Showing posts with label Michael Douglas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Douglas. Show all posts

Wednesday, 18 February 2026

Falling Down (5 Stars)


Joel Schumacher's Falling Down is usually remembered for Michael Douglas's volcanic turn as D-Fens; yet the film's moral and emotional centre lies elsewhere. It belongs to Robert Duvall, whose portrayal of Sergeant Martin Prendergast gives the film its conscience, its melancholy and, ultimately, its quiet hope.

Duvall plays Prendergast as a man on the brink of retirement, shuffled off to desk duty after a traumatic shooting. In lesser hands the character might have been a stock weary cop counting the days; Duvall instead builds him from small, almost invisible gestures. His voice is soft, nearly apologetic; his posture slightly stooped; his gaze observant rather than commanding. Where D-Fens explodes outward, Prendergast absorbs. The performance is reactive, patient, almost recessive, and that restraint becomes its power.

From the outset, Prendergast is framed as diminished. At work he is patronised by colleagues; at home he is dominated by a fragile, manipulative wife who infantilises him. Duvall resists caricature here. He does not play Prendergast as weak; he plays him as cautious, a man who has learned that force has consequences. The backstory of the mistaken shooting hangs over him like a moral wound. Every decision is filtered through that guilt.

As the narrative intercuts between D-Fens's rampage and Prendergast's investigation, a subtle inversion takes shape. D-Fens believes he is reclaiming agency in a world that has wronged him; Prendergast appears to have relinquished his. Yet scene by scene, Duvall charts a quiet reclamation. The more clearly Prendergast understands the psychology of the suspect, the more he begins to trust his own instincts again. The detective work becomes an existential process.

Duvall excels in moments of understatement: a pause before contradicting a superior; a slight tightening of the jaw when his wife's anxiety spirals; the calm insistence with which he pieces together D-Fens's path across Los Angeles. He never overplays the character's intelligence; it simply accumulates. By the time Prendergast realises he is the only officer truly grasping the situation, the audience recognises that authority has shifted to him almost imperceptibly.

The climax crystallises the arc. Confronting D-Fens, Prendergast does not meet rage with rage. He meets it with clarity. The famous exchange, in which D-Fens begins to see himself not as a righteous avenger but as the villain of the piece, lands because Duvall underplays it. There is no triumphant flourish, only a steady moral gaze. In that moment, Prendergast completes his journey from self-doubt to moral certainty.

What makes the arc satisfying is that it is not about heroism in the conventional sense. Prendergast does not rediscover bravado; he rediscovers judgement. His retirement becomes less an escape than a choice made on his own terms. The man who began the film overshadowed by louder personalities ends it as the figure who restores order, both externally and internally.

In a film often read as a lightning rod for cultural grievance, Duvall provides ballast. His performance anchors the story in empathy and responsibility. If Douglas supplies the fire, Duvall supplies the gravity; and it is gravity, in the end, that gives Falling Down its enduring weight.

Success Rate:  + 1.8

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

Friday, 20 September 2024

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (4 Stars)


I've heard criticism of this film for its reliance on CGI, to which I reply, "How else could it have been made?" It takes place in the Quantum Realm, a kingdom that's full of surreal scenery and incredible looking characters. There are walking buildings. Any attempt to make the film without CGI would have looked ridiculous. I'd have to give you a dozen screenshots to prove that the imagery is far more extreme than anything "Star Wars" has ever done.


Jonathan Majors appears in the film not only as Kang the Conqueror, but also as Immortus and Rama-Tut. He's an amazing actor. He was fired by Marvel because he assaulted his partner in real life. That's unfortunate. Personally, I don't think off-screen misdemeanours should be a reason for removing a competent actor. It's a typical American thing. If Kang returns in future films he'll be played by a new character. Now we see how the Marvel Cinematic Universe has blundered. In the original comics he always wore a mask. This would make it easy to replace the actor.


This is what he looked like when he first appeared in Avengers #8 (September 1964).

It's not just about Kang. Does Ant-Man have a future in the MCU? Nothing is certain. The actors are getting older. If the fourth Ant-Man film isn't made soon, will it ever be made? The only eternal Marvel actor is Hugh Jackman. As we heard in "Deadpool & Wolverine", "Fox killed him. Disney brought him back. They're gonna make him do this till he's 90". He'll need a lot of stunt men to last that long.

"Quantumania" is a good film, though not up to the level of the early MCU films. It's worth watching. It's much better than "The Marvels".

Success Rate:  + 0.4

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

Wednesday, 13 December 2023

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (4 Stars)



I realised yesterday that I hardly remembered "Quantumania" (I prefer to shorten the title), even though it's only 10 months since I watched it in the cinema. I could only remember that Kang is in it. "Quantumania" is usually mentioned in the same breath as "The Marvels" as one of Marvel's big flops. On checking the box office figures I found that it's not a flop, it made a small profit, but it's a disappointment compared to the expectations Marvel Studios had for it.

The first impression I had on watching the film today is the excess of CGI. There's even more CGI than in "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness". Is it excusable? Just about. The film takes place in the Quantum Realm, a world that would be difficult to be shown without the use of computer graphics.

As the film progressed, it was obvious to me that it's in a completely category to "The Marvels". The two films shouldn't be lumped together, because "Quantumania" has a good story. Both films performed badly at the box office, but for different reasons. "The Marvels" has a confusing, poorly written story, whereas Quantumania's (relative) failure was the result of Marvel fatigue. There have been too many Marvel films in a short period of time, and fans want something new. My personal criticism of Marvel's current films is that they're too samey. They all revolve around cosmic events. If you look back at Marvel's comics in their glory days there was a great variety of themes. There were mind-bending cosmic stories, but there were also down-to-earth comics like Daredevil, a man facing criminals in New York. We need films like that. It shouldn't all be about the Multiverse.

But "Quantumania" is a well written Multiverse story. Kang is a character who co-exists in many branches of the Multiverse. The Kangs have teamed together to rule over the Multiverse, but one rebel Kang thinks they're doing wrong, so he fought against them and lost. They exiled him by sending his ship into the Quantum Realm. When Janet Van Dyne was trapped in the Quantum Realm she witnessed Kang's ship crashing and saved his life. Together they worked on repairing his ship to get both of them out of the Quantum Realm, but Janet realised he was evil – a monster – and sabotaged the ship. Unable to escape, Kang built an empire in the Quantum Realm, while Janet led the resistance against him.

Janet was rescued from the Quantum Realm in "Ant-Man and the Wasp". Scott Lang's daughter Cassie has now built a device to remotely explore the Quantum Realm, but Kang detects the signal and sucks Cassie, Scott, Janet and Hank Pym into the Realm. He wants their help in repairing his ship.

It's a very good story. Unlike the previous Ant-Man film, the humour is kept to a minimum. That makes it a better film. Once you suspend disbelief it's a thrilling action film. It deserved more success at the box office, but what could it do against Marvel fatigue? Maybe it's time to call it a day and reboot the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Success Rate:  + 0.4

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

Saturday, 24 June 2023

Avengers: Endgame (5 Stars)



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

Monday, 27 February 2023

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (3 Stars)


I'm writing this review with a heavy heart. After the last few disappointing films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), I expected "Quantumania" to turn things around. After all, the last two Ant-Man films were brilliant. I was excited as soon as I saw the posters hanging at my local cinema. Strangely, no trailers were shown in the months leading up to the release.


It's interesting to see Kang the Conqueror appear in the Quantum Realm. It's a strange place to find him, but the story is that he's been exiled by the other multiversal Kangs who consider him a threat. Couldn't they just have killed him? They should have known that any of their alternate selves would be ingenious enough to escape. Kang's skin colour is wrong, but racial mistakes are something I've grown used to in Marvel films. It's more important to have racial diversity than to make good films.

Kang's history is confused, even in the comics, due to different writers adding their own details over the years. When Kang first appeared in Avengers #8 he was a super-villain from the future. He was born in the 30th Century, but he travelled into the past to become the pharaoh Rama-Tut, and then he travelled to the 40th Century, where he conquered the Earth. He became obsessed with wanting to conquer Earth in the 20th Century, foolishly forgetting the temporal paradoxes that would happen if he succeeded. Even so, as future writers showed us, every time he travelled into the past he made changes that created new branches in the timelines; i.e. Kang himself became the creator of most of the alternate universes in the multiverse.


The Kangs from different branches of the multiverse came together to form a council. Some of the Kangs are considered inferior and destroyed. Kang in the MCU is being built up to be a big bad villain more powerful than Thanos. That makes me groan. In the comics Thanos is more powerful than Kang even without the Infinity Gauntlet. It's a problem that the MCU has to deal with. Now that Thanos is gone, a bigger threat is needed to keep the viewers entertained. Then a bigger threat, and an even bigger threat, etc. The MCU can't return to simple villains like Doctor Octopus and the Kingpin. I was annoyed that the Loki TV series belittled the infinity gems, saying that the Time Variance Authority used them as paperweights. 


And what about MODOK? He's a perfect example of the MCU's mix and match approach to making films. He was shown in Tales of Suspense #94 as the leader of AIM. The MCU has made him Kang's creation. I'm clenching my fists in rage.

The Quantum Realm is the name given to the Marvel Comics microverse, where the ruler is the Psycho-Man. Okay, I admit that he has a silly name. I've never claimed that Marvel Comics were perfect, and even the great Stan Lee had his off days. Sometimes he didn't think far enough about the logical consequences of his stories. Writers in the following decades tried to make changes to correct his errors, but they usually made things worse.

"Quantumania" isn't the MCU's worst film. That honour is reserved for "The Eternals". But it's the MCU film that has disappointed me the most. It could have been so good, but the end result is average at best. I doubt the MCU will ever get any better.

Sunday, 8 January 2023

Basic Instinct (5 Stars)


There's something that I've told my friends in person, but I haven't mentioned it in my blog. I find smoking so revolting that I penalise films that show the main characters with cigarettes in their mouths. If there's just brief smoking I deduct half a star from the rating the film would otherwise have received, but if there's a lot of smoking I deduct a whole star.

"Basic Instinct" is an exception. The film contains smoking, but I accept it because the cigarettes are essential to the plot. The film has been criticised for glamorising smoking, but I don't see it that way. Smoking is portrayed as a vice, and when Detective Nick Curran begins to smoke again after three months without cigarettes, it's a part of his steady decline.

I'm going to see "Basic Instinct" in the cinema next month, the first time I've seen it on the big screen. I'm already excited to see it. The best films really need to be seen on a large cinema screen.

Success Rate:  + 5.2

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

P. S. Can anyone explain to me why "Basic Instinct" is out of print in America? It's possible to order imported copies from Amazon, but you won't find it in any high street stores. Is it America's prudishness?

Saturday, 1 October 2022

Wonder Boys (3 Stars)


Michael Douglas plays Grady Tripp, a literature professor who's struggling to finish his latest novel. It's not writer's block, it's the exact opposite. He can't stop writing. He's written over 2600 pages, and he can't find a way to end the story.

The film follows Professor Tripp's interactions with four people in his life. He's having an affair with Sara, the head of the English department's wife. He's renting a room to his student Hannah, who has a crush on him. He's close friends with James, a student who has a natural talent for writing and has just finished his first book. His publisher Terry Crabtree is visiting him from New York to encourage him to finish his book.

The narrative is non-linear, with random events happening in quick succession. I don't like this sort of film, but evidently the critics do. It was nominated for three Academy Awards, but it was a box office failure. As usual, I take the side of the fans, not the critics.

Success Rate:  - 1.6

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

Sunday, 26 June 2022

Basic Instinct (5 Stars)


This is an incredible film, so good that I've watched it six times since 2010, including twice last year. That also means that I've written all I can about it. Read one of my old reviews. You can find them listed in my alphabetical list of posts.

Success Rate:  + 5.2

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

Monday, 5 July 2021

Basic Instinct (5 Stars)


I watched "Basic Instinct" two months ago as one of my top 100 films, but I thought I'd return to it today to listen to the film commentary by Camille Paglia. It's very rare for me to listen to a film commentary more than once, but this is an excellent commentary, judging the film from a feminist perspective. It's been about 12 years since I listened to the commentary, so I only remembered the main points, not the details.

Camille Paglia is the Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia. She's an expert on the films of Alfred Hitchcock, and she draws many comparisons with Hitchcock's films, especially "Vertigo". She sees a connection between Sharon Stone and the blondes in Hitchcock's films.


Paglia describes the police station as a boys club. With the exception of Elizabeth Garner, the police psychologist, we only see men. Among themselves the men feel strong. They invite Catherine Tramell into the station for interrogation. They seek to intimidate her by facing her five on one in the interrogation room. Within minutes the tables are turned. Catherine's sexual openness in her answers, combined with the exposure of naked flesh, intimidates the men. 


Catherine Tramell's body language proclaims her self-confidence. One of the most powerful strategies of a woman is to give overt sexual signs to a man when he's not in a position to answer them. This drives men into a state of frenzy. They desperately try to remain calm and do their job, but they end up shrinking away in fear. Catherine Tramell has emasculated the male horde facing her.


Catherine's main target is Detective Nick Curran. She's writing a book about a detective who falls in love with the wrong woman and ends up being killed by her. It's a cat and mouse game. Catherine lures Nick with her sexual wiles. She gives him glimpses of her naked body while she's a murder suspect. He can't stay away from her, even though he knows she could kill him at any moment. He willingly lets her tie him to the bed, even though she's suspected of having killed the last man she tied to a bed. This proves the words in Valerie Solanas' Scum Manifesto: "The male likes death. It excites him sexually and he wants to die".


When "Basic Instinct" was released in 1992 there were mass protests throughout America. It was claimed that the film shows feminists and lesbians in a bad light. I have difficulty understanding this, and Camille Paglia definitely disagrees. Sharon Stone portrays Catherine as a feminist icon. She's responsible for at least four deaths, but Paglia never calls her evil. She compares her with a pagan Goddess. If men like Nick come to her and beg to be killed, she's doing them a kindness by ending their lives. In ancient pagan temples it was common for men to offer themselves as sacrifices to a priestess.

The film ends with uncertainty. Catherine Tramell spares Nick's life, but she can kill him any time she wants.

Success Rate:  + 5.2

Wednesday, 26 May 2021

Basic Instinct (5 Stars)



Has it really been six years since I last watched "Basic Instinct"? Wow! I shouldn't have waited so long.

The Coronavirus has ravaged the film industry. Cinemas have closed for months on end, and films that should have been made last year are still stalled because of the danger of infection. It's a tragedy. Even when/if the virus has been defeated, the film industry will never return to the way it used to be. However, I thought about something yesterday while I was standing in front of my bookcases looking at my film collection: even if no films are ever made again, I have enough first class films on disc to watch and enjoy for the rest of my life. Why do I need something new?

I have the habit of calling films made since 1996 new films and films made before 1996 old films. That's not completely arbitrary. 1996 is the year when the first DVDs were sold. That doesn't mean that the production quality of films suddenly became better in this year. There were excellent films in the 1980's and poor films in the 2000's. All I'm saying is that from 1996 on films were made taking into account that more people would watch them on high quality discs at home than on a cinema screen.

By that definition, "Basic Instinct" is an old film, since it was made in 1992. It's an incredible film, one of the first erotic thrillers, and still the best erotic thriller ever made. It's a film that's loved for the wrong reasons and hated for the wrong reasons. It's infamous for giving a glimpse of Sharon Stone's naked vulva when she uncrosses her legs. Some people criticise this for exploiting a woman, but they just don't get it. It has to be seen in context. Sharon Stone plays Catherine Tramell, a powerful, self-confident woman. She's sitting in a police interrogation room facing four policemen and an assistant district attorney. This would intimidate any other woman, but not Catherine. She's already revealing a lot of leg in a short dress, keeping the men's minds off their work, but she gives the men a slow, deliberate flash in the middle of the questioning. I almost feel sorry for the men. They're sitting red-faced with embarrassment, trying to hide their erections while Catherine mischievously grins at them. She's turned the tables.


Power.

It's all about power.

Female power.

The film isn't really about sex. There's a lot of sexual interaction, but sex is merely a tool used by Catherine Tramall to remain in control. She flirts with the men around her, teasing them, intimidating them. Her main focus is the detective Nick Curran, played by Michael Douglas. Reading between the lines we can assume that she's had him in her sights for years, long before she commits the murder that he's investigating. She seduces him, but that isn't enough for her. She puts him in a situation where he thinks she's about to kill him. She wants to terrify him to keep him under her control.


Later in the film Nick tells Catherine he's in love with her. He isn't. It's pure lust, but by this point Nick is so mixed up that he can't tell the difference. Catherine is manipulating him, and he doesn't even notice.

The film is currently out of print in most countries, but I've read that a new remastered version will be released next month. The new Blu-ray should include the excellent commentary by the feminist critic Camille Paglia, which was only included on the DVD releases until now.

Success Rate:  + 5.2

Monday, 19 April 2021

Falling Down (5 Stars)



Two days ago I praised "Adaptation" for being the most intelligent film ever made. "Falling Down" is another very intelligent film, though in a different way. It's not a complex film, but it has a lot of subtleties which may not be apparent without repeated viewing.

I first saw the film in 2000 while I was in hospital. I was sitting in the television room with other patients, and one of the patients (Darren) had the film on videotape. He said that it was a funny film, and he laughed repeatedly while it was being played. I didn't find the film very funny, but after watching it a few times I can see how some people might find it amusing. How can a normal, everyday man who just wants to visit his daughter on her birthday turn into a mean killing machine? He's not even armed when he leaves home, but his arsenal is steadily upgraded en route: first a baseball bat, then a switchblade, then a bag full of machine guns, and finally a heat seeking missile. That's funny.

This is a film that I'd like to discuss with others, preferably in a group. I'd stand up to defend Bill Foster. I don't think he's a bad man. All he wants is to see his daughter on her birthday. The pressure of the big city turns him into the bad guy, even though he only wants to do good. That's his role in the film, but it's thrust upon him. "Flowers of War" shows how a bad man can rise to become a hero, whereas "Falling Down" shows how a good man can descend to become a villain. That's how I see the film. Do you agree?

The real bad person in the film his his ex-wife Beth. She forbids him to see his daughter. She complains that Bill doesn't pay child support, but she hasn't bothered to find out that Bill is unemployed. She's filed a restraining order because Bill might become aggressive, but she admits herself that he's never hit her. That reminds me of my mother. She left my father after 24 years of marriage for another man. 30 years later she told me, "Your father never hit me, but I was scared of him because he could have hit me at any time". That was absolute rubbish. If a man doesn't hit his wife for 24 years, why should she expect him to start? My mother was just making up stories to excuse her adultery.


At the end of the film Bill has no weapons left. He stands unarmed facing a police sergeant with a gun. He realises he's become the bad guy, and he doesn't want to be sent to prison in this role. He takes the only way out that he can: suicide by cop. He pretends to have a gun to make the sergeant shoot him. That's sad, but it's the noblest way he can find to die.

I said this is an intelligent film. It's the contrast between the character arcs of the two main characters. While Bill is falling down, the sergeant is rising up. He begins the film as a weak, hen-pecked husband, giving up the job he loves for the sake of his wife. He ends as a determined policeman who wants to be a credit to the force.

Success Rate:  + 1.8

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

Thursday, 25 June 2020

Falling Down (5 Stars)


This is the second film I've watched this week in remembrance of Joel Schumacher, who died three days ago on 22nd June. This is the film I'll always remember him for. I just checked my (provisional) list of my top 100 films, and it's in the top 20. I shan't specify the exact place, in case I change my mind before I publish the full list.


Today is the first time I noticed the street signs above Bill Foster's head. When I watched the film in the past the name wasn't so relevant.


The film's casting is perfect, right down to minor characters, including Karina Arroyave as Angie.


The film's real hero is Robert Duvall as Sergeant Prendergast. Or is he? That depends on how you interpret the motivation of Bill Foster. He's obviously sick, he obviously needs help, but is he a killer? Prendergast thinks that he intends to kill his wife and daughter, but I disagree. Today is the first time that I listened to Michael Douglas' interview on the Blu-ray disc, and he agrees with me. He says that Bill Foster wouldn't have killed them.

The whole film is based on a series of tragic misunderstandings. Why did Bill's wife divorce him? She says that she thought he might become violent, but when questioned she admits that he never hit her. If she'd understood his problems better she could have helped him instead of sending him away.


I admit, it's easy to misunderstand Bill. In the fast food restaurant everyone thinks Bill wants to kill them, even though he means them no harm. Looking at him, I can understand their mistake.

The film has such power, from beginning to end. It doesn't let up for a minute. I'll finish by quoting Roger Ebert, one of the few film critics who fully understood the film:

"Some will find it racist, because the targets of the film's hero are African-American, Latino and Korean, with a few whites thrown in for balance. This is a facile reading of the film, which is actually about a great sadness which turns into madness, and which can afflict anyone who is told, after many years of hard work, that he is unnecessary and irrelevant. What is fascinating about the Douglas character, as written and played, is the core of sadness in his soul. Yes, by the time we meet him he has gone over the edge. But there is no exhilaration in his rampage, no release. He seems weary and confused, and in his actions he unconsciously follows scripts that he may have learned from the movies, or on the news, where other frustrated misfits vent their rage on innocent bystanders".

Success Rate:  + 1.8

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

P.S. I survived the Countdown app that I installed yesterday. I should have died in my sleep, but I woke up this morning, and the counter was down to zero. I uninstalled the app, confident that Ozhin has been defeated.

Wednesday, 29 January 2020

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

Saturday, 25 January 2020

Ant-Man and the Wasp (5 Stars)


Together with "Captain Marvel", this is one of two Marvel Cinematic Universe films that were released between "Avengers Infinity War" and "Avengers Endgame". With the exception of the mid-credits scene, "Captain Marvel" takes place 30 years before "Infinity War", but "Ant-Man and the Wasp" takes place at the same time as "Infinity War".

I picked the two films that I watched today without remembering that Laurence Fishburne appears in both of them.


In "John Wick 3" he plays the King of the Bowery, the man who runs an empire with the help of carrier pigeons.


In "Ant-Man and the Wasp" he plays Bill Foster, a university professor who used to be an employee of Hank Pym. He claims that he was Hank Pym's partner, but that obviously isn't the case, because he was fired.


That's Laurence Fishburne as well. Sort of.


Wait! Is that Kim Jong-Un? I recognise him, even when he has a good hair style.


Who's that man getting into his car? That's a silly question. Everyone recognises him.


Abby Ryder Fortson, who plays Scott Lang's daughter Cassie, is a magnificent actress. Her talent is astounding, considering she was only ten years old when the film was made.


She already appeared in the same role in "Ant-Man", three years earlier, but she won't be returning to the role in future MCU films. Due to the time jump in "Avengers Endgame" she had to be replaced by an older actress. That's a shame.


In this film Janet Van Dyne, played by Michelle Pfeiffer, is a brilliant scientist. In the comics she was an air-headed debutante who was more interested in fashion than science. I wish they wouldn't change things.

I'm a big Marvel fan, ever since my early childhood. I read the comics regularly, and I know that I'll keep watching the films again. Nuff said!

Success Rate:  + 1.8

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