100 Streets (4 Stars)

In this film Gemma Arterton stars alongside Idris Elba, one of my favourite actors. They're the best known actors in the film, but there are others who are just as important to the stories. I said stories, not story. That wasn't an error. The film tells three unrelated stories in parallel. The characters meet each other, but their stories don't interlock.

When I last watched "100 Streets" I didn't understand it. The film's tag line, "Anyone can take a wrong turn", doesn't give a clue. It connects all three stories. All three stories are the results of bad things that a person did in the past, but it still doesn't explain what the director wants to say. The three families that we see are on different levels of society, but they all live within a one square mile area in London. Max and Emily are a wealthy upper middle class couple; George and Kathy are a lower middle class couple; Kingsley (who lives with his mother) is working class or lower. Is there an official category for people who don't work and live from crime?

Now it's clicked. I get it. The film is about existential nihilism. Life has no purpose. As Kingsley puts it, "Shit happens". The amateur actor Terence expresses it more eloquently. He points at a gravestone and says that a person's life is only the dash on a gravestone between the two years.

That might sound depressing, but has existentialism ever been uplifting?

There's another theme that's shown in the interactions of the people. When we meet a person, whether it's once or regularly, we only see a small portion of his life. It's not about keeping secrets. Any person has compartments in his life. Think of your own life:

* You have a family with a wife and children.

* You have a place of work.

* You have hobbies.

Your wife doesn't see you at your place of work. She might or might not see you at a club, for instance a table tennis club.

Your work colleagues have a very limited overview of your life.

You might have more than one hobby, for instance playing table tennis and listening to rock music. Your friends from one club might be surprised if they bump into you at the other club. "So you do this as well?"

But the main point of the film is to show the randomness of life. George and Kathy have been trying in vain to have a baby for almost 20 years. Emily leaves her husband, and then finds out that her husband has made her pregnant. One man dies, while another man who wants to die is persuaded that living is better. It's all random. Nobody can make plans, because he doesn't know what will happen next. You can be crossing the road when you're hit by a taxi cab. One person's life ends, while the life of another person (the taxi driver) changes completely.

The film was an unprecedented flop. It has the lowest success rate of any film I've reviewed. But I like it, and I can recommend it to my readers.

Success Rate:  - 10628.2

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

Three Thousand Years of Longing (4½ Stars)

What would you do if a genie offered you three wishes? Would you ask for riches? Good health? Those are the things everyone asks for.

When Alithea Binnie (Tilda Swinton) finds an ancient lamp while visiting Istanbul, she rubs it and out comes the genie (Idris Elba). When he asks for her wishes she's not so naive. As a scholar she knows all the tales of genies, and the wishes always turn out bad. She refuses to make a wish, telling the genie he's a trickster who wants to cause her harm. The genie tells her he needs the wishes, because if the wishes aren't made he'll be cursed to live as an invisible entity for the rest of time. Was that part of previous genie in the lamp stories? Alithea sees it as psychological pressure and still refuses to make a wish.

Alithea and the genie spend time talking to one another. Alithea tells her rather bland life story, focussing on an imaginary friend she had in her childhood. The genie tells the story of how he was first imprisoned in the bottle. He was in love with the Queen of Sheba, who was also a genie. She abandoned him for King Solomon, which broke his heart. In the tale Solomon was a great sorcerer. He trapped the genie in a bottle and cast him into the sea. Over the following 3000 years the genie was occasionally freed, but he was always put back in the bottle.

In his stories tragedy always struck the ones who made wishes. Alithea sees this as proof that the genie was a trickster, but he insists it wasn't his own fault. The people made wishes that were bad for them. He even tried to talk them out of wishes, but their greed made them insist.

But this isn't a typical genie in the lamp story. Alithea and the genie fall in love with one another, and he goes back to live with her in London. She doesn't make wishes, because he has to leave her after she's made her third wish. Was he lying about the curse after all? After watching the film a second time I can see a few discrepancies that I missed the first time in the cinema, but it's still a beautiful love story.

And they lived happily ever after?

Not quite.

But what would I wish for? I'm not sure. I need time to think it over. I don't need riches. Good health would be a blessing, especially after my sickness last year. And I'd like to have good hair again. It would be wonderful to be kept as a sex slave for the rest of my life. The genie says he isn't allowed to grant eternal life, but could he return me to my childhood while I retain all the knowledge I have now? That would definitely be one of my wishes.

I'll end with a small joke. An Irishman rubbed a lamp, and a genie offered him three wishes. It was a hot day, so he asked for a glass of Guinness. The Irishman took a big drink, and the genie told him, "It's a magic glass. However much you drink, it will always be full". The Irishman looked at the glass and it was still full. The genie asked him what he wanted for his other two wishes. The Irishman says, "That's great. I'll have another two glasses".

Success Rate:  - 2.6

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

Thor: Love And Thunder (3½ Stars)

This is the 29th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). I gave it a lukewarm review when I watched it in the cinema last year. Now that I can finally watch it on Blu-ray I wanted to like it, I made a real effort to appreciate it more than last year, but the best I could do was increase the rating by half a star. The film's biggest problem is the main character, Thor himself. He's portrayed as being arrogant and a fool. I can put up with the arrogance. That's something we see at times in the comics. But foolish? Never! He was always a noble God, with or without his arrogance. I can see what Taika Watiti wanted to do as director and co-writer. He wanted to pull Thor down to our level, so we can relate to him better. That's a mistake. He's a God, so there should be a distance between him and the viewer.

But there are also questions about his godhood which remain unanswered in the film. In the comics we read that he's the God of Thunder. That's it. No explanations. He's a God, the same God that the people in northern Europe used to pray to. When Thor was introduced into the MCU the studios were nervous about insulting people, so it was expressly stated (in words spoken by Phil Coulson) that Thor isn't really a God, he's an alien. I'm not happy with that, but in "Love and Thunder" we meet a character called Gorr who claims to be a God killer. So Gorr disagrees with Phil Coulson and says that Thor is a God after all?

It's all a matter of definition. What is a God? Can we make a definition which isn't specific to just one religion? Is a God the person who created the universe? That would exclude Thor. Is a God someone that people pray to? That would include Thor. Is it someone who's immortal? That's a tricky one, because it's conceivable that human medicine can one day promise immortality. Is a God someone who lays down teachings to live by? Maybe, but some religions would call that person a prophet. I don't have an answer. Gorr could evidently tell the difference. For Gorr anyone is a God if he says he's a God and has followers who agree he's a God. That's a very simplistic definition, with obvious problems, but it works for Gorr in the film.

Let's say, for example, that I stood in the street and told people I'm a God (with an article). The first reaction would be that people say I'm mad. But let's get past that. Let's say that people who disagree want to discuss it with me. In order to convince me that I'm not a God, they first have to know what a God is. Many cults begin with a person claiming to be a God and others believing him.

In "Love and Thunder" Jane Foster carries Mjolnir and possesses the power of Thor. She even calls herself Mighty Thor (without an article). Does this make her a God? Maybe not, because the hammer is also killing her. That's one of the things that doesn't make sense in the film. In a book of Norse legends Jane reads that Mjolnir promises health. She's suffering from terminal cancer, so she travels to Tonsberg (New Asgard) in Norway to take the hammer. It gives her the power of Thor on a temporary basis, but it's actually sucking the strength from her body, speeding up her death. Mjolnir should do better. The problem lies with Marvel Studios, in particular Kevin Feige. He wanted to be modern and present a female Thor, but he wasn't brave enough to do it permanently, so he had to kill her off.

There's a passionate kiss between Thor and Mighty Thor. How passionate is the kiss? Are they using tongues? It looks like they aren't. Maybe Gods don't use their tongues. Or maybe Natalie Portman agrees with Kristin Kreuk that it's not professional.

Here's a small feature that was introduced in the previous Thor film, "Ragnarok". There's a play about the events of previous films. In this case Melissa McCarthy is playing Hela. She looks good, but I still prefer Cate Blanchett. Melissa is only pretending to be the God of Death.

How the mighty have fallen! In the comics Thanos claimed to be God (without an article), although he doesn't say this in the films. Nevertheless, he was all powerful. A few years have passed, and now an imitation of his Infinity Gauntlet adorns an ice cream parlour. I wonder if it tastes good. I'll have to try it the next time I'm in Tonsberg.

Success Rate:  + 1.0

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

Thor: Ragnarok (4½ Stars)

Disney Wednesday #14

How many Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films have been made so far? I guessed that it was 32, but I had to check before I continued writing. I was right. Thirty-two films. It looks like even more then I write 32 in words. I couldn't put them in the right order. To help myself, I've put a little green sticker with the number on the spine of my MCU Blu-rays.

While I'm in England I'll be watching the Marvel films (MCU or otherwise) in random order. My son-in-law Mehdi hasn't seen them all, so I'll leave the decision up to him what comes next. "Thor: Ragnarok" is a good choice.

Success Rate:  + 2.7

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

Extraction 2 (3½ Stars)

Netflix Thursday #27

This is a Netflix original film. Calling a film direct-to-streaming used to be an insult, but now Netflix boasts about it.

I haven't seen "Extraction", also a Netflix original film, which was made in 2020, but I didn't have the feeling that I was missing anything. Tyler Rake (Chris Hemsworth) is a retired Australian mercenary living a peaceful life in Austria. He's sworn never to do any more rescue missions (extractions), until he's told that his ex-wife's sister is being held in a prison in Georgia with her two children. These are strange circumstances. Her husband Davit is serving a long prison sentence for murder, and he's asked for his family to join him in prison for their own protection. He says they might be killed by a rival gang, but it's really just an excuse to stop them betraying him. His wife isn't given any choice in the matter.

Tyler breaks into the prison and kills Davit when he attempts to stop him freeing his family. The rest of the film is made up of non-stop action sequences with Davit's brother seeking revenge. I like action films, but in my opinion "Extraction 2" overdoes it. I would have appreciated a little more story in between the battle scenes,

Hobbs & Shaw (4 Stars)

Wow! Dwayne Johnson has muscles! What do they feed them in Samoa?

Or is it the pancakes that he eats in America?

This is the first film in which he performs the People's Eyebrow (TM). I'm sure he could raise his eyebrow higher in his wrestling days. I'll have to check.

Out of all the professional wrestlers who've ever tried their hand at acting, Dwayne is the most talented. Hulk Hogan was embarrassing. John Cena tries his best, but he just doesn't have what it takes. Can you recognise another WWE wrestler who appears in "Hobbs & Shaw" as a non-speaking extra? Will Roman Reigns take the plunge into real acting? He's 37, whereas Dwayne Johnson was 29 when he made his first film, "The Mummy Returns", followed by his first lead role in "The Scorpion King" a year later. I have "The Scorpion King" on DVD, but I haven't watched it since I started my blog in September 2010. I don't think I liked it very much, but after all this time I should give it another chance.

Maybe I should write a few words about the film itself. Dwayne Johnson plays the DSS agent Luke Hobbs, Jason Statham plays the ex-SAS fighter Deckard Shaw. Deckard was the main villain in "Fast & Furious 7" when he sought revenge for the near-death of his criminal brother, but he teamed up with Vin Diesel's gang as a hero in "Fast & Furious 8". I'm surprised that the two initially refuse to work together when they're assigned to the same case. Luke repeatedly says that he doesn't like Deckard, but I thought they'd already got over it in "Fast & Furious 8".

Their main antagonist is Brixton Lore, a genetically enhanced super-soldier played by Idris Elba. He calls himself the Black Superman. Okay, but I think the Samoan Superman is stronger.

There's actually another antagonist behind the scenes. Brixton works for a high-tech terrorist organisation called Eteon. The director of Eteon says that Luke and Deckard know him, but we only hear his voice and his identity is never revealed. A sequel was planned, but the latest news is that it won't be made, so we might never find out who this mysterious character is.

Success Rate:  + 1.8

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

Three Thousand Years of Longing (5 Stars)

It's a story that's been overdone as long as books have been written and films have been made: someone finds a bottle, rubs it and a genie comes out who offers to grant three wishes. If that sounds boring to you, think again. "Three Thousand Years of Longing" adds new ideas. Apart from which, how could anyone turn his back on a film with Idris Elba and Tilda Swinton in the leading roles? I know I criticised Idris Elba's performance in "Beast" earlier this week, but in this film he's back in top form. As for Tilda Swinton, she's always been in top form.

Tilda plays Dr. Alithea Binnie, a narratologist. That's a new word to me, but in the context of the film it's obvious what it means. It's a person who studies stories and story structures. She visits Istanbul to hold a lecture on the historical importance of stories. Today we have science, but in the past stories were necessary to explain anything for which there was no scientific explanation. We still need stories today, because science hasn't yet explained everything, but as scientific discovery advances stories will gradually fade away.

Alithea buys an old lamp in a shop in Istanbul. She cleans it with the help of her electric toothbrush. Yuck! Then a genie (or Djinn, depending on the transliteration) comes out and offers to grant three wishes.

As a narratologist Alithea isn't naive enough to accept the offer. She says that stories of wishes being granted all end in tragedy. There's always a trick. The genie insists that he isn't a trickster, but isn't that what all tricksters say? Instead of this they spend the following hours talking to one another. Alithea tells the genie about her past, which is relatively mundane in comparison to the tales the genie has to tell of his life in the past 3000 years. Yes, his tales tell of women who suffered after making wishes, but he claims that he didn't trick them. It was the women's own fault that they wished for the wrong things.

Alithea is still reluctant to make wishes, but the genie is desperate. He says that if he doesn't grant three wishes he'll be sentenced to wander as an invisible, disembodied soul. Alithea still doesn't believe him. Is he applying emotional blackmail because he can't appeal to her greed?

But... no, I'll stop there. No more spoilers! All I'll say is that this isn't just a fairy tale, it's a deeply philosophical story with romantic undertones. I had tears in my eyes as the film came to an end. It's a brilliant film!

Beast (3½ Stars)

Idris Elba plays Dr. Nate Samuels, a man trying to reconnect with his teenage daughters. A year earlier he and his wife separated, but shortly afterwards she developed cancer and died. Nate's daughters are bitter with him for not being at his wife's side in her final months. Now he's taking them to South Africa to visit the village where she was born.

Nate and his friend Martin (played by Sharlto Copley) visit a wild life reserve. What they don't know is that poachers stole lion cubs the previous day. As a result a lion has gone wild and is killing every human he can find, men, women and children. After a surprise attack by the lion, Martin is stranded and Nate crashes his jeep. They have to fight for survival while being hunted by the lion.

This is a terrifying story, realistically told. At several points in the film I jumped in my seat when the lion attacked. But somehow I had the impression Idris Elba wasn't getting into his role. He's one of my favourite actors, but in "Beast" his performance seems flat. The emotional background to the story could have been played better. In contrast, Sharlto Copley's performance was excellent. Overall, the film was disappointing. It didn't live up to my expectations.

I'm planning to see another new film with Idris Elba later this week. Maybe you can guess what it is. I hope it's better.

Thor: Love and Thunder (3 Stars)

I'm writing this review with a very heavy heart. I'm a Marvel fan. I always have been. I started reading Marvel comics when I was six and bought the comics regularly until I left university. (After that I moved to Germany, and the comics were less easily available at that time). The Marvel films made in the 1980's and 1990's were disappointing, but in the 2000's high quality, big budget films based on the comics were finally made. "X-Men" was the turning point in 2000, and the films have kept up momentum ever since.

But what's happened now? The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is producing flop after flop. They should have quit while they were ahead. "Avengers Endgame" should have been the last Marvel film, but corporate greed caused Marvel to take more and more risks.

The first three Thor films were good. They weren't perfect, but they were highly enjoyable action romps. So what went wrong with the fourth film, which I saw in the cinema this evening? Too much CGI. Too much humour. Too many characters. Too much humour. Or did I mention the humour already?

I like comedies. Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows that already. But Marvel isn't about comedy. Maybe there can be occasional jokes, but the repeated humour in "Love and Thunder" just got on my nerves. The cinema was packed, and the audience was laughing at the silly little monsters in the early scenes. Most of the audience, that is. I was groaning.

I can't say too much without giving away spoilers. All I'll say for now is that the film is a failure. It's tempted me to never watch another Marvel film.

The Suicide Squad (5 Stars)

This is what I call a BBBM. It's a Big Budget B-Movie. It has a trashy feeling to it which increases as the film progresses. It was a lot less successful than the first film, for reasons I don't understand. It's definitely a better film. I even voted it the best film of 2021.

Once more, the premise is that a team of super-villains is put together to do a job that none of the super-heroes want to do. If they die on the job, who cares? They're villains anyway. If they succeed, their prison sentences are reduced by 10 years each, which admittedly isn't much for someone who's been found guilty of killing 23 people. I'd demand a full pardon as a reward for doing a job that I might not survive.

As in the first film, the team is assembled by the government agent Amanda Waller. In the first film her ruthlessness made us suspect that she's not much of a good guy, but in the second film we see that she's downright evil. The villains are the real heroes. Even Harley Quinn. She might be deranged, but she has lines that she won't cross.

If I had to name one fault in the film, I'd say that Harley Quinn doesn't have enough screen time. It's a team film, so the action is shared by the six team members. I would rather have seen Harley Quinn doing all the fighting, but that's just me. After three films, she still hasn't had the solo film the character deserves. Maybe the next one.

But when she bursts into action she's magnificent.

That's not to say I don't like the other characters. I particularly like King Shark.

Idris Elba is outstanding as Bloodsport. In fact, he's outstanding in every role he plays. He's one of my favourite actors.

They have to fight a giant starfish. As silly as that may sound, it leads to some incredible fighting scenes. Can you see Harley Quinn on the ground in front of the starfish?

Success Rate:  - 1.2

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

The Suicide Squad (5 Stars)

I'll keep spoilers to a minimum, because this film is still in the cinemas. It's a film that you really have to see, even if you didn't like the first Suicide Squad film, which was called "Suicide Squad", without a definite article. That's confusing. There may be a subtle joke intended, but I don't get it.

A good friend, whose opinions on films I usually agree with, warned me in advance that this sequel is much better than the first film. That's the only sort of spoiler I appreciate with a new film. After watching the first 10 minutes I disagreed. A group of eight villains, of whom I only knew Harley Quinn and Captain Boomerang, were hurriedly united as a team. No character development. I groaned. Then they went into action, and within another five minutes they were all killed. Except for Harley Quinn. I was relieved. This was just the introduction to set up the film. The six new characters didn't need any character development, because they weren't going to be around long enough. Within the context of the film they were only intended as cannon fodder. None of them were expected to survive. Their only purpose was to distract the enemy from the arrival of a second team, the Suicide Squad. With a definite article. In a flashback sequence we get to know them all.

• Idris Elba is Bloodsport, a weapons expert.
• John Cena is Peacemaker, another weapons expert.
• Sylvester Stallone is King Shark.
• David Dastmalchian is Polka-Dot Man.
• Daniela Melchior is Ratcatcher 2.

I've been assured that they're all well known DC villains. I rarely read DC comics, so they're new to me. I'll leave it up to other reviewers to tell me whether they're accurate portrayals of the comic book characters.

The film has a glorious grindhouse aura about it. The gore is exaggerated, and it can't be taken seriously. I couldn't help laughing out loud at some of the deaths. I feel ashamed of myself, I should be able to control myself better.

The action scenes are ridiculously over-the-top. Robert Rodriguez would be proud to make a film like this.

Harley Quinn is prominent, but not to the extent she stood out in the first film. She's still magnificently crazy. My only regret is that for most of the film she doesn't wear her usual Harley Quinn costume.

The reason for the improvement over the first film can be summed up in two words: James Gunn. He's a far superior director to David Ayer, who made the first film. James Gunn already contributed to the Marvel Cinematic Universe as director of the two Guardians of the Galaxy films. They're both very good films, and he's getting better at making super-hero films as he goes along. I can hardly wait for "Guardians of the Galaxy 3".

Bastille Day (4½ Stars)

This is a fast-paced action film made in 2016, starring Idris Elba looking more like James Bond than James Bond. It's not boring for a moment, from beginning to end. That makes it all the more puzzling that the critics have rated it so poorly.

The film is about Michael Mason, an American pick-pocket in Paris who's wrongly accused of a major crime. He steals a carrier bag that contains a mobile phone and a stuffed toy. He pockets the phone and throws the bag away in a street corner. A minute later there's an explosion that kills four people. There was a bomb hidden in the stuffed toy. CCTV footage identifies him as the man who placed the bomb.

The CIA agent Sean Briar (Idris Elba) is the first to find Michael. After initial doubts, he believes Michael's story, even though his superior officers are pressuring him to hand Michael over to the French police. There's something bigger going on. The bomb was just a warning for a bigger attack planned for Bastille Day. Sean relies on Michael's help in foiling the plot.

The film was a box office success. Cinema audiences know a good film when they see one.

Success Rate:  + 1.7

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

Avengers: Infinity War (5 Stars)

"The hardest choices require the strongest wills".

Success Rate:  + 4.5

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

Cats (3 Stars)

This is my first film of 2020, which automatically makes it the best film of the year so far. Or the worst film. It depends on how you look at it. Three years ago I began to keep a running list of my top 10 films of the year, so I wouldn't have to panic when the last week of the year arrived. That also means that as soon as I've watched my first 10 films of the year – an easy feat for January – I'll already have a top 10 list ready to publish if the worst happens and I'm bedridden for the rest of the year.

The film follows the adventures of Victoria, a cat who's abandoned on the streets of London near Trafalgar Square. She's a kind-hearted innocent cat who only wants to be loved. She comes into contact with the Jellicle tribe of cats, who follow a matriarch called Old Deuteronomy. Once a year she picks one member of the tribe to ascend into a new life. Wow! That's an extravagant clash of fairy tales and religious symbolism.

It's a magical version of London, recognisable but somehow mystical. The whole story takes place in one night.

Having said that, this is a film which has several outstanding features, but also several poor qualities, giving it an overall average rating. On the plus side, the dancing is excellent, especially the tap dancing scenes. It was the right decision to pick a ballet dancer, Francesca Hayward, for the lead role instead of an actress. That was the mistake made in the unjustly praised musical "La La Land".

On the minus side, the character of the film's villain, Macavity, is totally bland. I don't blame Idris Elba, because I consider him one of the best actors alive today. I blame his lack of characterisation in the film's script. We hardly see him, and we're given no chance to sympathise with him. Is it possible that his role was shortened in the film? I can't imagine that the musical itself could have been written so poorly.

Most of the songs were enjoyable, but I was somehow disappointed with Jennifer Hudson. I've liked her as a singer ever since I saw her in "Dreamgirls", but in "Cats" she doesn't unleash her full potential.

One problem that I have personally is the portrayal of the tomcats. Watching the female cats walking in a slinky, feline manner was almost arousing, but seeing the males walk in the same feminine way was distasteful. I'm too heterosexual to enjoy something like that.

For the last few weeks I've been reading bad reviews about the film, but I still had to see it. I like musicals, and I like Rebel Wilson (who plays a medium-sized role). If I hadn't gone to see it I would have been left burning with curiosity. I wouldn't call it a bad film, but I don't want to watch it again.

Hobbs & Shaw (5 Stars)

There are a few posters for "Hobbs & Shaw", but this one, which is also the preliminary DVD cover for the UK release, is the best. It says it all in one picture. Two men on different sides of the road, from different countries, with different styles. The film emphasises this from the beginning, including exaggerated bouts of insults and trash talking. They don't want to work together, but they don't have a choice. The fate of the human race lies in their hands.

An organisation called Eteon has created a virus that will kill almost everyone on Earth. Only the strong will survive, and I'm sure that Eteon has its own definition of "strong". A group of MI6 agents try to steal the virus, but they're wiped out by Brixton Lore, a cybernetically enhanced super-soldier. The only survivor of the MI6 team is Hattie Shaw, who injects the virus into herself to smuggle it out of the building. It will lie dormant within her for a few days, after which it will kill her and infect the whole Earth. Brixton frames her as a traitor who's killed her own men.

Hattie's brother, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham), is recruited by MI6 to find the virus, not knowing that Hattie is carrying it within herself. The CIA also sends Lukas Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) to find the virus.

The film's action scenes are so exaggerated that I almost laughed while watching them, but they overwhelmed me and kept me excited throughout the film. Whenever the action stopped it was replaced by humorous scenes. It's rare that a film has drawn me in on such a visceral level. This is a spin-off from the Fast & Furious film series, and it's just as exaggerated as the recent Fast & Furious films.

I've already used the word "exaggerated" three times, so I think that's the single word that I should use to describe "Hobbs & Shaw".

Exaggerated.

Avengers: Infinity War (5 Stars)

Despite my love for this film, I have to point out – yet again! – that it's not the same Thanos that we know in the comics.

In the comics written by Jim Starlin, Thanos' motivation for killing half of the universe isn't to achieve a cosmic balance or to solve the problems of overpopulation. It's a sacrifice for the woman he loves, Death. He thinks it's something that will please her and make her love him. I don't know whether I'll get as far as the Infinity Gauntlet comics in my Marvel Years posts. That's in 1991, and I'll probably stop when I get to 1984. I'm not sure yet.

Thanos would never retire and become a hermit or a farmer. If he destroyed half of the universe he would want to rule over the other half.

So much to his motivation. As for the Snap, it wasn't a magical act powered by the gloves. He could have killed half of the universe merely by thinking about it. The finger snapping is just a gesture to show that killing trillions of people is as easy as snapping his fingers.

What I likie about this film is its epic quality. There are battles taking place at the same time all over the world, and all over the universe. Some of the battles are very close, and we expect the good guys to win. In other battles it's obvious that they're too weak, but all the battles are enjoyable.

We can almost like Thanos. He's an environmentalist who is carrying out a plan to save the universe. In the film at least. Maybe he's not Thanos as we see him in the comics, but his benevolent nature is suitable for the film. Films profit from having villains that we can sympathise with. That's not so necessary in comics. It's just an added plus.

"You can't be a friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man if there's no neighbourhood".

Don't worry, Peter Parker, there will still be a neighbourhood after Thanos snaps his fingers; there will just be less children playing in the street.

Is there anyone else who disagrees with the German translation of "Wakanda Forever"?

This character isn't named in the film, but in the credits she's listed as Proxima Midnight, a post-canon servant of Thanos. She was played by two actresses: Carrie Coon in facial close-ups, and Monique Ganderton when her full body was shown. She returns in "Avengers Endgame", but in that film she's only played by Monique Ganderton. I think that she has a fascinating face. Fascinatingly evil.

I intend to rewatch "Avengers Endgame" tomorrow. I can judge the films better if I watch them back to back.

Success Rate:  + 4.5

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