Captain America: Brave New World (3 Stars)

"Captain America: Brave New World" arrives with the weight of a legacy. The earlier entries in the series built a reputation for tight storytelling, grounded stakes, and a sharp blend of political tension and character-driven drama. This new chapter tries to continue that tradition; however, it never reaches the clarity or emotional power of its predecessors.

The story sets up promising themes about leadership and responsibility, yet it rarely develops them with the sharp focus seen in "The Winter Soldier" or the ideological heft of "Civil War". Those films thrived on conflict that felt urgent and personal. Here, the central conflict feels scattered; the narrative moves between subplots that compete for attention instead of supporting each other. The result is a film that feels busy rather than purposeful.

Anthony Mackie carries the shield with conviction. His performance is sincere and committed; his scenes that deal with the burden of legacy are among the film’s strongest. Yet the script never gives him the same depth or arc that Chris Evans enjoyed. Sam Wilson’s internal struggle feels stated rather than explored. The earlier films balanced action with intimate moments that defined Steve Rogers as a character; this entry misses that balance and leans heavily on exposition.

Action has always been a hallmark of the series; however, the set pieces here lack the precision that made sequences like the elevator fight in "The Winter Soldier" or the highway battle unforgettable. The choreography feels looser. The editing cuts too quickly to create impact. Instead of tension building through physical stakes, the film often relies on CGI that softens the grit that once set the franchise apart.

The supporting cast is solid, yet many characters feel underused. Motivations are introduced then set aside. Relationships that could deepen the emotional core remain at the surface. Earlier films used their ensembles to shape the story’s moral and political dimensions; this time the ensemble drifts around the edges.

Tonally, the film struggles to find its identity. It gestures toward political commentary yet rarely commits to a viewpoint. It hints at espionage yet never creates the paranoia that defined the franchise’s strongest moments. The film moves quickly, yet without the thematic weight that once made Captain America stories stand out in the broader MCU.

In the end, "Captain America: Brave New World" is serviceable entertainment with a committed lead performance and flashes of inspiration. It simply lacks the tight structure, grounded action and emotional clarity that made the earlier films some of Marvel’s best. The shield still shines; the story beneath it does not.

Success Rate:  + 0.3

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

Captain America: Brave New World (3 Stars)

I don't know what to say about this film. It's not a bad film, definitely not as bad as "The Eternals". But it isn't a good film either. It's just boring.

This is the first film in which Captain America is no longer Steve Rogers, he's Sam Wilson. The torch has been passed. In the course of the film Sam repeatedly says that he's only a second rate Captain America because he hasn't taken the super soldier serum, and yet just look at him. He fights better than Steve Rogers ever did, even when he isn't flying. That doesn't make sense.

I can't say much more without giving away spoilers. If you're a Marvel fan like me, nothing will stop you going to see the film in the next few days. Today was the film's first day in the cinema. I usually wait a few days because the cinema is too full on the first day. Not today. The cinema was almost empty. That made me sad. It's as if the word had already spread that the film isn't worth seeing. Let's wait a week to see how the box office figures develop.

And to round off my day, when I went home I slipped on the ice in front of my house. Right on the steps. Luckily I fell on my soft rear parts and didn't suffer much damage, but I tried to stop the fall and slightly injured my right hand. I have two small cuts on my fingers. What a way to end a day that was already disappointing.

Ad Astra (4 Stars)

I wasn't sure whether I wanted to see this film or not. My friends had differing opinions about the film. The trailers which I saw in the cinema made it look like a cross between "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Interstellar". This afternoon my daughter said she wanted to see "Ad Astra" with me, and I spontaneously agreed. I'm glad I did. To my great surprise, the film had more in common with "Heart of Darkness" than "2001". Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against "2001", but in my opinion there's only one Stanley Kubrick.

Brad Pitt plays Roy McBride, an emotionless, efficient astronaut in the near future. I emphasise the words "in the near future". Too many films make the mistake of naming an exact year five, ten or 20 years in the future, not planning for the eventuality that the films will still be popular after this date. "Ad Astra" will still take place in the near future, even if I watch it 20 years from now. In this near future there are large settlements on the Moon and smaller communities on Mars. Roy's father, Clifford McBride, was a great explorer who travelled as far as Neptune, but he never returned from this mission and is assumed dead.

There are repeated power surges that cause electrical malfunctions. Roy is selected for a top secret mission to solve the problem. The authorities believe that Clifford McBride is still alive and is somehow responsible for the power surges.

From here, Roy embarks on a meandering journey from the Earth to Neptune, via the Moon and Mars, encountering various problems on the way.

About halfway through the film I began to notice the similarities with "Heart of Darkness". I thought that it might just be coincidental, but when I got home I read that the director has told reporters that "Ad Astra" is based on "Heart of Darkness". Outer space is an appropriate place for the story to be relocated.

I can understand why not everyone likes the film. With the exception of a few action scenes it moves slowly, and Roy McBride's cold nature might not appeal to everyone. I find this is exactly what makes the film enjoyable. In Roy's character arc he slowly learns to accept and express his emotions. This is a powerful film with competent acting by Brad Pitt and all the minor actors.

The Incredible Hulk (3 Stars)

This is the second film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in June 2008. It features an amusing 15-second cameo by Stan Lee. It's unique among all his cameos, because what he does is relevant to the plot. We see him opening his fridge from a fridge's eye view. He drinks a bottle of Guarana soda that was contaminated by Bruce Banner's blood in the opening scenes. We don't see what happened to Stan, but it must have been something big, because the US army finds out about it. They trace Bruce Banner's location by going to the manufacturer of the bottle drunk by a "man from Milwaukee".

Lou Ferrigno shared a cameo with Stan Lee in "The Hulk". In "The Incredible Hulk" he has his own cameo, a 30-second speaking role as a security guard who likes pizza.

Unlike the non-MCU Hulk film, there's no origin story in this film. We just hear that Bruce Banner became the Hulk five years ago, and he's now in hiding. That's a missed chance. In the other film the Hulk's origin story was completely messed up. It was a completely different story to the one we know in the comics, where Bruce Banner rushed out into the test site of a gamma bomb test to save the life of the teenager Rick Jones. This film could have told the correct story, but it didn't. But then again, it could have been worse. Based on casual conversation in the film, we hear that Bruce Banner became the Hulk after testing a super-soldier serum on himself. That would have been yet another false origin story.

"The Incredible Hulk" isn't a bad film, but it isn't a particularly good film either. It benefits from having better actors than "The Hulk". Edward Norton is a better actor than Eric Bana, William Hurt is a better actor than Sam Elliott, and Liv Tyler is a much better actress than Jennifer Connelly. The film also features Tim Roth, one of my favourite actors, as the Abomination. He would have been a good choice to play Bruce Banner. He might have stayed on for a few films, rather than abandoning the ship like Edward Norton.

It was unnecessary to upgrade Betty Ross by turning her into Dr. Elisabeth Ross. That's a modern trend. Women today are supposed to be strong and intelligent. I have no problems with films being made about intelligent women. The more the better. However, "The Incredible Hulk" isn't a film being written on a blank slate. It's an adaptation of stories written 50 years ago. Why change her now?

I suspect that more Hulk standalone films were intended within the MCU, but none were made. Even the much anticipated "Planet Hulk" storyline ended up being incorporated into "Thor Ragnarok". What not many people noticed, except for Marvel fanatics like me, is that the Leader was introduced in preparation for an upcoming Hulk film. In the film he's called Mr. Blue, though his real name is Dr. Samuel Sterns. He receives an injury to his head, and when he's lying on the floor a sample of Bruce Banner's blood drips onto his wound. That doesn't match his origin in the comics either. A sequel featuring the Leader was never made because "The Incredible Hulk" wasn't a box office success.

The Hulk's CGI appearance is improved over Ang Lee's film – it could hardly be worse – but it still isn't perfect. I have the impression that the film was visually based on the Hulk TV series, not on the comics.

The story is adequate, but the battle with the Abomination is too brief. His appearance was unnecessarily changed in the film. This is what he should have looked like.

"Iron Man", which I reviewed two days ago, shows a lot of respect for Stan Lee's original material. I can't say the same of "The Incredible Hulk". Whenever changes are made, the result is inferior. Always. It's about time the film producers at Marvel Studios learnt that. If they'd made a film closer to the original stories it would have made more money. I can say that with absolute certainty.

Success Rate:  - 0.2

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

The Incredible Hulk (3 Stars)

I didn't intend to watch this film again so soon. The reason I watched it today is that I've recently watched two videos about the upcoming "Avengers Infinity War" film, and both said that fans should prepare themselves for it by re-watching all the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe films, even "The Incredible Hulk". They both named it explicitly. It's the least popular of the MCU films, not without reason. It's considered part of the MCU, but only because of the appearance of Tony Stark in the final scene. Apart from that it's like a standalone film. Let me give you my reasons.

"The Incredible Hulk" has a different actor playing Bruce Banner, Edward Norton instead of Mark Ruffalo. In all the other films the actors are consistent.

The Hulk's CGI character looks different to his appearance in "The Avengers" and later films.

There's no origin of the character, which makes it seem more like a sequel to "The Hulk" (2003) than a reboot as part of the MCU.

Instead of the Hulk's love interest Betty Ross returning he's been flirting with other characters, in particular the Black Widow,

There's a fifth reason that I should add as well: it's just not that good. It's the lowest rated MCU film in my blog. I can't understand why I gave it four stars when I watched it three years ago. I was being far too generous. It was probably a sympathy vote because I like the character so much. There were too many Hulk-vs-soldiers fights. One would have been enough. The Abomination was introduced into the film far too late, practically as an afterthought. A better film would have been 25% origin story, 25% Hulk-vs-soldiers, 10% origin of Abomination, 40% Hulk-vs-Abomination.

The greatest strength of "The Incredible Hulk" is Edward Norton as Bruce Banner. He's the best person ever to play the role. He fits the role best because he's the puniest. Even Mark Ruffalo looks too tough. Supposedly Edward Norton quit because of differences with Marvel. He wanted more creative control over the character. He rewrote the script for "The Incredible Hulk", but his rewrite was turned down. I'm sure that whatever he wrote would have been better.

I'd rather forget about "The Incredible Hulk" and not consider it part of the MCU, but I'll wait for "Infinity War and see if there are any tie-ins.

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

Robot & Frank (4 Stars)

The film takes place in the near future. Frank is a retired burglar, who is beginning to suffer from dementia. His son is worried about him, so he buys him a robot to do the house chores and look after Frank's health. Frank despises the robot, until he realises that the robot can aid him in returning to burglary. At that point a friendship develops.

This is a cute little film. Veteran actor Frank Langella makes Frank (the character) sympathetic to the viewers. Among critics the film has been widely praised, but the reception among film fans has been lukewarm. That's strange. I would have expected it to be the other way round. Maybe the general public finds the idea of intelligent robots too far-fetched? Just wait a few years. This will happen faster than we expect.

Portrayals of dementia are scary to me. My greatest fear is that when I get older my mental capabilities will lapse. My mind is my greatest treasure, and I would hate to lose it. I'd rather be unable to walk than unable to think straight. I had an elderly friend who was losing his mind. It was so sad. Everyone knew it except for him.

The Incredible Hulk (4 Stars)

Of the actors to play the Hulk in recent years, Edward Norton was the most suitable. Eric Bana looked too tough. Mark Ruffalo looks a bit better, but he isn't quite timid enough. Only Edward Norton has the whole "puny Banner" air about him. I can imagine the Hulk remembering him and hating him.

Some people call "The Incredible Hulk" a reboot after Ang Lee's disastrous film in 2003. That isn't correct. The film doesn't re-invent the Hulk or give him a new origin. It continues where the first film left off. It just makes the Hulk look better. And the totally screwed up origin in the first film is simply forgotten.

Tim Roth is perfect as the Hulk's nemesis, the Abomination. My only regret is that the battle between the Hulk and the Abomination is too brief. The film is good, but it missed a lot of opportunities to make it better.

Music Video: Hanne Sorvaag, Crash and Burn

This is a beautiful song, though I admit that I didn't post the video because of the song itself. The scenery is spectacular. I know that tastes differ, but for me Norway is the only country that I consider to be as beautiful as Scotland. Watch it and see what I mean.



The video features Magnus Carlsen, the world's best chess player. I've been a fan of his for years. I started following his career when he was 13 and considered a child prodigy. He is now 21, and even though he's been rated the world's best player since 2010 he has boycotted the last two world chess championships. Everybody knows he's the best, so he has no reason to prove himself. Actions like this are not untypical in the chess world. The previous #1 rated player, Gary Kasparov, refused to take part in the world championship matches for years, even creating an alternative organisation with its own champion. The world's best female player, Judit Polgar, refuses to take part in the women's world championship because she says that other women play too badly and it's boring to play against them.

Magnus with Liv Tyler

Super (3 Stars)

The similarity with "Kick-Ass" is obvious, but this is a much darker and less moral film. Frank is a disillusioned "normal guy". He considers himself a failure, but he has one good thing in his life. He has a beautiful wife, Sarah, who gives him strength. Then things go bad. Sarah turns to drugs and becomes a crack addict. She leaves him to live with Jacques, a drug dealer.

In the midst of his desperation a Christian television programme motivates him to become a costumed hero. Super powers aren't necessary, all you need is the will to do good. So he makes a costume and calls himself the Crimson Bolt. He walks around town beating up drug dealers and thieves with a wrench. And also people who butt into lines in cinema queues. There's no difference between large and small crimes in his eyes. A girl who works in a comic shop, Libby, recognises him and joins him as his kid sidekick, calling herself Bolty. Together they go on a mission to kill Jacques and get Frank's wife back.

This is an ugly film, in many ways. It shows a man who has good intentions carrying out bad deeds to achieve his aims. For me as a comic book fan with a sense of idealism it hurts me to see a "hero" acting like this. Maybe it's a good film. But I didn't enjoy it. Sorry. It's one of those films where I feel like I have to wait a year and then watch it again. Maybe I'll appreciate it more then.

Click here to view the trailer.