Morbius (4½ Stars)

Netflix Thursday #36

The cover above was the first appearance of Morbius in Amazing Spider-Man #101, dated October 1971. Don't be put off by Spider-Man having six arms. It was a silly idea that Marvel had which only lasted a few issues.

Today I'm visiting my son Benjamin in Obersontheim. The weather is freezing! It's -8C up here on the hill, three degrees colder than where I live in Münchingen. He's more of a gamer than a film fan, so he relies on streaming services. I picked "Morbius" on Netflix as a film he hasn't watched before.

"Morbius" didn't do as well as expected at the box office, but at least it made a slight profit. It's a dark film, which is probably the reason not as many fans went to see it. How big is the overlap between Marvel fans and horror movie fans? I can't judge by myself, because I'll watch anything.

The post credit scenes tie in with the multiverse. As far as I know, Morbius lives in the same universe as Venom, Earth-TRN688. In the mid-credits scenes – there are two of them – the Vulture jumps from Earth-199999 and proposes teaming up with Morbius to fight with Spider-Man. Does that make sense? We've never seen Earth-TRN688's version of Spider-Man. It would make more sense for Morbius to jump into Earth-199999. I have the impression that Marvel Studios doesn't know what it's doing. Apart from that, it currently seems unlikely that "Morbius" will have a sequel, so we can safely ignore the mid-credits scenes. They never happened.

Overall, Marvel is in a state of turmoil. "The Marvels" was a big flop, due to a few factors.

1. There's a general slump in cinema visitors.

2. There's a super-hero fatigue after too many Marvel films.

3. Disney, which now owns Marvel Studios, is being mismanaged by Bob Iger.

What's the future of Marvel in the movies? Nobody knows. If "Deadpool 3" isn't a success this year, there's no hope for Marvel.

Success Rate:  + 0.2

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

Morbius (4½ Stars)

Today is only the second time I've watched "Morbius", but it's growing on me already. The biggest hindrance in me giving the film a full five star rating is that Michael Morbius is a very unsexy vampire. It's an accurate depiction, because he's always been unsexy in the comics.

My fascination with vampires began when I saw the film "Vamp" while on holiday in the mid-1980's. I was fascinated to see Grace Jones as a vampire. At that time in my life I considered her the ultimate in sex appeal. I didn't see "Vamp" again for more than 20 years, but I watched many other vampire films, and the sexiest vampires were in the films of Jean Rollin. Despite being 100% heterosexual, I could recognise the appeal of Christopher Lee as a vampire. Even Bela Lugosi had a certain sex appeal, in a creepy way. I found David Boreanaz annoying because of his eternally miserable face, but James Marsters was a slick, sexy vampire. And Drusilla! Yes, Drusilla was my dream woman. I'd moved on from Grace Jones.

I had a phase in the early 2000's when I would buy any vampire film on DVD without knowing anything about the film. Some of the films were good, others were a waste of money. I'm more selective nowadays.

Morbius isn't a sexy vampire, not in the least. He's a horrific character. That's the way Jared Leto was paid to portray him, and he did a good job. Morbius is also a tragic figure. He doesn't want to kill anyone, but when he's overcome by bloodlust he can't help himself.

I'm curious to see how Morbius will develop in future films, if any are made. Jared Leto has repeatedly expressed interest in making more films, possibly as a villain facing Spider-Man, but there are no signs that the films will be made. "Morbius" the film was only a minor box office success, but the critics tore it apart. A film needs to be a huge success for the studios to ignore the critics.

Success Rate:  + 0.2

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

Morbius (4 Stars)

Netflix Thursday #12

I missed "Morbius" in the cinema while I was in hospital earlier this year. Today I finally managed to see it on Netflix. I'll buy it on Blu-ray when the price drops.

Morbius was never one of my favourite Marvel characters. He was introduced in the early 1970's when Marvel was attempting to return to its roots by publishing more horror stories. At this time comics were written about Dracula, the Mummy and the Frankenstein monster. Morbius was an attempt to write about a vampire who was an integral part of the Marvel Universe (although that phrase wasn't common at the time). It's no coincidence that he was introduced in October 1971, the month when Stan Lee stopped writing. Marvel was heading in a different direction.

Over the years Morbius has come and gone in the comics. After his first appearance in Spider-Man #101 and #102, he had a guest appearance in Marvel Team-Up, a series frequently used for showcasing lesser known heroes. It wasn't until February 1974 that he was given a solo series in Adventure Into Fear, but it was cancelled after only 12 issues.

I was pleasantly surprised that the film doesn't have the comedy elements of other recent Marvel films. But something is missing. I sat and enjoyed the film, but I wouldn't say that it excited me. Jared Leto is doubtlessly a good actor, but I couldn't relate to his character. His romance with Martine Bancroft was important in the comics, but it's hardly more than a crush in the film. If the story had shown more of a romantic tragedy, it would have been better.

The film was a moderate box office success, though nowhere as successful as expected. Will there be a sequel? Probably not. It's more likely that Morbius will return in other Marvel films. The mid-credits scene suggests a tie-in with the MCU via a multiversal rift. Sigh... I'm getting sick of hearing about the multiverse.

Success Rate:  + 0.2

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

Last Night in Soho (5 Stars)

This is a supernatural horror film directed by Edgar Wright. It's different to any of his previous films. In particular, there's no humour, which I've always considered to be his trademark.

Eloise Turner, nicknamed Ellie, lives in Redruth, Cornwall. Yes, the town really does exist, although it's so obscure that I had to check Google Maps to verify its existence. She dreams of becoming a fashion designer, so she goes to London to study fashion. She's fascinated by the 1960's, the music and the fashion. She also has a gift, if it can be called that. She sees visions of her mother, who died when she was seven. Most people would accuse Ellie of being mad, but her grandmother believes her.

At college Ellie is immediately an outsider. Her fellow students are all modern girls, so Ellie's interest in the 1960's makes her seem antiquated. After a few days sharing a room in the students hall of residence she moves out to live by herself in a bedsit.

Her new accommodation has a history of violence, which Ellie's psychic gift picks up, whether she wants it or not. When she's asleep she sees herself as Sandy, a glamorous aspiring singer in the 1960's who hopes to be the next Cilla Black. She enters the body of this singer and experiences her tragic life as she's forced into prostitution to make money. What starts as dreams turns into waking visions that she can't turn off, although she's no longer in the woman's body in these visions. It comes to a climax when Ellie witnesses Sandy being murdered.

Ellie reports the murder to the police, which isn't a good idea. "I'd like to report a murder that took place in my room 50 years ago. I saw it in a vision". The police don't help, but Ellie doesn't give up. She searches newspaper archives for articles about dead bodies or missing people 50 years ago. But the visions are continuing, intruding into her life more and more.

Thomasin McKenzie as Ellie.

Anya Taylor-Joy as Sandy.

They're two beautiful young women from two different worlds whose lives are intertwined.

The film starts slowly as the mystery unravels, and it becomes terrifying as the visions intensify and Ellie can't escape. It's an excellent horror film, and I hope that Edgar Wright will make more films like this.

Success Rate:  - 1.9

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

Last Night in Soho (5 Stars)

Before I went to the cinema today I didn't realise this was a horror film. I'd seen trailers, but they suggested that it was a time travel story. No, it's a horror film.

Eloise Turner is a naive young girl from Cornwall who's studying fashion in London. She's obsessed with the 1960's, especially the music. Every night she dreams about a girl called Sandie who lived in Soho in 1965. Or is it just a dream? She becomes one with Sandie, and when she wakes up one morning she finds a love bite on her neck that was given to Sandie in her dream. Sandie wants to become a singer, but her manager encourages her to become a prostitute.

As things progress, Eloise doesn't just see Sandie when she's asleep. She has visions of her while she's awake. She's also haunted by the ghosts of the men that Sandie slept with.

I can't say more about the plot without giving away spoilers. Quentin Tarantino's "One upon a Time in Hollywood" has been called a love letter to the 1960's, showing the beauty and glamour of the age. "Last Night in Soho" shows the ugliness of the 1960's.

In my opinion, Edgar Wright is Britain's best director. All his films are magnificent. This is one of the best films of 2021.

Charlie Says (5 Stars)

This is a disturbing film, which was certainly the director's intention. It's a film based on real life, and real life isn't always uplifting. Think of it as a film that's meant to educate, not entertain.

"Charlie Says" tells the story of Charles Manson through the eyes of three of his followers, Leslie Van Houten, Patricia Krenwinkel and Susan Atkins, who're in prison serving a life sentence for multiple murders. The film is as much about them as about Manson himself, so rather than being a film about Charles Manson it's a film about their relationship with Charles Manson. As such, it's a very feminocentric movie, which is what we've come to expect from the director, Mary Harron. Over the years she's made a series of films that put the viewer inside women's heads. She doesn't judge. Usually they're strong women, but in "Charlie Says" they're weak, manipulated women.

The three Manson Girls, as they were called in prison, don't get equal screen time. The film concentrates on Leslie Van Houten. She arrives at the Spahn Ranch as an innocent teenager. She's overwhelmed by the atmosphere of free love and free drugs. She's overwhelmed by Manson himself. His charisma overpowers her, so that she's willing to give up a possible romance just to be close to him. She could have been with Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys, but her infatuation with Manson leads her on a path of destruction. She kills others because Charlie says it's the right thing to do. She doesn't even feel guilt for her deeds. Charlie's teachings take priority over all law and morality. As he tells her on arrival, "I'm here to make new rules, and the new rules are no rules".

When Leslie arrives everything seems so perfect. I would have been drawn in as well. Manson's teachings might have been crazy, but he was peaceful. He taught that America would go through a race war, in which most white people would be killed or enslaved. During this time Manson and his followers would hide in a cave in Death Valley, California. After the war was over, Manson would emerge and present himself as America's leader, because the blacks are unable to rule themselves. Those teachings might sound ridiculous, but Manson sounds a harmless crank. So what went wrong?

There may have been different reasons, but the film suggests it was Manson's male ego that made him snap. It wasn't enough for him being a cult leader, he also wanted to be a world famous pop star. He probably got his first taste of the celebrity lifestyle through contact with the Beach Boys while he was living at Dennis Wilson's house. According to the film, the Beach Boys recorded two of his songs, although I've only been able to find one of them. Dennis introduced Manson to the record producer Terry Melcher, who wasn't very impressed when he heard Manson's music. After this we see Manson smashing his guitar and becoming increasingly violent.

Then came the murders. The motivation was to kill rich white people and make the murders look like they'd been committed by blacks, in order to speed up the advent of the race war. Terry Melcher should have been one of the victims, but when Manson found out that Terry had moved away from Los Angeles he decided to kill the new tenants in his house, Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate.

After their arrests the Manson Girls never see Charles Manson again. They're imprisoned in the Special Service Unit (SSU), a prison department that's unique to California. It's a unit inside high security prisons that's under the control of the police force, not the prison itself. That's a strange concept. It's justified by the police being able to investigate criminals while in prison, which wouldn't be the job of normal prison guards. Prisoners in the SSU aren't necessarily in solitary confinement, but they're not allowed to mingle with prisoners outside of their unit.

The girls have been thoroughly brainwashed by their time in the Manson Family, and even after three years of separation they still see the world through Manson's eyes. When they're asked questions they don't have their own opinion, they always reply with the words "Charlie says that...". The young social worker Karlene Faith attempts to deprogram the girls by teaching them about feminism. She sees them as the victims of a male patriarch.

The choice of Matt Smith to be cast as Charles Manson is nothing less than genial. He portrays the charisma and the insanity of the character in equal measures. When he's on screen, all the other characters fade into the background. It's not just that he's a good actor; his physical appearance is ideal for the role.

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

I've noticed a recent trend that only the big blockbusters are released on Blu-ray in the UK, whereas all new releases are available on Blu-ray in America and Germany. That's strange. Five years ago I read statistics that Blu-ray sales had overtaken DVD sales in the UK.

I apologise if this post looks bad on mobile devices. It's the result of a programming error in Google's (totally unnecessary) new Blogger interface.

Official Secrets (3½ Stars)

"The truth is always the first casualty of war".

I immediately liked the film's tag line, which is super-imposed on the film poster. It wasn't until I sat down to write this review that I questioned whether it's a true statement. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It varies from case to case, so I would definitely strike the word "always". A lie might be told to justify a war. That was possibly the case in the Iraq War of 2003, when it was claimed that the Iraqi regime was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. I say possibly, because it's impossible for me to decide after all these years whether it was a lie or a mistake.

It's more often the case that lies are told after a war has ended. It's said that after a war history is written by the winners. If the other side had won, the history books would tell a different story. My favourite example is the statement that World War Two was started by Germany invading Poland. That's something that people in England, America and most other western countries repeat without thinking, but it's only one way of interpreting the facts. It could also be claimed that Germany didn't invade Poland at all; German troops entered German territories that were being occupied by Poland. If Germany had won the war, the "invasion of Poland" would have been called the "liberation of West Prussia and Posen".

Those are interesting topics worth discussing some other time in greater detail. For now, let's stick to the film. It deals with the true story of Katharine Gun, an employee of GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) in 2003. She intercepted a message from America to the British government asking for the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council to be put under surveillance to find a means of persuading them to vote in favour of a war against Iraq. The suggestion that diplomats should be blackmailed shocked Katharine so much that she leaked the memo to a friend who was an anti-war activist. The memo found its way to the British newspaper, The Observer.

An investigation was made to find the whistleblower responsible for the leak. At first Katharine denied it was her, but she eventually confessed in order to protect her colleagues who were the main suspects.

This is a fascinating story told with documentary precision. If anything, it's too close to being a documentary. The opening scenes show the actual footage of interviews with politicians like George Bush and Tony Blair. This slows the film down, and it needs at least half an hour to get moving. For me it only became interesting when it focused on the personal drama in Katharine's life. Keira Knightley plays the role perfectly, displaying the emotions of her character while attempting to keep them under control. It's a subtle but very effective performance.

The most shocking part of the film is the way the detectives talk to her about her legal rights. Katharine is allowed to speak to a lawyer, but as an employee of GCHQ she had signed an agreement to adhere to the Official Secrets Act by not talking about her work to anyone. This meant that if she discussed her work with her lawyer, including any details of the case against her, there would be additional charges against her. That makes a mockery of the whole British legal system.

Charlie Says (5 Stars)

This is the 40th film in the Stuttgart Fantasy Film Festival.

This is a story about the Manson Family, with the emphasis on the women who followed Charles Manson. The central character is Leslie Van Houten, who's portrayed as an innocent young girl drawn into something she doesn't fully understand.

Three years after the murder of Sharon Tate, a prison psychologist is giving therapeutic sessions for the prisoners referred to as the Manson Girls. In flashbacks we see the events that led up to 9th August 1969.

The film is fascinating throughout, including a brilliant performance by Matt Smith. When the film started I was envious of the commune lifestyle of the Manson Family on the Ranch (with a capital R). It seemed so idyllic, and my primary thought was "I wish I could have been there". Free love, free drugs, peace and happiness. George Spahn, the owner of the Ranch, was given daily hand jobs in exchange for free rent. Charles Manson was so charismatic, it was easy to see why women loved him and followed him without hesitation. As the film progresses, the dark side becomes apparent. Disappointed by his lack of success in the music business, Manson became abusive to the women in the Family, but they accepted it. "Being hit by the man you love is the same as making love to him". Finally the free love bubble bursts, and Manson orders his followers to go on a killing spree.

Was Charles Manson bad from the beginning? The film doesn't answer that question, but it shows that by 1969 he was utterly evil. It's amazing that he told his followers that they weren't allowed to read anything except for the Bible. Wouldn't the Bible itself be enough to tell them they were following a false teacher? He had such weird Bible interpretations. For instance, he said that the locusts in the Book of Revelation represent the Beatles (John, Paul, George and Ringo). The girls believed nonsense like that?

50 years later, Leslie Van Houten is still in prison. According to Wikipedia, "On January 30, 2019, during her 22nd parole hearing, Van Houten was recommended for parole for the third time. But in June 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom overruled the parole board's recommendation, claiming the 69-year-old Van Houten was still a danger to society and that she had potential for future violence". This is totally inhumane.

Lost River (2 Stars)

What can I write about this film? Where can I even begin? I can tell you what happens in the film, and if I wanted to give away spoilers I could even describe the whole story, scene by scene. What I can't do is explain the film's deeper meaning. I can tell you what happens, but I can't tell you why it happens. I'm sure the director wanted to say something, but I have no idea what it is.

And who is the director? It's Ryan Gosling. It's the first and so far only film that he's written and directed. He's one of Hollywood's top actors. Women love his smile and his boyish looks. But "Lost River" shows that everyone, including me, has underestimated him. What on Earth is going on inside his head?

Billy is a single mother who lives with her two sons, Bones and Franky, on the outskirts of Detroit. There's a big difference in the ages of her sons. Bones is 20-ish, while Franky isn't in school yet, probably about five. It happens. Billy's neighbourhood is dying out. People are moving away. If they have a mortgage they just stop paying and let their house be repossessed. If their house is paid off they just move away and leave it behind, because they can't sell it anyway. Weeds are growing in the middle of the road. The only two families remaining are Billy, and a girl called Rat who lives with her grandmother.

Bones makes a living from salvaging copper from abandoned houses. Now it looks like his source of income will dry up, because another young man has claimed ownership of all the scrap copper in the neighbourhood, and he has threatened to kill anyone else who takes copper.

Billy is unemployed and three months behind with her mortgage payments. She goes to her bank manager, who tells her that he will have her house demolished if she doesn't bring her payments up to date within a month. He advises her to apply for a job at a club he regularly visits. It's a club which puts on acts of women dying. It doesn't matter if it's murder or suicide, as long as there's lots of blood.

Billy manages to put on a good act that entertains the audience, but she's told that there's a way to make even more money. Women are put inside a see-through plastic case, and men are allowed to touch the case in any way they want, either stroking it or hitting it. The women are safe inside, but please tell me what sort of a man would find pleasure in something like that?

The area is called Lost River because there's a town that was sunk to make a new reservoir. Shouldn't it be called Lost Town instead? Houses, shops, churches and schools have all been submerged. There was also a dinosaur theme park in the lost town. Rat's grandfather was killed when the town was sunk, so her grandmother sits watching films about the town every day, oblivious to everything happening round about her.

There's a legend that the area is under a curse because of the way the town was submerged. According to Rat, who seems to be better informed than anyone else in the film, the curse will only be lifted if someone goes down to the town and brings back part of it.

Matt Smith is hardly recognisable in the film. He plays Bully, the young man who is willing to kill to keep hold of the copper which doesn't belong to him anyway. He plays a disgusting character so realistically that I can't help hating him.

Rat is played by Saoirse Ronan, one of the most promising young actresses in Hollywood today. She's called Rat because she has a pet rat that she always carries in her pocket. The rat's name is Nick.

I'd never heard of Christina Hendricks before this film, but I have to admit that she has some outstanding qualities. I'm surprised that the club had a plastic case in her size.

This is the house that Billy is so desperate to keep? This is the reason why she lets herself be touched by strange men every day? Only in Detroit.

But I have a question. If she can't afford to pay the mortgage on the house, why doesn't she just move into another house in the street that is standing empty? I mean a house that's fully paid off, of course. That would ease the financial pressure.

One more piece of information. "Lost River" was filmed in 3D. Honest! This was a waste of effort, because it went straight to video. The 3D version has only been released in Germany. Click here to order it.

As you can see, I've given the film a poor rating. I admire Ryan Gosling's courage at making such an adventurous film, but it's not something I could ever enjoy. The violence against women is bad, even if it's only simulated, but it's even more awful that people are shown who enjoy seeing violence against women. Apart from that, the chaotic jumble of themes in the film disturbs me. There are too many incoherent ideas.

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

Terminator: Genisys (4 Stars)

"I'll be back". That's the sentence that is most commonly connected with the Terminator films. Countless people have spoken this film quote, either respectfully or mockingly, usually in a gruff voice with a fake Austrian accent. The Terminator films are all about Arnold Schwarzenegger coming back. The question is, can we expect him to come back from this one?

The first film, made way back in 1984, was intended as a standalone. The machines would one day take over the world, in a massive nuclear war called Judgement Day. After a long war the resistance would fight back and defeat them. The machines make an attempt to change time to prevent the resistance leader, John Connor, being born by killing his mother. The film ends with this last desperate attempt by the machines failing, but the future war against the machines remains inevitable.

"Terminator 2" (1991) was a risk, but it worked. It quickly won over the fans of the original film, and many even consider it better. I personally can't decide between the two. They're both brilliant pieces of cinematic art, in different ways. The machines make a second attempt to prevent John Connor becoming leader of the resistance by killing him as a boy. In turn John's mother, Sarah Connor, retaliates by making a counter attack, changing time to prevent the machines ever taking over. She succeeds, so we have a bucketload of temporal paradoxes, but effectively the machines, including the Terminators, will never exist. We're back to the status quo that we had before the first film.

Along came "Terminator 3" in 2003. We find out that Judgement Day, is inevitable. Sarah Connor's success in the second film only postponed Judgement Day, it couldn't be stopped. James Cameron, the director of the first two films, called "Terminator 3" awful. I think he was being unfair. It succeeded in telling the story it wanted to. Attempts by John Connor, whose mother is now dead, to prevent Judgement Day fail, and the film ends with it taking place. We can say that the third film returns to the status quo that we had at the end of the first film.

In 2008-2009 there was a television series called "The Sarah Connor Chronicles". This takes place in a world after "Terminator 2" but before "Terminator 3". The series is effectively a battle between three factions. Sarah Connor, together with her son John and a group of friends, wants to prevent Judgement Day happening. Terminators from the future (T-800 models, as shown in the first film) have come to attack her. Terminators from further in the future (T-1000 models, as shown in the second film) have come to attack the other Terminators, because they believe that the only solution is a truce between the humans and the machines, a truce brokered by John Connor in the future. The TV series pushes the temporal paradoxes to the limit with messages being passed backwards and forwards through time, but the series was abruptly cancelled after the second season ended on a mind-bending cliff hanger. John Connor time jumped from the present to the future, meaning he never became the resistance leader, and he's considered a traitor for advocating peace with the machines. Why oh why was this storyline never continued? The series shouldn't have been cancelled, and even if it had to be cancelled a two-hour television movie could have rounded off the story.

Maybe one of the reasons for the cancellation of "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" was the film "Terminator: Salvation", which was made in 2009, while the series was still active. The two elements of the franchise would almost certainly have contradicted one another, confusing the fans. It begins where "Terminator 3" ends. It's the battle with the machines after Judgement Day. It was planned to be the first film in a new trilogy, and I assume the third film, "Terminator 6", would have ended where the first film began, making it all a tidy moebius strip. Unfortunately, the film was so disappointing to fans and critics alike that the remaining two films of the trilogy were cancelled.

That finally brings us up to date, as far as this review is concerned. "Terminator: Genisys" (2015) is another attempt to kickstart a new trilogy of Terminator films. Arnold is back. Actually, he's back twice over, because we see two versions of him, the way he looks now and a CGI-generated younger version of himself. The machines of the future have given up the ideas of making infiltration machines that look like humans. Using nanotechnology they've developed a way to turn men into machines, so that they retain the memories and personality of the person being changed, but make him loyal to the machines. John Connor himself has been selected to go back in time and kill his parents.

Now here's the irony. "Terminator: Genisys" did badly at the box office in America, but it was a success in the rest of the world. According to the final figures on the balance sheets it was a success, but the feeling of the studios is that it was a failure. After all, the studios are based in America, so their subjective impressions are determined by what happens around them. Will Arnold be back again? It's uncertain. He wants to return, but the studios say No.

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

P. S. You must have noticed that I watched the first three Terminator films, then skipped the fourth and went straight to the fifth. That's not a mistake. I wasn't in the mood to watch a substandard film. I'll probably go back and watch it some day, but not yet.

Terminator: Genisys (4 Stars)

According to the Guardian's film critic Joe Queenan, this film "is just plain awful". I don't want to quote the reasons for his opinion here, so read his review for yourself. Many other critics agree with him, some going as far as to call it one of the worst films of 2015. As you can see from my rating I don't share their opinion, but it's not as good as the first two films, and doesn't even live up to the third film. At least it's better than the fourth film, which was intended to be the first part of a new Terminator trilogy -- a plan that was rightly abandoned.

Now "Terminator: Genisys" has been made, which in turn was intended to be the first part of a new trilogy. Whether this will actually happen is still unclear. First it was said that the trilogy had been cancelled because "Terminator: Genisys" had made a loss. I don't understand this. The budget was $155 million, and it earned $440 million at the box office. Usually, if a film earns double its budget it can be assumed that the film made a profit, after expenditures. Then there's the additional income from Blu-ray and DVD sales, so I don't understand at all how the film failed to make a profit. In January this year Arnold Schwarzenegger said that another Terminator film will be made, but he didn't confirm there would be a trilogy. No release date has been announced, so it might just be wishful thinking on Arnie's part.

The greatest strength of the Terminator franchise is at the same time its greatest weakness: Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was his iconic performance in the first two films which made Terminator famous. In an interview in the Blu-ray extras Emilia Clarke, who plays Sarah Connor, says that she can't imagine a Terminator film without Arnold Schwarzenegger. That's the hurdle we need to cross. Terminator needs to find a future without Arnold. The initial reaction might be disappointment, but if it's a first class story the fans will be won over.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2 Stars)

When a film has a title like this it just has to be seen, doesn't it?

I read Jane Austen's novel "Pride and Prejudice" when I was a teenager. It's been adapted as a film several times, but I've never watched any of the film versions, so I can barely remember the story. I just recall that it was about the genteel like of the English nobility. Supposedly the plot of "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" closely follows Jane Austen's novel, apart from zombies being added to the story.

The Bennet family has five daughters that the parents want to marry into good families. Any prospective suitors must be handsome, well-mannered and rich. The Bennet sisters are certainly ideal partners for any man. All five have been trained as zombie hunters. The oldest daughter, Elisabeth, was trained in China, while the other four were trained in Japan. There seems to be some prejudice against Chinese fighting arts, but this isn't fully explained.

Several men arrive in the area where the sisters live and vie for their affections. Colonel Darcy is arrogant, but a highly skilled zombie hunter. Parson Collins is a newly appointed priest. Mr. Bingley is the owner of a nearby mansion. Mr. Wickham is a soldier. The men have secrets in their past that disguise their true motives.

The film's premise is its greatest weakness. The good manners and the understated passions of the main characters slow the film's action to a crawl. If the film had departed further from the style of the original novel it would have been more exciting. Instead of this I found the film's characters annoying, especially the men. The only thing I found positive was the performance of Matt Smith as Parson Collins. His hilariously awkward mannerisms show that he has the talent to become a great comedy actor.

Terminator: Genisys (4 Stars)

This is the fifth Terminator film. My rating for this film is provisional. Despite being warned in advance reviews and interviews I wasn't prepared for how different this would be to the previous Terminator films. There were shock effects in the first half hour that knocked me back in my seat, and I wasn't sure how to judge them, positively or negatively.

Here is a very brief description of the plot. To say more would be unfair to people who haven't seen the film yet.

The film begins in 2029, shortly before the events of the first Terminator film. John Connor sends Kyle Reese into the past (1984) to protect his mother, Sarah Connor, from a T-800 Terminator sent to kill her minutes earlier. While Kyle is standing in the time machine he sees John Connor being attacked by a Terminator that has travelled back from the future (after 2029). This changes time and gives Kyle new memories, but due to being in the process of travelling through time he also retains his old memories from before the time change. Kyle becomes a man with two pasts. Are you confused yet?

Kyle returns to 1984. The events of the first film are repeated, but everything has changed, because there have been subsequent time jumps following the attack on John Connor. In particular, a re-programmed T-800 has been protecting Sarah Connor since 1975.

After watching the film I read detailed reviews, which I advise my readers against doing until after they've seen the film themselves. Too many spoilers! Most of the reviews were negative. I think this is unfair. The criticisms seem to come from purists who don't like the events of the first Terminator film being undone. Slow down a bit. Maybe the events have been changed, but we haven't been robbed. We still have the original film in our hands to watch as often as we want to. In time travel films the past is in a flux and can be changed repeatedly. This is because in the Terminator films there is a single time-line, unlike Marvel's parallel universe concept. In Marvel comics travelling back in time to change the past doesn't change anything, it just creates a parallel time-line with the changed events. (I don't yet know whether this concept also applies to the Marvel films, such as "X-Men: Days of Future Past"). In the Terminator films, once the past has been changed the future time-line has been changed and the old time-line has been permanently erased.

Just one small point in closing. You'll only fully appreciate this film if you've already seen the first two Terminator films. It isn't necessary to have seen the third and fourth films.

Day of the Doctor (5 Stars)

Great men are forged in fire. It is the privilege of lesser men to light the flame.

Day of the Doctor (5 Stars)

Spoilers!