Maxxxine (5 Stars)

This film is often referred to as the third film in the X trilogy. I don't like to call it that, but I can't think of a better alternative. The three films star the actress Mia Goth in two different roles, as Pearl and Maxine. The correct order in which to watch them is "Pearl" (2022), "X" (2022) and "Maxxxine" (2024). That isn't the order in which they were released, but it makes sense. Take my word for it.

Pearl and Maxine are two women who share the same dreams of becoming big stars. The difference is that Maxine succeeds while Pearl fails.

The film can be compared with Quentin Tarantino's "One Upon a Time in Hollywood". Both films present the golden age of Hollywood, in 1985 and 1969 respectively. The difference is that Tarantino presents Hollywood as a glamorous city of dreams, whereas "Maxxxine" shows Hollywood as a sleazy place. Which is more accurate? I'll let people who've been in Hollywood decide.

I've rated "Maxxxine" higher than in my last review, but I still don't think it's up to the quality of "Pearl"

Success Rate:  + 0.2

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

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 (4 Stars)

I finally got round to buying "Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3" on Blu-ray, after almost two years. I've been waiting for the price to drop, but it didn't, so I weakened and paid 9.99 Euros for it. Usually I don't like to pay more than eight Euros for a film. "Wakanda Forever" is even more expensive, currently 12.50 Euros. It wasn't even reduced in Amazon's Black Friday sale. I'll be patient.

I'll repeat what I wrote in my last review. It's a good science fiction film, but it's a poor Marvel adaptation. Whoever the five characters in the picture may be, they're not the same people that we know in the comics. Maybe Groot comes close, but not the others.

The portrayal of Warlock makes me sad. In the comics he was a noble warrior, the only person that Thanos feared, but he's just a clumsy idiot in the film. Mantis is even worse. In the comics she's deeply spiritual, despite having worked as a prostitute in Vietnam. In the films she's stupid. Not naively stupid, just stupid.

I have a suggestion. Let's reboot the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Let's start again from the beginning. New actors, and let's have stories that closely follow what was written in the comics, especially those written by Stan Lee and Roy Thomas. And let's get the costumes right. How many films did we need before Wolverine finally put on his yellow spandex? I just counted. It took him ten films. In "Deadpool & Wolverine" he finally looks right.

I need to give this film yet another chance. The critics call it one of the better Marvel films. Maybe they're right. I need to make an effort to forget the comics when I watch it next time.

Success Rate:  + 1.4

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

Maxxxine (4½ Stars)

"Maxxxine" is the third film in the X trilogy. Sort of. "X" took place in 1979 and introduced the young woman Maxine Minx who wanted to become a big star. Mia Goth played two roles, Maxine and the old woman Pearl. The second film, "Pearl", took place in 1918, a prequel about the previous life of Pearl herself. "Maxxxine" takes place in 1985 and continues Maxine's story, so it's really the second film.

I've been waiting anxiously for "Maxxxine" all year. "Pearl" was the best film of 2023 – argue if you like, but I won't change my mind – so I expected "Maxxxine" to be the best film of 2024. I'm disappointed to say that it doesn't live up to my expectations. Almost, but not quite. It doesn't have the subtlety of "Pearl", but I can see it was never the intention. "Pearl" takes place on a remote farm in Texas, whereas "Maxxxine" takes place in the big, brash city of Hollywood.

In the last six years Maxine Minx has found success in the porn industry. Naturally, that isn't enough for her. She wants the whole world to know her name, but porn stars are only known by a select few. Even people who watch porn films don't know the names of the naked bodies rolling around the screen. And don't forget, the year is 1985. The videotape porn industry was still in its early years. Maxine needs to go to Hollywood.

She's hired for the leading role in a horror film. Admittedly, very few horror film stars get worldwide attention, but it's a start on her ladder to stardom. She's thrown into a myriad of problems. People are being killed by Richard Ramirez, nicknamed the Night Stalker. Someone is killing Maxine's friends. There are mass protests against horror films (presumably started by the video-nasty-phobia) outside the studios. And to round it all off, a private detective is stalking her who knows about the farmhouse massacre in "X".

There are a lot of flashbacks to "X". Would they confuse anyone who hasn't seen the first film? I don't know.

I intend to watch "Maxxxine" again next week. I might revise my rating.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 (3 Stars)

This is the 32nd film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). It's a difficult film for me to rate. It depends on my criteria. As a sci-fi comedy it's a great film, worth five stars. As a Marvel adaptation it's awful. My three star rating is an average of the two extremes, but also a sign that I don't know how to rate it.

Adam Warlock is one of my favourite heroes in the comics, but what's happened to him? Roy Thomas portrayed him as the Messiah of Counter-Earth, but in the film he's a buffoon. And wasn't the High Evolutionary a good guy in the comics? He's been totally distorted in the film.

The members of the Guardians themselves are nothing like their incarnations in the comics, but I've already got used to it, so I won't comment on them here. The only character in the film who's true to the comics is Howard the Duck, but his appearance is so brief that it's hardly worth mentioning. Seth Green isn't even included in the credits.

The critics like the film, which I find curious. "The best Marvel movie in years"? That's only because the last few films have been so bad.

Just one small spoiler: At the end of the film Star-Lord (Peter Quill) leaves the Guardians of the Galaxy, but a few minutes later we read the words "The legendary Star-Lord will return". Does this mean he'll have a solo film?

As always, I'll return to the film when it's released on disc. It deserves another chance.

Tenet (4 Stars)

Normally I wait to buy a film on Blu-ray until the price has dropped significantly. I rarely pay more than 6 Euros for a Blu-ray, except for the Marvel films, which remain expensive longer, and even then I won't pay more than 10 Euros. In the case of "Tenet" I made an exception. I was impatient to watch it again, so I paid almost 16 Euros.

Is it worth it? That's difficult to say. It's more a matter that I wanted to understand the film better than I did after only watching it once. I think I've got it now.

To put it simply, without giving away too many spoilers: unnamed adversaries from the future want to destroy the present day world. Is that a paradox? If we all die, will they ever be born? That's a question for philosophers and quantum physicists to answer. We never see these enemies, because they have an agent on Earth at the moment who will do their dirty work for them. It's Andrei Sator, a Russian arms dealer who has received weapons from the future.

These weapons have the principle of working backwards in time. The bullets of a gun fly back into the gun. For some reason, which isn't completely logical, being hit by a reverse bullet is more dangerous than being hit by a normal bullet.

As the film progresses we see that not only bullets can be inverted to move backwards through time, people can also be inverted. Even if you can get your head around this idea, it's impossible to explain it scientifically, but it leads to spectacular fights and car chases between forward moving and backward moving objects.

A weakness in the film is that the unnamed main character, played by John David Washington, doesn't have much charisma. I found it difficult to relate to him and his motivation. Robert Pattinson is a much better actor and should have been given the main role. Nevertheless, it's a good film, but not Christopher Nolan's best.

Success Rate:  - 0.2

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

Tenet (4 Stars)

Off to the cinema I went again. While it always used to be something of pleasure, now it's with trepidation. The Coronavirus has to be taken seriously. It would be foolish to arrange a meetup with a dozen participants. Maybe nothing would happen, but if one of us had the virus, all 12 would get it. It's a matter of risk assessment. I went to the cinema to see "Tenet" with only one friend, a member of my cinema group. Two people is a sensible maximum.

The cinema's booking algorithm has been written to allow for social distancing. As soon as seats are booked, one or several, the surrounding seats are blocked: two on each side, the seats directly in front and behind, and the seats diagonally in front and behind. Above is the actual screenshot of the cinema seating before I booked my tickets last week. I should have made another screenshot this afternoon before I went out. The cinema was sold out, with the blocked seats outnumbering the booked seats by about five to one.

I can understand people wanting to go out and have fun. Man is a social creature. There's been six months of restrictions, varying in intensity, from country to country. People are fed up with sitting at home every evening. There's only so much Netflix people can take. Now men want to meet their friends for a drink, or they want to go dancing and chat up girls. The politicians understand, probably better than me, that there's a fine balance between the dangers of Coronavirus and the dangers of civil unrest by people who rebel against the lockdowns. A lot of people are complaining that their leaders haven't done enough to protect them. A lot of people are complaining that they're doing too much. All I can say is that I wouldn't want to be doing their job.

It's not a matter of the law. It's a matter of common sense. The current German laws allow me to arrange a meetup with a dozen people. Even the cinema's booking algorithm would allow me to book 12 seats side by side in a row. I didn't do it, not because it's not allowed, but because I consider it foolish. I would feel guilty if there were an outbreak of Coronavirus in my film group. I would give myself the blame, nobody else.

Now let's get to the film itself. I don't want to say too much for fear of revealing spoilers, so I'll keep to a very general description. An unnamed spy, played by John David Washington, comes across weapons that are inverted, meaning that when fired they travel backwards in time. He goes on a mission to find the arms dealer who is receiving these weapons from the future. As the film progresses he discovers that it's not only weapons, he also has to fight against people who are moving backwards through time.

This is in many ways a typical Christopher Nolan film. It's a similar concept to his film "Memento", although that didn't have a science fiction slant to it. I'll just add two comments:

1. Throughout the film I was trying to figure out the name of John David Washington's character. I was sure I'd missed it by not paying attention. It wasn't until the credits rolled and I saw him listed as "The Protagonist" that I realised I hadn't missed anything, he hadn't been named. That was annoying.

2. I was presently surprised at how good the acting was by Robert Pattinson, who plays Neil, the Protagonist's superior officer. He has a lot more talent than I gave him credit.

This is definitely a film I want to see again. Some things weren't easy to understand on first viewing, but knowing Christopher Nolan I'm sure it all makes sense. If I lived in normal times I'd probably return to the cinema, but in the days of the Coronavirus I'll be patient and wait to buy it on Blu-ray.

Vita and Virginia (3 Stars)

This is a true story based on the romance between Vita Sackville-West and Virginia Woolf from 1925 to 1928. I confess that I knew almost nothing about either of these women before I sat down to watch the film. After it finished I searched online for details about their lives. In retrospect, I wish I'd known about them first. My recommendation to anyone who wants to watch this film is that you should familiarise yourself with the characters first.

Vita and Virginia – I'll stick to their first names – were two English writers from the opposite ends of society. Vita was an aristocrat who lived in a large mansion. Her husband was a diplomat who was shuttled from country to country by the government. Virginia and her husband owned a small publishing company, and they could barely avoid bankruptcy. Vita's books were bestsellers. Virginia's books, published by her own company, sold just enough to make a profit.

Vita was fascinated by Virginia's books and determined to meet her, even though she was discouraged by her family. When they met, Vita fell in love with her and began to woo her. Vita had had previous lesbian relationships, but it was new to Virginia. Vita also aided Virginia by letting her new books be published by Virginia's company. Virginia was jealous that Vita's books sold so well, but Vita always insisted that Virginia was the better writer.

Homosexuality wasn't something that people talked about in those days. Their relationship was kept secret from the public, but their husbands knew about it.

Vita, played by Gemma Arterton, isn't a very pleasant person. She uses Virginia, and she doesn't hesitate to hurt her when she doesn't get her way. Virginia, played by Elizabeth Debicki, is emotionally unstable, and she has a mental breakdown when Vita parades her new girlfriend in front of her.

I'm a big fan of Gemma Arterton, as I constantly repeat whenever I review her films, but in this film I was amazed by the performance of Elizabeth Debicki. I've seen her in lots of other films, but today is the first time I realised what a good actress she is. The subtle changes in her facial expressions express a range of emotions. I'll pay more attention to her in her other films when I watch them again.

Despite the relatively low rating I've given this film, I'm sure to watch it again. I think I'll be able to enjoy it more now that I know the backgrounds of the two women.

Here are photos of the two women taken at the time when they were having an affair.

Vita Sackville-West in 1926

Virginia Woolf in 1927

Virginia Woolf died by suicide in 1941 (not shown in the film). After her death her books became widely popular, far outselling Vita's books. In contrast, Vita's books fell in popularity as time went by, and today very few people know her name. Virginia's most famous book, "Orlando", was inspired by Vita, and the first edition contained photos claimed to be of Orlando, but they were photos of Vita.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 (5 Stars)

I am Groot.

I am Groot.

I am Groot.

I am Groot.

I am Groot.

	I am Groot.
	I am Groot.
	I am Groot.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 (5 Stars)

"There are two types of beings in the universe: those who dance, and those who do not".

This is the 15th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in May 2017. It's a family drama of a different kind. Peter Quill, aka Star-Lord, has never met his biological father. This has been troubling him ever since he was abducted by Yondu's spaceship in 1988. Now he meets his father, and he finds out that his father is a planet. Only in Marvel films.....

Things don't run smoothly after he meets his Dad, who has the tell-tale name Ego. After initial mistrust Peter thinks they can live together forever, because Ego tells him he's inherited his immortality. Then Peter finds out that his Dad wants to destroy all life in the universe, apart from the two of them. Even his friends in the Guardians of the Galaxy will be snuffed out. That's not the sort of Dad I'd want to be with either.

You only have to look at his face to know he can't be trusted.

Ego takes on the form of David Hasselhoff to make Peter like him more. Is that really an improvement?

Does Ego look better as Kurt Russell? Yes, that's a friendly face that might win me over. Deceptively friendly.

But what about Stan Lee? In this film he appears in two different scenes, a 10-second scene in the middle of the film and a 17-second scene after the credits. Rather than being just another cameo it's a significant role. It ties together all of his MCU appearances. He's sitting on a rock in space talking to three Watchers. Do I really have to explain to you what Watchers are? They're one of the most highly advanced races in the universe, but they've sworn never to get involved in the affairs of lesser races. They just watch. They're scattered around the universe stationed at significant points of activity, although they leave their posts when something of importance is happening somewhere else. There's a Watcher who lives on the Moon called Uatu. He's a rebellious Watcher, because he loves the human race and repeatedly acts to protect humanity against attacks from alien races.

Stan Lee is sitting with the Watchers discussing things he's seen and done. We overhear him saying, "At that time I was a Federal Express Man", referring to his appearance in "Captain America: Civil War". That's interesting. Can we deduce from this that he's playing the same character in every film, someone who is gathering information for the Watchers? Let's not think about it too much, because there might be contradictions when we try to thread all his appearances together. It's just a humorous theory.

This film gets my vote for the best opening credits scene ever. While the names flash onto the screen, telling us who's in the film and who's worked on the film, Groot is dancing, oblivious to the fact that his team members in the Guardians of the Galaxy are fighting for their lives.

My recent reviews of the MCU films have been more like picture galleries than verbal descriptions, and I don't intend to change now. Here's a photo of Star-Lord, a character created by Steve Englehart in 1976. I was a big fan of Steve Englehart in the 1970's and owned most of the comics written by him, including Marvel Preview #4 featuring Star-Lord. Unfortunately my son Norman destroyed all my comics to make room in the cellar while I was in America. That was one of the most foolish things he's ever done. He could at least have sold them. My collection was worth at least $200,000 but probably closer to $500,000. My most valuable comic was a near mint copy of Giant-Size X-Men #1.

Star-Lord is played by the actor Chris Pratt, a real life gun nut. He says he owns 40 guns for home defence. Anyone who needs that many guns has serious problems.

This is Gamora, a character created by Jim Starlin in 1975. I also owned every comic he ever wrote for Marvel prior to 1997.

On the subject of guns, Gamora is the character in the film who carries the biggest gun. Size matters!

Don't you think that Gamora's gun looks like a severed male phallus?

Drax is a character created by Jim Starlin in 1973, but he's so unlike the comic book character that Jim wouldn't recognise him. The only thing that links him with the comics is his name.

Rocket was created by Bill Mantlo in 1973, but forgotten for more than 30 years before returning to comics in a slightly altered form.

Groot was created by Stan Lee in 1960 as a one-off character, but he was re-introduced in 2008 by Dan Abnett.

Those are all five members of the Guardians of the Galaxy, but I'll add one more photo.

Ayesha is loosely based on a character called Paragon, created by Len Wein in 1977. Very loosely. The Australian actress Elizabeth Debicki was picked for the role because a tall actress was needed, and she's 6'3". Wow! Does that make her the tallest actress in mainstream films?

Both Guardians of the Galaxy films are all about music. In the first film Peter Quill carried a Walkman with a mix tape given him by his mother. At the end of the film he finally opened a present given him by his mother, and it contained a second mix tape, the tape used in the second film. Neither of them are quite the mix tapes I would have made from the 1970's, but overall they're good mixes. I prefer the first mix tape.

Ego calls "Brandy" by Looking Glass the best pop song ever written. Tastes are different, I suppose. It's a song I heard when I was young and forgot until I watched the film. If it weren't for its prominence in the film I would have had no reason to ever think about it again. To me it's a cute song, pleasant background music with no lasting value. Here's the full text, which I'm quoting because of its relevance to the film.

---

Brandy by Looking Glass

There's a port on a western bay,
And it serves a hundred ships a day,
Lonely sailors pass the time away
And talk about their homes.

And there's a girl in this harbour town,
And she works laying whiskey down,
They say, "Brandy, fetch another round",
She serves them whiskey and wine.

The sailors say, "Brandy, you're a fine girl,
What a good wife you would be,
Yeah your eyes could steal a sailor from the sea".

Brandy wears a braided chain,
Made of finest silver from the North of Spain,
A locket that bears the name
Of a man that Brandy loved.

He came on a summer's day,
Bringing gifts from far away,
But he made it clear he couldn't stay,
No harbour was his home.

The sailor said, "Brandy, you're a fine girl,
What a good wife you would be,
But my life, my love and my lady is the sea".

Yeah, Brandy used to watch his eyes
When he told his sailor's story,
She could feel the ocean fall and rise
When she saw his raging glory,
But he had always told the truth,
Lord, he was an honest man,
And Brandy does her best to understand.

At night when the bars close down
Brandy walks through a silent town
And loves a man who's not around.
She still can hear him say,

She hears him say, "Brandy, you're a fine girl,
What a good wife you would be,
But my life, my love and my lady is the sea".

He said, "Brandy, you're a fine girl,
What a good wife you would be,
But my life, my love and my lady is the sea".

Success Rate:  + 2.3

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

Widows (4 Stars)

A thief called Harry Rawlings steals $2 million in cash from Jamal Manning, a gang boss in Chicago. After a police chase the getaway van is destroyed, killing Henry and his three accomplices and burning the money in a fire. The next day Jamal, who wants to go straight by being elected as alderman, threatens Harry's wife Veronica. He says he'll kill her if she doesn't pay him back the $2 million within a week. He tells her the police won't help her because they don't care. She's a black woman and they won't listen to her.

This is the biggest plot hole in the story. Why would a gang boss think that Harry's widow would have so much money lying around? In her position I would have run to the police regardless, and if they didn't help me I would have left town as quickly as possible. Even if she doesn't have $2 million in cash lying around Veronica is fairly affluent, so she could easily afford to rent a hotel room in another town, preferably somewhere where the police are less racist.

Veronica gives in. She promises to deliver the money that she doesn't yet have. In her husband's notebook she finds details of a crime he intended to commit, a robbery of $5 million in cash. She contacts the other three widows and asks them to help her. Two of them agree. Then they begin to make plans.

This is a complex story with many minor details, but I won't say any more about the plot. It's a tough, gritty film with harsh violence. Viola Davis puts on an Oscar winning performance as Veronica Rawlings. If she's not at least nominated for an Oscar I'll be severely disappointed. I was also greatly impressed by Colin Farrell as the alderman candidate Jack Mulligan. I've seen him in a lot of films, and this is a very untypical role for him. His face is easy to recognise, of course, but his stance and his mannerisms are so different from anything I've seen him do before.

This isn't a perfect film by any means, but if you want to spend two hours watching a good action thriller, you won't be disappointed.

Valerian (3 Stars)

This is a spectacular science fiction epic from the French director Luc Besson. Visually it's what "The Fifth Element" would have looked like if it had been made 20 years later.

At a cost of 200 million Euros it's the most expensive film ever made in Europe, but it looks like it will only earn a fraction of that amount at the box office. Does it deserve more success? After watching it for the first time today I refrain from giving an opinion. I'll give it a default three star rating. I really need to see it again before I can say more.

The setting for the film is the International Space Station. The film's introduction shows it growing steadily larger as different human nationalities, then different alien races move in to share it. 400 years in the future it's grown so large that it's considered a threat to the Earth's safety, so it's propelled into the far reaches of space. Humans are the largest group on the space station, but there are hundreds of alien races sharing it.

Valerian and Laureline are two special agents who work for the commander of the space station. The commander asks for their assistance in battling an unknown force that is spreading in the centre of the space station. As good soldiers they do what's asked of them, but as the story continues they find out that not all is as it seems.

The story is exciting. The acting is perfect. The visual effects are good, but to me they were confusing. It's as if Luc Besson's intention was to put the special effects first and everything else second. The film is based on a French comic series, "Valerian and Laureline". The visuals in science fiction comics can't necessarily be duplicated in a live action film, but that's clearly what Luc Besson has tried to do. The images are too overwhelming for me to say much about the film after only watching it once.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 (5 Stars)

Usually I'm critical of Marvel films on first viewing. Not this time. I laughed and laughed and laughed. This is the most humorous Marvel film ever, even funnier than "Howard the Duck". Howard himself makes a brief cameo after somehow escaping from the Collector. Talking of cameos, Stan Lee makes his most cosmic cameo ever. The film is full of small hints of other Marvel characters that only the most obsessive Marvel fans -- like me -- would notice.

The big baddie in this film is Marvel's biggest villain, as far as size goes: Ego, the living planet. He first appeared in Thor #132 in September 1966. He was one of Stan Lee's most outlandish creations. I'm still in awe at how one man could have such a vivid imagination and create so many memorable characters in the space of a few years, characters that are still popular 50 years later.

As enemies go, Ego pushes credibility to the extreme, but Stan Lee managed to make everything seem logical within the confines of the universe he created. How do you fight an evil planet? Do you bend over and hit the ground? Even someone as strong as the Hulk would look rather silly stomping his feet trying to smash his enormous opponent.

My biggest disappointment while watching the film was the appearance of Mantis. She's one of my favourite Marvel characters, but in the film she bears little similarity to her personality in the comics. In the comics she's deeply spiritual and always refers to herself in the third person. In the film she's socially inept because she's never met anyone except Ego. I suppose a person would be rather messed up after spending years talking to a planet. I quickly overcame my disappointment as I realised that her new personality better fits into the film's comedy theme.

Mantis isn't one of Stan Lee's creations. She was invented by Steve Englehart, who wrote an amazing series of stories from Avengers 105 to 152, some of the best comics ever written. Mantis first appeared briefly in Avengers 112 in June 1973, but it wasn't until two issues later that we found out who she is. She's a skilled martial artist who can knock out opponents far stronger than herself by skillful blows to pressure points. Unfortunately we don't see her fighting skills in the film.

Mantis is unique among Marvel heroes. All other heroes were the legal property of Marvel Comics, so they could be used by any other authors in Marvel stories. Steve Englehart retained ownership of Mantis. On the one hand this meant that no other authors could write about her. On the other hand, it meant that Steve Englehart could include her in comics that he wrote for other companies, in particular DC and Image. He gave her different names in the other comics, but it was obviously the same person.

There's humour throughout the film, but most of it comes from the two characters Drax and Baby Groot. I don't know which of them is funnier. This is in contrast to Drax in the comics, where he's a humourless character obsessed with killing Thanos.

In "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2" Mantis seems to be emotionally drawn to Drax. I wonder if she will be more interested in Groot in future films. After all, in the comics she married a plant.

This is a film that everybody should see, if possible on the big screen. Some things might be confusing to anyone who hasn't seen the first film, but don't use that as an excuse for missing it. I have a warning for anyone who's not used to Marvel films: don't leave the cinema too early. Marvel films almost always have a scene after the credits, and this is no exception.

Macbeth (3 Stars)

This film, a big screen adaptation of Shakespeare's famous play "Macbeth", is the biggest disappointment I've experienced in the cinema this year. The trailers looked so spectacular, and Michael Fassbender is an excellent actor who has impressed me ever since I first saw him in the TV series "Hex".

The overall impression that I had was that the film was incomprehensible. The only reason that I understood it was that I already knew the play well. I knew the plot, and my previous knowledge told me what was happening. What I saw on screen was no help. The picture is too dark for most of the film. Since all the men in the film have dark hair and beards, it was often difficult to distinguish them in the dark lighting. The woman sitting next to me in the cinema whispered to me a few times, "Is that Macbeth?" I wasn't always able to give her an answer. As a friend pointed out after the film, the trailer is different. The colours and visibility in the trailer are perfect. Why couldn't they have done that to the film as well?

Another problem is that the dialogue was often muttered. Maybe that was a problem of my cinema. If they had turned the volume up it would have been easier to understand.

It's a great story. After all, it's Shakespeare. Good acting by the main characters. The cinematography is good, apart from being too dark. I saw the play in the theatre last year. Despite being an avant garde performance, it was far superior.

Everest (4 Stars)

This film tells the story of the multiple expeditions to reach the top of Mount Everest in 1996. In the first few minutes we're told about the problems. In the past the mountain had been scaled by very few elite, highly skilled climbers. Now Everest had become commercialised. Different companies were offering tours to the top of Everest for people who may have been fit, by normal standards, but certainly weren't the elite climbers who should have been attempting such a dangerous ascent. At a price of $65,000 per customer it was good business.

The film focuses on the leaders of two tours, Rob Hall and Scott Fischer, who decide to pool their efforts and lead their teams together, despite their different styles. Rob is a hand-holder, whereas Scott demands that his customers do as much as they can themselves, otherwise they don't deserve to be on Everest. We briefly see other teams at the beginning of the film. Rob especially is shocked by the crowds at Everest's Base Camp and predicts that they will be getting in one another's way.

Five people died trying to get back down from the peak. Five people shown in the film, that is. On the same day another three people died in another team not shown in the film. Was it worth it? Was it worth taking commercial tours to the top of the most dangerous mountain on Earth? It could be asked whether it's worth climbing Everest at all, but there will always be adventurers who put their lives at risk to achieve extraordinary feats.

The film is spectacular. The actors themselves tend to fade into the background. The film's real star is the mountain itself. Some scenes were shot on location, at Everest's Base Camp (5335 metres) and Camp 2 (6400 metres). Those are presumably the highest locations on the mountain accessible to normal people. The higher scenes were filmed in Pinewood Studios, England. The end result is breathtaking. This is also one of the few films I've seen in recent years that profits from 3D.

Despite the big publicity that the 1996 "Mount Everest Disaster" received, it's been pointed out, somewhat cynically, that it was a good year. Only 3% of the climbers who ascended higher than Base Camp died, compared with the previous yearly average of 3.3%. Was eight deaths in a single day exceptional? Not at all. For instance, on April 18th 2014, while the film was being made, 16 sherpa guides setting up equipment for the climbing season were killed in an avalanche. This never made the news. They were only poor local people, not rich westerners.

The Man From UNCLE (3 Stars)

This is a difficult film for me to write about. I sat in the cinema watching it with my friends. It had good acting, fast action and a few pretty girls. And yet it didn't excite me. Something was missing. I can't quite figure out what it is. I wouldn't even criticise the story, as some other reviewers have done. Since the film is set in 1963 there's nothing wrong with making it about a nuclear bomb that has fallen into the wrong hands. That's a typical plot for a cold war era spy thriller. Why do something new?

Maybe my problem with the film is that I couldn't help comparing it with the original television series. Robert Vaughn and David McCallum were so charismatic as Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin that it's impossible to accept anyone else stepping into their shoes.

The best thing about the film is that it has sparked interest in the TV series. Until now it has never been made available on DVD in England. This month the first season was finally been released as a box set, 51 years after its first broadcast. I assume the other three seasons will follow soon.

One thing amused me in the film. At the beginning of the film Napoleon Solo goes to East Berlin to free Gaby Teller. They have a brief conversation in German, for which subtitles appear on the screen. Gaby tells Napoleon he has a strong American accent. That was ridiculous, as anyone who speaks German can verify. Napoleon Solo is played by Henry Cavill, a British actor. Gaby Teller is played by Alicia Vikander, a Swedish actress. Henry's German was surprisingly clear, and he could have passed for a German in short conversations. Alicia's spoken German was so bad that it was barely understandable. She could never pass for a German, and yet she was the one criticising him.

As you can see from the ticket, I was admitted free as a meerkat. Lucky me.