Deadpool 2 (5 Stars)

"Deadpool 2"  has a difficult job. The first film was such a perfectly constructed showcase for Ryan Reynolds that simply doing the same thing again wouldn't have been enough. Fortunately, the sequel doesn't try to be a bigger version of the original. It is a different kind of Deadpool film, while retaining everything that made the first one so much fun.

Wade Wilson is still the same foul-mouthed, fourth-wall-breaking mercenary, but this time he's given a more conventional superhero problem to deal with. Cable, a time-travelling soldier from the future, arrives with a mission to kill a young mutant called Russell before he grows up to become a mass murderer. Deadpool decides that protecting the boy is more important than worrying about what he might become, and naturally things get increasingly chaotic from there.

Ryan Reynolds is still the heart of the film, and he hasn't lost any of his comic timing. What makes Deadpool work so well is that beneath all the wisecracks he's actually a surprisingly sentimental character. The film can move from an outrageous joke to genuine emotion without either side feeling out of place.

The supporting cast is excellent. Josh Brolin makes Cable a suitably intimidating opponent without turning him into a humourless villain, while Zazie Beetz is terrific as Domino. Her mutant ability, which amounts to being extraordinarily lucky, is used for some wonderfully inventive action sequences. Colossus is back too, still trying to persuade Deadpool to behave like a proper superhero, with very little success.

Then there's X-Force, which provides one of the film's funniest stretches. I won't say too much about it, because the joke works much better if you don't know exactly what's coming. It's a good example of the film's willingness to set up a conventional superhero sequence and then completely pull the rug out from under it.

There are plenty of other jokes, references and fourth-wall violations, and some of them are wonderfully ridiculous. The film knows that the audience is familiar with superhero conventions, so it can play with them rather than simply following them. At times it feels as though the writers are competing with each other to see who can get away with the most outrageous gag.

Deadpool 2 is bigger than the first film, but it doesn't lose its personality in the process. It has more characters, more action and a considerably more complicated plot, yet the central appeal remains the same. It's a very funny film with a surprisingly warm heart.

The first Deadpool is difficult to follow, but this is about as good a sequel as you could reasonably hope for. It isn't trying to replace the original. It's simply another opportunity to spend a couple of hours with one of the most entertaining idiots in superhero cinema.

Success Rate:  + 4.7

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

The Running Man (4 Stars)

I admit it: Edgar Wright is one of my favourite directors. He's probably my favourite British director. I can't think of anyone who comes close. I have to watch every film he makes, whatever it's about, whether it's serious or a comedy.

This film is an adaptation of a Stephen King novel with the same name. I've heard it wrongly called a remake of the 1987 film called "The Running Man". No. A film can only be called a remake if it's based on another film. A good example is the long list of films based on Bram Stoker's "Dracula". However many films are made called "Dracula" (or "Nosferatu"), they're not remakes; they're all adaptations of the novel.

The film takes place in a dystopian future. Based on the technology used, it might be 20 years or less from now, but no date is named. That's clever. America has fallen apart. There's a new currency called the New Dollar. Poverty is greater than ever before. The only way out for the average citizen is to take part in a television game show. The top game show is the Running Man. The contestant has to stay alive for 30 days. There's a team of Hunters looking for him with shoot-to-kill instructions, but everyone in America is allowed to kill him if they recognise him in the street. God bless America! You might think it's easy – just hide in a hole for 30 days – but there are rules that prevent it. The contestant has to make a 10 minute video of himself every day and mail it (by letterbox) to the game show. This brings him out into the public, and the location of the letterbox used tells the Hunters where he is.

I enjoyed the film greatly, apart from some problems I had with the ending. I don't want to give away spoilers. Watch it yourself, and leave me a comment telling me what you think.

Weapons (4 Stars)

This is an intriguing mystery, though it's obvious from the beginning that the explanation must be supernatural.

One morning Justine, a third grade teacher, arrives in her classroom and finds it empty. Almost empty. Of the 18 children in the class, only one boy arrives. No other children are missing, only in Justine's class. The day goes by, and there's no trace of the children. The only clue is in the CCTV cameras outside the houses of a few parents. The children all ran from their homes at 2:17 in the morning, with their arms outstretched as if they were imitating planes. Unfortunately, the video footage isn't complete enough to show their destination.

The school is closed for weeks while investigations are ongoing. The parents blame Justine, saying that she must have kidnapped them. The house of the remaining boy is searched for clues. Nothing.

The film is told in a non-linear fashion. There are six segments, following the lives of six individuals in the town from the incident onwards. Sometimes the stories overlap when they meet each other. We see the stories of Justine, a grieving father, a policeman, a vagabond, the school principal and finally the remaining boy. The clues are compounded with each new segment.

This is an excellent horror story that depends on an unnerving atmosphere to win over the audience. The absence of jump scares is welcome. It's not that I have anything against jump scares, but they would have been out of place in "Weapons". It deserves to be a box office success in the midst of today's flops.

Maybe the film's title is a spoiler.

Avengers: Endgame (5 Stars)

Disney Wednesday #13

For the last week I've been watching films on Netflix. Today I realised that I could access my Disney Plus account while I'm travelling, so I have access to dozens of wonderful Marvel films. So I sat down with my son-in-law and asked him what he wanted to watch. He picked "Avengers: Endgame". An excellent choice.

While we were watching my daughter Fiona came in the room and asked what crappy film we were watching. She should have remembered that she'd already seen in twice in the cinema in May 2019. The second time was with me, as recorded in my blog. Even without checking my blog I could remember it clearly, because it was my only ever visit to a 4DX movie. (My review on 16th May 2019 describes what that is). Even so, Fiona has completely forgotten it. Memory is a strange thing. Sometimes I can clearly remember things that happened 40 years ago, but I forget what I did last week.

"Avengers: Endgame" is too spectacular to be forgotten.

Success Rate:  + 5.8

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

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.

Deadpool 2 (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #38

Stan Lee doesn't actually make a cameo in "Deadpool 2", but he appears briefly in one of the trailers. He's even addressed by name. Deadpool emerges from a phone booth after changing into his costume.

Stan Lee: "Wow, nice suit!"

Deadpool: "Zip it, Stan Lee!"

This is Marvel dialogue at its best!

The first Deadpool film was so good that I didn't think the sequel could possibly live up to it. I was wrong. I remember sitting wide-mouthed in the cinema on 20th May 2018. When the opening credits rolled (at the 15 minute mark) I already knew that it exceeded the quality of the first film. The humour is similar. The repeated breaking of the third wall is similar. But something is better. Maybe it's the tastefully inappropriate placing of music. I don't know. I just know it's better, and I have great hopes that "Deadpool 3" will be just as good, whenever it's finally released.

This is the second film in Marvel's X-Men franchise in which someone comes from the future to change the past. The first was "Days of Future Past". Cable, a super-soldier from the future, travels back in time to kill Firefist, the mutant who will be responsible for murdering his wife and daughter. When Cable arrives Firefist is still a 12-year-old boy called Russell Collins. Russell is at a turning point. He's a troubled youngster, due to being tortured by the staff of an orphanage run by the Essex Corporation, an organisation that trains mutants to become mercenaries, but he's not truly evil. Cable says that he'll turn evil after his first kill, which is due to happen soon. Deadpool sees the good in the boy and wants to persuade him not to kill anyone. This is ironic, because Deadpool himself is a killer.

Deadpool has contact with the X-Men, but the only team members he sees at the X-Men mansion are Colossus, Negasonic Teenage Warhead and Yukio. It's a running joke that the other X-Men are missing because the film had a limited budget.

Negasonic Teenage Warhead introduces Yukio as her girlfriend, making them the first openly lesbian couple in a Marvel movie. Yukio is possibly the same character as Yukio in "Wolverine", but it's not clear. Her role in "Deadpool 2" is too minor to make a comparison possible. Logically, they would have to be different characters, because "Wolverine" takes place shortly before "Deadpool 2", yet Yukio looks much younger in the latter film. But when has there ever been any logic in the X-Men continuity?

A bigger problem is a brief cameo by the other X-Men, who are in the mansion after all, though unseen by Deadpool. This was an outtake from "Dark Phoenix", which was being filmed at the same time. "Dark Phoenix" takes place in 1992, so the X-Men should look a lot older in "Deadpool 2", which takes place 25 years later. Even taking into account the rewriting of the timeline in "Days of Future Past", the scene still doesn't fit.

But don't worry about inconsistencies. Just accept the film for what it is. It doesn't take itself seriously, so neither should you.

Success Rate:  + 4.7

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

Deadpool 2 (5 Stars)

This week I finally bought myself a 4K resolution television set. I've been using the standard 1080p resolution since December 2008. I had a 32" television from 2008 to 2012, a 42" television from 2012 to 2016 and a 40" television from 2016 to 2020, all with a 1080p resolution, The downgrade in 2016 was necessitated by moving to Germany. I couldn't take my television with me, so when I arrived in Germany I used the television that was already available.

My new television is 43". Ideally I would have preferred to buy a larger television with OLED technology, the current state of the art, but my space is limited. In my room I have to sit about 1.80 meters away from the screen, so a larger television set would be overkill.

After extensive research, I decided that this television was the best available at this size. At first I was disappointed that the frame is white. Every flatscreen television I've ever owned has a black frame. However, after a few hours sitting in front of it I've grown used to its appearance.

I bought the television from Amazon. I wanted to delay buying a 4K Blu-ray player, but once I had the television in front of me I was impatient. My old Blu-ray player wasn't good enough for me. I jumped on the bus and went to Saturn, an electronics store in Stuttgart city centre. I'd already decided on the Sony UBP-X700 Blu-ray player. It's not the best Blu-ray player on the market, but it's the best in its price range. At Saturn the Blu-ray player costs 25 Euros more than Amazon's price, but they offer a price match guarantee, so I bought it for Amazon's price.

After experimenting with snippets of films on Netflix and Amazon Prime, I finally sat down to watch my first full film with the new equipment. I picked "Deadpool 2", the theatrical version. It's a standard Blu-ray, so it was upscaled to 4K, and the picture was perfect. I currently only own one 4K Blu-ray, "John Wick 2", because the multi-format package (Blu-ray plus 4K) was the same price as the standard Blu-ray alone. I'll have to watch it some time in the next few days.

Success Rate:  + 4.7

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

Avengers: Endgame (5 Stars)

Stan Lee didn't create the character Thanos. He was created by the writer/artist Jim Starlin in 1973, when Stan had already given up most of his writing activities at Marvel. Nevertheless, Stan Lee laid the foundation for the Marvel Universe, and he created the Avengers and most of the other heroes in the film. His contribution to comics and modern culture overall can't be underestimated.

The Blu-ray disc of "Avengers Endgame" that I watched today has a short tribute to Stan Lee. It's not a full tribute, it's just a review of his cameo appearances in the Marvel Cinematic Universe films.

These words, spoken by director James Gunn, express my thoughts precisely:

"My hero. The greatest man alive".

Stan Lee has passed away since this photo was taken, and the world is a poorer place without him. However, for me he still lives on in his writing. In the course of writing my Marvel Years posts I read his comics regularly. I'm up to mid 1971, close to the end of his regular writing. Other less capable writers stepped into his footsteps. Some of Marvel's writers were good, some were average, some were poor, but even Marvel's best writers weren't Stan Lee. He had a spark of genius that others could only dream of.

The most touching part of the tribute is when Robert Downey Jr kneels before Stan Lee and kisses his hand. That wasn't an empty affectation, it's a sign that he truly loved him. As do I.

Asking whether there will ever be another Stan Lee is like asking if there will be another William Shakespeare. It's not impossible, but it's highly unlikely.

On an unrelated matter, I've been running into the limitations of Google's Blogger (Blogspot). I add labels to posts to list the actors who appear in a film. Not every actor, just the ones that I consider to be the major actors. That's five or six actors per film, on average, but the last two Avengers films, "Infinity War" and "Endgame", have an overwhelming ensemble of big actors. Blogger limits me to a maximum of 20 labels per post, so I've been forced to omit some of the actors. Originally I omitted the actors who play smaller parts. Now I've decided to do the opposite. I've omitted the labels for the actors who play the biggest roles, because people know they're in the film anyway. The actors that I have omitted from the labels are:

Chris Evans (Captain America)
Chris Hemsworth (Thor)
Mark Ruffalo (Hulk)
Robert Downey Jr (Iron man)
Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow)
Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury)

Nuff said!

Success Rate:  + 5.8

	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

Avengers: Endgame (5 Stars)

This is the third time I've seen "Avengers: Endgame". The first time I saw it was in a German cinema. The second time was in an English cinema. Today I watched it in a friend's house, in beautiful 4K resolution and supposedly Dolby Surround Sound. I say supposedly, because I wasn't aware of being surrounded by the sound. It seemed to be coming to me from the front, like a normal stereo soundtrack. I'm saying that as a compliment. If I'm watching a film that's taking place in front of me, I don't want to hear the noises behind me.

I feel quite jealous of the beautiful movie system that I enjoyed today. It's not a matter of money. I could afford it if I wanted to. My trouble is the size and layout of my room. The furthest I can sit away from the screen is 135 cm (53 inches), so the largest screen that would be sensible for me is 49 inches.

Yesterday I watched "Avengers: Infinity War", which helped me to appreciate "Avengers Endgame" in its context. "Infinity War" has action all the way, whereas "Endgame" is slow and  mournful, with only occasional action scenes, all of which are splendid when the action breaks out. For the first hour very little happens at all. We meet the characters, and we share their sorrow after having lost so many friends.

I'm pleased to see that Captain Marvel's powers haven't been toned down in the film. Of the highly powered heroes, she's the only one who lives up to her strength in the comics. This makes her the most powerful hero in the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe), unlike the comics, where several heroes have greater power, such as Warlock and the Silver Surfer. The original male Captain Mervel in the comics was also stronger than her.

Where do the Avengers go from here? Where does the MCU go from here? Kevin Feige, the producer of the MCU, has promised that there won't be an early reboot, starting the Avengers again from the beginning with younger actors. In "Endgame" several characters were killed, and others will disappear because the actors haven't renewed their contracts, so now they've gone for good. They'll be replaced by other Marvel characters; there are so many to choose from. This is a good idea, but we can't go on like that forever. The best, most appealing characters are the ones that Stan Lee invented in the 1960's, and cinema audiences will grow bored when they've disappeared. A reboot is inevitable, but when will it happen? I don't know yet. The Marvel bosses will make a decision based on the viewing figures.

"Avengers Endgame" has become the highest grossing film ever, if the figures aren't adjusted for inflation. That's one of the advantages of my Success Rate. It's a relative number from comparing the budget and the box office takings, so inflation doesn't play a role. My way of calculating the Success Rate makes "Endgame" the most successful film in the MCU, but less successful than the non-MCU Marvel film "Venom", which scored + 6.6.

Success Rate:  + 5.8

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

In the review I wrote yesterday about "Avengers: Infinity War" I said that Thanos would never retire and become a hermit or a farmer. One of my friends sent me a message, saying that I was mistaken. He pointed out, quite correctly, that after he lost the Infinity Gauntlet to Adam Warlock he became a farmer, "scraping out a living from the soil". However, this is what he became after losing the Gauntlet. He would never have become a farmer if he had remained the universe's supreme being. He was exiled to live alone on a remote planet by Adam Warlock, so what else could be do except to farm the land?

As we can see, he's become very stoic. He accepts his new position in life. However, I don't believe he would have taken this position voluntarily.

The story of Thanos continues in Marvel comics, some of them written by Jim Starlin, but for me this page isn't just the end of the Infinity Gauntlet saga, it's the final end of what I consider to be Marvel canon.

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

Men In Black 3 (5 Stars)

I've always liked girls with big guns. Unfortunately, Lilly Poison doesn't get very far. She's betrayed by the man she loves after freeing him from prison. There must be a motto to that. It's worth watching the film twice in one week just to see the brief appearance of Nicole Scherzinger in her only film role so far. I hope there will be many more.

Last time I watched the film I neglected to mention Griffin, a five-dimensional alien being who can see all possible futures. He's a cool character who wears a woolly hat whatever the temperature. He doesn't wear a black suit, but he still does his bit to save the world.

There's a scene which briefly shows a newspaper with an article about the launch of Apollo 11 on 16th June 1969. Supposedly. The headline is about the mission, and it's a photo of Buzz Aldrin, but what's the article about. You can click on the picture to enlarge it, but here's a transcript to help you.

(Paragraph 1) Future plans will, of necessity, have great bearing on the situation as it now stands. Decisions will have to be made of the actual planning of the project will take considerable time but it is felt that these steps are very important.

(Paragraph 2) The facts regarding the situation remain the same, state the authorities. Details concerning the action have been given a preliminary investigation but it is felt that only by a more detailed study will the true facts become known.

(Paragraph 3) Thus at this conference all our governments found themselves in unanimous agreement regarding this undertaking. Arrangements for dealing with questions and disputes between the republics were further improved.

(Paragraph 2 repeated)

(Paragraph 3 repeated)

(Paragraph 4) Of no less importance was the common recognition shown of the fact that any menace from without to the peace of our continents concerns all of us and therefore property is a subject for consultation and cooperation. This was reflected in the instruments adopted by the conference.

(Paragraph 5) A suggestion that public hearings on applications be limited to one every six months was taken under advisement by the commission.

(Paragraph 2 repeated)

(Paragraph 6) Many persons feel at this stage that some legal action is forthcoming but it now becomes common knowledge that there is pressure from the inside which will materially change the aspect of the case.

(Paragraph 3 repeated)

(Paragraph 4 repeated)

(Paragraph 5 repeated)

(Paragraph 2 repeated)

(Paragraph 6 repeated)

(Paragraph 4 repeated)

(Paragraph 7) An immediate investigation is assured and indications are that some new light will be shed on the situation in the near future. Available facts seem vague but authorities feel that time will disclose some means of arriving at a solution.

(Paragraph 1 repeated)

---

To sum up: the article has nothing to do with Apollo 11, and even the incorrect text is repeated ad nauseam. That's sloppy.

Success Rate:  + 0.9

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

Men In Black 3 (5 Stars)

This is only the second time I've watched this film. The first time was six years ago, and after reading my old review I'm puzzled. I don't understand why I wrote some of the things I did. I felt tempted to delete my old review, or at least change it, but I don't do that. I only edit old reviews if I find spelling or grammatical mistakes, and I never ever delete old reviews. The only thing I can do is write new reviews in which I put things right.

To be honest, I'd totally forgotten the film. I had no idea what happened, and when I watched it today I felt like I was seeing it for the first time. I didn't write anything about the plot in my first review, so there was nothing I wrote to remind me. That's nothing unusual in itself. I often don't describe the plot, especially if it's a film I see in the cinema. It depends on my mood. Today I'm in the mood to write about the plot, at least briefly.

After being deneuralysed in the second film, Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) has decided to remain an active member of the Men In Black. It's better than working in a post office. Once more his past catches up with him. An alien called Boris the Animal escapes from a high security prison on the Moon. He returns to Earth to get revenge on Agent K for shooting off his arm 40 years ago. More than that, he wants his arm back. To do this he travels back in time to 16th July 1969, the day when K stopped him. This changes time, and when Agent J (Will Smith) wakes up the next day he finds out that K died 40 years ago.

The fact that J can remember K when nobody else can makes the new head of the Men In Black, Agent O, suspect that time has been altered, so she sends J back to 15th July 1969, a day earlier, to prepare K for Boris returning.

The younger Agent K is played by Josh Brolin. So 40 years is all it took to morph him into Tommy Lee Jones. Amazing!

The film is full of temporal paradoxes which are dealt with in a humorous manner, and yet it all makes sense. I like films with mind-bending temporal paradoxes, which makes it all the stranger that I forgot what happened.

"Men In Black 3" was the least successful film in the series, but it's arguably the best film. Apart from the time travelling, there are also emotional scenes which are more moving than anything in the previous two films.

Now I can hardly wait to see "Men In Black: International" in the cinema next week.

Success Rate:  + 0.9

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

Avengers: Endgame (5 Stars)

While I was in Birmingham this week I went to see "Avengers: Endgame" again. It was suggested by my daughter Fiona. She saw it last week, but she didn't understand it. That's not surprising. The first MCU film that she watched was "Black Panther". "Endgame" – I'll shorten the title – refers to so much of the early films that it must be totally incomprehensible to any johnny-come-latelys. Or should that be spelt johnny-come-latelies? I don't know if there's a special rule for the plurals of adverbs.

I sat explaining to Fiona the previous 21 MCU films, concentrating on the ones most prominently referenced in "Endgame": "The Avengers", "Thor: Dark World" and "Guardians of the Galaxy". At first she sat attentively, but as I continued she was overwhelmed by the long list of names and her face went blank. She found a full review of "Endgame" in YouTube and listened to the first minute, but it was awful. The reviewer was just rattling off the plot at a breakneck speed, which confused her even more.

So we went to the cinema. There was a 4DX screening at Cineworld on Broad Street, which we chose because neither of us have seen 4DX films before. If you don't know this technology, it's a way to immerse the viewer in a film by provoking his other senses, not just sight and sound.

This is the 4DX theatre in Cineworld Broad Street. Eight rows with 20 seats each, arranged in groups of four. The gap at the front left is possibly for wheelchair users, but I would have to ask about that. I don't consider 4DX suitable for wheelchair users, unless the functionality is limited.

I know that it's officially been allowed to give away "Endgame" spoilers now, but I shan't. I'll just review the 4DX experience.

There are extensive warnings on the door before you enter. You shouldn't use 4DX if you're pregnant, you shouldn't use 4DX if you're shorter than 1.30 meters (4'3"), plus many seemingly random restrictions. The cinema obviously wants to protect itself from all possible lawsuits.

When you sit down you're supposed to put your head on the headrest and your feet on the footrest. The only controls on the seat itself are for the water. You can turn off the water sprays to stop yourself getting wet. That's a setting for wimps. Why would anyone want to stay dry in a cinema?

The most enjoyable feature was the chair motion. The chairs move in all directions at different speeds. When there are fights the motion is fast and jerky. I found it effective that when a plane was flying the chair very slowly tilted forward, giving the impression of movement.

There was frequent wind blowing, mainly from my left. That's possibly because I was sitting on the left of the four-chair group. It gave me the impression of being outside. This was mostly appropriate.

One strange feature is the vibration of the chairs. This was usually done whenever there was a loud noise. I found it somewhat arousing, because the vibrations went straight through my testicles. I suspect that it might be even more exciting for women. However, I have to admit that despite the cheap thrill this did nothing to enhance the movie experience.

During the fights I was sometimes poked by a rod underneath my right shoulder blade. When I checked the chairs afterwards I found two rods, on the left and the right, but the left rod was never used. Maybe it was broken on my chair. This was a weird feeling. It would have had to hit me a lot harder to simulate a fight.

There was a very pleasant smell in the scene where Thanos is walking in his garden. I liked it a lot. The scent feature was only used in this one scene. I would like to experience it in a film more often, so I can compare the scents, whether they change from scene to scene.

One thing I didn't like was the lights that flashed on the sides of the theatre when there was an explosion or something similar. This was highly annoying.

What about the water? "Endgame" isn't a very wet film, but I experienced it in one of the opening scenes. When Hawkeye killed the Japanese Yakuza boss I felt his blood splashing on my face. That was a nice touch. In a later scene, when it was raining, I felt a few drops of rain on my face. That wasn't enough. I should have walked out of the cinema with my t-shirt dripping wet.

My overall impression is that 4DX is a nice gimmick, but it's not something I like enough to want to do it often. 4DX costs £4.70 more than the normal ticket, and for that price it's really not worth it.

Avengers: Endgame (5 Stars)

This is the 22nd film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in April 2019.

You won't find any spoilers here, so look somewhere else.

Hail, Caesar! (3 Stars)

I gave this film five stars when I saw it in the cinema three years ago. In retrospect, I don't understand why. "Hail Caesar" has many good points, but it's not a great film. Maybe I was biased in its favour because I like all the other films made by the Coen brothers. Watching it again today, the first time since 2016, I felt disappointed by the story. On the plus side, I love the cinematography. Every scene is perfectly framed, especially when the production of 1950's films is shown. It's a perfect homage to the golden age of cinema. Or is it the silver age? I don't know what's what in cinema terminology.

The film is about the making of a big budget film called "Hail, Caesar", an obvious parody of "Ben Hur". It's a film about Jesus Christ as seen through the eyes of a Roman centurion called Autolycus, played by Baird Whitlock, who's played by George Clooney. Baird is kidnapped when he has only one scene left to film, his speech at the cross. A group of Communist screenwriters hold him to ransom for $100,000. The studio boss pays up immediately, and the money is donated to the Communist cause; or rather the Russian cause.

I know the film is a parody, but it seems to be glorifying Hollywood's anti-Communist sentiments in the post war years. I doubt this was intentional when the Coen brothers made the film, but it's the impression I get. This gives me a queasy feeling in my stomach. The film's sub-plots are totally irrelevant to the main story. There are two rival celebrity gossip columnists, both played by Tilda Swinton, and there's a pregnant film star who wants to adopt her own baby to avoid a scandal. I don't know why these stories were included, except to pad the film out to a full 90 minutes.

There's one small remark that I'd like to close with. After seeing Channing Tatum sing and dance I'm convinced that he should have played the lead role in "La la Land". Ryan Gosling was the wrong man for the role.

Success Rate:  + 0.9

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