Red One (4 Stars)

Disney Wednesday #29

Red One is a glossy, overpowered Christmas blockbuster that feels less like a festive tale and more like a Marvel superhero film that happens to involve Santa Claus. Directed by Jake Kasdan, it throws Dwayne Johnson and Chris Evans into a hyperactive rescue mission when Santa is kidnapped, blending action, comedy and mythological lore with the confidence of a film that assumes scale alone will generate wonder.

Johnson plays Callum Drift, the stoic head of North Pole security, while Evans is a fast talking civilian reluctantly dragged into the operation. Their chemistry is serviceable rather than sparkling; Evans leans into his sarcastic charm, Johnson leans into his granite seriousness. The result is familiar buddy movie territory, albeit wrapped in snow, elves and CGI creatures that feel imported from half a dozen other franchises. Everything is big, loud and relentlessly busy, yet rarely magical.

J K Simmons' Santa Claus is the film's most interesting element. This is not the twinkly grandfather figure of tradition but a weary, muscular administrator of Christmas, closer to a CEO than a saint. That portrayal feeds neatly into the film's underlying question: is Santa Claus real, or just a story we collectively agree to believe?

Red One answers this in a very modern way: Santa is real within the film's universe, but his power depends entirely on belief. The more people believe in him, the stronger Christmas becomes; cynicism literally weakens the world. This allows the film to have it both ways. Children can take Santa at face value, adults can read him as a metaphor for generosity, kindness and communal faith. Santa exists because people need him to exist.

That idea is arguably the most Christmassy thing about the film, yet it is never explored with much depth. The script is far more interested in lore, chase scenes and setting up a potential franchise. Moments that might have slowed down to reflect on why belief matters are quickly buried under another explosion or wisecrack.

As a Christmas film, Red One feels oddly joyless. It acknowledges the concept of wonder without ever quite delivering it. Compared to classics that let sentimentality breathe, this one keeps moving as if afraid of sincerity. The result is entertaining enough in short bursts, but emotionally thin.

Ultimately, Red Onetreats Santa Claus as real in the way blockbuster cinema treats everything; real as long as it is profitable, expandable and endlessly rebootable. Whether that makes him any less real than the Santa of stories is up to the viewer. The film suggests that belief itself is the point, even if it forgets to make us feel why that belief once mattered so much.

Success Rate:  - 1.1

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

Spider-Man 3 (5 Stars)

Something funny happened today. I sat down to watch "Spider-Man 3". The film began. And then, in the first few seconds, while the Columbia logo was being displayed, a spider lowered itself between me and the television. It was hanging on its web from the ceiling. I was so fascinated that I paused the film to watch it. It hung in front of me for no more than 60 seconds. Then it pulled itself back up to the ceiling, and I haven't seen it since.

A lot of people say that they don't like "Spider-Man 3". I agree that it's not up to the quality of the first two films, but it's still very good. Look at my rating! But too much is happening. Why have Sandman and Venom in the same film? Sandman could have filled the whole film. And the telescoping of the black suit stories removes a lot. In the comics Peter Parker wore the black costume for four years, before it was passed on to Eddie Brock. This story could have been divided into two films. Or three. It looks like Sam Raimi was in a hurry to get the trilogy finished.

Look at the way Sandman lumbers around like a monster from Hammer Horror. And look at the screenshot of Venom in the title picture. This is what Venom should look like, not the comical sock puppet in the Tom Hardy films.

Sam Raimi was planning to use the Vulture as the villain in "Spider-Man 4" and Mysterio in "Spider-Man 5". He was even considering casting Bruce Campbell as Mysterio. But it never happened. I read reports of disagreements between Sam and Marvel Studios. I shan't repeat them here, because I'm not even sure they're true. Just speculation. Whatever happened, the three films he made will always stand up as masterpieces.

Success Rate:  + 1.5

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

Spider-Man 2 (5 Stars)

Why doesn't Marvel make films like this any more? I hate it when my friends say that Marvel films are bad, because I can't argue with them. Most of the new Marvel films are average quality at best. Look at my ratings. I'm honest. There were a few good films at the beginning of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), but ever since "Avengers Endgame" the quality has been sliding. What's wrong? Too many films? Not enough care to find good writers? Or is it just incapable managers looking after Disney and Marvel Studios?

Sam Raimi was the perfect choice to direct the Spider-Man trilogy. If it had remained a trilogy. He already had plans for two more films, but the studio didn't agree. Then the Spider-Man franchise was rebooted with Andrew Garfield. I like to pretend that the "Amazing Spider-Man" films were never made. Shall I ever watch them again? Probably not. But I can watch the original trilogy (2002 to 2007) again and again.

As my regular readers must have realised, I was disappointed with this year's Fantasy Film Festival. Most of the films were average to poor. For this reason I've made a decision. Every time I watch a film that I rate less than four stars, I'll watch at least two five star films, preferably from my top 100. I need to stick with quality. In theory, I could watch my top 100 films one after another for years, never bothering to watch any new films. They're all films that are good enough to watch over and over again.

Success Rate:  + 1.9

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

Red One (4 Stars)

If you've seen the trailer, you already know that this is a stupid film. The premise is simple: Santa Claus has been kidnapped two days before Christmas, and a computer hacker is hired to find him. Silly. But with a premise like that I had to go to the cinema to see what it's all about.

I'll start by saying that "Red One" refers to Santa's sleigh, analogous to the American president's Air Force One. He's been kidnapped by Gryla the Christmas Witch. She looks much more attractive in the film than in the legends. Gryla has good intentions, in the same way that Thanos has good intentions in "Infinity War". She wants to make the world a better place. Everyone on Earth is divided into a good list and a naughty list. Santa deals gently with those on the naughty list, hoping they'll behave better next year. Gryla wants to kill everyone on the naughty list. Thanos was content with killing half of the Earth's population. So many people are on the naughty list that Gryla will kill 99% of the population, but it's all for a good cause. The remaining 1% will live in peace and harmony.

Dwayne Johnson is Santa's head of security. He's an elf, sort of. E.L.F. is the organisation that serves Santa. Enforcements, Logistics and Fortification. Referring to himself, Dwayne calls himself Extremely Large and Formidable. A subplot is that he wants to resign after 582 years of serving Santa. He feels depressed that the naughty list has grown so large.

Is "Red One" a good film? Maybe. It took me a long time to decide on its rating. It's a silly film, but it has no aspirations to be anything else. I enjoyed it in the cinema tonight. It made me laugh out loud several times, which is a plus. I expect that the critics will tear it apart. They should have a better sense of humour. I doubt I'll watch it again, but it's a film worth seeing once.

Jennifer's Body (3 Stars)

"Jennifer's Body" was shown as the feature for this month's Weird Wednesday. After some hesitation I decided to go to the cinema. I already have it on DVD, but the last time I watched it, 12 years ago, I didn't give it a very good review. Maybe I've changed my mind over the years.

Click here to read the plot summary.

The film is neither sexy nor scary. Gratuitous nudity would have improved the film. A few jump scares would also have helped. That wouldn't have made it a great film, but it would have made it worth watching. It's forgettable.

After the film a woman wearing a beautiful T-shirt stood up to talk about the film's feminist message. Unfortunately I only heard the first 20 minutes, because I had to leave to catch my last bus. She started by asking the audience if "Jennifer's Body" passed the Bechdel Test. The answer was Yes, but the test isn't decisive in proving that a film has a feminist message. She put too much value in the test results.

In case any of my readers don't know the Bechdel Test: Does a film contain a conversation between two named women which isn't about a man?

The woman in the Scum T-Shirt continued by talking about revenge. She said that a woman is empowered when she carries out revenge. That's a good point. This is the only feminist element that I can see in the film.

At this point I had to leave. I wish I'd heard the woman's name. She's someone I'd like to talk to. She sounded like an intelligent woman.

But I still don't enjoy the film. Feminist or not.

Success Rate:  + 0.0

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

Spider-Man (5 Stars)

This is the second film I presented tonight for the theme "Do you remember the days when Marvel films were good?" In my opinion, it's the best Marvel film ever. Many people claim that the second film, "Spider-Man 2", is better. I can see what they mean. The action scenes in the second film are better. I prefer the first film for its greater emotional depth. But I'll think it over again next time I watch "Spider-Man 2". Maybe I've placed it too low in my top 100 films list. 

After watching the film today I praised Sam Raimi for making the main villain corny. An example is the way Willem Dafoe holds a speech while looking at the vial in his hand which will transform him into the Green Goblin. Then he drinks it fast, dramatically, before smashing the empty vial on the floor. My German friends didn't understand the word corny, and I couldn't translate it. Google translates it as kitschig, but that's obviously wrong. Is it an English word that has no equivalent in German, the same as English has no word for gemütlich? Back home, it took me a long time to think it over, but eventually I came to klischeehaft as a translation for corny. It's not as common in German as corny in English, but it expresses the same meaning.

When writing about "Howard the Duck" I pointed out the beautiful actress Jorli McLain in a minor role. I'll do the same for "Spider-Man". There's an unnamed lab assistant in one of the first scenes. Her role is so minor that she isn't even listed in the credits. But I recognised her immediately. She's the beautiful South Korean actress Una Damon. She's never had a breakthrough. Throughout her career she's only had small roles in films and television series. That's a tragedy.

Here's one more photo of her. She's beautiful.

Success Rate:  + 3.9

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

Tomorrow War (2 Stars)

Amazon Friday #36

This is an Amazon original science-fiction film. Chris Pratt plays Dan Forester, who used to be an elite soldier but has now turned pacifist and works as a high school Biology teacher.

America is visited by soldiers from 28 years in the future. They say that the world has been invaded by aliens, and the human race is on the verge of being wiped out. They recruit people from the present day to join the fight in the future. The present day population become disillusioned when very few soldiers return from the future alive.

Dan is opposed to taking part in the war, but he's drafted against his will.

The film is a mess, starting with the premise. Why would people from today want to fight in a war in the future? If most of the Earth's population in the future has been destroyed, what's the use in sending a few thousand people from today? Wouldn't it be better to stay in the present and prepare defences to fight the aliens 28 years from now?

The film has some very good actors, including Chris Pratt, J. K. Simmons and Yvonne Strahovski, but we hardly notice their talent in the middle of the CGI monsters. The film isn't available on disc, which is just as well, because I can't imagine anyone wanting to buy it.

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (3 Stars)

There's a difference between me and professional film critics like Peter Bradshaw and Mark Kermode (both of whom I respect). When they sit down to watch a film they're unbiased. They take in what they see, and they write an impartial review. Not me. When I go to the cinema I already have a good idea what I'll see. More to the point, I know what I want to see. I'm a Spider-Man fan. I've read the Spider-Man comics written by Stan Lee (the first 110 issues of Amazing Spider-Man) over and over again. Pure genius. So I went into the cinema today wanting the film to be good.

I was disappointed from the first minutes onwards. I didn't like the flashing lights in the first film, but in this film they're even worse, especially in the first half of the film. The picture's confusing, and I'm glad I don't suffer from epilepsy. What a mess! And the story is just as messy. We have the main versions of Spider-Man, i.e. Miles Morales and Gwen Stacy (Spider-Gwen), and they would have been enough. But then we have Miguel O'Hara, a Spider-Man from the future, Spider-Punk from England, Pavitr Prabhakar as an Indian Spider-Man and so many other Spider-Mans (sic) that we need a scorecard to keep up. There's even a Lego Spider-Man. Stan Lee must be turning in his grave.

Why gather so many Spider-Mans together in a Spider-Society? That means that the universe each one comes from is unprotected. The hundreds of Green Goblins and Doctor Octopuses must be having a great time.

The film ends on a cliff-hanger. "TO BE CONTINUED". I didn't stay to ask the others what they thought of the film, but there were groans throughout the audience when the film ended abruptly. "So now we have to wait three years to see what happens?" a girl in my row asked. It's not quite that bad. The third film in the trilogy has been scheduled for March next year, only nine months away, but until then anything can happen. If there's another pandemic we might have to wait another five years. This is depressing.

The critics like the film. I have no idea why. I wanted to like it, but I don't.

Is this supposed to be a bad joke? I'm not laughing.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (4 Stars)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Success Rate:  + 0.7

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

Spider-Man: No Way Home (5 Stars)

Today I watched the "More Fun Stuff" version of the film in the cinema. That's a silly name. Couldn't they just have called it the Extended Version? That would have been more dignified.

I'll refrain from writing about the film itself, even though I didn't say much about it in my past reviews. I'll just comment on the More Fun Stuff changes. The added scenes, a total of 13 minutes, are almost entirely at the beginning of the film, apart from a new after-credits scene. In my opinion, the new scenes don't improve the film at all. They're mostly interviews which just slow the film down. I'm not saying the scenes are bad, I'm just saying that it doesn't matter whether they're in the film or not. If there's a More Fun Stuff Blu-ray release, I'll only buy it if it's very cheap.

The original theatrical version had an after-credits scene that was effectively a trailer for "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness". The More Fun Stuff version has an after-credits scene with Betty Brant praising her fellow students on being accepted into college. It's a cute scene, but totally unnecessary.

Here are a few sketches used in the final credits. They're simple but beautiful. I wish I were a gifted artist. Or even an average artist. I can't draw at all. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'm a zero.

Success Rate:  + 8.4

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

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (4 Stars)

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

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

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

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

Success Rate:  + 0.7

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

Spider-Man: No Way Home (5 Stars)

This is the 27th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). If you think that I must be smart to remember something like that, you're over-estimating me. I have a list of the films in a spreadsheet which I keep open while writing about MCU films. I also have little green stickers on the spines of my MCU Blu-ray discs, so I know what order they should be on my bookshelf.

Logically, "No Way Home" (I'll abbreviate the title) continues from the 26 previous MCU films, but it's unique in that it incorporates elements from non-MCU films. The film is all about the multiverse, so it re-introduces characters from previous versions of Spider-Man. In particular, we see the previous actors who played Spider-Man reprising their roles.

Three Spider-Men! Or should I say three Spider-Mans? What's the rule for the plural of proper names? Someone who's as fanatical about the English language as me ought to know the answer to that question. Please don't ask me when we meet in person, because I'd be sure to turn bright red.

Welcome back, Spider-Man #1, played by Tobey Maguire from 2002 to 2007. He's aged in the last 15 years. Haven't we all? I wish they'd used makeup to make him look younger.

Welcome back, Spider-Man #2, played by Andrew Garfield from 2012 to 2014. His career was cut short when "Amazing Spider-Man 3" was cancelled. I was never happy that Peter Parker's father was made an important character, but I wish the third part of the trilogy had been made to tie up the loose ends. The final scene of "Amazing Spider-Man 2" introduced the Rhino, possibly as a member of the Sinister Six, but the next film was never made.

Accompanying the Spider-Mans into the Marvel Cinematic Universe are Doctor Octopus, Green Goblin, Sandman, Electro and the Lizard. Strangely, the wrong version of Venom was drawn into the MCU. Eddie Brock from Earth-TRN688 arrived, not Eddie Brock from Earth-96283. I assume this was a blunder, because there's no logical reason for it.

The story is continued in the 28th MCU film, "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness", which I plan to watch later this week. The two films couldn't be more different. "No Way Home" is a serious film, whereas "Multiverse of Madness" is spoilt by too much humour. Still, I'm biased in favour of Sam Raimi, so I'll make an effort to enjoy "Multiverse of Madness" when I watch it again.

Happy Hogan uses a CPAP machine to get eight hours of undisturbed sleep.

This is Zendaya's third film as Peter Parker's girlfriend MJ. She looks more attractive in each film. Remind me to publish a photo gallery showing her development from film to film.

Tasty! I'd visit her café for a donut every day.

Peter Parker doesn't have a sweet tooth. He just orders a cup of coffee.

One question is left unanswered, in this film at least: are there just three Spider-Mans or many many more? Maybe there are many versions of Mike Hood aka Dancer in the multiverse. Some of them probably write better blogs than me. I should meet them to get a few pointers. Or maybe I'm a singularity who only exists in one universe. Until then, don't forget:

I am Dancer.

Success Rate:  + 7.5

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

Venom: Let there be Carnage (3 Stars)

The Venom films aren't part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Or are they? The final scene of the second film, shown in the middle of the credits, suggests otherwise.

When I saw it in the cinema last year I expressed great disappointment and said I wouldn't buy it on Blu-ray. That was an emotional reaction. I bought it last week as the third film in the Prime Day offer, buy two Marvel films and get one free. I would have bought it eventually anyway. I'm too much of a Marvel fan to skip it. I might even buy "The Eternals", if the price is low enough, but the price will have to be very low to tempt me.

I'll shorten the film's name to "Venom 2". It's a film that I really wanted to like. I was biased in its favour before I saw it in the cinema, and I'm still biased now. I watched it today looking for positive things to say about it. There are a few. Tom Hardy's acting is superb. The fight scenes are good, though not up to the fight scenes in "Spider-Man 3", made way back in 2007. That's about it. The list of negatives is much longer:

• The cinematography is dark and grubby.
• The presence of an ex-girlfriend (Michelle Williams) is annoying.
• The romance between Cletus Kasady and Frances Barrison isn't developed.
• The humour is excessive.

At least, I hope the interaction between Eddie Brock and the Venom symbiote is intended to be funny. If not, it's just stupid. The symbiote repeatedly half-emerges from Eddie's body like a ridiculous sock puppet, arguing about what he wants to do. This never happened in the comics. The symbiote was in control and determined what was going to happen. If he wanted to eat a bad guy (or a good guy) he didn't talk about it, he just did it.

Venom should be shown as a cold-blooded killer. The film shouldn't be certificate 12, it should be rated R for violence. Film fans like to criticise "Spider-Man 3", but Sam Raimi got it right. He showed Venom and Eddie Brock feeding off one another's hatred. He also showed the symbiote as a Spider-Man imitator, an aspect missing in the new Venom films.

I shan't write any more about the film. It makes me sad just thinking about it.

Success Rate:  + 2.6

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

Spider-Man: No Way Home (5 Stars)

I finally got a chance to see the new Spider-Man film today. It's been sold out for the last two weeks, unlike "The Matrix Resurrections", which hasn't been so popular with cinema audiences.

I don't want to give away too much for a new film, so I'll restrict myself to what we see in the trailer. At the end of "Spider-Man: Far From Home" it was announced to the world that Peter Parker was Spider-Man. This has disrupted his life, so he visits Doctor Strange and asks him to cast a spell to make everyone forget who he is. The spell tampers with the multiverse, so we see various enemies from other versions of Spider-Man appear to challenge him.

To get technical: this film, along with the whole of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), takes place in a universe called Earth-199999.

Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films take place in Earth-96283.

The Amazing Spider-Man films take place in Earth-120703.

Don't blame me! I didn't invent these numbers!

On a less technical level, after the merging and alliances of various film studios, there was a push to reconcile the different versions of Spider-Man with one another. This idea scared me. It's a recipe for disaster. I was pleasantly surprised that the film turned out so well. It's chaotic. Anyone who walks in who hasn't watched dozens of Marvel films over the last 18 years won't have any idea what's going on. Nevertheless, "No Way Home" accurately captures the style and atmosphere of Marvel comics. The plot gets ridiculous as it progresses – no spoilers! – but it fits the story.

Maybe just one spoiler: Wong is now the Sorcerer Supreme? That's just silly!

Venom: Let there be Carnage (3 Stars)

I don't remember when I was so disappointed with a Marvel film. I enjoyed the first Venom film with Tom Hardly greatly, even though it was far removed from any connection with the comics. I expected the sequel to be similar, but it wasn't. The film is less violent. Marvel Studios have tamed down the character. The original film was a 16 certificate in America, whereas the sequel has a 12 certificate. The main problem is the humour. There's too much of it, especially in the first half of the film. Venom was never intended to be a comedy figure, a funny alien from another planet.

"Venom 2", as I prefer to call it, improves when it moves into the main fight scenes in the second half, but there are still repeated silly jokes. As soon as I got home today I read what other reviewers think. Interesting. Most say that it's better than the first film. I don't understand them. Did they watch the same film as me?

I'm in no hurry to buy "Venom 2" on Blu-ray. If it's shown on a streaming service I'll watch it again and write more about it. Until then, it's a film I'd rather forget. Marvel's next film, "The Eternals", is in the cinema next week. I hope it won't be as bad.

Unusually for Marvel, there's no post-credits scene, but there's a very important mid-credits scene. Don't miss it.

Spider-Man 3 (5 Stars)

The third film in the Spider-Man trilogy is strongly criticised by film critics and fans alike. Many call it awful. I don't understand it. I find it very good, even if it's not up to the quality of the first two films. I included it in my list of my top 100 films in 93rd place. In retrospect I think it should have been higher in the list.

"Spider-Man 3" has so much in its favour. It neatly brings the Harry Osborn storyline to a close. The Sandman is brought to the big screen as a villain we can sympathise with. The pathos of Peter Parker's on-off relationship with Mary Jane Watson tugs at our heartstrings. My only criticism of the film is that it's too short to do Venom justice. It should have lasted three hours to give bigger battles with Venom.

I'm glad I had enough time to watch the whole trilogy without interruption over the last three days. I haven't written much about the films. Do I need to? I'm not a professional writer. I'm not paid to write 2000 words a day. If I have something on my mind I'll write it, and if I don't I shan't force myself.

The singer Prince was notorious for his sexual activities. At every party he visited he picked up another woman. His songs were also very sexual. In an interview he was asked what he liked doing most: having sex or writing songs about sex. His initial reaction was to laugh and call it a silly question. Then he became pensive and said that he didn't know the answer. Both were important to him. In the same way, I can be asked whether I prefer watching films or writing about films. I prefer watching films, but after eleven years of writing my blog I find that writing about films is also very important to me. Sometimes I write a big post, and the writing takes up more time than I spent watching the film. I enjoy watching films. I enjoy writing about films. I can't separate the two.

Success Rate:  + 1.5

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

Spider-Man 2 (5 Stars)

This is the second film in Sam Raimi's brilliant Spider-Man trilogy. As I've said in past reviews, one of the greatest strengths of these three films is the casting. Actors were chosen who looked like the characters in the comics. Alfred Molina looks so much like Doctor Octopus that it's difficult to imagine anyone else ever playing the role.

I recently read that when the first Spider-Man film was planned in the early 2000's Stan Lee requested permission to play J. Jonah Jameson. I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, I admire Stan Lee so much that I'd love to see him in a large role rather than a brief cameo. On the other hand, J. K. Simmons played the part so perfectly that I wouldn't want to see anyone else. Supposedly Steve Ditko based his drawings of J. Jonah Jameson on Stan Lee. I shan't say anything else about it. Whichever decision I make, I'll regret it tomorrow.

Success Rate:  + 1.9

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