Pearl Harbor (5 Stars)

Pearl Harbor (2001) frames Japan's attack on Hawaii with a melodramatic love triangle that drives much of the film's emotional weight.

The story centres on two lifelong friends, Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker, both pilots raised together in rural America and bound by loyalty and shared ambition. When they arrive at Pearl Harbor in 1941, Rafe quickly falls in love with Evelyn Johnson, a naval nurse. Their romance is intense and idealised, presented as a brief moment of happiness before the war intrudes. Rafe volunteers to fight with the RAF in England and is soon reported killed in action. Evelyn, devastated but trying to carry on with her life, gradually grows closer to Danny, who has remained at Pearl Harbor.

Danny and Evelyn's relationship develops slowly and uneasily, shaped by grief and guilt. Both feel they are betraying Rafe's memory, yet they also find comfort and genuine affection in one another. By the time they fully commit, Evelyn is pregnant, and the pair begin to imagine a future together, still shadowed by the absent third presence in their relationship.

The triangle is violently reopened when Rafe unexpectedly returns, having survived his mission. His reunion with Evelyn turns bitter when he realises she has moved on with Danny. The friendship between the two men fractures into anger and resentment, and Evelyn is caught between her past love and her present reality. Their personal conflict comes to a head just as the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, forcing Rafe and Danny to put aside their rivalry in order to survive and fight back.

After the attack, the triangle briefly gives way to duty. Rafe and Danny volunteer for the Doolittle Raid, where Danny is killed, effectively resolving the triangle through tragedy rather than choice. In the aftermath, Evelyn mourns Danny while reconciling with Rafe, who accepts responsibility for the future, including Danny's child. The film ultimately treats the love triangle as a symbol of innocence lost, using romance and rivalry to personalise the larger catastrophe of Pearl Harbor and the emotional costs of war.

Success Rate:  + 1.2

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

Pearl Harbor (5 Stars)

Disney Wednesday #24

I'm actually watching a Disney Plus film on a Wednesday. That's new! It's only a Wednesday film on a technicality. I started to watch it with my grandson Oliver last Friday, but we interrupted it because he had to go to bed. Today we finally finished it.

I actually wanted to watch "X-Men First Class" on Friday, and we could have finished it, because it's a shorter film. I already had the disc in my Blu-ray player when Oliver said he wanted to watch "Pearl Harbor". Evidently he'd already seen it on television with his parents, but he wanted to watch it again. I'm always happy when he says something like that. Watching a film more than once is a sign that you're a true film fan. My personal definition is that a film is a good film if I want to watch it at least three times. As you can see in my alphabetical list of posts, there are several films that I've watched a lot more often. I admit that there's a certain excitement watching a film for the first time, but most films have subtleties that can only be picked up on repeated viewing.

I'm surprised that Oliver likes the film so much. I can understand that he likes the action scenes, but it's also a love story. It's a sign of maturity that he can also enjoy romantic scenes. He's eight years old now. Two years ago he would have been bored and told me to fast forward.

Critics have slammed "Pearl Harbor" because of the love story. They say the film should have concentrated on the attack itself. I disagree. In fact, I strongly disagree. The love story gives the viewer an emotional connection. When Japan attacks, we don't just know the main characters, we feel their suffering and we cry with them in the face of adversity. This is how to make a good film. Sometimes the critics just don't know what they're talking about.

But "Harbor" is spelt wrong. Or maybe it isn't. "Pearl Harbor" is a place name, so it has to be spelt the way it's written on maps and street signs. But as a common noun, "harbour" is the only correct spelling.

I only found out today that there's a director's cut of the film. Unfortunately, it was only released on DVD, and it's long out of print. I'm not willing to pay a high price for a second hand DVD on Ebay. I wouldn't even pay a high price for a brand new DVD.

Success Rate:  + 1.2

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

Suicide Squad (4 Stars)

I've often said that I like bad girls. I need to clarify what I mean.

This is the sort of bad girl I like. She's bad, and she lets everyone know she's bad.

This is the sort of bad girl I don't like. She's bad, but she pretends to be good.

Let me test my readers, to see if you've been paying attention. Here are photos of two more bad girls. I like one, and I don't like the other.

Do I like this one?

Or do I like this one?

Success Rate:  + 2.3

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

The Flash (3 Stars)

"The film is considered one of the biggest box-office bombs of all-time, with expected losses for Warner Bros to be as much as $200 million".

So it wasn't just me who didn't like "The Flash"? DC Studios are obviously jumping on the multiverse bandwagon. If Marvel can do it, so can they. The comparisons weren't lost on the others in the audience. When I was walking out I was following two DC fans in their thirties. One of them said, "It's a better multiverse film than Spider-Man", and he pointed to a poster of "Across the Spider-Verse", which is also showing at the moment. That's a bad comparison, putting two average quality films side by side. They should have compared it with "Spider-Man: No Way Home", which is a much better film.

Even as far as the subject matter is concerned, "The Flash" is more similar to "No Way Home". Barry Allen (the Flash) meets three different versions of Batman, played by Ben Affleck, Michael Keaton and George Clooney". If DC insists on changes in their version of the multiverse, they should have changed the actor playing Barry Allen. In the TV series the Flash is played by Grant Gustin, who's a terrific actor. In the film Ezra Miller is awful. But let's be fair to him. Maybe he's okay as an actor, it's just the way he was told to play the role. He's an idiot, making one clumsy mistake after another. That's not the Flash that we know in the comics.

The only part of the film that I liked was the two minutes when Wonder Woman appeared. Gal Gadot is a beautiful actress. We should have seen more of her and less of Batman. And less of the Flash.

I haven't written anything about the plot. Go and see the film yourself. Or don't bother. If you're a big DC fan, like the two men in my cinema, you might like it. The other 95% of the world can give it a miss.

The Last Duel (4 Stars)

I have very wide-ranging tastes in films. I watch and enjoy films from any genre, as long as they're good. The word good is subjective, I know. What I may consider good might be awful for others. And yet, there are certain films I shy away from. The description of this film on my cinema's website put me off. I don't like period films set between the Middle Ages and the 19th Century. I wouldn't have gone to see it if the director hadn't been Ridley Scott. I trust him to make good films. And I wasn't disappointed.

The film is about two squires who become friends in the 1370's. Both serve Count Pierre d'Alencon. Jacques Le Gri (Adam Driver) is a highly educated scholar who's in Pierre's good favour. Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon) is a simple illiterate man who repeatedly angers Pierre with his blunt manner.

In 1386 Jean returns home from Paris, and his wife Marguerite tells him that she's been raped by Jacques. He complains to Pierre, who laughingly dismisses the case. Jean appeals to the king for the right to avenge his wife's honour in trial by combat. Simply put, the winner of a battle to the death decides Marguerite's fate. If Jean wins, Jacques is posthumously declared a rapist. If Jacques wins, Marguerite is declared a liar and will be burnt at the stake.

The film is made up of three chapters before the fight begins. In each of the chapters the story is told from a different perspective: "The truth according to Jean de Carrouges", "The truth according to Jacques Le Gri" and "The truth according to Marguerite de Carrouges". It's fascinating to see how the accounts differ. My only complaint is that they're too similar. A little more deviation would have helped the plot more.

It's an epic film, and the final battle is brutal. Women in the audience cried out as the duel took place.

Trial by combat was seldom in 14th Century France, but this was the last time it was carried out before it was outlawed. It really was the last duel.

Runner Runner (3 Stars)

"The love of money is the root of all evil".

This is probably the Bible verse that I quote more than any other. It's so full of wisdom. It's absolutely true. Sit and think for a moment. Who's the most evil person you know among your personal acquaintances? Then ask yourself what motivates him (or her)? It's the love of money.

The most evil person I know is my brother-in-law, Wolfgang Hengel. He pressured his father into giving him his inheritance early, property worth 6.2 million Euros. When his father died in 2014 the remaining inheritance, property worth 1.5 million Euros, was to be given to his sister, my ex-wife Brigitte, but he claimed he'd been disinherited and demanded a quarter of it, as well as insisting that she should pay the sole costs of the care of her mother for the rest of her life.

My ex-wife's lawyer advised her to take the matter to court, but she was intimidated by her brother and made an out-of-court settlement against the advice of her lawyer. Part of the settlement was that 200,000 Euros should be paid to her mother, but Wolfgang has control of her bank account, and we strongly suspect that he's stolen the money. 

Money. When money is involved, people lie, cheat and steal. Wolfgang is no different to criminals all over the world.

"Runner Runner" is about big money. Millions. Ivan Block is the owner of an online poker site. He hires the Princeton student Richie Furst to run his daily business, tempting him to abandon his degree with a large salary.

The company is based in Costa Rica. It's a corrupt country where everything is dealt with by bribes. Police officers receive small bribes, and government officials receive large bribes, just so that the poker website will be allowed to continue to operate. Richie begins his work as a naive, honest man, but he gets seduced and drawn ever deeper into the web of corruption.

When the film begins we think that Ivan Block is an honest man. At the very least, he claims to be honest. Always be wary of people who claim to be honest. (Yes, I know that includes me, because I claim to be honest as well). As the film progresses, we see that Ivan isn't content with the millions of dollars that he possesses; he wants more, much more. Money is addictive, especially if you love money. The more you have, the more you want.

Success Rate:  + 0.1

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

Suicide Squad (4 Stars)

This review will probably be short because I'm suffering from writer's block. On the other hand, does it matter? When I look back at my first film reviews in 2010, they were almost all short. I only wrote occasional long reviews, such as my overview of the Highlander franchise, which I consider to have been one of my best posts, even though it didn't receive many views. Maybe I should start pinning a featured post to the homepage of my blog to encourage my readers to read what I think's reading, rather than relying on Google to send people to posts that accidentally contain topical keywords.

I watched "Suicide Squad" today to remind myself about the film after watching "Birds of Prey" yesterday. For me both films are all about Harley Quinn, exquisitely played by Margot Robbie, however many supporting characters are running around. For that reason I'll compare the two films in relation to her. So, to answer the question which of the two films I like more, I slightly prefer "Suicide Squad", because Harley Quinn is madder, sexier, and overall more enjoyable.

I watched the extended cut today, which is 11 minutes longer than the version I watched in the cinema four years ago. That's too long for me to remember the differences. According to what I've read, the additional time features more backstory about the squad's characters, and it gives the Joker more screen time. Jared Leto is so bleh as the Joker. I'd rather have an extra 11 minutes of Harley Quinn bashing heads.

I'd forgotten that the whole film is one mission, with only a small break for drinks in the middle. That makes the film very compact, despite its running time of two hours.

Success Rate:  + 2.3

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

Daredevil (5 Stars)

Stan Lee's cameo in the 2003 film "Daredevil" is the opposite of his cameos in the first two Spider-Man films. Instead of rescuing others from danger, his life is saved when the teenage Matt Murdock prevents him walking into the road. It's a medium length cameo. The scene lasts nine seconds, of which his face is visible for four.

While the character Daredevil was created by Stan Lee in 1964, the person we see in the film isn't Stan Lee's Daredevil. What I mean is, in the late 1970's and early 1980's the authors Roger McKenzie and Frank Miller developed Daredevil's character in new ways not envisioned by Stan Lee. They didn't actually deny the canon status of the early comics, but they added new characters into Daredevil's youth that had never been shown before, effectively re-inventing Daredevil. The light-hearted character created by Stan Lee became dark and brooding, with similarities to DC's Batman.

In my posts on Marvel comics, my "Marvel Years" posts, I differentiate between what I call the canon and the post-canon years. This isn't a fixed point where I can say that from a certain month onwards Marvel's comics were no longer canon. Some of the ongoing Marvel series ceased to be canon earlier than others. If I continue with my Marvel Years posts into the 1980's I'll make a decision where to draw the line with Daredevil when I get to it.

The film is usually mentioned in the same breath as "Spider-Man", made in the previous year. It's useful to compare the two.

Peter Parker is a teenager (probably about 18 in the film), whereas Matt Murdock is an adult, presumably in his early 30's.

Peter Parker is awkward in dealing with girls, whereas Matt Murdock is experienced and has slept with many women.

Peter Parker shows no interest in religion, whereas Matt Murdock is a believing Catholic.

As Spider-Man Peter Parker is light-hearted, always cracking jokes, whereas Daredevil remains serious.

Spider-Man is a hero who values human life, whereas Daredevil kills those who deserve to die.

The differences between the characters are most visible in the film's cinematography. "Spider-Man" looks mostly bright and cheerful, whereas "Daredevil" looks dark and gloomy.

There has been a lot of criticism of Ben Affleck's performance in the film's title role. He was even awarded a Golden Raspberry for "Daredevil". That's just ridiculous. Was he really the world's worst actor, or even America's worst actor in 2003? I suspect he has a few enemies on the panel of the nominations board. I can't think of anyone who could have played the part better. It's not just his appearance with the prominent chin dimple, his acting is also appropriate throughout. Imagine the difficulty of the role. He has to play a man who is blind but nevertheless aware of his surroundings due to his other heightened senses. He fully succeeds in portraying this dichotomy.

Jon Favreau is also perfect in the role of Foggy Nelson. He's awkward in the knowledge that as a lawyer his skills only a fraction of his legal partner's. He blusters his way through life, trying to pretend he's more than he is. Jon Favreau returned to play a similar character, Happy Hogan, in the Iron Man films.

I'm also very impressed by the performance of Colin Farrell as the hired assassin Bullseye. His representation of the character seems to come directly from the comics, so realistically that we hardly notice he isn't wearing a costume.

As for Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin, I have mixed feelings. To put it bluntly, he has the wrong skin colour. This was a big problem for me when I first saw the film in the cinema, but after watching the film many times over the years I've come to accept him. He might not have the right skin colour, but in all other respects he personifies the comic book villain.

The film's only big casting mistake was Jennifer Garner as Elektra. Neither her appearance nor her mannerisms are suitable for the role. So many other actresses could have played the role better. I suspect she was chosen because of her popularity in the action series "Alias". Yes, she can fight, with the assistance of invisible wires, but she's missing the sleek sexuality of the comic book character. In her subsequent solo film, "Elektra", she attempts to be sexier, but she still doesn't succeed in capturing the essence of the comic book character. A sequel to "Daredevil" was planned, but it was cancelled after "Elektra" flopped at the box office (a success rate of -0.7). That's unfair.

But all's well that ends well. There's now a Daredevil series on Netflix that has run for three seasons so far. The stories and the action are worth watching, if you haven't seen it already. All I wrote about it so far was to point out a sloppy newspaper shown on camera. Is the film better in that respect? Check out this screenshot:

This page from the New York Post has three articles. They're quite well written, but if you click on the image to enlarge it you'll see that all three articles are identical. That's sloppy. But it doesn't end there. If you look at the last two paragraphs of the first article you'll see that it's written in Latin. That's even sloppier. Didn't the director think anyone would notice?

Success Rate:  + 0.3

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

Runner Runner (4 Stars)

I don't usually read a review of a film before I watch it. It's only something I do if I'm not sure if I want to watch a film or not. "Runner Runner" is a case like that. For me the film had one plus and two minuses. The plus is Gemma Arterton, the minuses are Ben Affleck and Justin Timberlake. The review said that the the film's biggest weakness is the over-complex plot, but the acting by all three main characters is outstanding. Very interesting. I have nothing against complex plots, as long as the complexities are relevant. I just don't like it when there are pointless diversions.

Let's talk about the plot first. I can see what the reviewer meant about it being complex, but it shouldn't be too difficult for anyone with above average intelligence to follow. Richie Furst (Justin Timberlake) used to be co-owner of a big company on Wall Street, but it went bankrupt due to his partners stealing money, leaving Richie almost broke. He decided to make a new start by going to Princeton University to do a Masters degree. He made the money to finance his course by being an affiliate of online Poker sites, earning a commission for every new player he sent them. Foolishly, most of the players he referred were Princeton students, and he was given the blame when some of them lost all their money. The university dean threatened to expel him if he didn't stop referring students. No problem. Richie considered himself an excellent Poker player, so he decided to finance the rest of his course by gambling. After initial success he lost all his money within a few hours to a single player.

Richie is man enough to accept that anyone can lose, but he's convinced that this mystery player was a cheat. He made repeated illogical decisions which always succeeded. He travels to Costa Rica, where the online gambling site Midnight Black is based, so that he can speak to the site's owner, Ivan Block (Ben Affleck). At first Ivan is sceptical, because every bad gambler claims to have been cheated, but he looks into it. He finds that Midnight Black's programmers have built a backdoor through which players can see their opponents' cards. Out of gratitude to Richie he offers him a job.

Gemma Arterton plays Rebecca Shafran, Ivan's personal secretary and ex-lover. A relationship develops between Richie and Rebecca, but it doesn't bother Ivan. On the contrary, Ivan is glad that Richie has an additional reason to stay in Costa Rica.

Ivan might be opposed to players cheating other players on his site, but that doesn't mean he's an honest businessman. He's bribing government officials for the right to do business in Costa Rica unscrutinised. He's also stealing money from player accounts. His customers, millions of them worldwide, pay money into their accounts, but the money goes directly to him, meaning the accounts only contain virtual money. If a successful player ever wants to cash out, money is put back into his account to pay him, but there isn't enough money to pay out everyone, not even a fraction of what's needed.

Maybe I'm getting into too many details. Just because the plot is complex it doesn't mean I have to describe every nuance. I'll just mention FBI agent Shavers, played by Anthony Mackie. He's a man who thinks the ends justify the means. He wants Richie to supply him information about Ivan. Richie refuses, so Shavers steps up the pressure. He plants heroin on Richie, and when he's arrested he says that he'll tell the local police to drop the charges if he'll help him find evidence against Ivan. Don't mess with the FBI.

As for the actors, I have to agree with what I read in the review. Ben Affleck is perfect in his role as the millionaire businessman. He's not honest, but he thinks he's honest. He's prepared to justify every crooked deal he makes as necessary for business. He's cool and suave and intensely charismatic.

Gemma Arterton is excellent in every role she plays, and this is no exception. My only regret is that she plays a relatively small role.

I think I've been unfair to Justin Timberlake. I've seen him in a few films, and I can't fault his performances, so why did I consider him a negative? I think I'm only biased against him because of his music. I consider his songs disgusting, everything from the insipid lyrics to his high-pitched voice and his spastic on-stage dancing. Who has brainwashed kids into thinking he has any talent? Nevertheless, he's a very talented actor. He should give up his embarrassing singing career and stick to what he's good at. I think I need to re-watch some of his films to remind myself what he can do.

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

Pearl Harbor (5 Stars)

This is a film which fills me with awe every time I watch it. The romance between Rafe McCawley (Ben Affleck) and Evelyn Johnson (Kate Beckinsale) in the foreboding years before America joined the war bring tears to my eyes. The friendship between Rafe and Danny Walker (Josh Hartnett) is poignant. The action scenes are breathtaking. The contrast with the quiet scenes makes the action stand out even more. This is a perfect film in many ways.

Danny and Rafe are two boys who grow up on neighbouring farms. They both learn to fly young for crop dusting. They both join the US Air Force. Rafe is dyslexic, which almost prevents him from becoming a pilot, but sweet talking the examining nurse gets him through.

The boys drink together, party together and fly together. That changes in 1940 when Rafe volunteers to join the Royal Air Force in England. Danny remains in Pearl Harbor. Before leaving a romantic attachment develops between Rafe and Evelyn, the nurse who examined him. They remain in contact, writing every day until Rafe is shot down in an air battle over the English Channel.

I shan't give away any spoilers, even though I suspect most of my readers have already seen the film. It was a box office success when it was released, and it's often shown on television. It's a good example of a film that weaves fictional characters into real events.

"Pearl Harbor" might have been a commercial success, but it's hated by the critics. They praise the action sequences, but they ridicule the romance. Why? What's wrong with the critics? Don't they understand films? I'm glad I'm not a real critic. I know how to enjoy films.

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

Justice League (2 Stars)

I almost didn't go to see this film. I waited until its last week in the cinema. In the end curiosity got the better of me. I didn't expect it to be good, but it was even worse than I expected.

It's obvious what DC is trying to do. They saw the success that Marvel was having with its interlinked Marvel Comics Universe (MCU) films, so they thought they could do the same. First films about individual heroes, then a team film. An idea doesn't have to be original to work well, but DC doesn't have directors or producers of sufficient calibre to repeat Marvel's success. DC rushed into the team film too fast. Only Batman and Wonder Woman had appeared in individual films already. (I don't include Superman, because he was dead before the film started). The Flash TV series could have been used to build up to the team film, but DC messed it up by having a different actor play the Flash, alienating the audience. Green Arrow could have been added to the team after the preparation of the Arrow TV series, but they made yet another blunder by omitting him.

The film was a mess from beginning to end. The big baddie, Steppenwolf, was hardly introduced to the audience. In the Marvel films the villains are well rounded characters, often with an emotional depth that they don't have in the comics. Steppenwolf is just a bland, two-dimensional character that we don't care about.

"Justice League" tries to add a human element by showing a Russian family, but fails completely. The family is so far removed from the action that whenever they're shown they're just annoyances and we want them out of the way so the story can continue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Marvel makes the best films and DC makes the best TV series. DC should give up making films. There might be rare peaks of brilliance like "Wonder Woman", but on the whole the films are embarrassing. I'm already dreading the next Justice League film.

Suicide Squad (4 Stars)

Best. Film Poster. Ever.

Yes, I do love this poster. It's so cool, The mixture of psychedelic art and photography is just perfect. Having said that, I have to admit that the quality of the film itself doesn't live up to the artwork.

When I compare Marvel and DC on the screen, I have a fixed opinion. Marvel makes the best films, DC makes the best TV series. Usually when I say that to my friends it starts an argument. They're quick to name good and bad examples to contradict me. Of course, there are exceptions, but in general I consider myself right. Look at the absolutely brilliant films Marvel has made in recent years: for instance, the Iron Man trilogy, the Captain America films and "Guardians of the Galaxy". What has DC done that even comes close? The Superman films were poor. The Dark Knight trilogy was good, I admit, but it didn't reach the level of the Marvel films.

Then look at DC's recent TV series: to take just three examples, "Smallville", "Arrow" and "Gotham". They are all perfect in their own ways. "Daredevil" is very good, but it doesn't reach the level of "Arrow". "Jessica Jones" is disappointing, while "Agents of SHIELD" has a lot of promise but is uneven, some episodes succeeding better than others.

It's difficult for me to write about "Suicide Squad" without giving away spoilers, but I'll try to do my best. It's about a team of super villains assembled by a government agent, Amanda Waller, to tackle extreme threats to America and the rest of mankind. It's called a suicide squad because the members are expendable; they're criminals that nobody would miss if they died.

As in all team films, the problem is to introduce all the characters and still leave time for the rest of the film. "Suicide Squad" is less successful than "The Avengers" in introducing the characters before the action starts. Deadshot and Harley Quinn are presented in great detail, whereas Killer Croc and Captain Boomerang are merely background characters who seem to be tagging along for the ride. When they finally did something my reaction was, "Oh, they're still here?" Colonel Rick Flag, the army man who leads the Suicide Squad into battle, seems like a superfluous babysitter. It's not until late in the film that he starts to reveal some of his personality, but by then the audience already wishes he were dead.

An irony in the film is that the first threat that the Suicide Squad has to deal with is caused by a supernatural being, the Enchantress, that Amanda Waller wanted to use in the team. The question is, would the squad have been needed if she hadn't caused problems by creating the squad? This irony would have strengthened the film if it had been developed, but by ignoring it it seems more like a plot hole.

The film's greatest strength is Harley Quinn, as most critics have been quick to point out. Her brand of insanity makes her immediately likeable. There are already talks of a second Suicide Squad film, but rather than do that there should just be a Harley Quinn spin off. Preferably without the Joker, because this film's incarnation of the Joker, as played by Jared Leto, is the weakest on-screen version ever. He pales in comparison to Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger.

I watched the film dubbed into German, as is typical for foreign films shown in Germany. I was greatly impressed by Harley Quinn's German voice, which completely expressed the character's madness, maybe even more perfectly than the original actress, Margot Robbie. The German voice was provided by the politician Anne Helm, pictured above, who is best known from providing Anna Kendrick's voice in German films. She did an excellent job, proving that German dubbing is the best in the world.

This is a much better film than this year's "Batman vs Superman", but DC still has a long way to go to catch up with Marvel. Even the computer generated special effects in the final scenes weren't up to Marvel's standards. DC should consider giving up films and sticking to what it does best: television series.

Batman vs Superman (3 Stars)

This film has been a topic of conversation among my friends for months. It was one of the most eagerly anticipated films of the year. What I mean is that my friends were eagerly anticipating it. I had a queasy feeling in my stomach that it wouldn't be such a good film. I expected something that would be average quality and overall forgettable. I was right.

"Batman vs Superman" doesn't really do anything wrong. It's just that it doesn't do anything right. Henry Cavill is very remote and lacking in charisma as Superman. This was already the case in "Man of Steel", but since he has less screen time in "Batman vs Superman" it seems more extreme. Ben Affleck is just as remote and unsympathetic. He's a boring character, with or without his mask. The only ray of light in the film is Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. He's such an attractive, charismatic character that I wanted him to crush the two annoying heroes beneath his feet.

To be honest, a battle between Batman and Superman is a no-contest. Superman has super-strength, super-speed and super-everything else, while Batman is just a normal man who works out. One punch from Superman should be enough to kill Batman. The only way the two can fight is by somehow giving Batman extra strength or by weakening Superman. This is what happened in "Batman vs Superman": Superman was weakened by being exposed to kryptonite.

At least I wasn't alone in my opinion when I walked out of the cinema tonight. My friends in the film group may have gone into the film with high expectations, but they walked out feeling that it was average at best. They were disappointed, but I wasn't. I got what I expected, nothing more, nothing less.

Gone Girl (4 Stars)

This is a very impressive film that I almost missed. The trailer looked dull, but my friends persuaded me to go to the cinema with them. I have to admit that I was hooked from the first minutes. The story was thrilling, but it was primarily the atmosphere that gripped me.

The plot – and I'll restrict myself to what can be seen in the trailer – is simple. Nick Dunne's wife goes missing on their fifth wedding anniversary. He reports it to the police. They find blood stains and evidence of a struggle. Within a few days the police are treating Nick as the main suspect in a murder case. The media judges him, as is normal in American murder investigations, and he becomes the most hated man in America.

I don't know if my English friends picked up all of the references. The television reporter in the film, Ellen Abbott, is closely based on the famous murder reporter Nancy Grace. The casting team must have searched for a long time to find someone who looked like her. I've watched Nancy Grace for months during the Jodi Arias murder trial. Okay, in the case of Jodi Arias I agree that her judgement is right, but if I were ever wrongly accused of murder I wouldn't want her speaking about me on television. She appoints herself judge and jury, invariably deciding that the alleged killer is guilty, and she persuades the American public that the person should be executed. The other television reporter in the film, Sharon Shieber, seems to be based on Jane Velez-Mitchell, while the lawyer Tyler Perry could be any one of a dozen generic celebrity lawyers. In America, as you know, justice doesn't come cheap. It's not a matter of who's right or wrong, court cases are won by the person who can afford the best attorney.

Elektra (4 Stars)

When I first saw this film in the cinema I didn't like it. I was disappointed. It didn't live up to what I expected of it after seeing her first appearance as a supporting character in "Daredevil". Nevertheless, I bought the DVD soon after it was released. I still had mixed feelings about it, but I watched it a few times. I'm finally starting to warm up to it, even though I still think it could have been a lot better.

In the film Elektra is working as an assassin-for-hire. When she's sent to a remote island to kill a father and his teenage daughter she develops sympathies for them and refuses to carry out her mission. She even protects them when replacement assassins are sent in her place.

Now what are my problems with the film? Partly it's a problem with the casting of Jennifer Garner as Elektra. I didn't mind her as a supporting character in "Daredevil", but she's too weak to carry a film as the main character. This could have been balanced out with her looks, but in my opinion she just wasn't sexy enough. In the comics Elektra's costume covers her midriff completely. The costume's top was shortened in the film, with my approval, but I think it should have been a few inches shorter to expose Jennifer's well toned belly throughout the film. That would have made up for the (wrong) decision to cover her legs. Compare this cover art with the photo above.

Elektra's enemies in the film are just thrown at us, without any explanation who they are. Marvel comics fans will recognise them, of course, but they must look confusing for new fans. For instance, the actress Natassia Malthe is listed in the credits as Typhoid, but during the film itself she isn't named. Stick (Terence Stamp) is presented as Elektra's former teacher, but no more is said about him. There was no need for the rush to get the action going. The film could have been made 30 minutes longer to give us more background about the characters.

The contrast between light and dark is exaggerated in the film. I'm sure this is deliberate and meant to give a stylish impression, but I don't like it. However bright the surroundings are, the characters in the foreground are dark, like silhouettes. In close up scenes the front of the face is visible, but the hair and ears disappear into the shadows.

Elektra is a character that deserves another chance. Maybe she'll get it after the Daredevil reboot. Let's make her look sexier next time round. Sexier, more seductive and more deadly.

Argo (4 Stars)

This film, the true story of the rescue of six American fugitives from Iran in 1980, won the Academy Award for best film in 2013. I personally don't think it was the best film at the awards. I consider both "Django Unchained" and "The Life of Pi" better. Nevertheless, "Argo" is a very good film, once more proving that truth can be stranger than fiction.

On November 4th 1979 Iranian protesters, led by students, stormed the American embassy in Teheran and held the embassy staff as hostages. In exchange for their freedom they demanded the extradition of the Shah, the country's previous leader, from the USA to Iran. Unknown to the Iranians six of the embassy staff escaped through the back door and took refuge in the house of the Canadian ambassador. An American government expert, Tony Mendez, devised an ingenious attempt to free them. He would pose as a Canadian film producer who wanted to make a science fiction film in Iran. The six Americans would be supplied with Canadian passports so they could pretend to be the main members of the film crew: the director, the cameraman, the screenwriter, etc. Since it's a true story it isn't too much of a spoiler to say that the mission was a success. To avoid reprisals against America it was claimed that it was a purely Canadian operation. It wasn't until 1997 that the CIA declassified the mission and Tony Mendez could be publicly honoured.

The film is enjoyable, despite some deviation from the facts for dramatic effect. The final departure from the airport is shown as being hindered by a series of problems. This heightens the suspense and makes it a better film. In actual fact the departure went without a hitch. The Iranians didn't know that the Americans had escaped until they saw them on the American news.

The DVD's extra features make fascinating viewing. The six freed Americans and Tony Mendez are all still alive, so they tell us their thoughts about their ordeal. Former president Jimmy Carter also speaks about the mission.

"History starts out as farce and ends up as tragedy".

That's a misquote from Karl Marx, but it sums up the film's message. The whole Iranian revolution was a joke. Incompetent people took power who had no skill at ruling. Now, 30 years later, we see the tragedy. Iran is still being ruled by a Fascist anti-semitic regime that gives its people no freedom and voices threats to neighbouring countries. The current president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, has denied that the Holocaust ever took place. The world needs to sit up and take notice. In the 1930's the rhetoric of Germany's leader was ignored, allowing the biggest genocide in world history to take place. Have we learnt nothing from history? Fascism is an evil that should never again be tolerated. Iran's leaders should be arrested and imprisoned for life.

Daredevil (5 Stars)

There are some films that I keep coming back to. This is one of them. Although it was one of the most successful box office films of 2003, it seems to have faded into obscurity fast. I'm surprised how many people I talk to who haven't seen it. It doesn't seem to have become a favourite for television repeats, which is the main factor in a film remaining popular over the long term.

It was made a year after "Spider-Man" and in many ways stands in its shadows. This is a case of history repeating itself. When Marvel Comics published the first issue of "Daredevil" in 1964 the cover openly compared the new hero with Spider-Man. Despite Daredevil being an adult, presumably 30-ish, his character and mannerisms in the early comics were very similar to those of Spider-Man, a hero half his age. They were both fighters who constantly used wisecracks and jokes during their fights. Daredevil was a very jovial character in the early days when his stories were written by Stan Lee. Artist Gene Colan played a large part in writing the stories, as was typical in the early days of Marvel. In my opinion Gene Colan's artwork was the best in Marvel comics in the mid 60's.

The man behind Daredevil's mask is the blind lawyer Matt Murdock. He was blinded at the age of 12 when a barrel of radioactive waste broke open and sprayed on his eyes. This removed his eyesight, but it also sharpened his remaining four senses to superhuman levels. His hearing is so acute that he can use sounds as a radar. He has no supernatural body strength or speed, but extensive martial arts training combined with his heightened senses give him remarkable agility.

In the 1960's and 1970's Daredevil was a light-hearted Spider-Man clone. This changed in 1980 when Frank Miller took over as the comic's writer. He turned Daredevil into a darker brooding character, in many ways like Batman. This is the basis for the film. The film also adds a gothic element not present in the comics.

The film shows how Daredevil gained his powers, then fast forwards to 20 years later when he has already become a hero. Although maybe "hero" is the wrong word. He is more of an avenging demon. If anyone is lucky enough to be found innocent in court after committing a crime, Matt Murdock puts on his Daredevil costume to become the criminal's executioner. Matt meets and falls in love with Elektra Nachios, daughter of a billionaire working for New York's crime boss, the Kingpin. She's also a trained fighter in her own right. When her father tries to leave the Kingpin's employment he's murdered by a hired killer called Bullseye. Elektra blames Daredevil for his death, not realising that it's Matt Murdock. This sets the scene for multiple high action battles.

The casting is perfect. After seeing the film I can't think of anyone more suitable than Ben Affleck to play Daredevil. Jennifer Garner, though not one of my favourite actresses, slots well into the role of Elektra. Jon Favreau is just the right person to play Franklin "Foggy" Nelson. Michael Clarke Duncan is surprisingly good as the Kingpin, despite having the wrong skin colour. And Colin Farrell is more Bullseye than Bullseye. I consider this film to be the peak of his acting career.

The director's cut is superior to the theatrical version, even though it slows down the second quarter of the film. In particular, it shows how reporter Ben Urich first gets to meet Matt Murdock. In many cases "director's cuts" are just ripoffs to get fans buy more than one copy of a film; they're bloated by stuffing in deleted scenes that the director had originally had good reasons to cut out. Not in this case. The director's cut is just perfect.

Click here to view the trailer.

Pearl Harbor (5 Stars)

Forget all the bad reviews this film got for its supposed triteness and superficiality. It's a gripping story from beginning to end. It has everything: romance, action, tragedy, hope in the face of defeat. If I remember correctly, today was the third time I watched this film, and it had me sitting on the edge of my seat as much as it did the first time. I grew up hating war films because my father sat watching them for years on television. But I recognise quality when I see it. This film is a classic.

"Pearl Harbor" has been compared with "Titanic", as if that were a bad thing. Both films follow the same format. A love triangle evolves against the background of a big catastrophe. Contrasting large scale events with the personal interest of a few individuals is good story-telling.