Captain Marvel (4½ Stars)

This was the first Marvel Cinematic Universe film to be released after Stan Lee's death. It begins with a tribute to Stan Lee built into the opening credits. The words "Thank you, Stan" at the end of the credits are a massive understatement. His contribution to modern culture can't be overestimated. My three-year-old grandson doesn't yet know the name Stan Lee, but he knows Spider-Man. He wears a Spider-Man jacket. Stan Lee's name will be remembered long after Martin Scorsese is forgotten. I would go as far as to call him the greatest man of the 20th Century. He will live in the hearts and minds of his fans forever.

The film contains a brief cameo that was filmed before his death. He's sitting on a bus attempting to learn the line for a film script. The line for this very film? Maybe. Captain Marvel walks past him and smiles down at him.

This is out of character. There's no logical reason for Captain Marvel to pay attention to an old man on the train when she's in the middle of a battle with a Skrull. This is Brie Larson smiling at Stan Lee. She loves him. Who doesn't? Every actor who ever appeared in a film with Stan Lee was in awe of the great man, a giant towering above normal mortals.

This film tells the origin of Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel, but in a way it also tells the origin of Nick Fury. In 1989 he was a young agent, new in his job at SHIELD. He didn't believe in aliens from other planets until he saw one with his own eyes.

Captain Marvel has spent the last six years believing she's a Kree. Now she finds out that she's a human. She's had dreams about Earth, but now she finally discovers why. The dreams have been revealing to her the secrets buried deep in her mind. She comes to Earth to pursue the Skrulls, the arch-enemies of the Kree, but she discovers that she's been fighting on the wrong side of the war. The Kree have been the bad guys all along,

In the comics themselves it wasn't so clear. Both the Skrulls and the Kree are evil races, determined to conquer the universe. In the film the Skrulls aren't conquerors, they're just refugees fighting to survive. The Skrull leader, Talos, admits that he has blood on his hands, but it was in the past. Now he just wants to spend time with his family.

"Captain Marvel", the film, is yet another example of how Marvel has adapted the comics for the big screen. Random names are copied from the comics, but they're completely different characters. For instance, in the comics Mar-Vell is a male Kree warrior who comes to Earth and adopts the identity of Dr. Walter Lawson, a scientist who he witnesses being killed. In the film, Mar-Vell is a female Kree scientist who lives on Earth, calling herself Dr. Wendy Lawson. I frequently complain about the MCU getting the skin colour of its characters wrong, but mixing up the gender is a whole different level of blunder. Usually the word blunder is reserved for accidental mistakes, but I call this mix up a blunder, even though it's deliberate. I understand that it was a deliberate decision, intended to make "Captain Marvel" even more of a feminocentric film. All the major characters are female, and Captain Marvel herself is the most powerful character in the MCU. I'm surprised Nick Fury didn't turn into Colonel Nicola Fury. What about casting Octavia Spencer as Colonel Fury? Hmmm..... somehow that doesn't seem so bad.

That's a nice shirt, but don't you think it would look better without a bra? Aren't the women in the Kree Empire liberated enough to burn their bras?

Success Rate:  + 5.4

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

Captain Marvel (4½ Stars)

I decided today, quite spontaneously, to watch "Captain Marvel" again. Somehow I appreciated it more than I did the first time, two weeks ago. Partly it's because I've got over the initial shock of Captain Marvel being a woman (although I still consider that to be a blunder). Partly it's because I appreciated the battles in the opening scenes more. Partly it's because I could pick up more details in a second viewing.

I felt a surge of pleasure in the final scenes, where Carol Danvers was able to unleash her full powers. The biggest problem with the MCU films in general is that Marvel's greatest super-heroes are toned down in comparison with the comics. They're made much weaker because someone sitting at a desk somewhere in Marvel Studios thinks that heroes with too much power would be unrealistic. So what? Why do we need realism?

Even Thanos' infinity gauntlet was burnt out after snapping his fingers. That never happened in the comics. The gauntlet (more precisely, the combination of the six stones) gave its wearer infinite power, so it was impossible for it to be exhausted. I'm looking forward to seeing Captain Marvel, the most powerful hero in the MCU, battling Thanos in "Avengers Endgame", but I hope his gauntlet has recharged itself by then.

I was sad to see Stan Lee's cameo appearance in the film, since I knew it was his last. The world is a poorer place without Stan Lee, but at least we can still read his comics.

Captain Marvel (4 Stars)

This is the 21st film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in March 2019. Yes, that's now. I watched the film in the Cineworld Broad Street cinema in Birmingham on March 10th while I was on holiday, and I'm now writing about it on March 21st after returning home. Don't worry, I've backdated my post to make it appear in the right place.

As far as Marvel continuity goes, this film is a mess. In the film Carol Danvers gains super-powers after being exposed to the Tesseract, one of the Infinity Stones. In the comics she gains her powers after being caught in an explosion with the Kree warrior Mar-Vell, who called himself Captain Marvel. She gave herself the name Ms. Marvel. (I would have preferred Marvel Girl, but that name was already taken). It wasn't until 35 years later, in 2012, that she changed her name to Captain Marvel after Mar-Vell's death.

The film takes place in 1995. It starts with Captain Marvel training on the Kree homeworld Hala. She thinks she's a Kree, but she's having nightmares about a previous life. While on a mission for the Kree she crash lands on Earth, and she slowly realises that this is the planet where she was born. She battles with a party of Skrulls, shape-shifting creatures who are the arch-enemies of the Kree. She allies herself with Nick Fury, who's a disillusioned SHIELD operative who is considering quitting.

My initial impression is that this is the weakest MCU film since "The Incredible Hulk" in 2008. I'll retain my final judgement until I've seen it again, preferably another twice. What I like about the film most is that Carol Danvers is a very powerful character. Almost all of the Marvel heroes have been made weaker than in the comics, but the film's Carol Danvers has the full power of the comics' Ms. Marvel. She's almost as powerful as Drax ought to be. She's probably the most powerful character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The MCU needs a heavily powered being to battle Thanos. Let's see what happens next month.

The Avengers (5 Stars)

This is the sixth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in May 2012. It finally unites all of the Avengers to battle Loki and an alien race called the Chitauri. The members of the Avengers are:

Iron Man – first seen in "Iron Man" (2008)

Thor – first seen in "Thor" (2011)

Hulk – first seen in "Incredible Hulk" (2008)

Captain America – first seen in "Captain America" (2011)

Black Widow – first seen as a supporting character in "Iron Man 2" (2010)

Hawkeye – first seen as an unnamed supporting character in "Thor" (2011)

Whoever first conceived the slow, steady build up to the release of "The Avengers" is a marketing genius. Was it Avi Arad? Was it Kevin Feige? Was it someone else? It was an ambitious plan to map out a series of 22 films from 2008 to 2019.

Maybe the original plan wasn't for exactly 22 films. The first film ("Iron Man") and the last film (the as yet unreleased final battle between the Avengers and Thanos) were planned, but the route between the two points has been changed on the way. Iron Man was more popular than expected, which is the reason a second Iron Man film was released so soon. Another change concerned Spider-Man. It wasn't agreed until 2015 that he could appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Stan Lee has a 4½ second cameo at the end of the film. After the Chitauri have been defeated there are a series of television interviews showing the public's reaction. Stan Lee appears as a sceptic sitting in the park playing chess with a man who looks suspiciously like Ian McKellen. The words he speaks are

"Superheroes in New York? Give me a break!"

How many people recognise the irony in this interview? There's a subtle in-joke that only fans of the early Marvel comics would recognise. In the early 1960's DC Comics were the market leaders in superhero comics. All of the DC heroes were located in fictional American cities, for instance Batman lived in Gotham City, Superman lived in Metropolis, the Flash lived in Central City, Green Lantern lived in Coast City. When Stan Lee began to write superhero comics in 1961 he didn't want his stories to be set in a far distant Marvel Universe, he wanted them to be accessible by being set here in our own world. With the exception of the Hulk (New Mexico), all of his superheroes lived in New York. That's the real meaning of the ironic interview in the park. Until 1961 it was considered impossible that superheroes could be in New York. Then Stan Lee changed history by putting dozens of superheroes in the middle of a city that everyone knows and can relate to.

Here are the six members of the Avengers staring upwards at the Chitauri attack. If you can't name them all you have to stay behind after school and watch all the MCU films. Although that's not much of a punishment. I would consider it a reward.

Clint Barton and Natasha Romanoff aren't referred to by their customary superhero names. They're called Agent Barton and Agent Romanoff, since they're both members of SHIELD.

We see them called Hawkeye and Black Widow on a computer screen in the SHIELD helicarrier. This is the only time Clint Barton is called Hawkeye in the film, although on one occasion he's called the Hawk. Natasha Romanoff states early on that she carried out a mission with the codename Black Widow, but it's not used as her standard name.

In this film Phil Coulson was killed by Loki. That was a mistake. The fan backlash was immense. He had to be brought back from the dead for the TV series "Agents of SHIELD". They did it in a much too complicated way. They could merely have said that Phil Coulson was revived in medical treatment shortly after Loki's attack, but Nick Fury didn't tell the Avengers because he wanted to motivate them.

Loki is the best film villain ever, with Magneto a close second. Yes, Loki is evil, yes, Loki is a murderer, but he's still so cool and charismatic that it's impossible not to like him. That's what makes a villain good. Clear-cut confrontations between black and white are boring. Interesting heroes are ones with flaws, and interesting villains are ones we can admire or feel sorry for.

Success Rate:  + 4.9

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

Thor (4½ Stars)

This is the fourth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in May 2011. Stan Lee's cameo is amusing. The scene lasts for 20 seconds, but we only see his face for two seconds. He's a man trying to tug Thor's hammer with his truck, and he doesn't even notice when his truck's rear bumper breaks off under the strain.

I have a question for fans of Thor as portrayed in Marvel comics: is this scene accurate? Thor's hammer can't be lifted because of a spell placed on it by Odin, not because it's heavy. No person can lift it, but a truck should be able to pull it. Am I correct?

This is Thor's hammer as described in "Norse Mythology for Dummies". You can click on the picture to enlarge it if you want to read more.

I have to praise the Marvel Studios for their casting choices. I can't think of anyone who would have been more suitable than Chris Hemsworth to play the part of Thor. He's muscular and tough, but not overly macho.

The addition of Stellan Skarsgard to the regular characters was another good choice. We need a modern day Norseman to link the Marvel films to the ancient mythology. He's not a character from the comics, but he's an ideal addition to the film.

Not all the casting was correct. Idris Elba was cast as Asgard's gatekeeper Heimdall. That's an unforgivable blunder. Didn't they notice that he has the wrong skin colour to play a Norse God? I doubt the Vikings even knew that dark skinned people existed.

Is Natalie Portman the right actress to play Thor's love interest Jane Foster? That depends on which Jane Foster you're talking about. In the comics she was a nurse, but in the film she's an astrophysicist. Okay, I get it. It's the 21st Century and Marvel wants to show that women can be just as intelligent as men. That's true, but is it really necessary to change the story? A nurse might not have a PhD title, but she's just as valuable to society as an astrophysicist, and probably even more hard working. Natalie Portman wouldn't be a good nurse, but she's right for the role of an astrophysicist.

Kat Dennings is ideal to play Jane Foster's intern Darcy Lewis. I think she would have been better suited to play Jane Foster. It's just a shame she doesn't wear a yellow and red costume.

Clark Gregg returns as Phil Coulson in his biggest role so far. He's responsible for protecting the hammer when Thor tries to retrieve it. He's truly Mr. Cool, or as Thor calls him, Son of Cool.

The MCU's slow, steady progression from film to film is excellent, something never previously done in film history. There's never been a franchise like it. DC can only look on and grind their teeth in jealousy.

Success Rate:  + 1.0

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

Iron Man 2 (4½ Stars)

This is the third film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in May 2010. Stan Lee's cameo is disappointingly short. We only see him for 1¾ seconds. He's playing the role of Larry King. I can see the similarity. Everyone is applauding him. Is it because they love Larry King or Stan Lee? It must be the latter, because I couldn't imagine people being excited about seeing Larry King.

"Iron Man 2" takes place about six months after the first film, which ended with the shocking words "I am Iron Man". For me as a Marvel fan those words are shocking, because they were never spoken in the original comics. There are even reporters mocking the story that Iron Man is Tony Stark's bodyguard, even though that's the story that Stan Lee wrote. It's disrespectful to speak badly of Stan Lee's stories. I mean the major plotlines of his stories. I'm honest enough to admit that Stan had his bad days, such as when he wrote the wedding story in Fantastic Four Annual #3. That must be the worst story he ever wrote, unless he intended it to be a parody. As a parody I could just about accept it.

The villain in the film is Ivan Vanko, a Russian scientist who has built a suit similar to Iron Man's. A lot of reviewers – including me, unfortunately – have called him Whiplash, connecting him to the Marvel Comics villain with this name. That's not correct. When the film was made Marvel knew people would complain about the non-canon nature of the character, so they hurriedly wrote a four-part mini-series, "Iron Man vs Whiplash", for fans to read before they went to the cinema.

I disagree with such tactics, but I still enjoyed the character in the film. Mickey Rourke plays the character perfectly, with an attitude that could have given him a place in the early Marvel stories. Maybe he could have been just a touch more corny. Maybe he could have shouted "I am Whiplash" in response to Tony Stark's televised confession.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is advanced by the introduction of the Black Widow, even though she doesn't use that name yet. She's only referred to by her real name, Natasha Romanoff. Don't you think it's about time she had her own solo film?

The ever-smiling Phil Coulson also returns. I don't know what it is about him that's so appealing. His immaculate suit and tie, combined with his neat hair, annoy me, and yet I still like him. He's so square that he's cool.

Nick Fury gives Tony Stark the eye. That's creepy!

In the after-credits scene a hammer is discovered in the desert in New Mexico, and Phil Coulson is sent to investigate it. It's Thor's hammer, of course, but nobody knows. My question is simply, why all the fuss? People uncover old junk all the time, some of it valuable, most of it not, so what's the big deal about a hammer? It would only be worth sending government agencies to retrieve it if they knew it's Thor's hammer, which they don't.

I was about to end this post when I realised that I've written a review of an Iron Man film without including a picture of Iron Man. Here you go! Are you happy now?

Success Rate:  + 1.1

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

Iron Man (4½ Stars)

Stan Lee said that this was his favourite cameo. It's a non-speaking role, only five seconds long, but there's something special about it. Tony Stark walks into a party and sees a man with his back to him that he greets with the words "You look great, Hef". When the man turns round we see that it's Stan. What the scene means is open to interpretation. Maybe it was Stan Lee himself, and Tony Stark mistook him for Hugh Hefner. Maybe Stan Lee was playing the part of Hugh Hefner. In a deleted scene (available on my Blu-ray disc) Tony apologises for his mistake, to which Stan replies "That's okay, I get this all the time". That would have removed the ambiguity. I believe the director removed this line of dialogue because he wanted to leave it open for the fans.

"Iron Man" is the film that kicked off the series of Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films, way back in May 2008. It was a brilliant marketing strategy that other film franchises are jealous of. It was all building up to the Avengers. The team members were introduced one by one in a series of films, and finally they were placed together. The MCU films are built on continuity, which was the strength of the 1960's Marvel comics. The same actors played the same characters from film to film, with only two notable exceptions:

Edward Norton played the Hulk in his MCU solo film, but he was replaced by Mark Ruffalo in "The Avengers". Supposedly Norton didn't want to be tied to one character for years, but if he hadn't wanted that he should never have taken the role in the first place. It's also the fault of the producers for not making him sign a contract that specified a minimum number of films.

Terrence Howard played James Rhodes in "Iron Man", but he was replaced by Don Cheadle in the subsequent films. The reason for this is well documented. He was too greedy. He was the highest paid actor in "Iron Man" with a salary of $4.5 million. For "Iron Man 2" he was only offered one million dollars. The reason was that Robert Downey Jr was still a relatively unknown actor when the first film was made, but he became famous as Iron Man and could demand more money for the second film, so Howard's salary had to be reduced to stay within the budget. Terrence Howard walked out, meaning the studio had to scramble to find a replacement actor. He didn't reckon with the consequences of his actions. Before "Iron Man" he was being paid between one and two million dollars per film. After refusing to appear in "Iron Man 2" he was never offered more than $500,000 for films, and most offers were closer to $60,000. Within a few years he was earning so little that he had to accept parts in television series. I'm not saying he's a bad actor; he's a very good actor. To be honest, I'm surprised at the reaction. Hollywood is ruled by greed, so why was Terrence Howard picked out as the one to be punished?

"Iron Man" has a lot in its favour. Despite being moved from the 1960's to the present, the story is faithful to the comics. If you don't believe me, read Tales Of Suspense #39 (March 1963) for yourself. Tony Stark is the same millionaire playboy (maybe a billionaire, due to inflation). He's an erratic genius. The only real change in his personality is that in the comics he continued to manufacture weapons, whereas in the film he turns pacifist. That's a sign of the times. In the 1960's Americans like Stan Lee believed that peace could only be achieved by force. Today people are more naive and think that peace can be achieved by negotiation. I'm glad that Adolf Hitler isn't alive today, otherwise pacifist leaders would be negotiating non-stop while he marched across Europe.

I don't consider Robert Downey Jr to be a good actor, but he was born to play the role of Tony Stark. He's an actor who can only play himself, but this "himself" fits the role of Tony Stark perfectly. It's like he jumps out of the pages of the comics.

One character who seems to have been born by accident is SHIELD agent Phil Coulson, played by Clark Gregg. He never appeared in the comics. He was only introduced into the films as a minor character running errands for Nick Fury. I don't think that the producers realised how popular he was until the fans complained when he was killed in "The Avengers". He had to be brought back. He had to be given bigger roles. He was made the lead character in the MCU television series "Agents of SHIELD".

The music in "Iron Man" shouldn't be underestimated. Tony Stark is a rock music fan, and this is shown in the film's soundtrack. There's no namby-pamby rap or r&b. That's all that today's generation of weaklings can handle. Tony Stark is a strong, hard-hitting man, and he likes powerful music. The film starts with AC/DC and ends with Black Sabbath.

This film also introduces one of the most important features of the MCU films: the after-credits scenes. Almost all of the films have a scene after the credits, of varying length and importance. These scenes are intended as a hook to introduce following films. Mostly. "Iron Man" has an example of a good after-credits scene. Nick Fury speaks to Tony Stark about forming a group called the Avengers.

Success Rate:  + 2.2

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

500 Days of Summer (3 Stars)

At the beginning of the film the narrator tells us "This is not a love story". That prepared us for what was to come. He should have added "This is not a romantic comedy". After watching the film I read a few reviews, and most of them called it a romantic comedy. They don't get it. If anything, "500 Days of Summer" is a romantic tragedy.

The two main characters, Tom and Summer, are a mismatched pair. Tom believes in Love. He believes that for every person there is one person he's destined to be with, a soulmate. Summer doesn't believe in Love, she doesn't even know what it is. She only believes in the three F's: Friendship, Fun and Sex. (I changed the last word). On that basis Tom and Summer can have a good time together, it might even last for 500 days, but it's inevitable that Summer will end the relationship when she doesn't get all three of her F's.

The film was a big box office hit, and I can objectively appreciate its quality. The non-linear narrative makes it one of the most original films in recent years, The alternation between the happy days at the beginning of the relationship and the sad days as it breaks down make the tragedy even more tangible, as if it's an eventuality that's destined by fate. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's acting is breathtaking, and Zooey Deschanel is also impressive.

Subjectively, I can't enjoy the film. It hits too close to home. I see too much of myself in Tom. I don't believe that there's only one person for me, but I strongly believe in Love. It's natural for me to want the three F's, but that's not enough. Without the Big L everything else is hollow. A girl like Summer would destroy me, just as she wrecked Tom's life. If he'd been smart he would have known better. The narrator's wise words at the beginning of the film are a warning that the relationship can't last, and the non-linear order of the scenes shows us within the first 10 minutes that the narrator was right.

I have loved. I have given all of myself. My only fault was that I loved too much. I gave all I had without expecting anything in return, and it took me far too long to realise that I was receiving nothing in return. After lying broken on the ground I picked myself up, dusted myself off and tried again. Had I learnt from my mistakes? Not at all. Once more I gave all the love in my heart. Once more I was treated like dirt. Now I've sworn that I will never love again. I have too much love to give. It overwhelms most women. Maybe there's a woman somewhere who needs a man like me, but it's too late. I've closed my heart to new possibilities. I don't believe that the three F's are enough, but it's all I'll allow myself.

It's not a film that I can watch again. The first viewing fulfilled my curiosity. A second viewing would be torture.

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

The Avengers (5 Stars)

If "Thor" made me think that Tom Hiddleston is one of the best actors alive today, "The Avengers" (aka "Avengers Assemble" aka "Marvel's The Avengers" aka "Marvel Avengers Assemble") has confirmed it. It's a tribute to his acting talent that even though he was the bad guy I wanted him to win.

Isn't he the coolest bad guy ever? That subtle grin is so disarming.

He even looks cool in that silly hat.

But please spare some sympathy for our heroes. Saving the world is hard work.

Yes, I know I haven't written much about the film today. Do I need to? It was the most successful film of 2012, and the fifth most successful film ever. Does anyone still need convincing to watch it?

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

Thor (4½ Stars)

I was recently asked by well-meaning family members why I don't try to get money for my blog. For years I've been putting effort into my writing, an hour or more every day, and all I've received for my troubles is a few pennies commission from people who click on my Amazon links. Hint hint!

In recent years there have been stories of bloggers making millions. Uninformed people might think that it's easy money. As an insider I see the truth.

First of all, the bloggers who make money are in almost all cases video bloggers. I prefer to write. There are a few reasons for this. Mostly it's because I enjoy writing. For me writing is an art (or at least it should be), whether it's a 1000-page novel or a 20-line product description. I make sure that my spelling and my grammar are first class, whatever the subject matter of my reviews. I plan what I write in advance. I'm not a person who would talk spontaneously into a camera. In theory I could write a text and read it aloud, as some video bloggers do, but it looks artificial. Then there's my intention that my blog isn't just something transitory, it's meant to be something that will remain online for decades after my death, maybe longer. The amount of online material is growing exponentially from year to year. A limit will come to what can be archived, and more importantly a limit will come to what people want to remember. Videos will be the first to disappear, because they're the most data intensive. Then sound clips will go. Then pictures. Text will be the last to fall.

Then you have to remember that the bloggers who make money are paid by the companies they endorse, whether it's fashion or cosmetics companies. Am I the only person who sees the problem in that? They're the prostitutes of blogging. They pretend to be impartial, but they're accepting money to say that something is good. In my eyes that's totally immoral. If I dislike a film, no amount of money would make me lie and say it's good. I would be betraying my readers.

There's also the possibility of making money by adding advertisements to pages. Google offers its own variety of paid advertising, Google Adsense. When I first started blogging in 2010 I used Google Adsense. My fellow bloggers will know that when you start a new blog with Google's blogger software Adsense is strongly recommended as a great way of making money. I tried it out. Why not? It's money for nothing. After a few weeks I checked my blog on a slow computer, a laptop belonging to my daughter. I was horrified to see how slow the pages loaded. There were delays while external addresses were decoded. It was awful. I deleted the Google Adsense links immediately. I want my readers to enjoy reading my blog, not be annoyed by slow pages and flashing images.

The only method of making money that I've retained is Amazon links, for Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.de. I can add these links statically without slowing down page load times, and the links aren't intrusive. The first picture of each post, like this one, is a link to Amazon, where the film can be bought on DVD or Blu-ray. In my recent reviews I include a box at the end of my posts with further links. I also have links in the sidebar. I don't earn anything if a person simply clicks the link. I only earn a commission if he buys something. Note that I said something, not necessarily the article advertised. You can click the link, then go to Amazon's search box and pick something else. I'll earn commission on any product you buy after entering Amazon via my link.

I said my Amazon links aren't intrusive; in fact they aren't intrusive enough. I have a few friends who frequently order items from Amazon. I've asked them to use my links instead of the Amazon homepage, but they don't. Maybe they think there's a catch. There isn't. You'll pay exactly the same price and I'll earn money.

Now, before I forget that this post is supposed to be about "Thor", let me just make a few remarks about Idris Elba. I've already said in the past that he was miscast. He's a Norse God, so his skin colour should be white. Asgard is a world of fair-skinned Gods, so casting a black man is pure idiocy.

Having said that, I have to give Idris Elba for the way he plays the role. He's a magnificent actor, and he proves it by giving Heimdall a sense of power and dignity that few other actors could have achieved. He shouldn't have been given the role, and nothing will convince me to say otherwise, but he makes the best of what he's been given.

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

Iron Man 2 (4½ Stars)

There's one important thing I forgot to point out in my previous reviews of "Iron Man 2". This is the film that introduced the Black Widow, played by Scarlett Johansson. To make up for it I've posted the extra-large picture above. Take a long, hard look at her. Isn't she beautiful? Since then we've seen her in "Avengers Assemble", "Captain America: The Winter Soldier", "Avengers: Age of Ultron" and "Captain America: Civil War". Let's hope she'll return in many more Marvel films. Even though I prefer her costume from the canonical Marvel comics of the 1960's I have to admit that her costume in the film, based on much later comics, does look sexy.

Some of my readers might wonder what I mean when I refer to Marvel stories as canonical or non-canonical. By this I mean, naively speaking, a division into what really happened and what was made up. Of course, all the stories were made up, but the difference is that in the early years Stan Lee held a tight grip on the stories and made sure all the comics were consistent with one another. In later years stories were written without paying attention to what had happened in the past. If there were contradictions they were just shrugged off with the excuse "My story takes place in an alternative universe".

So where do I draw the line between canonical and non-canonical? Temporally, I'd say that everything from 1961 to 1974 is canon, starting with Fantastic Four #1 and ending when Roy Thomas resigned as editor-in-chief. Everything written since 1991 (after the Infinity Gauntlet mini-series) isn't canon. As for the years 1974 to 1991 I have to differentiate. Those are the years when Marvel continuity began to fall apart, although a few writers held on to the foundation. Anything written in that period by Roy Thomas, Steve Englehart and Jim Starlin is canon. Anything written by Mark Gruenwald and Jim Shooter isn't canon. I would have to go through all the other authors one by one. Please don't think that when I say "not canon" I mean "bad". For instance, I find Frank Miller's Daredevil stories highly enjoyable, but for me they're not canon because they rewrite Daredevil's origin as laid out by Stan Lee.

As always, I appreciate opinions on this subject. If you disagree with me write something in the comment box below. It's best to leave a comment with your name (or code name), not just sign as Anonymous, so that I can tell who is writing what.

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