Jack receives a phone call from Ashley. She's somehow calling from the past. She says it's August 25th, four days before she was killed. Jack doesn't want to scare her by telling her what will happen, but he gives her instructions which will help her avoid being killed. Everything she does differently has an immediate effect on Jack's present day life, sometimes dramatically. For instance, Jack is killed while investigating the murder case, but then Ashley's life is saved two weeks previously, so Jack returns to life.

But it's only a partial change. Ashley was killed a week later, so Jack has to help her to avoid her second death.

I'm well aware that this review is more detailed than what I usually write about new films, but I don't consider that I've given away spoilers. A lot more happens in the film. I decided to write in more detail than usual in order to show what sort of film it is. It doesn't actually involve time travel, but the cross-time communication creates similar dilemmas. It doesn't involve parallel universes, such as the ones created by time travel in Marvel Comics. It's a single timeline which can be changed, the same as in "See You Yesterday".

Some of the things in the film were difficult for me to understand while I watched the film. I thought that there were possibly mistakes. When I sat thinking about the film at home, before beginning to write this review, I realised that everything is logical within the parameters of the film's philosophy of time. This is a better film than "See You Yesterday", and I already look forward to watching it again.

Spider-Man 2 (5 Stars)

"Spider-Man 2" was made in 2004 and is a sequel to the 2002 film "Spider-Man". I consider it almost as good as the first film, making it the second best Marvel film ever. While watching it today I had to ask myself what makes it better than the more recent Marvel films, and I could only think of two words: Sam Raimi. He knew what he was doing, remaining close to the source material in the 1960's comics.

Having said that, he does deviate from Stan Lee's stories more in the second film than he did in the first. In the comics Doctor Octopus was all bad. All he wanted to do was get rich and kill Spider-Man. Sam Raimi decided to make Dr. Otto Octavius a complicated man who wants to do good but ends up doing evil. That was a wise choice. In films the best movie villains are the ones we can sympathise with.

In the film Dr. Octavius is a scientist determined to create a perfect energy source, a device in perpetual motion creating infinite energy. He doesn't do this to become rich or even win a Nobel prize, he sees it as his duty to help humanity. He's created mechanical arms to assist him in handling dangerous material, each arm endowed with its own artificial intelligence, but given orders by the doctor himself via a neural link. After an accident while testing the energy source the arms take control of him, taking away his reluctance to kill people. And yet he still wants to create the energy source.

He's not all bad. In the end he dies a hero. That's a character trait that Stan Lee never envisaged, but it's appropriate to the film.

Stan Lee's cameo is even briefer than in the first film. It lasts for one and a half seconds, and his face is visible for less than a second. It's an equally heroic cameo to the one in the first film. He saves a woman from falling debris when Spider-Man and Doctor Octopus are fighting on the side of a tall building.

In the first film Bruce Campbell played a wrestling ring announcer. This time he's a theatre usher. Is that a different role, or the same person who's changed his job? It's not clear, but if I had to guess I'd say the latter. I've read that Sam Raimi intended Bruce Campbell to play the villain Mysterio in "Spider-Man 4". It's a crime that the film was never made.

Look at how Sam Raimi manages to recreate this iconic scene from Spider-Man #50.

Sam Raimi could hardly be more respectful to the source material, as created by Stan lee and John Romita.

"Spider-Man 2" presents Spider-Man as his fans know and love him. I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Bring back Sam Raimi!

Success Rate:  + 1.9

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

Spider-Man 2 (5 Stars)

There are advantages and disadvantages to not watching a good film for a long time. The disadvantages are obvious. I'm missing out on something brilliant while spending my time watching inferior films. But the big advantage of not watching a good film for a long time -- in this case seven years -- is that when I finally watch it again it's like a new film to me.

"Spider-Man 2" is undoubtedly one of the best films ever made. Some people consider it to be better than "Spider-Man", which was made two years earlier. That's a tough decision to make. I consider "Spider-Man" to be slightly better than the sequel, but it's so close that I won't argue with anyone who disagrees with me. The first film is good because of the origin story. The second film has more emotional depth. Watching the film today convinced me of Sam Raimi's skills as a director. He should be allowed to direct all the Marvel films from now on.

In my last review, which I wrote seven years ago, I wrote that the film's extended cut, entitled "Spider-Man 2.1", adds nothing to the film. That's not quite true. "Spider-Man 2.1" adds a hilarious scene where J. Jonah Jameson tries on Spider-Man's costume. That's definitely worth seeing as one of the few comic highlights in an overall serious film.

The elevator scene is completely different in the extended cut. In the theatrical version the man in the elevator assumes that Spider-Man is someone going to a costume party. In the extended cut he knows that it's the real Spider-Man and gives him advice on how to improve his image. The original scene is better.

"Spider-Man 2" is in my Top 50 film list, which I intend to count down next year, so I'll be watching it again soon. I just checked my list, and it's in 14th place. Maybe I ought to push it up a few places before next year. I'll see.

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

This box contains links to the Spider-Man trilogy box set. It's so cheap that it's not worth buying "Spider-Man 2" by itself.