Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

Steven Spielberg faced an impossible task with "The Lost World" (shortening the title). How do you follow one of the greatest blockbusters ever made? Instead of trying to recreate the magic, he made a darker, nastier and more chaotic film. Sometimes it works brilliantly. Sometimes it reminds you exactly why the original is untouchable.

The biggest difference is the tone. "Jurassic Park" was full of awe and wonder. Every dinosaur reveal felt magical, and even the terrifying moments were balanced by humour and a sense of adventure. "The Lost World" strips most of that away. Isla Sorna is a much harsher place, where humans aren't simply trying to survive but are exploiting the dinosaurs for profit. The film feels less like an adventure and more like a survival thriller.

Jeff Goldblum steps into the lead role as Ian Malcolm, and he carries the film with his trademark sarcasm and nervous energy. Malcolm is a very different hero from Sam Neill's Alan Grant. Grant gradually became brave because he had to. Malcolm spends most of the film desperately trying to convince everyone else that they're making a terrible mistake. Goldblum is entertaining throughout, but Grant remains the more satisfying protagonist.

The dinosaurs are even more convincing than before. Advances in CGI and animatronics make the creatures feel heavier, faster and more dangerous. Spielberg stages several unforgettable set pieces, especially the trailer hanging over the cliff and the attack through the long grass. These scenes rank alongside anything in the first film for pure suspense.

Where "The Lost World" struggles is its characters. Too many exist simply to become dinosaur food, and few leave much of an impression. The first film gave us characters we genuinely cared about, making every close encounter more suspenseful. Here, the spectacle often takes priority over emotional investment.

The final act remains the film's most controversial decision. Bringing a Tyrannosaurus Rex to San Diego turns the film into a giant monster movie, echoing King Kong and classic creature features. It's undeniably entertaining, but it also feels disconnected from everything that came before. Personally, I love its audacity, though I'm aware that others think differently.

Ultimately, "Jurassic Park: The Lost World" is bigger, louder and more action-packed than its predecessor. The dinosaurs are better, the action scenes are more elaborate and the danger feels more relentless. Yet it loses the sense of discovery, believable characters and perfect balance that made "Jurassic Park" a masterpiece.

It's an excellent sequel that dares to be different instead of repeating the original. That's admirable. But while it delivers some of the series' greatest action sequences, it never captures the wonder that made us fall in love with dinosaurs in the first place.

Success Rate:  + 6.5

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

Jurassic Park (5 Stars)

As most of you know, Sam Neill passed away this morning. I've decided to watch two of his films to remember him, "Jurassic Park" and "Jurassic Park III". He doesn't appear in the second film, but I'll watch it anyway. It's in my top 20 films, meaning it's a film which deserves to be watched repeatedly.

If there's one performance that defines Sam Neill's career, it's Dr Alan Grant in "Jurassic Park". Neill had already built an impressive filmography before Steven Spielberg's dinosaur epic, but this is the role that made him a cinematic icon. Decades later, it's still impossible to think of Sam Neill without picturing the moment he removes his sunglasses in stunned disbelief as dinosaurs once again walk the Earth.

Neill is the emotional anchor that keeps "Jurassic Park" grounded. Grant begins as a brilliant but emotionally distant palaeontologist who'd rather spend his life digging up fossils than dealing with children. Over the course of the film, Neill subtly transforms him into a reluctant protector, and every stage of that journey feels completely natural. Whether he's awestruck by the sight of a living Brachiosaurus, desperately outrunning a Tyrannosaurus Rex or quietly comforting two terrified children, Neill never lets the spectacle overwhelm the humanity of the character.

Spielberg's ground-breaking visual effects still hold up remarkably well, but they only work because the cast reacts with absolute conviction. Neill's expressions of wonder, fear and determination make the impossible believable. His chemistry with Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum gives the film warmth and humour, while his fatherly bond with Lex and Tim provides its emotional heart.

"Jurassic Park" remains one of the greatest blockbusters ever made because it balances breath-taking action with unforgettable characters. At the centre of it all is Sam Neill, delivering the performance of a lifetime. He's enjoyed a long and distinguished career, but this is the role that made him immortal. For generations of film fans, Alan Grant isn't just Sam Neill's greatest character; it's the performance that will always define his legacy.

Sam Neill
14 September 1947 – 13 July 2026

Success Rate:  + 14.4

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

Jurassic World: Dominion (3 Stars)

I've waited a long time before buying this film. I only bought it this week because the seventh film in the Jurassic Park franchise has just arrived in the cinemas. I need to catch up before I go to see it. "Jurassic World: Dominion" should have been the final film as the third film in the second trilogy. That would have meant the franchise ending on a whimper, not a bang. It's the weakest film in the franchise, despite its success at the box office. Maybe people only flocked into the cinema because they'd enjoyed the previous instalments so much.

The trouble with "Dominion" (please excuse me for shortening the title) is that it's drifted too far away from the initial premise. Back in 1993 "Jurassic Park" was all about people running away from dinosaurs. Put like that, it sounds like a primitive idea, but it was a great film in the capable hands of Steven Spielberg. Most of "Dominion" has the form of a spy thriller, chasing someone who's using dinosaur DNA for his own devious purposes.

Okay, I watched it today, but I feel reluctant to ever watch it again. I hope the next film is better when I go to see it at the weekend.

Success Rate:  + 3.4

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

Independence Day: Resurgence (3 Stars)

Disney Wednesday #26

This is a delayed sequel to "Independence Day", made 20 years after the original. I always have an aversion to delayed sequels. Sometimes they're good, mostly they aren't.

Actually, I'm no big fan of the original. I remember seeing it on television shortly after its release, but I had no inclination to buy it on DVD. I still remember the spectacular special effects created by Stuttgart's own Roland Emmerich, but I was annoyed by the concept of America saving the world and July 4th becoming the Independence Day for the whole world. For me as an Englishman that's an insult. I still think that American independence was a mistake. But it's all in the past. The Americans wanted independence, and now they have Donald Trump.

"Resurgence" is a far inferior film. The battle scenes are confused and difficult to follow. The first film was acceptable, but the sequel is unnecessary. At least it was a box office success.

I only watched it today because my grandson Oliver requested it. He watched it on television with his parents a few weeks ago, and he wanted to watch it again. I hope he'll have better taste as he gets older.

Success Rate:  + 0.4

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

Wicked (4 Stars)

This film bookends my life as a film fan. The very first film I saw was "The Wizard of Oz". I saw it in the cinema, but obviously not when it was first released. I wasn't born in 1939. I can't remember the exact year when I saw it, but I'm certain it was my first film, because my parents didn't own a television until I was six years old. Yes, I'm old enough to remember the dim, distant days when televisions weren't an item taken for granted. They were very expensive in my youth. My parents always rented a television, because they couldn't afford to buy one.

The correct name of this film is "Wicked Part One". That's what's written on the splash screen. The second part is due to be released next year. The two films serve as a prequel to "The Wizard of Oz".

I don't want to give too many spoilers for the film, but the main theme is that we're invited to have sympathy for the Wicked Witch of the West. She was an outcast all her life because of her skin colour; she was born green. In "Wicked Part One" we see that she uses her magical powers for good. So how did she turn bad? We'll have to wait for Part Two to find out.

I've always been a sucker for a musical. The music was uplifting, even though the lyrics were often shallow. I was happy to see that the cinema was almost full. That's the way cinemas should be.

Asteroid City (2 Stars)

What is the director Wes Anderson trying to do? Does he want to entertain the audience or just provoke us? I honestly don't know. I felt provoked. There were two young women sitting in front of me who felt just as provoked. Every time something strange happened in the film they turned and looked at one another. About half an hour from the end one of them put on her jacket and wanted to leave, but her friend tugged at her and told her to stay. It's a film that I almost walked out of. As it was, I was the only person in the cinema who remained seating to watch the bird hopping around during the final credits.

It's a film within a film, or rather a play within a film. It's about a playwright who writes, casts and directs a play about a group of people, mostly stargazers, who come together in a fictional city in the desert. While being told about an asteroid that fell in the desert thousands of years ago, an alien arrives and takes the asteroid away.

It's deliberately left unclear what's part of the play and what's really happening. It's possible that a real alien arrives while the play is running.

Wes Anderson has put a lot of work into the visual effects of the film. That's the only reason I haven't given the film a one star rating. I didn't enjoy it, and I have no intention to ever watch it again.

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

Jurassic World: Dominion (4 Stars)

This is the final film in the Jurassic Park franchise. For now, at least. There was a 14-year gap between the third and the fourth film. Nobody knows what will happen 20 years from now, when the film studios are desperate to make money. The only thing we can say for sure is that "Jurassic World: Dominion" is the final film of the second Jurassic Park trilogy.

It has all the characteristics of a final film. It goes back to the beginning. It re-assembles the main characters from the first film, Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), alongside the regular cast of the last two films. Alan Grant and Ellie Sattler don't add much to the film. I have the impression that they were only added to the cast for sentimental reasons. Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) are the film's real stars.

The film takes place a few years after the events of "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom". Dinosaurs are now living in the world in a natural equilibrium with mankind. We see news reports at the beginning telling stories of people being attacked by dinosaurs, but these are exceptions, not the rule. We've moved a long way from the first three films, when it was just a matter of running for your life whenever you see a dinosaur. The biggest danger in the new film comes from a corporation called Biosyn. In order to sell its own crops it's created a new species of giant locusts which devour all crops except for Biosyn's genetically modified crops.

That's the film's biggest problem, in my eyes. I would have liked to see more people running for their lives from dinosaurs. That's something that only happens on a large scale towards the end of the film.

"Jurassic World: Dominion" isn't a bad film, but it doesn't live up to the quality of the first two films, both of which are in my top 20 films. The difference is that they were directed by Steven Spielberg. I shan't say anything else to avoid spoilers. I'll write a more detailed review of the film when I own it on Blu-ray.

Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #11

The correct name of this film is "The Lost World: Jurassic Park", but I've turned it around. I think my alternative title makes more sense. If you object to this, you can leave me a comment complaining about it, but only if your name is Steven Spielberg.

I shan't go into too many details about the plot, because I'm sure all my readers have seen it. It's one of the films most commonly shown on television. It was made in 1997, four years after the first film, and the story itself takes place four years later. Dr. Hammond is still nominally the head of InGen, the company that genetically recreated the dinosaurs, but his health is failing, so the board of directors has given his nephew the power to run the company.

"Lost World" (as I prefer to call it) has more action than the first film. There's no need for further exegesis about where the dinosaurs come from. The first film explained everything. Apart from John Hammond, who we only see briefly at the beginning and end of the film, the only character who returns from the first film is Dr. Ian Malcolm. Hammond sends him on a mission to Isla Sorna, the breeding ground for the Jurassic Park dinosaurs. He's accompanied by the palaeontologist Dr. Sarah Harding, the cameraman Nick van Owen and the engineer Eddie Carr. The first two are presented in great details in the character development section, but we don't get to know Eddie Carr. This is a hint that he'll be killed soon.

That's Eddie in the middle. Rest In Pieces.

Sarah Harding. I can't help feeling that she's a last minute replacement for Laura Dern as the palaeobotanist Ellie Sattler in the first film. They have similar personalities, even though their careers are different.

This is Dr. Malcolm's daughter Kelly, who stows away on the mission. There's not much of a family resemblance, as Eddie remarks when he sees them together. Steven Spielberg needs to plant children in his action films, just as Stephen King puts children in his horror stories.

Camilla Belle was only 10 years old when she appeared in a small role in "Lost World". Since then she's appeared in more than 20 films, and she's also directed a few films. She likes cute little dinosaurs. It's not named in the film, but it's a Compsognathus. Does that knowledge make you any smarter?

The film's cinematography is darker than the first film's, underlining the darker subject matter. More scenes take place at night, but even in the daytime the colours are darker.

Unfortunately, this was the last film in the Jurassic Park franchise directed by Steven Spielberg. None of the following films live up to the quality of the first two films. On the other hand, there's a steady increase in the quality of the computer graphics as technology improved. "Jurassic Park 3" has the best graphics, even though the overall film quality is inferior.

As for a comparison of the first two films, I'm not sure I placed them in the right order. Maybe "Jurassic Park" is better? I don't know. I like the structure of "Lost World", with an epilogue that takes place in San Diego after the main part that takes place on the island of Isla Sonar. It reminds me of "King Kong".

Success Rate:  + 6.5

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

Jurassic Park (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #12

Blogging is all about momentum. For years I've been used to my daily rhythm of watching a film every day, then writing about it.

Watch. Write. Sleep. Repeat.

What I'm trying to say is that after taking a short break from blogging it's difficult to regain my momentum. I took a break last week to catch up on watching TV series. I watched the third season of "Vikings". At first I only wanted to watch a couple of episodes, but it's so brilliant that I couldn't stop. The murder of the monk Athelstan by Floki was a shock. For me, Athelstan was the series' most fascinating character. A man caught between two religions. As he said at the beginning of the third season, "I love Jesus, but I've chosen Odin". The whole subject of the two religions, along with the strong character development, is what makes "Vikings" so appealing. The Vikings and the English both consider their respective religions to be the true religion, and there's no way for the two to meet, except for Athelstan. His murder has destroyed the only bridge between the two religions.

Today, most people only know the Norse religion – what's it called anyway? Odinism? – from the Marvel films. Odin is Anthony Hopkins with an eye patch and Thor is Chris Hemsworth strutting about arrogantly. I read the Norse myths as a young teenager. I read them as stories, not taking account of the religious aspects.

Maybe I should write more about "Vikings" at a later date. Maybe when I get to the fourth season. I'm getting off topic now. I ought to be writing about "Jurassic Park". Did you forget?

Oops! Wrong dinosaur! I had this unused screenshot from "Bikini Jones" that I needed to share with you.

This is a dinosaur from "Jurassic Park". The difference in quality might not be apparent from the two screenshots. To fully appreciate the superiority of the computer animation, you have to see the dinosaurs moving. When the film was made in 1993, "Jurassic Park" had the most realistic dinosaurs ever. However, due to the restrictions in computer speed, they were used sparingly. 

Steven Spielberg might not be my favourite director, but I respect him as the greatest living director. He knows how to make films, and a Film Studies course could be wrapped around his films without mentioning any other director. In the series "Dawson's Creek" the title character, Dawson Leery, was obsessed with Steven Spielberg. He made frequent references to his films throughout the series, and his dream was to become a director like Spielberg. His films all include strong character development. There's a Spielberg Style, as I like to call it. His films start off with an action scene to get the audience in the mood. Then the films slow down, introducing the main characters, one by one. After that there's a slow build up to the big action scenes. That's the pattern he follows in "Jurassic Park". That's the pattern he followed in "Jaws". They're two excellent films, made 20 years apart, each using the best that the technology of the day had to offer.

The characters in the film are stereotypes. I don't say that as a criticism. By using standard stereotypes, the audience can relate to them. We know who they are and what makes them tick, even before we see the details of their characters. Dr. Alan Grant is a stuffy archaeologist. He would rather sit alone digging than communicate with others, and he avoids children as much as he can. Dr. John Hammond is the carefree millionaire. Dr. Ellie Sattler is a friendly, sociable palaeobotanist who assists Dr. Grant in his work. (For those of you who, like me, don't know what a palaeobotanist is, it's someone who studies old fossilised plants).

Then there are the kids. Dr.  Hammond's grandchildren are present in the dinosaur park, adding human interest. Everyone can relate to young children.

If anyone thinks this is the best film ever made, I won't argue with you. It's a candidate for the top spot. I have difficulty deciding which is better, "Jurassic Park" or its sequel, "Lost World", which I intend to watch tomorrow. "Lost World" has superior graphics, due to the rapid advances in computer technology in the 1990's, but "Jurassic Park" has a better story. Watching them back to back will help me judge them better.

Success Rate:  + 14.4

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

Grand Budapest Hotel (5 Stars)

This is a remarkable film. It received nine nominations for the Academy Awards, of which it won four. It failed to win the Best Film award because of "Birdman", a film I greatly liked at the time, but when I look back, "Grand Budapest Hotel" was by far the better film.

The film is about a hotel concierge and his lobby boy. The concierge is wrongly accused of murdering Madame D, an old rich woman. In her Will she's left him a valuable painting, "Boy With Apple". Madame D's son hires an assassin to kill the concierge, who's assisted in his flight by the faithful lobby boy.

The story in itself is good, but it's all about the cinematography. The colours are bright and dazzling, giving the impression that it's a fairy tale. In addition, every scene is perfectly framed like a piece of art, giving the impression of hyper-reality.

The concierge and the lobby boy. Do you see what I mean about the colours?

So this is the painting that people were willing to kill for? I don't understand art.

I've never seen Edward Norton looking so amart. It doesn't suit him. He's a jeans and t-shirt man, like me. But just look at the perfectly framed scene.

There are close-ups of newspapers several times during the film. The articles are all well written, albeit with American spelling. Very few films make the effort to use good texts in newspapers. However, there's one small error. Look at the date of the newspaper: Friday, October 19th, 1932. Wrong! It was a Wednesday.

Here's another edition of the Trans-Alpine Yodel, dated Tuesday, October 28th, 1932. That's wrong again. It was a Friday. But there's another error. The dates aren't even consistent with themselves. If the 19th had been a Friday, the second newspaper, printed nine days later, would have been printed on a Sunday. That's sloppy.

Success Rate:  + 4.9

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

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (4 Stars)

This is not a review. It's just an acknowledgement that I watched the film today. I don't have enough time to write about it.

Success Rate:  + 5.7

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

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (4 Stars)

Watching this film today, I noticed for the first time that it has parallels with the second film, "Jurassic Park: Lost World". In addition, the two films have parallel developments from their previous films.

It starts with Jeff Goldblum's appearance, a cameo pleading for dinosaurs to become extinct for a second time, for the good of humanity. This is like the cameo appearances of Richard Attenborough in the second film.

Then we have the development of Claire Dearing from a businesswoman in "Jurassic World" to a conservationist in "Fallen Kingdom". This is similar to the development of John Hammond between the first two films.

The young man acting against the wishes of the older leader is a theme repeated from the second film. Also the matter of soldiers acting against the ones who befriend dinosaurs. In both cases the levels of the actions are stepped up. In "Lost World" Peter Ludlow didn't go as far as to kill John Hammond. In "Lost World" the soldiers didn't leave Nick Owen to die. In these respects "Fallen Kingdom" is an exaggeration of "Lost World".

There may be other parallels that I've missed. I need to watch all of the films again back to back, including the disastrous "Jurassic Park 3". I'll wait until the release of "Jurassic World: Dominion", the sixth film that will round off the second trilogy. Its release was planned for June 2021, but I fear that it won't be completed on time because of the Coronavirus restrictions. Let's wait and see how things turn out.

Success Rate:  + 5.7

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

Thor: Ragnarok (4½ Stars)

Normally when I rewatch a film I read my old review(s) first. I failed to do that today. After watching the film I sat down, wrote a few sentences, then finally checked what I wrote in January. Oops! I was writing the same things all over again. I don't want to bore my readers, so I scrapped it and started again. Let's write something new!

This is a very good film. At first I thought it was lightweight, compared to the other MCU films, but that's not the case. The film has a complex plot, but it seems light due to the amount of humour.

In this review I'll just treat you with photos of Cate Blanchett as the Goddess of Death and ignore all the minor characters. Death has never looked so good.

And she has a cute dog. My dog always used to sit on my lap when I was watching films, but I don't think the Hellhound would be so affectionate. I hope not.

Was Hela killed in "Thor: Ragnarok"? Seemingly. I don't see how it could be permanent. You can't kill death. I'd like to see her in a future MCU film.

Which reminds me... when will the MCU be rebooted? I'm not saying that I want a reboot, but it's inevitable. The actors are getting older and have to quit their roles. There can be new phases with younger actors playing new super-heroes, but this can't carry on indefinitely. The core characters of the Marvel universe can't be allowed to disappear. Spider-Man, Daredevil, Captain America, Thor, just to name a few. Marvel wouldn't be Marvel without them.

Success Rate:  + 2.7

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

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.

Thor: Ragnarok (4 Stars)

This is the 17th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in November 2017.

Those familiar with Norse legends will recognise that the Ragnarok shown in this film is a mini-Ragnarok. In the film it has to do with the destruction of Asgard. In the Norse legends Midgard (the name for our planet Earth) is also destroyed.

The film combines two stories. The first story is about Hela, Thor's older sister, attempting to conquer Asgard after Odin's death. The second story is about the Hulk fighting in an arena on a distant planet. The stories could have been told in two separate films, but I think Marvel Studios was too afraid that a Hulk solo film would fail at the box office. As it is, the stories blend well into one another.

Stan Lee appears as a barber on the planet where the Hulk lives. He's responsible for cutting Thor's hair short, so he can comfortably wear a helmet in the arena. Poor Thor. When I was 23 I let my hair be cut short because it's what my fiancée Elke wanted. When I got home and looked at myself in the mirror I cried. Needless to say, I never married Elke. Any woman who tries to change a man before they're even married doesn't deserve to have him. The reverse is also the case. If I fell in love with a woman with certain characteristics, inside or outside, why would I want to change her?

This is Thor with his beautiful long hair.

This is Thor with his short hair. His face alone says that he's not happy.

Most men lose their hair as they get older, so they're forced to cut their hair short. That's different. By the time I was 40 I had a large bald patch, but I could still have worn my hair long into my mid thirties. I should have done so, but after splitting up with Elke it was difficult for me to grow it long again. There was a mental block which I should have tried to overcome.

Thor has no respect for the man who forcibly cut his hair. When asked by Bruce Banner what had happened to his hair he replies "Some creepy old man cut it off". That man might have been the great Stan Lee, but Thor's attitude is understandable. I could never respect any man who cut off my long hair.

Loki is allowed to keep his long hair. As the God of Trickery and Mischief he must have found a way to keep Stan Lee's hands off him.

Doctor Strange has never had long hair. He should try it some time.

Cate Blanchett plays the role of Hela. I've always liked her as an actress, but I considered her appearance plain. But what's happened to her now? She's 47 years old, and this is the sexiest she's ever looked.

Maybe it's just me. I like women to look dark and evil. If makeup and hair dye can achieve this look, all women should do it. It would make the world a much more beautiful place.

I'm not so enthusiastic about her headgear that out-maleficents Maleficient, but her skin-tight outfit is incredibly sexy, and the double swords round off her look.

Hela deserves to wear the Infinity Gauntlet. It's a shame it's a fake.

Hela's face is beautiful when she smiles...

but she's even more beautiful when she scowls...

and best of all is her mean, mocking laugh.

"Thor: Ragnarok" uses the incredible "Immigrant Song" by Led Zeppelin. It's played twice, at the beginning and during the final credits. This is a much better song than "Brandy" in "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2". There were a few super-groups at the beginning of the 1970's. Rock music was made with a fever that was previously unknown. Many consider Led Zeppelin to have been the best of these groups.

---

Immigrant Song by Led Zeppelin

We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs flow.
Hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new land
To fight the hordes and sing and cry
"Valhalla, I am coming".

Always sweep with threshing oar,
Our only goal will be the western shore.

We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs flow.
How soft your fields so green. Can whisper tales of gore,
Of how we calmed the tides of war.
We are your overlords.

Always sweep with threshing oar,
Our only goal will be the western shore.

So now you'd better stop and rebuild all your ruins,
For peace and trust can win the day despite of all your losing.

Success Rate:  + 2.7

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