Thor: Love And Thunder (3½ Stars)

This is the 29th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). I gave it a lukewarm review when I watched it in the cinema last year. Now that I can finally watch it on Blu-ray I wanted to like it, I made a real effort to appreciate it more than last year, but the best I could do was increase the rating by half a star. The film's biggest problem is the main character, Thor himself. He's portrayed as being arrogant and a fool. I can put up with the arrogance. That's something we see at times in the comics. But foolish? Never! He was always a noble God, with or without his arrogance. I can see what Taika Watiti wanted to do as director and co-writer. He wanted to pull Thor down to our level, so we can relate to him better. That's a mistake. He's a God, so there should be a distance between him and the viewer.

But there are also questions about his godhood which remain unanswered in the film. In the comics we read that he's the God of Thunder. That's it. No explanations. He's a God, the same God that the people in northern Europe used to pray to. When Thor was introduced into the MCU the studios were nervous about insulting people, so it was expressly stated (in words spoken by Phil Coulson) that Thor isn't really a God, he's an alien. I'm not happy with that, but in "Love and Thunder" we meet a character called Gorr who claims to be a God killer. So Gorr disagrees with Phil Coulson and says that Thor is a God after all?

It's all a matter of definition. What is a God? Can we make a definition which isn't specific to just one religion? Is a God the person who created the universe? That would exclude Thor. Is a God someone that people pray to? That would include Thor. Is it someone who's immortal? That's a tricky one, because it's conceivable that human medicine can one day promise immortality. Is a God someone who lays down teachings to live by? Maybe, but some religions would call that person a prophet. I don't have an answer. Gorr could evidently tell the difference. For Gorr anyone is a God if he says he's a God and has followers who agree he's a God. That's a very simplistic definition, with obvious problems, but it works for Gorr in the film.

Let's say, for example, that I stood in the street and told people I'm a God (with an article). The first reaction would be that people say I'm mad. But let's get past that. Let's say that people who disagree want to discuss it with me. In order to convince me that I'm not a God, they first have to know what a God is. Many cults begin with a person claiming to be a God and others believing him.

In "Love and Thunder" Jane Foster carries Mjolnir and possesses the power of Thor. She even calls herself Mighty Thor (without an article). Does this make her a God? Maybe not, because the hammer is also killing her. That's one of the things that doesn't make sense in the film. In a book of Norse legends Jane reads that Mjolnir promises health. She's suffering from terminal cancer, so she travels to Tonsberg (New Asgard) in Norway to take the hammer. It gives her the power of Thor on a temporary basis, but it's actually sucking the strength from her body, speeding up her death. Mjolnir should do better. The problem lies with Marvel Studios, in particular Kevin Feige. He wanted to be modern and present a female Thor, but he wasn't brave enough to do it permanently, so he had to kill her off.

There's a passionate kiss between Thor and Mighty Thor. How passionate is the kiss? Are they using tongues? It looks like they aren't. Maybe Gods don't use their tongues. Or maybe Natalie Portman agrees with Kristin Kreuk that it's not professional.

Here's a small feature that was introduced in the previous Thor film, "Ragnarok". There's a play about the events of previous films. In this case Melissa McCarthy is playing Hela. She looks good, but I still prefer Cate Blanchett. Melissa is only pretending to be the God of Death.

How the mighty have fallen! In the comics Thanos claimed to be God (without an article), although he doesn't say this in the films. Nevertheless, he was all powerful. A few years have passed, and now an imitation of his Infinity Gauntlet adorns an ice cream parlour. I wonder if it tastes good. I'll have to try it the next time I'm in Tonsberg.

Success Rate:  + 1.0

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

The Little Mermaid (4 Stars)

I'm glad I could persuade my grandson Oliver to see "The Little Mermaid". I thought it might be too girly for him, but he greatly enjoyed it. After the film he kept singing the song "Under the sea". When we went to McDonald's afterwards I played it a few times on YouTube, until he said he'd heard it enough. It didn't stop him singing it again later.

In Germany the film is called "Arielle die Meerjungfrau", i.e. "Arielle the Mermaid". I'm happy that Germans know how to spell Arielle. Everyone should know that Ariel is a man's name, like all Hebrew names that end with -el, such as Michael, Nathanael and Raphael. In the original fairy tale written by Hans Christian Andersen in 1837 the mermaid wasn't named. When Walt Disney filmed the fairy tale in 1989 he blundered by calling her Ariel, which has led to it being given as a girl's name in America. It's been claimed that the screenwriters didn't make a mistake, they called her Arielle, but the subtitle writers misspelt her name. I don't know what's true. All I can say is that I'm glad Germany has put it right.

I vaguely remember seeing the 1989 animated version years ago, but I can't remember it well enough to know if the new live action film follows the same story.

Arielle is the youngest daughter of King Triton. She's fascinated by humans, even though her father has ordered her to stay away from them. She rescues Eric, the prince of a small island in the Caribbean, when his ship sinks. He sees her as he regains consciousness and falls in love with her, but she has to flee when the palace guards arrive. Arielle makes a deal with her Aunt Ursula. She can become a human for three days, in return for losing her ability to speak. If she kisses the prince within three days she will remain human forever. If she doesn't kiss him, she will become a mermaid again and has to become Ursula's slave forever. Easy enough, but Ursula tricks her. Arielle forgets that she has to kiss the prince.

I enjoyed the story and the comedic interludes. At first I thought the story was trite, but I liked it more as it continued. Unlike "Asterix", which was sold out three days ago, the cinema was almost empty today. It shows where people's interests lie.

Ghostbusters [2016 version] (4½ Stars)

If I were a ghost I'd lie down and surrender to four sexy Ghostbusters like Kate McKinnon, Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig and Leslie Jones. I wouldn't take Chris Hemsworth seriously, with or without his hammer. He's just a stupid men that the girls keep around for his good looks. There's been gender reversal in films before, but I can't think of any other film where it's pushed as far as in this film. Why shouldn't women objectify men? Men have been objectifying women for hundreds, maybe thousands of years.

When I reviewed the first Ghostbusters film two days ago, I said that I didn't know whether the 2016 film is a sequel or a reboot. It's irrelevant what the director or the screenwriter says, I'm only interested in what the film itself says. The trouble is that the film itself isn't clear. It doesn't reference the original film, which makes it a matter of choice. The original actors appear in cameo roles playing different characters, which suggests that it's a reboot. So my decision is that it's probably a reboot.

Or a remake? In film jargon, a remake is when a single film is made again, whereas a reboot is when the first film in a series is made again with the intention of making a new film series. The correct word for this film is definitely reboot, because the post-credits scene contains a hook for a sequel. Whether or not a sequel will be made is in doubt. The fans rejected the film, and it was a box office failure.

I sometimes say, deliberately being provocative, that I'm the only person who likes "Ghostbusters 2016". The statement is obviously false, but I know that I'm in the minority. I'm willing to argue about the film with anyone, preferably over a glass of beer. It has a powerful villain (even if he's only a seedy hotel janitor), it has better special effects than the original, and it's funnier than the original. Most of all, it has four powerful women in the lead roles. Their gender isn't an object of humour, it's just taken for granted. The people who hate the film, most of whom hated it before they even saw it, consider it sacrilege that their four heroes from a classic film have been replaced by women. Is it misogyny? Of course it is! If a reboot had been made with male actors there wouldn't have been such an outcry.

Oh, and the film has a cameo by Ozzy Osbourne. That's a bonus in any film.

My Blu-ray contains two versions of the film, the theatrical version and an extended version. After watching both versions, I can definitely recommend the extended version. It's often the case that scenes are cut or shortened to improve the pacing of the theatrical version, but that's not the case here. I suspect that the extra scenes, approximately 17 minutes, were only removed to get the film's runtime below two hours. Nothing is superfluous in the extended version, it's a perfectly crafted film which only suffers from cuts being made.

Success Rate:  - 0.4

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

Thor: Love and Thunder (3 Stars)

I'm writing this review with a very heavy heart. I'm a Marvel fan. I always have been. I started reading Marvel comics when I was six and bought the comics regularly until I left university. (After that I moved to Germany, and the comics were less easily available at that time). The Marvel films made in the 1980's and 1990's were disappointing, but in the 2000's high quality, big budget films based on the comics were finally made. "X-Men" was the turning point in 2000, and the films have kept up momentum ever since.

But what's happened now? The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is producing flop after flop. They should have quit while they were ahead. "Avengers Endgame" should have been the last Marvel film, but corporate greed caused Marvel to take more and more risks.

The first three Thor films were good. They weren't perfect, but they were highly enjoyable action romps. So what went wrong with the fourth film, which I saw in the cinema this evening? Too much CGI. Too much humour. Too many characters. Too much humour. Or did I mention the humour already?

I like comedies. Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows that already. But Marvel isn't about comedy. Maybe there can be occasional jokes, but the repeated humour in "Love and Thunder" just got on my nerves. The cinema was packed, and the audience was laughing at the silly little monsters in the early scenes. Most of the audience, that is. I was groaning.

I can't say too much without giving away spoilers. All I'll say for now is that the film is a failure. It's tempted me to never watch another Marvel film.

Thunder Force (3 Stars)

Do you know that feeling when a film announcement really excites you? You see a trailer or an announcement, and you go "Wow! I've got to see that!"

That's how I felt when I received an email from Netflix announcing "Thunder Force". Octavia Spencer and Melissa McCarthy as super-heroes? That's a teenage wet dream come true! They're two of my favourite actresses, and Octavia's beauty has always made me stop and stare.

So today I sat to watch the film. In the pre-credits scene (the first seven minutes) we see two young girls, totally unalike, forming a bond in school. Emily Stanton is a genius. Lydia Berman is below average intelligence, but she has a good heart. They swear to be friends forever, but in their teens they go different ways.

Then come the credits. 20 years later there's a high school reunion. The two girls meet again. Emily is the CEO of a large company. Lydia is a fork lift driver. Chicago is being terrorised by super-villains called miscreants. Emily's company is developing a machine to give normal people super powers. Lydia gains super strength and calls herself Hammer. Emily gets the power to become invisible and calls herself Bingo. Together their team is called Thunder Force.

Before the first half hour was over I was getting bored. Something was wrong. Octavia Spencer is a brilliant actress, and she has an Oscar on her mantelpiece to prove it, but you wouldn't know it from watching this film. She delivers her lines woodenly without any conviction. Melissa McCarthy doesn't do any better. Their blandness bounces off one another. The only person in the film with any charisma is Taylor Mosby, who plays Emily's daughter Tracy. I know almost nothing about her, but I'm impressed by her talent.

The action scenes are good, but everything else is dull. I like films with strong women, but not this film. It misses the mark on every possible level.

The film is available on Netflix only.

Ghostbusters [2016 version] (4½ Stars)

I know I only watched this film nine days ago, but I couldn't resist seeing it again. It has everything I want in a film: horror, comedy and strong women. Maybe not in that order.

One thing that I noticed in the Blu-ray release of this film is that the picture frequently stretches outside of the frame. This is obviously just a gimmick for the release on disc, because it's not possible on the cinema screen. Let me give you a few examples.

This is the usual aspect ratio of the film, 1920 x 804 pixels. The HD video format of the Blu-ray disc is 1920 x 1080 pixels, so there are black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.

 By the way, don't you think that intelligent women are sexy?

In this scene from the subway tunnel the sparks from Melissa McCarthy's machine shoot off the bottom of the frame. Framebusters! I have a "normal" HD television with a ratio of 16:9. I wonder how this scene would be displayed on a widescreen television with a 21:9 ratio. Would the bottom of the picture be cropped?

A few seconds later Kristen Wiig's machine shoots sparks out of the frame in both directions.

The ghost in the subway tunnel is too big to fit in the frame.

It's not all about sparks and ghosts doing the framebusting. There are more subtle scenes, such as Kate McKinnon needing extra room to do her gun-licking. Tasty!

It's not the first time I've seen this done. In "The Life of Pi" the dolphins jump out of the frame.

I've never known a film that so many people expected to be bad but ended up being so good. In my opinion it was all about prejudice. The original film, made in 1984, was so popular with fans that they couldn't imagine it being made with a new cast. That's the same as me not accepting the new cast in the rebooted Star Trek franchise. It was even worse for the fans that the new team would be all female. This drew out the lowest dregs of misogyny. When the first trailer was released on YouTube it received 12,000 Likes and 13,800 Dislikes within 24 hours, which showed how fans were polarised. That's approximately 45% who judged the trailer on its quality and 55% who rejected it because they were prejudiced. After two years the trailer has over a million Dislikes, making it one of YouTube's most disliked videos ever. Normally I would laugh about things like this, but the negative propaganda scared people away from the cinemas, and it ended up being only a lukewarm success. Plans to make a series of films with the new cast have been shelved.

I've cast three votes for the film. I "liked" the trailer. I laid my money down to see it in the cinema. I've bought the film on Blu-ray. If you like, my positive reviews in my blog can be considered a fourth vote.

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

Ghostbusters [2016 version] (4½ Stars)

Two years ago I said I would write a lot more about this film when I own it on disc. Guess what? I lied. You'll have to make do with a few screenshots instead.

And in case you're wondering who the four lovely ladies are, here are their names.

Don't they say that a picture is worth a thousand words? In that case this post is more than 8000 words long. That's my excuse for being lazy this morning.

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

Spy (4½ Stars)

If ever a film has screamed "Sequel" this is it. Despite a few small criticisms, which I'll go into below, it's an almost perfect comedy spy thriller. If Austin Powers was the comedy spy of the 20th Century, Susan Cooper (Melissa McCarthy) is the comedy spy of the 21st Century.

Susan Cooper has been working in a basement office of the CIA supporting field agents for ten years. After the murder of an agent while on a mission she's given her first field job. She's only supposed to observe and report back, but she rushes into action, making direct contact with Rayna Boyanov, a woman selling a nuclear bomb on the black market.

Melissa McCarthy plays a comically incompetent spy. My only complaint about the film is that other members of the CIA also make mistakes. Jude Law plays a suave super spy who accidentally shoots a captive because he sneezes. The CIA in Langley suffers from vermin in the basement. I would have found it better to see the CIA running as an efficient organisation with only Melissa making mistakes.

I love the retro film poster for "Spy". Up until the 1950's it was usual for film posters to be drawn by artists. In the 1960's this practise was slowly phased out in favour of photo collages.

Check out this photo taken at the film premiere. Miranda Hart (6'1") doesn't just tower over Melissa McCarthy (5'1") but also over Jason Statham (5'9"). The director Paul Feig, on the right, is also slightly shorter than her, only 6'0", but he seems taller in the photo. My guess is that he wore shoes with high heels because he felt intimidated.

The film briefly shows a classified CIA document about Rayna Boyanov's dating habits and sexual preferences. Here's a full transcript of the document.

Memorandum on Rayna Boyanov's Dating Habits

Ms. Boyanov has a habit of engaging in sexual congress with a number of celebrities and political figures along with a cornucopia of underworld elite. The former groups are disconcerting. Great effort must be taken to verify the complicity or lack therof of these partners in her criminal activities. With intimate access to luminaries, both men and women, one can assume that at the least she has garnered intelligence and at the worst embroiled these prominent figures in her schemes.

It is also worthy of note that many of her sexual partners suffer injuries as she is a violent and cruel lover. She regularly engages in sadistic dominatrix behavior, both dishing out pain as well as receiving it - often in an embarrassing fashion. We can presume that this not only pleases her, but provides blackmail fodder.

Agents should be directed to covertly discover as much as they can about Boyanov's past and current relationships. When necessary and feasible, agents should engage as many of her past partners as possible in an effort to determine what secrets or level of indoctrinations to which they have fallen both victim and prey.

Boyanov is reputed to be a fan of various fringe sex acts including Dirty Sanchez, Angry Pirate, Hot Lunch, Angry Dragon and her favorite - the Rusty Trombone.

---

If you don't know what these sexual acts are you're not alone. I had to do a web search as well. I've lived a sheltered life. Even after reading what they are I have no wish to indulge.

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

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (4½ Stars)

In 2000 "Charlie's Angels" earned $264 million at the box office, making it the 12th highest earning film of the year. Since the film was so successful a sequel had to be made. In 2003 "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" earned $259 million at the box office, making it the 12th highest earning film of the year. This was considered a flop, so no third film was made. Am I missing something? Do the studios make such a fuss over a measly $5 million? The film made a profit anyway, even without including the DVD sales.

The same three Angels return as in the first film, Dylan, Natalie and Alex. Before you say that's nothing special, remember that in the original TV series there were four different line-ups in five years. The only thing that remained consistent was that there were always three Angels, so as soon as someone left a replacement was hired.

On the other hand, this film has a new Bosley, who is presented as an inexperienced newcomer. In the first film Bill Murray plays John Bosley, in the second film Bernie Mac plays Jimmy Bosley. I wonder if they're supposed to be related. Whatever the case is, the Angels are two much for Jimmy to handle. He quickly covers his lap when the girls snuggle up to him on the couch. He has to remain professional.

If the Angels are too much for Jimmy Boswell to handle he has to look for love outside of the office. It looks like Melissa McCarthy is more his type. His eyes are all over her, and she likes it. I wish there had been a third film to show us how their relationship develops.

The Angels are always ready for action, with or without clothes. Judging by her stare Alex isn't very happy with Natalie. She's probably thinking, "Why didn't you tell us it would be so cold?"

I've given this film the same rating as the first film, but if anything it's slightly better. The action is goofy and over-the-top, comparable with the Roger Moore James Bond films. I say this as praise, not criticism. The three Angels are larger-than-life superwomen. They pick a fight with 50 soldiers, and the soldiers don't stand a chance. This is true female empowerment. There should be a continuing franchise of Charlie's Angels films. There's no need for the actresses to commit themselves on a long term basis, the rota can change any time. I'd like to see a new Charlie's Angels film every year. Wouldn't you?

"Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" has only been released on DVD in England and America. In Germany it's available on Blu-ray. The default language for the film is English, and even the disc menu is in English, so if you prefer to watch films in high definition order it from Amazon.de using the link below.

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

Charlie's Angels (4 Stars)

I love this film. It's based on the TV series with the same name, but it goes much further in style and action. It was difficult for me to accept the original Angels from the 1970's as independent women. They seemed to be Charlie's puppets. The new Angels, played by Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu and Cameron Diaz, might still work for Charlie, but they're powerful women in their own right. They do their job because it's what they want to do, and they have fun every step of the way.

The only caveat I have is the personal relationships of the Angels: Dylan (Drew Barrymore) with Chad, Alex (Lucy Liu) with Jason, and Natalie (Cameron Diaz) with Pete. These men are so far below their levels, both intellectually and emotionally, that it's difficult to see why they bother with them. Dylan is even weak enough to fall for the charms of the bad guy. In today's society there's a lot of talk about women being strong and independent, but you don't see what a woman is really like by looking at her at work. You have to look at her at home, in her relationship with her husband or boyfriend, if she has one. If she wants a man she'll have a strong man in her life who takes a subordinate role to her. She won't be happy with a wimp (like the three Angels) or a macho who'll attempt to rule over her.

I'm not in favour of women's equality. I never have been. Women are superior by nature, so they can only become equal by lowering themselves to man's level. This isn't just about domination and sex games. This is about the woman's whole life. She should make the decisions about what car to buy, where to go on holiday, which school the children go to, and all the other small choices made in day to day married life. That doesn't mean the man should go unheard. He can tell his wife his opinions and offer arguments to support them if he disagrees with her. Maybe he'll convince his wife and she'll change her mind, but the important thing is that she makes all the decisions in family life.

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

Ghostbusters [2016 version] (4½ Stars)

This is a film that was 32 years in the making. It's a remake of the 1984 Ghostbusters film, and it easily exceeds it in quality. That's not just because of the better special effects available today. It's the portrayal of four powerful women saving the world. None of the four are portrayed as sexual objects, so there can be no claims that they've been objectified as women. Three of the four are academics with a doctor title, while the fourth is a giant who would intimidate most men by her size alone. And yet the women are still sexy, all four of them. They're powerful, intelligent and independent, which is what makes them so sexy. They step into a post-patriarchal world, brandishing their phallic weapons, showing who is calling the shots.

Do men have a place in this new world? Of course. Chris Hemsworth plays their assistant, hired only because of his good looks. He's too stupid to answer the phone, but he's allowed in the office as a sex object. Men can be objectified as well.

I'll write a lot more about this film when I own it on disc. I don't want to give spoilers for a film that is still being shown in cinemas. All I'll say is that the film has more after-credits sequences than any other film I've ever seen. It even has a post-credits karaoke sequence for the audience to sing the Ghostbusters theme song. Unfortunately I was the only person singing in today's audience. Germans are far too reserved!

What also impressed me is that the audience wasn't forced to sit in boredom while waiting for the post credits scenes, which is what happens in every Marvel film. Throughout the credits things were happening either at the side or in the middle of the screen. Chris Hemsworth's dance was so amazing that I hope it'll be included as a Blu-ray extra, a clean version without the names of the cast and crew rolling over the picture.

This is a ticket to remember. It's my first cinema ticket since returning to Germany. I'm sorry the photo is so blurred. I can't figure out how to take a photo without a flash on my old mobile phone which I've just started using again after four years. I can turn the flash off as often as I want, but when I take the photo it turns itself back on. Verfluchte Technik!

Central Intelligence (3½ Stars)

Dwayne Johnson, better known as The Rock, is one of the biggest action stars in Hollywood today. After a short but successful wrestling career he made the step into acting in 2001 to play the Scorpion King in "The Mummy Returns". After that he played the title role in "The Scorpion King" in 2003. Although this film was a big box office success, I found it dull, and The Rock's acting seemed wooden to me. (I can't help calling him The Rock). That's one of the main reasons I criticised him in my review of "The Mummy Returns" three years ago. At the moment I don't know how to judge him. He put on a poor performance in "Hercules", but his acting in "Fast & Furious 7" was impressive, and in last year's blockbuster "San Andreas" he was nothing less than amazing.

Now he's turned his hand to comedy. He plays Bob Stone, a boy who was bullied in school because he was fat. The only boy who stood up for him was Calvin Joyner, the school's most successful student, and the one voted most likely to succeed, But votes in school don't mean much. 20 years later Calvin has a boring job as an accountant. Bob has made something of his life. He has worked out every day, shedding his fat and building up muscle. He's joined the CIA, but he's been given the blame for the death of his partner and his bosses think he's gone rogue. Bob has nowhere to go to, so he turns to Calvin, who he hasn't seen since graduation day.

This is where it gets very uncomfortable. Bob acts like a stalker. In fact, he is a stalker, because he knows all about Calvin's life. As a CIA agent he has access to secret knowledge. Calvin gets caught up in the battle between Bob and his former CIA bosses.

It's an outstanding comedy, despite the inherent creepiness of The Rock's character. He's a gentle giant, a tough fighter who is vulnerable inside. Kevin Hart, who plays Calvin Joyner, is a brilliantly funny comedian.

In 2003 The Rock announced his retirement from wrestling to dedicate himself to acting. He's returned to the ring occasionally for guest appearances, but he's no longer a full time wrestler. In 2003 he also added a quite spectacular tattoo to his body. Even as someone who doesn't like tattoos I have to appreciate it as a work of art. At the time the tattoo was criticised as a hindrance to his acting career. I can understand that. It's more difficult for actors with tattoos to find work. Why did he do it?

It's part of his culture. He's mixed race, having a black Canadian father and a Samoan mother, but he feels most attached to his Samoan heritage. It's a custom for Samoans to have a tattoo that tells their life story. The tattoo was custom designed by the tattoo artist, based on the description The Rock gave of himself.

This photo shows the tattoo's template. The Rock is proud of it as part of his heritage. It's who he is, so questions of difficulty acting didn't come into his head. And if the tattoo really is unwelcome in a film there are make-up women who know how to hide it.