Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (4 Stars)

I've heard criticism of this film for its reliance on CGI, to which I reply, "How else could it have been made?" It takes place in the Quantum Realm, a kingdom that's full of surreal scenery and incredible looking characters. There are walking buildings. Any attempt to make the film without CGI would have looked ridiculous. I'd have to give you a dozen screenshots to prove that the imagery is far more extreme than anything "Star Wars" has ever done.

Jonathan Majors appears in the film not only as Kang the Conqueror, but also as Immortus and Rama-Tut. He's an amazing actor. He was fired by Marvel because he assaulted his partner in real life. That's unfortunate. Personally, I don't think off-screen misdemeanours should be a reason for removing a competent actor. It's a typical American thing. If Kang returns in future films he'll be played by a new character. Now we see how the Marvel Cinematic Universe has blundered. In the original comics he always wore a mask. This would make it easy to replace the actor.

This is what he looked like when he first appeared in Avengers #8 (September 1964).

It's not just about Kang. Does Ant-Man have a future in the MCU? Nothing is certain. The actors are getting older. If the fourth Ant-Man film isn't made soon, will it ever be made? The only eternal Marvel actor is Hugh Jackman. As we heard in "Deadpool & Wolverine", "Fox killed him. Disney brought him back. They're gonna make him do this till he's 90". He'll need a lot of stunt men to last that long.

"Quantumania" is a good film, though not up to the level of the early MCU films. It's worth watching. It's much better than "The Marvels".

Success Rate:  + 0.4

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

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (3 Stars)

This is a sequel to "Ghostbusters: Afterlife". I went to see it with my son Benjamin in the Lichtspielhaus in Schwäbisch Hall, one of Germany's oldest cinemas, dating back to 1913. The cinema was busy on Saturday evening, but most of the guests were there to see "Chantal im Märchenland". I was shocked to find that Benjamin and I were the only people watching the Ghostbusters film. That was a very poor showing for a blockbuster film on a Saturday evening. If this is typical, it means the film will be a flop.

This is the Lichtspielhaus. Like the Tardis, it's bigger on the inside. The room we sat in was spectacular. It was below ground, like a cave with rounded walls.

All I'll say about the film is that I was disappointed. I've been a fan of the Ghostbusters films from the beginning, but something is missing from "Frozen Empire". For the first hour hardly anything happens. It's just talking, talking, talking. The various characters explain one thing after another, while I was thinking to myself, "Will the action never start?" Yes, there was eventually action, the fighting with ghosts that we've grown to love, but by then I was already bored.

What happened? Don't they know how to make better films than this?

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (4 Stars)

Disney Wednesday #23

I realised yesterday that I hardly remembered "Quantumania" (I prefer to shorten the title), even though it's only 10 months since I watched it in the cinema. I could only remember that Kang is in it. "Quantumania" is usually mentioned in the same breath as "The Marvels" as one of Marvel's big flops. On checking the box office figures I found that it's not a flop, it made a small profit, but it's a disappointment compared to the expectations Marvel Studios had for it.

The first impression I had on watching the film today is the excess of CGI. There's even more CGI than in "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness". Is it excusable? Just about. The film takes place in the Quantum Realm, a world that would be difficult to be shown without the use of computer graphics.

As the film progressed, it was obvious to me that it's in a completely category to "The Marvels". The two films shouldn't be lumped together, because "Quantumania" has a good story. Both films performed badly at the box office, but for different reasons. "The Marvels" has a confusing, poorly written story, whereas Quantumania's (relative) failure was the result of Marvel fatigue. There have been too many Marvel films in a short period of time, and fans want something new. My personal criticism of Marvel's current films is that they're too samey. They all revolve around cosmic events. If you look back at Marvel's comics in their glory days there was a great variety of themes. There were mind-bending cosmic stories, but there were also down-to-earth comics like Daredevil, a man facing criminals in New York. We need films like that. It shouldn't all be about the Multiverse.

But "Quantumania" is a well written Multiverse story. Kang is a character who co-exists in many branches of the Multiverse. The Kangs have teamed together to rule over the Multiverse, but one rebel Kang thinks they're doing wrong, so he fought against them and lost. They exiled him by sending his ship into the Quantum Realm. When Janet Van Dyne was trapped in the Quantum Realm she witnessed Kang's ship crashing and saved his life. Together they worked on repairing his ship to get both of them out of the Quantum Realm, but Janet realised he was evil – a monster – and sabotaged the ship. Unable to escape, Kang built an empire in the Quantum Realm, while Janet led the resistance against him.

Janet was rescued from the Quantum Realm in "Ant-Man and the Wasp". Scott Lang's daughter Cassie has now built a device to remotely explore the Quantum Realm, but Kang detects the signal and sucks Cassie, Scott, Janet and Hank Pym into the Realm. He wants their help in repairing his ship.

It's a very good story. Unlike the previous Ant-Man film, the humour is kept to a minimum. That makes it a better film. Once you suspend disbelief it's a thrilling action film. It deserved more success at the box office, but what could it do against Marvel fatigue? Maybe it's time to call it a day and reboot the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Success Rate:  + 0.4

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

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (3 Stars)

I'm writing this review with a heavy heart. After the last few disappointing films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), I expected "Quantumania" to turn things around. After all, the last two Ant-Man films were brilliant. I was excited as soon as I saw the posters hanging at my local cinema. Strangely, no trailers were shown in the months leading up to the release.

It's interesting to see Kang the Conqueror appear in the Quantum Realm. It's a strange place to find him, but the story is that he's been exiled by the other multiversal Kangs who consider him a threat. Couldn't they just have killed him? They should have known that any of their alternate selves would be ingenious enough to escape. Kang's skin colour is wrong, but racial mistakes are something I've grown used to in Marvel films. It's more important to have racial diversity than to make good films.

Kang's history is confused, even in the comics, due to different writers adding their own details over the years. When Kang first appeared in Avengers #8 he was a super-villain from the future. He was born in the 30th Century, but he travelled into the past to become the pharaoh Rama-Tut, and then he travelled to the 40th Century, where he conquered the Earth. He became obsessed with wanting to conquer Earth in the 20th Century, foolishly forgetting the temporal paradoxes that would happen if he succeeded. Even so, as future writers showed us, every time he travelled into the past he made changes that created new branches in the timelines; i.e. Kang himself became the creator of most of the alternate universes in the multiverse.

The Kangs from different branches of the multiverse came together to form a council. Some of the Kangs are considered inferior and destroyed. Kang in the MCU is being built up to be a big bad villain more powerful than Thanos. That makes me groan. In the comics Thanos is more powerful than Kang even without the Infinity Gauntlet. It's a problem that the MCU has to deal with. Now that Thanos is gone, a bigger threat is needed to keep the viewers entertained. Then a bigger threat, and an even bigger threat, etc. The MCU can't return to simple villains like Doctor Octopus and the Kingpin. I was annoyed that the Loki TV series belittled the infinity gems, saying that the Time Variance Authority used them as paperweights. 

And what about MODOK? He's a perfect example of the MCU's mix and match approach to making films. He was shown in Tales of Suspense #94 as the leader of AIM. The MCU has made him Kang's creation. I'm clenching my fists in rage.

The Quantum Realm is the name given to the Marvel Comics microverse, where the ruler is the Psycho-Man. Okay, I admit that he has a silly name. I've never claimed that Marvel Comics were perfect, and even the great Stan Lee had his off days. Sometimes he didn't think far enough about the logical consequences of his stories. Writers in the following decades tried to make changes to correct his errors, but they usually made things worse.

"Quantumania" isn't the MCU's worst film. That honour is reserved for "The Eternals". But it's the MCU film that has disappointed me the most. It could have been so good, but the end result is average at best. I doubt the MCU will ever get any better.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (4 Stars)

This film should have been called "Ghostbusters: The Next Generation". The original Ghostbusters have been replaced by younger actors. Almost replaced; they appear briefly at the end to join in the fight, but all they do is delay the enemies, giving the youngsters time to win the battle.

Phoebe and Trevor are the grandchildren of Egon Spengler. Phoebe (12) is a scientific genius, advanced far beyond her age. Trevor (15) isn't very smart, but he knows how to repair cars, so he isn't completely useless.

Lucky is a waitress in a local restaurant. She gets involved because Trevor has a crush on her. Can you blame him? Her age isn't stated, but I assume she's slightly older than Trevor, because he pretends to be 17 when he chats her up.

The boy called Podcast is probably the same age as Phoebe. We never find out his real name, but he calls himself Podcast because he has a podcast. Duh! It's the only thing that the small town of Summerville in Oklahoma is known for. I'd call myself Blogger, but after 27 years as Dancer I don't want to change my name. Yes, I know exactly when I started calling myself Dancer. It was when I signed up for my first Internet account in 1995. I had to pick a username for myself, and it quickly became my nickname.

There was a long delay with the film's release. It was completed in early 2020 and scheduled for release in July 2020, but it was delayed until November 2021 because of the Coronavirus pandemic. That stupid virus has messed up the film industry!

There's some name confusion over the film. Many call it "Ghostbusters 3", even though the 2016 film was previously called "Ghostbusters 3". Maybe it deserves the name more. It refers to the first Ghostbusters film, though not the second. Should it be called "Ghostbusters 2a"?

Whatever it's called, it's a good film, even if it's not as humorous as the previous films. I hope the promised sequels with the young cast will be made while they still look young.

Success Rate:  + 0.7

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

Ghostbusters [2016 version] (4½ Stars)

If I were a ghost I'd lie down and surrender to four sexy Ghostbusters like Kate McKinnon, Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig and Leslie Jones. I wouldn't take Chris Hemsworth seriously, with or without his hammer. He's just a stupid men that the girls keep around for his good looks. There's been gender reversal in films before, but I can't think of any other film where it's pushed as far as in this film. Why shouldn't women objectify men? Men have been objectifying women for hundreds, maybe thousands of years.

When I reviewed the first Ghostbusters film two days ago, I said that I didn't know whether the 2016 film is a sequel or a reboot. It's irrelevant what the director or the screenwriter says, I'm only interested in what the film itself says. The trouble is that the film itself isn't clear. It doesn't reference the original film, which makes it a matter of choice. The original actors appear in cameo roles playing different characters, which suggests that it's a reboot. So my decision is that it's probably a reboot.

Or a remake? In film jargon, a remake is when a single film is made again, whereas a reboot is when the first film in a series is made again with the intention of making a new film series. The correct word for this film is definitely reboot, because the post-credits scene contains a hook for a sequel. Whether or not a sequel will be made is in doubt. The fans rejected the film, and it was a box office failure.

I sometimes say, deliberately being provocative, that I'm the only person who likes "Ghostbusters 2016". The statement is obviously false, but I know that I'm in the minority. I'm willing to argue about the film with anyone, preferably over a glass of beer. It has a powerful villain (even if he's only a seedy hotel janitor), it has better special effects than the original, and it's funnier than the original. Most of all, it has four powerful women in the lead roles. Their gender isn't an object of humour, it's just taken for granted. The people who hate the film, most of whom hated it before they even saw it, consider it sacrilege that their four heroes from a classic film have been replaced by women. Is it misogyny? Of course it is! If a reboot had been made with male actors there wouldn't have been such an outcry.

Oh, and the film has a cameo by Ozzy Osbourne. That's a bonus in any film.

My Blu-ray contains two versions of the film, the theatrical version and an extended version. After watching both versions, I can definitely recommend the extended version. It's often the case that scenes are cut or shortened to improve the pacing of the theatrical version, but that's not the case here. I suspect that the extra scenes, approximately 17 minutes, were only removed to get the film's runtime below two hours. Nothing is superfluous in the extended version, it's a perfectly crafted film which only suffers from cuts being made.

Success Rate:  - 0.4

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

Ghostbusters 2 (3 Stars)

"Ghostbusters 2" was released five years after the original film, but it took a long time to get there. The cast of the original film (Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Bill Murray and Ernie Hudson) were unwilling to make a sequel, because they thought the original film was perfect in itself. When they finally agreed on making a film, it was delayed by scheduling problems. There were arguments within Columbia Pictures about how much money should be invested in the film. The only way to keep the budget low was for the main actors to agree on being paid a percentage of the profits, rather than a large salary in advance.

After the film was complete, it was badly received by test audiences, leading to rewriting and reshooting of many scenes, especially the ending. There were also last minute changes to make it more suitable for children. When it finally came to the cinemas there was a lukewarm response from the public, but the critics were unanimous in saying it didn't live up to the initial film.

Even though I didn't read about the film's production difficulties until after I watched it this evening, I could tell that something was wrong. "Ghostbusters 2" is missing the magic of the original. It's not as funny, and when the film tries to be serious the scary scenes aren't scary at all. The whole backstory with Dana Barrett's baby seems out of place. The main enemy (Vigo) isn't powerful enough to be considered a real threat, and the means used to defeat him (making the Statue of Liberty walk into Manhattan) are too ridiculous to be taken seriously, even in a comedy film.

"Ghostbusters 2" is a film that I find superfluous. There was no need for it to be made, from an artistic viewpoint, and it doesn't deserve to be remembered.

Success Rate:  + 5.2

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

Ghostbusters (4 Stars)

I didn't intend to watch this film again so soon, but my son Benjamin forced me to watch it. Oh wait, he doesn't do that. Let's just say that he asked nicely, and I didn't have it in my heart to say No.

My son's trouble is that he relies on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney Plus to watch films. Between the three of them he has a good, but not perfect selection. He's probably watched every horror film on Netflix and most horror films on Amazon Prime. He's able to play DVDs and Blu-rays on his Playstation 4, but he doesn't. What I'm trying to say, in my long-winded manner, is that after all these years he's never watched "Ghostbusters". That's a hole in his education.

So where's the franchise going from here? The first film was made in 1984. It could have been left alone, but a sequel was made in 1989. I still haven't watched it, I've just been told that it's not very good. I need to make up my mind for myself.

In 2016 a third film was made which nobody likes except me. It's called a reboot, and I even described it as a remake myself in my first review, but I don't think it's true. I'll decide next time I watch it.

In 2021 "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" was made, obviously a sequel to the first two films. And now a fifth film is planned next year. Will the film series continue at top speed? I hope so. Maybe it can be tied in with the 2016 film to prove that it's not a reboot.

Success Rate:  + 9.8

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

Ghostbusters (4 Stars)

Camp. Trashy. Cult. Those are just three words that can be used to describe this 1984 film. It tells the tale of three university academics who're forced to form a company after the university withdraws its funding. They specialise in catching ghosts. They have fancy devices called positron colliders, which can grab ghosts.

It all looks so easy that anyone can do it. Later in the film a fourth man without any academic qualifications joins the team. They shove a positron collider in his hand and he can start work immediately.

Their first customer is a concert cellist called Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver), but they don't get very far with her. When Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) visits her apartment he's more interested in chatting her up than taking her claims to have seen a demon seriously. Of the three men in the team, Venkman is the most sceptical. He always assumes that anyone who says he's seen a ghost is lying or delusional until he can see the proof with his own eyes.

The ghosts may be easy to catch, but the demons are more trouble. Dana is possessed by a demon called Zuul, the servant of a Sumerian God called Gozer. When Gozer enters our world he'll destroy everything he touches. The positron colliders won't be a match for him.

I enjoy the film, but it's technically very dated. Millions of dollars were invested in the film's special effects, but in 1984 they couldn't get much for their money. "Ghostbusters" hasn't survived the transfer to Blu-ray, because the high definition images make the film's weaknesses all the more apparent. For instance, in the final scene the New York skyscrapers look like cardboard.

But something about "Ghostbusters" has touched a nerve. It's still popular with film fans 40 years after its release. The cheap special effects are overlooked. The 2016 film shows what it would have looked like with modern special effects. Maybe it's Bill Murray's laid back humour that makes the film a success. Or maybe it's Sigourney Weaver's 1980's hairdo. Whatever it is, it's a film that has captured the imagination of a generation.

Success Rate:  + 9.8

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

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (4 Stars)

This is one of the films I missed due to being ill earlier this year. I was waiting to see it on a streaming service, but the Blu-ray was so cheap that I couldn't say No. 

"Ghostbusters: Afterlife" is the official title, but it's been marketed as "Ghostbusters 3", denying the existence of the 2016 Ghostbusters film that the fans love to hate. The best way to judge "Afterlife" is by comparing it with the 2016 film. It's not as over-the-top. It's (slightly) less comical. Instead of women, it features a new team of teenage Ghostbusters. Almost teenage. The youngest team member, Phoebe, is only 12 years old, which makes her a pre-teen.

Phoebe and her 15-year-old brother Trevor have ghostbusting in their genes. Their recently departed grandfather is Egon Spengler, one of the original Ghostbusters. After the events of the second film the Ghostbusters retired and took up normal jobs. That was 30 years ago. Only Egon was a dedicated (read "extremist") Ghostbuster who believed the biggest fight was yet to come. He left New York and settled in Summerville, Oklahoma, which he believed to be the hiding place of a Sumerian God which would bring about the world's end. He thought he could fight by himself – and he didn't have any support from his colleagues – but he died when his equipment failed. His daughter inherits his farmhouse, which she finds full of junk. Only Phoebe recognises that it isn't junk, it's scientific equipment. A boy in her class at school with the interesting name Podcast identifies the equipment, and the battle begins.

So which is better, "Afterlife" or the 2016 film? My instinct is to say the latter, but I need to watch all four Ghostbuster films back to back to make up my mind. I'll let you know what I think.

Success Rate:  + 0.7

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

Ed Wood (5 Stars)

True Stories #22

Name: Ed Wood

Lived: 10 October 1924 – 10 December 1978

Film dates: 1953 to 1957

Film made in 1994

Yesterday I watched "Mulholland Drive", a film about Hollywood. It's more than just a film that takes place in Hollywood. Today's film is the true story of Edward D. Wood Junior's prime years in which he made his most famous three films: "Glen or Glenda", "Bride of the Monster" and "Plan 9 From Outer Space". Those are three films I need to watch again soon, maybe early next month after finishing my true stories marathon. The reason why I mentioned "Mulholland Drive" is because "Ed Wood" also takes place in Hollywood, and the location is significant.

"This town, it chews you up, then spits you out".

Tragically, those words are spoken by Bela Lugosi, one of the best actors of the mid 20th Century. He was an icon. Even today, when you mention Dracula, Bela Lugosi's face is the one most people think of.

The film "Ed Wood" is just as much about Bela Lugosi as about Ed Wood himself. The two men meet in 1953, and we see Bela die in 1956 during the filming of "Plan 9 From Outer Space". The film was completed with a double who looked very little like him. The double was younger, taller and had no hair.

"Ed Wood" is directed by Tim Burton and filmed in glorious black and white. It's appropriate. I'd hate to see the film any other way. The film gives the impression that Ed misused Bela by talking him into a film without telling him what it was about. I'm curious to know whether that 's true or not. Ed's first film with Bela was "Glen or Glenda", a film about a transvestite who was struggling to find the courage to come out. All he told Bela was that it was a film about people having two sides, like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

"Glen or Glenda" was a thinly disguised autobiography. Ed himself was a transvestite, a secret that he even withheld from the woman he lived with. I can understand his difficulties. Today people are enlightened, but in the 1950's it was an enormous scandal to be a transvestite.

Ed's girlfriend Dolores accepted his transvestism, but it still disturbed her. Eventually she walked out on him, accusing him of gathering misfits around himself who unquestioningly accepted whatever he did.

Was Ed Wood successful as a director? That depends on your definition of success. His films were rejected by critics and made hardly any money at the box office. In his later years (not shown in the film) he gave up making films and descended into alcoholism. He died in poverty. However, his films have gained cult status after his death. The first film I ever bought on videotape was "Plan 9 From Outer Space". It's a case of a man's success not coming until after his death.

Success Rate:  - 3.1

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

Ed Wood (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #34

"They're driving me crazy. These Baptists are stupid, stupid, stupid!"

This film was made in 1994, but I didn't see it until at least 10 years later. I even remember a friend in Ludwigsburg telling me she was going to see it in the cinema with a few friends and asking me if I wanted to join her. I said No. It's possible that I didn't even know who Ed Wood was at that time. It's significant that the first film I ever bought on VHS tape was "Plan 9 from Outer Space".

As I've often said, I have a weakness for films based on true stories. I'm biased towards them, so I give them higher ratings than they deserve. In fact, maybe I should do a true story month later this year. That would be fun. Do I have 30 true stories on film? I'm not sure. I need to sit down and check.

Ed Wood was voted the worst director of all time, and "Plan 9 from Outer Space" was voted the worst film ever made. That puzzles me. I've seen five of his films, and they're all entertaining. It's true that they have poor quality special effects and ridiculous plots, but they're never boring. For me, a boring film is a bad film. Look at my alphabetical list of posts and you'll find a few films that I gave a one star rating. "Jupiter Ascending" is an awful film, despite the millions of dollars poured into it. "Plan 9 from Outer Space" cost $60,000 and it's a wonderful film.

Nevertheless, the worst director and worst film awards have been useful. They've given Ed Wood a notoriety that he would never otherwise have had. If a film is called the worst film ever made, people have to see it. This biopic would never have been made if Ed Wood had only been considered average.

The film deals with themes that are relevant today. Ed Wood was a transvestite. John "Bunny" Breckinridge (played by Bill Murray) was a transgender. All his life he wanted an operation to "become a woman", but he never had enough money.

Ed Wood, Bunny Breckinridge and the other actors who appear in "Plan 9 from Outer Space" are baptised. It wasn't until later that the Baptists discovered that Ed was a transvestite. What a terrible sin! They would never have baptised him if they'd known.

Martin Landau won an Oscar as Best Supporting Actor for his portrayal of Bela Lugosi. Bela wasn't baptised, because he was already dead.

Martin Landau's daughter Juliet also appears in the film as the actress Loretta King. She wasn't baptised either. Only the cast of "Plan 9 from Outer Space" was baptised. Loretta had no contact with Ed Wood after appearing in "Bride of the Monster".

Success Rate:  - 3.1

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

Groundhog Day (4 Stars)

The only thing that you can rely on me for is to be inconsistent. Yesterday evening I said I wouldn't be watching any films this week. I can't even keep a promise for 24 hours. I have an excuse, though. I always do. My son went out by himself for a few hours, so I thought I'd watch a film while he's gone.

The last time I watched this film, seven years ago, I said that I had an opinion about what the film means, but I wouldn't write it down. I should have written it, because I have absolutely no idea how I interpreted the film seven years ago. After watching the film today I sat puzzling over it for a while, and I've come to an opinion, but I doubt it's what I thought in the past.

The question isn't so much why the day repeats, but why it stops repeating. How many repeats are there? We see some of them in the film – I didn't count how many – but many, many more are implied. When the film was first made, the director suggested the loops last 10 years, i.e. there are 3650 repeats of the day. Fifteen years later the director changed his mind and said it must have been at least 30 years, based on the time needed to learn skills like playing a piano and ice sculpting. But then the repeats suddenly stop. Why?

We get a clue in Phil's attitude. First he tries to escape the day. Then he tries to use the day to get whatever pleasures he can for himself, without fear of consequences. Then he tries to be a better person and help others get through the day. He loves his colleague Rita, and he starts off by tricking her into liking him. He finds out what she likes, and the next day he pretends to like exactly the same things. In short, he's lying about himself. This got him a long way, but not all the way into bed with her, which is what he wanted. His love was based on lust.

As Phil continued to live through the days, he became steadily more selfless. In the end, this is what won Rita's heart. She saw that he was a good person, and that's what attracted her. When she fell in love with him, the day stopped repeating. Love was strong enough to break the cycle. Or was the non-existent love between the two the whole reason for the repetition in the first place? That's a theory I have after watching the film today. The two people, Phil and Rita, were soulmates, destined to be together, but a relationship was blocked by Phil being a selfish person. The universe stepped in and blocked their further lives until Phil changed enough to win Rita's love.

So what do you think? It's a possible interpretation. I've read enough about the film to know there are other interpretations. Tell me what you think. Don't just quote an explanation you've read somewhere, tell me what you think yourself after watching the film.

Success Rate:  + 2.9

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

Grand Budapest Hotel (5 Stars)

This is a remarkable film. It received nine nominations for the Academy Awards, of which it won four. It failed to win the Best Film award because of "Birdman", a film I greatly liked at the time, but when I look back, "Grand Budapest Hotel" was by far the better film.

The film is about a hotel concierge and his lobby boy. The concierge is wrongly accused of murdering Madame D, an old rich woman. In her Will she's left him a valuable painting, "Boy With Apple". Madame D's son hires an assassin to kill the concierge, who's assisted in his flight by the faithful lobby boy.

The story in itself is good, but it's all about the cinematography. The colours are bright and dazzling, giving the impression that it's a fairy tale. In addition, every scene is perfectly framed like a piece of art, giving the impression of hyper-reality.

The concierge and the lobby boy. Do you see what I mean about the colours?

So this is the painting that people were willing to kill for? I don't understand art.

I've never seen Edward Norton looking so amart. It doesn't suit him. He's a jeans and t-shirt man, like me. But just look at the perfectly framed scene.

There are close-ups of newspapers several times during the film. The articles are all well written, albeit with American spelling. Very few films make the effort to use good texts in newspapers. However, there's one small error. Look at the date of the newspaper: Friday, October 19th, 1932. Wrong! It was a Wednesday.

Here's another edition of the Trans-Alpine Yodel, dated Tuesday, October 28th, 1932. That's wrong again. It was a Friday. But there's another error. The dates aren't even consistent with themselves. If the 19th had been a Friday, the second newspaper, printed nine days later, would have been printed on a Sunday. That's sloppy.

Success Rate:  + 4.9

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

Zombieland: Double Tap (5 Stars)

I have to criticise the usually very film literate employees of Metropol, the cinema where I watched this film today. I walked up to the counter, and the girl asked me what film I wanted to see. I tapped the counter twice. The girl asked me again. I tapped the counter another twice. I repeated it a few times, and the girl was flustered. She said she didn't understand me. A woman standing at the next counter, who obviously understood what I meant, started laughing. I had to explain it. Oh well. I got my ticket in the end.

This is my 14th horror film for November 2019. It's a sequel to "Zombieland", which was made 10 years ago, although I didn't watch it until last week. I have to admit that I didn't expect a lot of it. Sequels are a risky affair at the best of times, but the longer the sequel is delayed, the greater the chance that it's a piece of junk spewed out by the film studios when they've run out of original ideas.

I was pleasantly surprised how good it was. It reunites the four members of the original cast, and they're as fresh as ever. No dates are mentioned explicitly, but it seems like they've been on the road for 10 years since the last film. That's necessitated by the ageing of Abigail Breslin, who plays Little Rock in both films. She was only 13 when she appeared in the first film, and she looks a lot older now. The other three actors could have got away with it, with the help of a good makeup artist. Come to think of it, Jesse Eisenberg doesn't need any help, because he doesn't look a day older than he was 10 years ago.

After the boys-vs-girls fighting of the first film, they now get on together. They settle down to live in the White House, which is a cosy family residence. Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) even proposes marriage to Wichita (Emma Stone). It's time for them to settle down and raise little zombie killers.

When they finally venture out of the White House, the film returns to the main plot line of the first film: they want to find other survivors. There might not be many, but there are a few out there.

This is a fun film. At first I felt tempted to rate it four stars, but after sitting down at my keyboard I asked myself what makes it less enjoyable than the first film, and I didn't have an answer.

---

I'd like to thank whoever it is who's been ordering items using my Amazon links in America. This morning I received another $30 Amazon gift card as my commission. I know it's not a lot, but I greatly appreciate it. I wish more people would do the same in England and Germany. Either use the links in my sidebar on the upper right, or click on the appropriate Amazon link in the box at the bottom of most of my film reviews. (Not this one, sorry). Then go and fill your shopping cart with whatever you want, and order the items as usual. It will make no difference to you, but I'll be paid approximately 5% of the purchase price.