Backrooms (4 Stars)

I didn't wait very long to watch "Backrooms" again. I'm visiting my son Benjamin this weekend, and I told him "Backrooms" is a film he needs to see. We went to the Lichterspielhaus in Schwäbisch Hall, one of Germany's oldest cinemas, opened in 1913. In a way it's a perfect setting for the film, since the rooms are dug into the cellars.

We watched it dubbed into German. That wasn't a problem, since German dubbing is so good. Benjamin loved it, and so did I. He's disappointed with me for only rating it four stars. Maybe it deserves more. Ask me again next year when I have the Blu-ray disc in my hand.

As I mentioned in my last review, the film takes place in 1990. That's a good year. Everything looks modern, but there are no smart phones or Internet. Things like that would spoil the film and make parts of the plot impossible.

Backrooms (4 Stars)

Does a film have to explain everything? And if it does offer explanations, do they have to make sense? That's a question I have to ask when I watch a film like "Backrooms". So much in the film is infeasible, even when explanations are offered.

The film takes place in 1990. The owner of a furniture store has recently been thrown out of his home by his wife, so he now lives in an area on an underground floor of the store. He has everything he needs, since the store contains beds, television sets and armchairs. One night he discovers a hidden door which leads to an endless labyrinth of rooms and corridors.

I'll leave the description there. The atmosphere and the tension make up for whatever might remain unexplained. It's a film I want to see again.

Chiwetel Ejiofor, who I first noticed when he played Baron Mordo in "Doctor Strange", is rapidly becoming one of my favourite actors. Something about his calm demeanour even in the midst  of terror fascinates me.

The Life of Chuck (5 Stars)

Every now and then a film is made that's truly original. Not often, but it happens. The best film of 2025 was doubtlessly "The Life of Chuck". Told backwards, the film shows the key incidents in the life of Charles Krantz, nicknamed Chuck. He lived, he danced, he died. That's something that could be written on my gravestone. It wasn't written on Chuck's gravestone, because when he died the world ended.

Other reviewers tackle the question of whether the world really ends in the film. Is the third part of the film just the imagination of a man lying in a hospital bed dying of a brain tumour? Personally, I don't think the question should be asked. Walt Whitman wrote, "I am large. I contain multitudes". He wrote it about himself, but it applies to everyone, and in the context of the film it applies to Chuck. When Chuck dies at the young age of 39, the universe dies with him.

The film wasn't very successful at the box office, which is sad. It should have been seen by more people. I don't think it was a problem that people didn't understand the film, they just didn't go to the cinema to see it. I've spoken to friends who I'm sure would have liked it, but they didn't go. They didn't know what the film was about. One friend thought it was a film about music. Another assumed it was a horror film, because it's based on a Stephen King story. It's not a horror film. It's a science fiction film and a deeply philosophical film.

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

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

The Life of Chuck (5 Stars)

Magic. Pure magic. This is a film like nothing I've seen before, and it's the best film I've seen this year.

It's best to know as little as possible before seeing the film, so all I'll tell you is that it's about a man called Charles Krantz, nicknamed Chuck, who likes to dance.

I'll add that Tom Hiddleston is a much better dancer than Ryan Gosling. No competition.

The film is still in the cinema, if you hurry. It's worth seeing, especially with a group of friends. The film's meaning isn't clear. I have an idea what it means, but I'm not completely sure. I'll know more when I've seen it again.

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. 

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (4 Stars)

This is the 28th film in the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe). After watching it on Disney Plus 12 months ago, I've finally bought it on Blu-ray. I'm a collector, so I need a complete MCU collection.

I wrote badly about the film when I first saw it in the cinema. That was an emotional response. It deserves a four star rating, i.e. it's a good film, though far from perfect. Having said that, the best scene is at the beginning. It's wonderful to see Doctor Strange fighting Ditko-esque monsters in New York, even if he seems more like an action hero than a master of the mystic arts.

But picking the Scarlet Witch as the villain is just wrong. I could accept her moral ambiguity in the TV series "Wandavision", but I don't accept her willingness to kill Doctor Strange and anyone else who stands in her way.

I shan't write any more because I'm still emotionally drained by my PC breaking down. Apart from that, writing blog posts on my laptop isn't as comfortable. A 29-inch screen is better than a 17-inch screen. Size matters. I'll have to check if I can connect an external monitor to my laptop.

Today I ordered a new PC from the company Alternate, which specialises in gaming PCs. I could have saved money by buying one of their standard high quality PCs, but I decided to configure my own PC. It'll be delivered in four weeks, they said. I hope it will be faster. As far as I'm concerned, it's my Corona PC. I couldn't have afforded it in 2020, but due to the pandemic I rarely left the house and saved over 2000 Euros. That's my budget for the new PC. I've spent slightly less, but 2000 Euros was my upper limit.

Success Rate:  + 2.8

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

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (4 Stars)

Disney Wednesday #9

I know I said this in my last review, but I'll repeat myself: the Multiverse is nothing bad in itself. It's not something dangerous. In fact, the Multiverse doesn't even exist, except as a concept. There are countless alternate realities. In the standard Marvel comics reality, usually called Earth-616, there are super-powered beings. In our reality, Earth-1218, there are no superheroes. Does that make our reality in some way more dangerous? On the contrary, our reality is harmless in comparison to the so-called Marvel universe. Of the hundreds, thousands or even millions of alternate realities, most are harmless in themselves. The Multiverse is just a word to describe the assortment of realities.

Now let's say something about this film, the 28th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). After watching it today on Disney Plus I've given it a higher rating. Maybe my positive bias in favour of Sam Raimi has kicked in. Maybe I just slept well last night. Either way, I now view it more positively. In a way, it's normal. I'm disappointed with most Marvel films on first viewing and don't give them a fair rating until the second time round. My first reaction is to compare the films with the comics. They never come up to the level of the comics, although Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" came close. The only way to match the quality of the comics is to stick closely to the original stories. That's something the MCU screenwriters have never understood.

Doctor Strange comes to the aid of America Chavez, a young girl who has the power to open portals to other realities in the Multiverse. She's a singularity, i.e. only one of her exists, unlike normal people, of whom there's an alternate version in each reality. A demon has sent creatures to capture her and steal her power. Doctor Strange recognises the demonic power as witchcraft, so he goes to Wanda Maximoff aka the Scarlet Witch for aid. What he doesn't know is that it isn't a demon who's sent the creatures, it's Wanda herself. Wanda wants to travel to another reality where her children exist. (Those who've seen the television series "Wandavision" will understand this. I haven't reviewed it. Sorry). Wanda could just have asked nicely and said please to America, but instead of this she wants to steal America's powers for herself, even though this will result in America's death.

And so there's a battle across the Multiverse. We see different realities. It begins in the MCU reality, incorrectly called Earth-616, but most of the action takes place in Earth-838, a universe where Doctor Strange died battling Thanos. (I always considered Thanos to be a singularity as well, but let's not discuss it here).

The film uses a lot of CGI, but it's necessary. Magical worlds need good CGI, and it's well crafted. Look at the screenshot above. The beautiful Ditko-esque monster could never have been created without CGI.

My remarks in my last review about Doctor Strange looking more like an action hero than a Master of the Mystic Arts were unfair. He fights with magic. This is portrayed in the film to the best of Sam Raimi's abilities. In the battle scenes it's obvious that Doctor Strange is using magic, not just firing power blasts from his wrists.

What really annoys me in the film is the presence of Doctor Strange's ex-girlfriend Christine. There are characters in other films with ex-wives and ex-lovers, such as Ant-Man and Venom. They're always annoying. Did any character in the comics ever have his ex tagging along? I don't think so. Maybe they had ex-girlfriends, such as the Human Torch's ex-girlfriend Dorrie Evans, but she didn't stick around comic after comic. We just saw her briefly, then she was gone.

I'll watch the film again soon. It deserves a third chance. I doubt I'll ever upvote it to five stars, but it has its rightful place in the MCU.

And it stars Bruce Campbell. Hooray!

Success Rate:  + 2.8

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

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (3 Stars)

This is the biggest disappointment of the year for me. I went to the cinema today with sky-high expectations. I expected it to be the best film of the year. It's not. Not even close.

Why did I expect so much of the film? It's the return of Sam Raimi to the Marvel fold. He's the director who made the best Marvel films before he was sacked over creative differences. I thought he would give Doctor Strange a deeper mystical style in his second solo film, but this was proved wrong in his first battle. When Doctor Strange faced a Ditko-esque monster on the streets of New York he looked more like an action hero than a Master of the Mystic Arts (capitalisation deliberate).

"Doctor Strange 2" (as I prefer to call the film) furthers Wanda Maximoff's portrayal as a bad guy. I thought she would have been reformed after "Wandavision". (That was a brilliant TV series, Marvel's best so far. I'm disappointed with myself for not writing about it). It's possible that she reforms at the end of this film. All I can say is that I'm disappointed that she plays the Big Baddy in "Doctor Strange 2". It's not faithful to her character in the comics, and why is she so powerful? In the comics she was a novice witch, no match for Doctor Strange.

Does Sam Raimi even know what the multiverse is? Judging by the dialogue, he doesn't. It's spoken of as something evil and uncontrollable. Rubbish! The multiverse is just a word to describe the different parallel timelines/universes. In the comics they're usually created by time travel, when someone goes back in time and changes events. The differences between the universes are subtle, not drastic.

In the last paragraph I bundled together the words "universes" and "timelines". In the comics (from the mid 70's onwards) they're practically synonyms, two words intended to describe the same thing. In the MCU the parallel universes in "Doctor Strange 2" and the parallel timelines in "Loki" seem to be different things. Otherwise the Time Variance Authority could have dealt with the problems while Doctor Strange stayed at the wedding sipping champagne.

So many random things are thrown together, We see the Illuminati, admittedly an alternate version of the Illuminati in the parallel universe Earth-838. The introduction of the Illuminati in an Avengers story in 2005 was one of the sillier ideas of Marvel's post-canon age, but in the film they look even more ridiculous.

What's with the Darkhold? We already saw it in Marvel's "Agents of Shield" series. It briefly appeared in the final episode of "Wandavision", but it plays a major part in "Doctor Strange 2". Is it the same book? It has different characteristics to the book in "Agents of Shield". The continuity of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is breaking down. Can't Kevin Feige, or whoever's responsible for the MCU, keep things better under control?

There's an unforgivable blunder. Sam Raimi should be ashamed of himself. It's claimed that the Doctor Strange in the film comes from Earth-616. Wrong, wrong, wrong! The main Marvel Universe in the films is Earth-199999. Earth-616 is the universe in the comics. They're very different to one another. Mysterio already called our universe Earth-616 in "Spider-Man: Far From Home", but he was a liar, so his mistake was deliberate.  Although, admittedly, they're becoming more alike. After films are released, stories are written in the comics that match the films. There's a major incursion of Earth-199999 into Earth-616.

Who is Charlize Theron supposed to be in the mid-credits sequence? The film itself doesn't name her, but in the credits she's listed as Clea. I hope her character isn't ruined by rewriting her in future films. She's Dormammu's niece, the daughter of his sister Umar. All true Marvel fans know that.

There's a silly post-credits scene in which Bruce Campbell speaks into the camera and tells the audience that the film's over. That made me smile. I know what it's about. Sam Raimi has said in interviews that he's opposed to post-credits scenes. Marvel probably insisted on a post-credits scene, so Sam made one as short as possible, not worth watching. Unless, of course, you're a Bruce Campbell fan.

When I walked out of the cinema my first inclination was to give the film a one star rating to signify my severe displeasure. I calmed down a bit on the train on the way home. Three stars is a fair rating. It's a reasonably well made film, even if it isn't Marvel.

The Marvel bubble has burst. When the MCU was launched in 2008 with "Iron Man" I was excited. I rushed into the cinema to see every film as soon as possible. I could hardly wait to buy them on Blu-ray. That's changed. The Marvel films don't excite me any more. "The Eternals" is the first MCU film that I refuse to buy on Blu-ray. It's not worth the money. There may come a time when I skip Marvel films in the cinema. That time isn't far off.

Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil (3 Stars)

This is a sequel to the 2014 film "Maleficent". The first film was based loosely on the fairy tale of "Sleeping Beauty". This film follows the further adventures of Aurora, the now awoken sleeping beauty, when she wishes to get married. She needs to introduce her stepmother, the witch Maleficent, to her bridegroom's parents, the King and Queen of Ulstead.

The film presents Maleficent in a different light to the first film. In the first film she was evil, but with some good qualities that shone through. In the second film she's a good person, with some evil qualities that she can't quite suppress.

Overall, the film isn't up to the quality of the first film. It's entertaining, but not a film I'd feel inclined to watch a second time. I prefer Angelina Jolie when she's evil. She does it so well!

Doctor Strange (5 Stars)

This is the 14th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in November 2016. I voted it my top film of 2016, but to be honest, I could just as well have picked "Deadpool" or "Captain America: Civil War". All three are outstanding films, and it's difficult to decide between them.

Stan Lee appears for about three seconds as a bus passenger in New York City. He's reading "The Doors of Perception" by Aldous Huxley, and it's making him laugh out loud. I don't know what the significance of his laughter is. I read "The Doors of Perception" when I was a teenager, probably 15, and I don't recall finding it funny. The book was an influence on my poetry over the next few years. I wrote about experiences after eating peyote, but the experiences were fake. I was never able to find peyote on sale, and I could only take LSD as a substitute.

I only took LSD for a few years, and I only wrote poetry for a few years. When I stopped taking LSD I stopped writing poetry. Without it I lost my inspiration. I'm still curious about peyote today. From what I understand, it's a weaker substance than LSD, so it's easier to dose.

The more I watch "Doctor Strange", the more I can accept Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One. I still think she was a curious choice for the role, but she's such a good actress that she plays the part perfectly. On the other hand, I never had any problems accepting Chiwetel Ejiofor as Baron Mordo. His racial characteristics in the comics are ambiguous, so he could have been played by a white or a black actor.

At the risk of making enemies, I have to say that I've never considered Mads Mikkelsen to be a good actor. He's too one-sided. He can only play characters that are cold, or troubled, or both. That's just the sort of person Kaecilius is, so he was the right person for the role.

I still can't make my mind up whether or not I like Benedict Cumberbatch as an actor. When I first heard that he'd been cast as Doctor Strange I groaned. Anyone but him! I changed my mind after seeing the film. He totally won me over. It's as if he was born to play the role. He doesn't just look like Doctor Strange, he walks and talks and casts spells like Doctor Strange. At least, he casts spells like the 1970's Doctor Strange drawn by Gene Colan.

Doctor Strange has appeared in other MCU films since this, but I'm still waiting patiently for his next solo film. From what I've read a sequel has already been planned, but no release date has been announced.

Success Rate:  + 2.1

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

Doctor Strange (5 Stars)

After watching the undisputed weakest MCU film yesterday, I decided to watch one of the best MCU films today. Despite complaints of whitewashing (casting a white British actress as an Asian character) it's an excellent film. Tilda Swinton fits into the role much better than I expected. My readers might accuse me of being a hypocrite. I'm one of the strongest critics of Idris Elba being cast as a Norwegian God in "Thor", so why do I accept Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One? I think the answer is that I don't accept her, I merely tolerate her. I know that she's the wrong actor for the role, but she's such a good actress that I can overlook the casting mistake. She was killed in this film, so we don't have to put up with her in future MCU films.

I have less problems with Chiwetel Ejiofor being cast as Baron Mordo. In the early comics his race is ambiguous. It wasn't until much later, 25 years after his first appearance, that an origin story was written claiming that he was of Romanian descent. For me this was a non-canon story, so I'm happy with him being portrayed by a black character.

I love the visual effects in "Doctor Strange", but what makes the film so good to me is the fact that after the origin story is out of the way the action comes fast and furious with hardly a pause. This is what an action film should be like.

One very slight criticism I have of the film is the portrayal of Dormammu as an enormous non-corporeal being, similar to Galactus in the second Fantastic Four film. The comics always showed him in humanoid form with a burning head. I assume the filmmakers wanted him to look scarier, but the change was unnecessary. Whoever Stan Lee created was perfect exactly exactly as he created him.

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

Doctor Strange (5 Stars)

Since moving to Germany I've acquired a lot of new readers. I've been handing my card to people I meet, and judging by the boost in readers based in Germany (according to Google's statistics) my marketing strategy has been successful. There's something that might not be obvious to my new readers. This isn't a film review site, it's a film diary. That's a subtle but significant difference. It means that if I watch a film five time I'll write about it five times. You might ask what happens if I run out of things to say. Do I repeat myself? Not usually. I just add a few random thoughts, such as telling you what the weather was like when I watched the film. My "reviews" aren't always informative, but I hope they're always entertaining.

So what's the weather like today? It's snowing.

That's my card. Cute, isn't it? I designed it myself. The only thing I don't like is that the dancing logo isn't quite centred, it's slightly to the left of centre. When I reprint the card I'll correct the error, but at the moment I still have a few hundred copies in a box, so I'll have to use them first.

Since this blog is a diary, it's as much for me as it is for other people. Usually I remember a film after watching it, even though I watch hundreds of films every year, but sometimes there are exceptions. This is most apparent with this years's Fantasy Film Festival. It was only three months ago, but last week I realised that I couldn't remember some of the films, so I went back and read my reviews. I can clearly remember the best films and the worst films, but after watching four films a day my memory of the average films is hazy. I wish I'd had time to write more detailed reviews.

One film that I didn't and never could forget is "Doctor Strange", which I saw in the cinema last year. For me this is the new direction of Marvel films. Benedict Cumberbatch was perfect in the title role. After initial resistance I could even accept Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One, however weird it is to cast a white woman as an oriental man. At least she's dead now, so she won't be appearing in the next Doctor Strange films.

Mads Mikkelsen, always a wonderful actor, plays the part of the arch-villain Kaecilius in the film. There's a character in the comics with this name, but I don't think it's the same person. In the comics Kaecilius is a minor character without much mystic power, but in the film he's a powerful enemy. That's a problem with the Marvel films. So often a character is thrown in, and it's impossible to know whether he's an old character from the comics or someone completely new.

I enjoy the film very much, especially the Inception-ish cityscapes, but there's one criticism I have to make. It was too early to feature a battle between Doctor Strange and Dormammu. In the comics Dormammu is Doctor Strange's greatest enemy, so Marvel should have built up to him over a few films; first weaker enemies, and then finally a big showdown with Dormammu in the third or fourth film. After that Umar could step in as the main opponent. The trouble is that the Marvel film producers are too impatient. I blame Kevin Feige. There are hundreds of issues of the comics of each superhero to draw on, but the Marvel films want to do it all at once to keep the comic fanboys happy. It doesn't work with me. I'd rather progress slowly though the storylines.

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

Doctor Strange (5 Stars)

This is the most eagerly awaited film of 2016. The general public has been whipped into a frenzy by skilfully timed news releases and trailers, but I've been more anxious to see it than anyone else. Doctor Strange was always my favourite Marvel character. His early stories in Strange Tales were masterpieces, and I consider the 17-part story of his battle against Baron Mordo and Dormammu in Strange Tales #130 to #146 to be the highest achievement ever reached in comic books.

The first attempt at making a film called "Doctor Strange" failed miserably. If you haven't seen the first film, made in 1978, count yourself lucky. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth of anyone who watches it. It's a disgrace to the name of such a mighty hero. The new film needed to put things right.

As far as the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is concerned, the new Doctor Strange film was of crucial importance. For the last eight years Iron Man has been the most popular character in the MCU, but Robert Downey Jr. has been hinting that he feels too old to continue with the role. A replacement was needed. Doctor Strange would be a good character for a long term continuation, because he isn't an action hero who needs to be young. The same actor could play the role for 40 or more years, but only if the films are good enough to make the public want to keep coming back. So much could be done wrong by picking the wrong actor or writing a poor quality story.

Benedict Cumberbatch was picked for the role of Dr. Stephen Strange. I have to say that this was an excellent choice. He's not my favourite actor. I find him very straight-laced and unemotional in practically every part he's ever played. But when it comes to Doctor Strange, this is just what's needed. In the comics Doctor Strange was probably the most cool and aloof of all the Marvel heroes.

I was very disappointed to hear that Tilda Swinton was chosen to play the part of the Ancient One. A woman? That's ridiculous. However, she does play the role well, if I try not to compare her with the comics. By now I've come to accept that the films are only partially faithful to the original stories. Some changes to Doctor Strange's origin, as presented in Strange Tales #110, were necessitated by having to tie the story into the Thanos Infinity Gem film, which will effectively round off the first big arc of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I can't say too much about the film in this early review for fear of giving away spoilers to my readers who haven't yet seen it. All I'll say is that it lives up to its promise. It magnificently portrays the mystical dimension as drawn by Steve Ditko in the 1960's. The street fight scenes seem to be copied from "Inception", but that's acceptable in the context of the film. The only small fault I can pick with the film is Rachel McAdams' unconvincing acting, especially in the early scenes of the film. I hope we never see her again.

My initial verdict after a single viewing is that this is the best film of 2016 so far. If you haven't seen it yet, what are you waiting for?

P. S. As well as the mid-credits scene there is a scene at the end of the credits, so don't walk out of the cinema too soon.

The Martian (4½ Stars)

This is one of the 2015 summer blockbusters that I approached with caution. Late summer, I ought to say. It's been presented in the media with a lot of hype, as the must-watch film of the year. From the trailer and the brief synopsis it seemed to be a re-imagining of last year's "Gravity", which certainly didn't live up to expectations.Then I read an article on the film's making in which it was said that on the first day of filming that everyone involved with the film would win an Oscar. I certainly hope that was misquoted. If they were told "Let's work hard to get Oscars for everyone" it would be more acceptable, but in the form I read it it sounded awfully conceited.

I needn't have worried. The film's director is Ridley Scott, someone who can be relied on not to make a million dollar turkey. There are a few of his films that deserve to be in my "30 films to watch before you die" list, but since I was restricting myself to one film per director only "Thelma and Louise" made the cut. "Gladiator" was just as deserving.

The film is about a manned mission to Mars in the near future. Thank you for not specifying the year, it's always embarrassing when watching the film after the year has passed and we still haven't got that far. Due to a storm the mission has to be aborted and the ground crew has to leave the surface in a hurry. In the chaos of the storm one of their crew, the botanist Mark Watney, played by Matt Damon, is assumed to be dead and left behind. The next Mars mission is four years in the future and there isn't enough food to sustain him that long. Being a botanist he knows how to grow crops on Mars, so he makes the best with what he has -- potatoes only -- and settles in for the long haul.

The obvious film to compare "The Martian" with is "Gravity", and it compares very favourably. The main problem with "Gravity" is the credibility and scientific accuracy of the story. Even to me as someone who has never studied astrophysics, "Gravity" seemed very artificial, and Sandra Bullock's return to Earth seemed like dumb luck more than skill. In contrast "The Martian" is easy to believe, and it's obvious that Ridley Scott did his homework before making the film.

This is a film worth watching again. Wait for my next review when I have the Blu-ray Disc in my hand next year.

Will it win Oscars? Somehow I doubt it. Science fiction films rarely have success at the Academy Awards, except for technical categories like cinematography. The Academy prefers films about films, or films about actors, so "Trumbo" is a more likely film to win the major awards next year. Let's wait and see.