Venom: The Last Dance (4 Stars)

Venom: The Last Dance, more commonly known as Venom 3, arrives with a sense of finality, but also a feeling of diminishing returns. After the bruising odd-couple energy of Venom and the more confident comic-book silliness of Let There Be Carnage, this third instalment feels thinner, safer and oddly less sure of what makes the series work.

The most obvious problem is the script. The earlier films thrived on the anarchic push-and-pull between Eddie Brock and his alien lodger; their bickering, co-dependence and warped affection gave the chaos a human core. Here, that dynamic is still present but watered down. The dialogue leans on familiar jokes rather than sharpening them, and the emotional beats feel pre-packaged rather than earned. What once felt anarchic now feels routine.

Tom Hardy remains committed; he always does. Yet even his dual performance struggles against a story that gives him fewer interesting situations to play. In the first two films, Eddie was constantly reacting to an unstable world and an even more unstable voice in his head. In The Last Dance, he often feels like he is being carried from set-piece to set-piece, reacting less and explaining more. Exposition replaces escalation, which is rarely a good trade.

The villain problem also returns with a vengeance. One of the weaknesses in Let There Be Carnage was its rushed antagonist, but at least Carnage had a clear personality and a grotesque mirror-image quality. Venom 3 introduces threats that are bigger in scale but flatter in character. They exist to be obstacles, not provocations, which drains the confrontations of tension. When everything is cosmic, nothing feels personal.

Tonally, the film seems uncertain whether it wants to be a scrappy anti-hero comedy or a sombre farewell. The earlier films embraced their silliness; this one often apologises for it. Moments that should feel outrageous are undercut by a muted visual palette and a surprisingly cautious direction. The rough-edged, slightly disreputable charm of the first Venom is replaced by something closer to a standard studio template.

In the end, Venom 3 is not a disaster; it's watchable, occasionally amusing and competently made. But compared to its predecessors, it feels like a retreat. Where the first two films doubled down on their weirdness and let Hardy and his symbiote run wild, this finale plays things too straight and too safe. For a series built on chaos, that restraint is its greatest weakness.

Success Rate:  + 2.4

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

Venom: The Last Dance (3½ Stars)

A new Marvel film, so I had to go to the cinema. I'm a Marvel addict. I was disappointed with the second Venom film, and I was scared that "The Last Dance" would be even worse, but I went anyway.

Maybe it's better, but only slightly better. The story in general is more serious, but there's still too much comedy in the interaction between Eddie Brock and the symbiote. Whose idea was it to make them a comedy duo? And why does the symbiote keep coming half out like a sock puppet? It looks ridiculous. In this film an excuse is given, but it's a weak excuse. A powerful being called Knull is searching for a codex (whatever that is) which is carried by the symbiote. It's only visible when Eddie and the symbiote are fully connected. I know, it really is a poor excuse.

No more spoilers. All I'll say is that there's an after-credits scene, but you have to wait a long time for it. In the cinema today some of the people waited, but the credits were so long that they grew impatient and walked out. When the after-credits scene finally came, only three people, including me, were sitting watching it. 

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (5 Stars)

I wanted to take my grandson Oliver to the cinema today. Shortly before we were due to leave he changed his mind. The only children's film in the cinema today is "Paw Patrol", and he's getting too old for it. He used to watch "Paw Patrol" videos on YouTube, but now he's eight.

Looking at the films lying around my room, he told me that he wanted to watch "Planet of the Apes", by which he meant "Rise of the Planet of the Apes". Fortunately, my English edition of the Blu-ray contains a dubbed German track. Oliver understands English, but he prefers to watch films in German.

So I watched the film in German today. The dubbing is top quality, as is usual in Germany. It can't be compared with the poor quality dubbing of foreign films in England. In Germany leading theatre actors are hired for dubbing.

Oliver loved the film. He was excited by everything he saw. But do you know what happened next? He went back to his mother (who lives in the same house as me), and he watched it again on Disney Plus. I don't know the full story. Maybe she was curious and wanted to know if the film was suitable for him. But the bottom line is that he watched it twice in a row. Anyone who does that is a real film fan.

And my daughter liked it as well.

Success Rate:  + 3.2

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

War for the Planet of the Apes (4 Stars)

This film takes place two years after the events in "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes". In the previous film the apes won their fight against the citizens of San Francisco. Now they have a more serious opponent, a professionally trained army that's arrived from the North.

But this film shows further developments. The Simian Flu that wiped out more than 99% of the Earth's population has now mutated. It's making people lose their intelligence, starting with their ability to speak. A lot of thought has been put into the rebooted film series. It makes a lot more sense than the last three films of the legacy series.

The battle lines aren't as clear cut as in the last film. The soldiers aren't just fighting against the apes, they're fighting against one another. A second army arrives from the North which believes that the first army is infected with the Simian Flu and wants to destroy it.

Caesar doesn't want war. He wants peace. He thinks that humans and apes can live side by side. There's enough room for everyone. Unfortunately, the humans disagree.

Success Rate:  + 1.3

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

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (5 Stars)

This film takes place eight years after the events of the previous film. A lot has happened in this time. The apes, led by Caesar, have settled in Muir Woods, the area north of San Francisco. The disease that we saw at the end of the previous film has spread throughout the world. Only one person in 500 has survived the disease, but that's not the only thing that's killed people. The survivors have rioted, and civilisation has collapsed.

The people of San Francisco know nothing of the ape civilisation on the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge. They finally cross the bridge to repair the dam that supplies the power to their city. An uneasy alliance develops between the apes and the humans. Once more the apes are the good guys, but even among the apes there are those who want war. The humans aren't really evil, they're just scared. They realise that the apes are intelligent and powerful, and they're worried they won't survive.

Caesar has become a father. He shows affection towards his children, but at the same time he's developed into a noble ruler. He's no longer the playful little chimp that we saw in the last film.

War breaks out, and the apes win. Is that a spoiler? Not really. By now everyone knows that the apes are destined to replace humans as the dominant species on the planet.

Success Rate:  + 1.0

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

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (5 Stars)

I'm rewatching the Planet of the Apes films in preparation for seeing "Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes" when it's released in May. The films in the reboot franchise are sheer brilliance. Much more effort is made to show how the apes took over the Earth than in the original film series (1968-1973).

The film introduces us to Caesar, who will be the main character in the first three films of the rebooted franchise. In the near future a company called Gen-Sys is working on a cure for Alzheimer's. There's a personal reason for the research: the father of the head scientist, Will Rodman, suffers from advanced Alzheimer's. The medication is tested in the laboratories on chimpanzees. One particular chimpanzee, Bright Eyes, develops remarkable intelligence after being treated with the drug. Unknown to Will, she's pregnant. She's shot when she goes wild, trying to protect her baby. Will takes him home, keeping him as a pet. The baby chimpanzee, now called Caesar, is even more intelligent than his mother.

We see Caesar's development over the next eight years. He develops from being a playful little ape into a quiet, brooding adult. He's no longer a pet, he's like a child to Will. When Caesar attacks a neighbour who's threatening Will's father, he's put in an animal pen. Caesar is a natural leader. Soon the other apes are following him. Caesar breaks out and collects vials of the Alzheimer's drug. He treats the other apes to increase their intelligence.

The drug, ALZ-113, is a big success on the apes, but it has a different effect on humans. It creates a contagious disease. Those who are infected cough blood and soon die.

What makes this film so appealing is that the apes are the good guys. In the first two films they were portrayed as evil, with very few exceptions. In this film the humans are mostly bad, while the apes are all good. Am I cheering on the demise of the human race? Maybe. But it's only a film. Isn't it?

Success Rate:  + 3.2

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

The Batman (4 Stars)

Today's the spring equinox, one of the year's four high days. It's even more special for me as someone who was born on an equinox. The other one.

Today I celebrated the equinox by going to the cinema to see the new Batman film. I have a love-hate relationship with Batman and DC comics in general. I've always considered DC second best in comparison with Marvel. For me DC will always be the other comics company.

That doesn't mean that I don't have some appreciation for Batman. I sporadically read his comics in his camp era (1960 to 1975). I greatly enjoyed the stories written by Steve Englehart in the late 1970's which returned him to the dark style of the early comics. I've watched Batman's ups and downs on the big screen, although I don't think there's ever been a Batman film as good as the 1966 version.

Now there's yet another Batman reboot. It doesn't start with the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, but their deaths are frequently mentioned. It's two years since Bruce Wayne became Batman. We aren't told who his first enemies were. It's possible they were only normal crooks. Now he has to face his first costumed super-villain, though it's something of a stretch to call it a costume. The Riddler is wearing something that looks like a boiler suit.

There have been some very good incarnations of the Riddler in the past.

Frank Gorshin, who appeared in the Batman TV Series from 1966 to 1967, is considered by most Batman fans to be the best version of the Riddler. Newer actors are judged by how closely they resemble him.

Jim Carrey played the Riddler in "Batman Forever" in 1995. He's obviously mimicking Frank Gorshin, but he doesn't quite succeed. Why be the second best Frank Gorshin when you can be the best Jim Carrey?

Cory Michael Smith plays a laid back but surprisingly convincing Riddler in the "Gotham" TV series from 2014 to 2019. I would have picked him to play the Riddler in the new film.

But no, Paul Dano was picked, wearing a very different costume. It's nowhere near as gaudy as the costumes of his predecessors, and why does he wear a mask? Obviously the director Matt Reeves wanted to do something different, but it was unnecessary. In the film the Riddler has a certain sense of nobility, which is missing both from the comics and the previous screen versions. He's a vigilante, killing corrupt city officials. He even sees Batman as a partner, not an enemy.

I have mixed feelings about Zoe Kravitz as Catwoman. The character has been portrayed so badly in films since the 1980's that anything would be an improvement. Her looks don't completely match the character, but her personality aptly matches Selina Kyle in the 1990 comics. She's miles better than Michelle Pfeiffer, Halle Berry and Anne Hathaway. I'm still waiting for the perfect  portrayal of Catwoman on screen.

As for Robert Pattinson in the title role, I can sum him up in one sentence: He's a great Batman but a bad Bruce Wayne. He's the best dark Batman there's ever been. He's aloof and truly frightening. He earns the title Dark Knight more than Christian Bale ever did. He deserves to play the role for years to come. I've read that this is the start of a new Batman trilogy, but three films aren't enough. And yet, he doesn't capture the essence of Bruce Wayne. I had a bad feeling the first time I saw him in a trailer, and the film reinforced my feelings. On the other hand, we see very little of Bruce Wayne in the film. Even when he's not wearing his costume, he's talking about Batman stuff with his butler.

Some people have complained that the film's too long. I find it just right. The action is thrilling, making it one of the most exciting films of the year. And almost everything takes place at night. This intensifies the atmosphere. I look forward to watching the film again.

King Kong (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #28

King Kong has appeared in at least 12 films over the last 90 years, either as the lead character or one of a group of monsters. In my opinion, there have only been three real King Kong films. These three all tell the same story, in different forms, of King Kong's discovery and his journey to America. All three films have the same name: "King Kong".

The first film was made in 1933, and is rightly considered to be a masterpiece.

The second film was made in 1976, following the original story, with a few significant changes. The story is told in the present day (i.e. 1976) instead of the 1930's, and the final battle takes place on top of the newly built World Trade Centre instead of the Empire State Building.

This is the third film, made in 2005, and it closely follows the 1933 version. It even takes place in 1933, with a great amount of care taken in portraying the Great Depression of the 1930's.

The film's strength is less in the action than in the emotional depth. Look at Kong's eyes as he stares lovingly at the actress Ann Darrow. Has computer animation ever been so emotional?

This is one of the most beautiful scenes ever filmed, full of artistic merit. Sunrise over Manhattan at the top of the Empire State Building.

But the peaceful serenity doesn't last. The enemies are coming.

Kong has to make his last stand, on top of the world's highest building.

The film's casting is superb. Nobody else but Naomi Watts could have played the beautiful actress Ann Darrow. Her large eyes and toothy smile perfectly portray her naive innocence.

Naomi's large eyes make her look like a 1930's film star. All that's missing is the black eye liner. Or would that have been pushing it too far?

Her face is repeatedly framed against beautiful scenery. The screenshots from this film could be used for a Naomi Watts pin up calendar.

Or maybe there should just be six photos of Naomi Watts in the calendar, and six photos of Kong in alternation. Beauty and the Beast.

Ann Darrow does her Titanic scene.

It's a much smaller boat, but the sorrow is just as intense.

Don't jump!

The film crew captures this moment.

The director Carl Denham is almost moved to tears.

Jack Black was picked to play Carl Denham because of his physical resemblance to Orson Welles. Never mind his looks, his acting is superb! Another perfect choice.

So is Adrien Brody as the brooding playwright Jack Driscoll. I'd go as far as to call this his signature role.

I wanted to watch the film in a single sitting, but I was interrupted by my ex-wife. There were loud shouts in my village, so she wanted to know if there had been a goal in the Euro 2020 Germany-France match. Yes, there had just been an own goal. We didn't know what television channel was broadcasting the match, but after a few trial-and-error attempts I found it for her. She asked me to watch the second half with her, which I did. It was an interesting game. Two very good teams, equally matched, but with no outstanding players. By that, I mean there were no players like Pele or Maradonna with magical flair that set them apart from the others. The final result, 1:0 for France, was fair. Either team could have won.

Then I rushed back to "King Kong" to watch the last half hour. I enjoyed it with a glass of LSD in my hand. If my readers don't know what that is, they should follow the link.

Success Rate:  + 0.7

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

Black Panther (5 Stars)

Farewell to Chadwick Boseman, the actor who so magnificently brought King T'Challa, the Black Panther, to the big screen. This film was nominated as Best Film at the Academy Awards. Eat your heart out, Martin Scorsese. Just because you don't like super-hero films, it doesn't mean that nobody else does.

Where does the Black Panther go from here? A sequel was already in pre-production, but it was delayed because of the Coronavirus pandemic. Now the lead actor is no longer available. Can anyone step into his shoes? Even if a suitable actor can be found, seeing a new face will be uncomfortable to the audience.

Actors have already been changed over the course of the first three phases of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Don Cheadle replaced Terrence Howard as James Rhodes (War Machine) in "Iron Man 2" after Terrence Howard was fired for demanding too much money. Mark Ruffalo replaced Edward Norton as Bruce Banner (the Hulk) in "The Avengers" for reasons that vary, depending on who's telling the story. The replacement of James Rhodes went smoothly, because the two actors looked similar enough for the MCU to get away with it. The replacement of Bruce Banner jarred, because the two actors barely look alike. In my mind I exclude "The Incredible Hulk" from the MCU, because it just doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the films.

While watching the film today I concentrated on Chadwick Boseman and the subtleties of his performance. His character has been fleshed out from his appearance in "Civil War". We see that he's rooted in African tradition, and we also see a humorous side to his character, revealed in an occasional sly grin.

T'Challa is a king and a warrior. Wakanda might be the technologically most advanced country on Earth, but it remains a part of Africa.

This is the first time T'Challa cries "Wakanda Forever", the battle cry repeated over the next few films, while crossing his arms in the same salute used by Bob Geldof in "The Wall". When I watched "Black Panther" dubbed into German, I was shocked to hear it translated into "Wakanda über alles". For me that has negative connotations.

When the film was first shown in the cinemas in early 2018 it was a rallying point for black people on both sides of the Atlantic. It made them proud of their race and skin colour. It was their film. For a few months it became common for young black people in England to greet one another with the words "Wakanda Forever". I understand. People of colour have been under-represented in Hollywood for decades. Here was a film with only a few white actors in minor roles. Nevertheless, the Black Panther shouldn't just be a black African hero. I would be proud to have a king like T'Challa, if he were vaguely like Chadwick Boseman. Who needs corrupt elected officials if we can have a benevolent monarch?

I find it curious that this film is difficult to buy in America. For a long time it was unavailable on disc, and now it's very expensive. The Blu-ray costs $32 in America, compared with £5 (about $8) in England. I hope that this isn't politically motivated. Maybe it's just a business decision; the streaming services want to keep the film for themselves.

Chadwick Boseman
November 29, 1976 – August 28, 2020

Success Rate:  + 4.4

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

Black Panther (5 Stars)

This is the 18th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in January 2018. It's made history by being the first super-hero film to be nominated as Best Film at the Academy Awards. This puzzles me. Why has "Black Panther" been nominated when other equally good films were ignored, films like "Doctor Strange" and "Captain America: Civil War". If I were cynical I'd say that it's a political decision; because of accusations of gender bias in recent years the Film Academy wants to nominate a film which has as many black actors as possible. Or should I call them African American actors? I hate that expression, because it makes an assumption about a person's nationality, even though it's just a way of describing a person's skin colour. What I mean is, if an American sees a dark-skinned person and talks about him to someone else he'll say, "I saw an African American", even if he has no way of knowing whether the person is American or not. It would be much more appropriate to call him black, coloured, dark-skinned or even negro; any word at all that doesn't reference his nationality.

What should we call Stan Lee? A Jewish American? Somehow that doesn't sound right.

What should we call Lupita Nyong'o, who plays Nakia? She lives in the USA, but she holds a Mexican passport. Should we call her an African Mexican? I think you can see the problem.

In this film we find Stan Lee in a casino in Busan, South Korea. King T'Challa makes a bet at a craps table, but walks away without waiting to see if he's won. Stan takes T'Challa's winning chips, offering to look after them. That was wise thinking, because we find out in the following events that he never returns to the table. The scene lasts several minutes, but we only see Stan Lee in the final nine seconds.

I'd never heard of Chadwick Boseman before this film, but he's excellent in the title role. He portrays the dignity that befits the leader of an African nation. He's exactly the hero that we see in the comic books, which is unusual for the MCU films. Most of the characters drift off in the wrong directions.

Let's take Klaw as an example. In the film he has weapons which he's stolen from Wakanda. In the comics he had powerful weapons before going to Wakanda.

In the comics Klaw was able to create giant red jungle animals: red elephants, red gorillas and even red panthers. Why can't he do that in the film? He's just a white hunter stealing African weapons from the natives.

That was only the first step in his development. After jumping into his Sound Converter his body was turned into living sound, meaning he was no longer human. Listen to his own words from Fantastic Four #56.

Okay, I can see why Klaw's powers had to be reduced in the film. The main villain was Eric Stevens aka Killmonger. Klaw is just a minor figure, so he couldn't have been portrayed as the most powerful being on Earth.

Michael Jordan has finally found his rightful place in Marvel films. He was awful as the Human Torch, but he's perfect as Killmonger. It's all about the casting. In the wrong role, even the best actor can look bad.

In the film Wakanda's king is protected by a tribe of warrior women, the Dora Milaje. They first appeared in Marvel comics late in the post-canon years, but they sure look good, especially Okoye on the left.

Okoye isn't just strong, she's beautiful and sexy.

What makes her so attractive? Is it her face, her figure or her spear? I think it's a combination of the three.

Normally I don't like bald-headed women, and I'm totally turned off by tattoos, but in Okoye's case I can make an exception. I can't generalise about women. I never know what attracts me until we're together. I'm glad I've never used any dating sites, because the dating algorithms would never be able to find the right women for me. I'm complicated.

Success Rate:  + 4.4

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