A Minecraft Movie (3 Stars)

I tried to like "A Minecraft Movie". I really did. The trailer made it look like the sort of gloriously silly film that I'd enjoy, especially with Jason Momoa and Jack Black in the leading roles. I expected the two of them to be equally wild, bouncing off one another and competing to see who could be the most outrageous. Unfortunately, that isn't what happens. Jack Black is as crazy as expected, but Jason Momoa is surprisingly restrained. He's amusing, but I kept waiting for him to really let himself go.

The other problem is the supporting cast. I admit that Henry is essential to the story, so I put up with him, even though I didn't find him particularly interesting. Dawn and Natalie could both have been omitted from the film, and it would have been better without them. Jennifer Coolidge, on the other hand, is terrific. She makes the most of every scene she's given, but unfortunately she isn't given enough of them. I would happily have traded Dawn and Natalie's screentime for more Jennifer Coolidge.

There was a standing joke in "2 Broke Girls" that whenever Jennifer Coolidge walked into the diner the unseen audience burst into applause, as if she were the real star of the show. I would have been applauding with them.

Visually, the film does what it needs to do, bringing the blocky Minecraft world to life without attempting to make it look realistic. There's plenty of colour and plenty happening on screen, and Jack Black throws himself into the madness with such enthusiasm that it's difficult not to smile whenever he's around. The ingredients for a very funny film are all there. They just don't come together as well as they should.

Maybe the trailer raised my expectations too high. I went into "A Minecraft Movie" expecting a wild comedy, and for a while I kept waiting for it to become the film that I'd been promised. Eventually I realised that it wasn't going to happen. I tried to like the film, but as it continued I couldn't help checking my watch. That's always a bad sign.

Success Rate:  + 4.4

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

Supergirl [2026 film] (4 Stars)

Over the last few weeks I've seen various trailers for "Supergirl" in the cinema. I rarely watch trailers at home. I've seen videos on YouTube predicting it would be a massive flop. Again, I didn't watch the videos, but the titles and info screens told me all I needed to know. But I didn't let myself be put off. I went to the cinema today, and I enjoyed the film. The only major thing I disliked is that it's set on alien planets. I would have preferred to see Supergirl on Earth.

What I enjoyed most was seeing Supergirl's power. She's more than a match for any opponent or groups of opponents who face her. I couldn't help thinking that her fight scenes are what MCU's Drax should have fought like. The whole outer space alien planet setting reminded me of the Guardians of the Galaxy films, which isn't something bad in itself.

On the way home I watched "Supergirl" reviews on YouTube and replies to the reviews. It seems like most of the critics liked the film less than I did, but I understood their arguments. The replies were less balanced. They claimed that critics don't like "Supergirl" because it's a film about a powerful woman. That's not something I read in any of the critical reviews. They also claimed that the opponents of the film are MAGA supporters. That's an even stranger argument, which isn't backed up by anything I've read online. People are trying to politicise fair criticism. That's wrong.

I'll probably read more criticism of the film. but it won't change my mind. I like it.

The Fall Guy (5 Stars)

Despite my best intentions, I don't have time to write a lengthy review of this film. A film like this deserves more. It's an incredible action film about a stunt man, on and off his film sets. There are hints of humour, but not enough to make it a comedy.

Ryan Gosling is one of the last people I would have cast as an action hero, even though he started his career in the title role of "Young Hercules". And yet he steps into the role as if he's been doing it all his life. There are three layers, as we can see in the behind-the-scenes feature on the Blu-ray. Colt Seavers (Ryan Gosling) is the stunt double for Tom Ryder (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). They dress up to look similar. But Ryan Gosling himself has a stunt double, Troy Lindsay Brown. It's amusing to see the three men dressed up to look as identical as possible.

It's a sin that the film wasn't a box office success. That means there's no hope of a sequel.

Success Rate:  - 0.6

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

The Fall Guy (5 Stars)

I'm growing to like the director David Leitch more and more. His films are always full of exaggerated action sequences. He can't be faulted. But sometimes I'm weird. I went into the cinema today with my mind made up to give "The Fall Guy" a four star rating. Ryan Gosling is an actor that I don't usually like. This was sealed by his awful performance in "La La Land". And he's the last actor I'd consider for an action role in a David Leitch film.

But as the film progressed, I couldn't help but realise that it's a straight five star film. The film won me over, and Ryan Gosling won me over.

Gosling plays a stunt man called Colt Seavers. In the 1980's there was a television series about a stunt man called Colt Seavers, but it's wrong to say that the film is based on the series. Apart from the name and the career, there's no comparison between the film and the series.

Colt is one of Hollywood's top stunt men, and he has a close connection with the action hero Tom Ryder (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), for whom he regularly steps in as his stunt double. Tom's fame is largely due to the stunts performed by Colt. Colt is the unseen hero. Only film insiders know his name.

Colt has an accident while performing a dangerous stunt which puts him in hospital for over a year. He doesn't want to return to his old career. He becomes a valet parking cars. But his ex-girlfriend is directing her first movie, and she asks him to return to make the film a success. It goes one step further. The lead actor of the film is Tom Ryder, but he's disappeared. The producer wants Colt to find him, and if he can't find him he should step in and become the lead actor himself.

It's difficult to describe the action that takes place, on the film set and in the real world. Ryan Gosling is surprisingly convincing as an action hero. Five stars.

Aquaman (4 Stars)

"Redheads! You've just gotta love em!"

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist heading this review with this photo of Amber Heard. She looks much better with her hair dyed red than with her natural blonde hair. But wouldn't the dye be washed out if she spends all her time underwater?

When I watched "Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom" last month I realised that I could hardly remember the first film. All I remembered was the excessive use of computer graphics. That's usually a sign that it was an average film, because I best remember good films and bad films. I made up for it by logging onto Amazon to order "Aquaman".

Is it an average film? It has its ups and downs. It's uneven. So much is packed into it. Maybe too much. It runs for 143 minutes, but it could have been shortened to 110 or even 90 minutes without weakening the story. There's an exciting fight in Sicily, the best part of the film, followed by a totally unnecessary attack by monsters at sea. Then there's a subterranean world full of flying reptiles that comes straight from the pages of a Jules Verne novel. It looks good, but the mood switches from one scene to the next are exhausting.

To be honest, "Aquaman" can be enjoyed better after seeing "Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom". The same characters return, particularly Black Manta and Aquaman's brother Orm. Seeing how they develop makes their first appearance easier to understand. The second film develops the characters that we already knew.

One strange thing about the Blu-ray I watched today is the way the picture height varies. Was is this way in the cinema? I don't remember. It's possible that the pictures were resized for home cinema. I'd be interested in finding out the reason.

Here are two examples. In this screenshot of Aquaman and Mera the picture is full screen.

In this screenshot of Black Manta the picture is widescreen.

I've never been a fan of widescreen films, neither in the cinema nor at home. It's claimed that the widescreen format makes the picture bigger. That's a lie. It actually makes the picture smaller, because it has to be flattened to show all of it on a cinema screen. It's most obvious at home. The black bars at the top and bottom of the television screen are ugly.

"Aquaman" might not be a great film, but Jason Momoa is a great actor. The first time he won me over was his performance in "Fast & Furious 10", but after returning to "Aquaman" I can fully appreciate his acting skill. I look forward to seeing him return in the next two Fast & Furious films.

Success Rate:  + 5.2

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

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (4 Stars)

Aquaman has settled down and has a family? I had to look that up to see if it's canon. Yes, he has a son in the comics as well, with the silly name Aquababy. I suppose it fits. He was later renamed Arthur Curry Jr. Not very imaginative, but it's better than Aquababy.

Black Manta returns after being defeated in the first film. He has two plans. First, he wants to cause an ecological disaster by stealing orichalcum to rapidly increase the world's temperature. Second, he wants to kill Aquaman as revenge for the death of his father. He finds a black trident that makes him more powerful than ever. It was created by Kordax, the ruler of the lost kingdom of Necrus. It's an underwater kingdom, of course. Kordax has some sort of control over Black Manta, but he doesn't make him do anything that he doesn't want to do already.

I found it difficult to rate the film. The story is entertaining, and the action is thrilling, but the cinematography is confusing. It's often not clear what's happening. My overall impression is positive, but I may re-evaluate it next time I watch it.

The Flash (3 Stars)

"The film is considered one of the biggest box-office bombs of all-time, with expected losses for Warner Bros to be as much as $200 million".

So it wasn't just me who didn't like "The Flash"? DC Studios are obviously jumping on the multiverse bandwagon. If Marvel can do it, so can they. The comparisons weren't lost on the others in the audience. When I was walking out I was following two DC fans in their thirties. One of them said, "It's a better multiverse film than Spider-Man", and he pointed to a poster of "Across the Spider-Verse", which is also showing at the moment. That's a bad comparison, putting two average quality films side by side. They should have compared it with "Spider-Man: No Way Home", which is a much better film.

Even as far as the subject matter is concerned, "The Flash" is more similar to "No Way Home". Barry Allen (the Flash) meets three different versions of Batman, played by Ben Affleck, Michael Keaton and George Clooney". If DC insists on changes in their version of the multiverse, they should have changed the actor playing Barry Allen. In the TV series the Flash is played by Grant Gustin, who's a terrific actor. In the film Ezra Miller is awful. But let's be fair to him. Maybe he's okay as an actor, it's just the way he was told to play the role. He's an idiot, making one clumsy mistake after another. That's not the Flash that we know in the comics.

The only part of the film that I liked was the two minutes when Wonder Woman appeared. Gal Gadot is a beautiful actress. We should have seen more of her and less of Batman. And less of the Flash.

I haven't written anything about the plot. Go and see the film yourself. Or don't bother. If you're a big DC fan, like the two men in my cinema, you might like it. The other 95% of the world can give it a miss.

Fast & Furious 10 (5 Stars)

It must sound like a cliché, but I have to say it:

"I expected Fast & Furious 10 to be good, but it was even better".

The action sequences at the beginning made my heart pound, and the excitement continued until the final minutes. The film retells the scene where the bank vault was stolen in "Fast & Furious 5". It's been falsely called a retcon in some reviews. Nothing is changed. What happened happened. We're merely given a few extra scenes, things we didn't see in F&F 5. We see that Hernan Reyes' son Dante was involved in the car chase. Dante Reyes is the main antagonist in F&F 10, seeking revenge for the death of his father. He doesn't just want to kill Dom and his friends, because that would be too merciful. He wants Dom to suffer before he finally dies.

I can't say anything about the plot without giving away spoilers. All I can say is that Jason Momoa is the perfect villain. Other reviews have compared him with DC's Joker. I can see what they mean, but I don't agree. He's more similar with the Riddler, as played by Frank Gorshin and Jim Carrey. Simply put, he's insane. Whatever he does is a game, and he enjoys it to the full.

There's just one spoiler worth telling: the film ends on a cliff-hanger. I can hardly wait for F&F 11 to see how it continues. I'll be queuing up to see it as soon as it hits the cinema.

Dune (2 Stars)

I watched David Lynch's version of "Dune" many years ago. I still have the DVD in my cellar, but I doubt I'll watch it again. It wasn't like his other films. It was too conventional, if you know what I mean, but even as a conventional science fiction film I didn't like it. 

I like the new adaptation of Frank Herbert's novel even less. It's an epic film that rushes straight into the story without taking time to introduce the characters or their backgrounds. We pick up details along the way, but everything still seems rushed. I would have preferred the film if it had been an hour longer, with extra scenes at the beginning.

Maybe these extra scenes aren't in the book? The director Denis Villeneuve has taken great pains to keep close to the book in order not to offend the fans. After the film one of my friends told me that I'd appreciate the film more if I'd read the book. I can understand that. In a chaotic film with lots of characters, knowledge of the book would give the missing background knowledge. However, that's not an excuse. A good film should be enjoyable by everyone, whether they've read the book or not. I don't intend to read it. The only science fiction books I read are the ones written by Michael Moorcock.

The book was previously considered unfilmable. Maybe that's the problem. Denis Villeneuve has taken on an impossible task. He was destined to fail. He should tackle an easier project, like Michael Moorcock's "Dancers at the End of Time" trilogy. Maybe even a new adaptation of "The Final Programme" which doesn't omit as much from the book. Leave "Dune" alone.

The Lego Movie 2 (3 Stars)

This film begins immediately after the last film ends, at the point where Finn's younger sister Bianca is allowed to play with the Lego pieces in the cellar. Then we fast forward five years, which was probably only done because the sequel was made five years later and the actor who plays Finn looks much older now. During this time Bianca hasn't just played in the cellar, she has also carried Lego pieces up to her room. She's also brought her own Duplo pieces downstairs and has mixed them with Finn's Lego creations.

That's the real world. Inside the Lego universe chaos has broken out because of Bianca's damage to their world.

After highly enjoying the first film, I have to say that the new film doesn't reach the same level. Both films quote other films repeatedly, such as "The Matrix", "Jurassic World", "Back to the Future" and various DC films. The difference is that the first film followed the philosophy of the films it referenced, whereas the second film just quotes them anecdotally. The result is that the second film is most definitely a children's film, which couldn't be said of the first film. The only subject of any philosophical importance was Emmet's future self returning from the future with a different attitude and trying to influence the present day Emmet to make sure he developed into himself. That's a topic that Jim Starlin used in his 1980's comics, when Warlock's future self, the Magus, came back in time to help him develop into the Magus. Why? Because he remembered how he'd once been Warlock and he'd needed the Magus' assistance to become himself.

There was a young boy sitting next to me in the cinema today, probably about 10 years old, who was talking a lot. Normally I don't like people talking in the cinema, but he impressed me. He was explaining what was happening to his mother. He seemed very knowledgeable, because he recognised most of the references to other films. It looks like he has the makings of a real film fan. Maybe one day he'll have a blog like mine.

One thing I'd like to mention is the amazing song being sung during the credits. The song was about the credits, praising the credits as the best part of the movie. I haven't yet figured out who was singing the song, but I loved it.

Aquaman (4½ Stars)

I have to admit that after the awful mess called "Justice League" I had low expectations for "Aquaman". It's a film I thought I have to go to just because it's a super-hero and I have a duty to see super-hero films. It's even a DC super-hero film, and I gave up on DC 50 years ago.

I don't want to go into the whole Marvel vs DC thing, because I've written about it elsewhere. I'll just sum up my attitudes, past and present, briefly. When I bought my first comics in the early 1960's it was a mixture of Marvel and DC. My choice was based mostly on the covers, and DC's covers were slightly more appealing to me as a child. As I remember, "Batman" and "Justice League of America" (JLA) were the DC comics I bought the most frequently. "Batman" had the flashiest covers, and "JLA" had the most heroes. Within a few years I realised that Marvel comics had better stories, so by the mid 1960's I only bought Marvel. By 1965 I was having passionate debates with my school friends about which was better, Marvel or DC.

In the mid 1970's I made two exceptions. I started to read "Wonder Woman" and "Detective Comics",  but that's getting off the subject. I'll stop here.

Now let's get back to Aquaman. I knew him from the JLA comics. He was the least prominent of the JLA members. As I remember the comics, Superman and the Flash were the main tier characters, Batman and Green Lantern were the mid tier characters, Wonder Woman and Aquaman were the minor tier characters. Please don't criticise me if you disagree, that's just my subjective impression based on comics that I read more than 50 years ago.

I liked Aquaman. He was a cool looking character who swam in the sea. I wanted to know more about him. I wished he could have his own comic book, which didn't happen until the 1980's when I'd already given up reading DC.

The next time I saw Aquaman was in "Justice League" in 2017. It wasn't just the film that disappointed me, it was the character. He was brash and arrogant, nothing like the quiet background guy from the 1960's.

Now to today's film itself. It should really have been made before "Justice League". DC doesn't plan film releases as well as Marvel. It shows Aquaman's origin story, which we should have known before watching "Justice League". Yes, he's still brash and arrogant, but the film tells us why. He was bullied as a kid, so he reacted against it as an adult. That makes his attitude acceptable.

I'm an outsider, as far as the Aquaman mythology is concerned. Never having read any of his solo comic books I don't know how he came to be. I can't compare the film with the comics, which is probably an advantage for me. It makes me less critical.

What I can say is that there are parallels with Marvel's leader of Atlantis, Namor the Sub-Mariner. The two characters are so similar that someone has to be accused of plagiarism. Only history can tell us who is guilty. Timely Comics (later renamed to Marvel) first featured Sub-Mariner in 1939. Aquaman was invented by DC in 1941. That answers the question: Aquaman is a Sub-Mariner clone. They're both half-human, they're both exiled rulers of Atlantis, they're both torn between their loyalties to the sea realm and the surface world.

Sub-Mariner is a character that needs to be added to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). We could have a film about him being sent on a quest to recover the trident that would prove he's the true king of Atlantis. That's not copying "Aquaman". Marvel did it first, way back in 1965.

The film is very well made. It's a glorious CGI feast. The underwater realms look surreal and enticing. The battles between rivalling kingdoms look confusing, but they don't take up too much of the movie. When Aquaman himself is fighting the battle scenes are spectacular. The film is enjoyable, even if it's a clone of Marvel stories.

Justice League (2 Stars)

I almost didn't go to see this film. I waited until its last week in the cinema. In the end curiosity got the better of me. I didn't expect it to be good, but it was even worse than I expected.

It's obvious what DC is trying to do. They saw the success that Marvel was having with its interlinked Marvel Comics Universe (MCU) films, so they thought they could do the same. First films about individual heroes, then a team film. An idea doesn't have to be original to work well, but DC doesn't have directors or producers of sufficient calibre to repeat Marvel's success. DC rushed into the team film too fast. Only Batman and Wonder Woman had appeared in individual films already. (I don't include Superman, because he was dead before the film started). The Flash TV series could have been used to build up to the team film, but DC messed it up by having a different actor play the Flash, alienating the audience. Green Arrow could have been added to the team after the preparation of the Arrow TV series, but they made yet another blunder by omitting him.

The film was a mess from beginning to end. The big baddie, Steppenwolf, was hardly introduced to the audience. In the Marvel films the villains are well rounded characters, often with an emotional depth that they don't have in the comics. Steppenwolf is just a bland, two-dimensional character that we don't care about.

"Justice League" tries to add a human element by showing a Russian family, but fails completely. The family is so far removed from the action that whenever they're shown they're just annoyances and we want them out of the way so the story can continue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Marvel makes the best films and DC makes the best TV series. DC should give up making films. There might be rare peaks of brilliance like "Wonder Woman", but on the whole the films are embarrassing. I'm already dreading the next Justice League film.

Batman vs Superman (3 Stars)

This film has been a topic of conversation among my friends for months. It was one of the most eagerly anticipated films of the year. What I mean is that my friends were eagerly anticipating it. I had a queasy feeling in my stomach that it wouldn't be such a good film. I expected something that would be average quality and overall forgettable. I was right.

"Batman vs Superman" doesn't really do anything wrong. It's just that it doesn't do anything right. Henry Cavill is very remote and lacking in charisma as Superman. This was already the case in "Man of Steel", but since he has less screen time in "Batman vs Superman" it seems more extreme. Ben Affleck is just as remote and unsympathetic. He's a boring character, with or without his mask. The only ray of light in the film is Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. He's such an attractive, charismatic character that I wanted him to crush the two annoying heroes beneath his feet.

To be honest, a battle between Batman and Superman is a no-contest. Superman has super-strength, super-speed and super-everything else, while Batman is just a normal man who works out. One punch from Superman should be enough to kill Batman. The only way the two can fight is by somehow giving Batman extra strength or by weakening Superman. This is what happened in "Batman vs Superman": Superman was weakened by being exposed to kryptonite.

At least I wasn't alone in my opinion when I walked out of the cinema tonight. My friends in the film group may have gone into the film with high expectations, but they walked out feeling that it was average at best. They were disappointed, but I wasn't. I got what I expected, nothing more, nothing less.