Next Goal Wins (4 Stars)

"Next Goal Wins" is a hilarious true film about Thomas Rongen, a Dutch coach who's sent to train the national team of American Samoa, which was ranked the weakest football team in the world. At the time he began his job, American Samoa had never scored a goal in international games. The qualifying games for the 2014 World Cup were about to begin, and he would be deemed a success if American Samoa managed to score at least one goal. Nobody seriously expected them to win a match.

The film shows Rongen being disheartened. The players are unfit and unmotivated. It's an uphill battle to get them to take their games seriously. To be fair, American Samoa is a country with less than 50,000 inhabitants, so the pool of available players was less than any amateur football team in a small European town.

Did they manage to score a goal? Watch the film yourself to find out.

Success Rate:  - 0.7

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

Next Goal Wins (4 Stars)

I don't often watch sports films, especially not in the cinema. "Next Goal Wins" is an exception for one reason: it was directed by Taika Waititi. I can trust his films to be first class comedies. His films are even funny when they shouldn't be funny, such as "Thor Love and Thunder". Marvel films would be better without humour, but hiring Taika as director made it obvious the film would be a comedy.

Can a true story be a comedy? Yes, as "Next Goal Wins" proves. After losing 31:0 to Australia, the national team of American Samoa was considered to be the world's worst football team. A standing joke in the film is that the Football Federation of American Samoa is abbreviated to FFAS, which is pronounced "farce". They're determined to qualify for the 2014 World Cup, so they hire an American football coach, a Dutchman who's been fired from his previous coaching jobs for constantly losing his temper. They soon have to lower their aims, and they say that they'll be happy if they score at least one goal in the qualifying rounds.

A lot of the film's humour concerns the coach's arrival on a small island. Everyone knows him. The population is only 47,000. There's no reception for his mobile phone, so he's forced to use a landline. Another comic element is the fact that the team's captain is transgender. He/she is technically still classed as male, but he's undergoing hormone treatment to become fully female. The trouble is that when he becomes too female, he'll no longer be eligible to play in a men's team.

The film has had mixed reception from critics, but I like it. It starts slowly, but it becomes funnier and funnier as it continues.

Alien: Covenant (3½ Stars)

Disney Wednesday #17

Today I carried out a little experiment. I watched this film without the sound and relied on the subtitles for "the deaf and hard of hearing". After the first half hour I grew used to it, but there were still things that I missed by pretending to be deaf. There's a scene where the android Walter is learning how to play a flute. There was no way for me to experience his rapid improvement from random sounds to skilled playing.

I'm glad I'm not deaf. If I ever became unable to hear, it would spoil my enjoyment of films.

Success Rate:  + 0.5

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

Inglourious Basterds (5 Stars)

Netflix Thursday #14

I warned you that I'd be watching Netflix more often while I'm on holiday. That includes films like "Inglourious Basterds", which I have on Blu-ray at home.

In a recent interview Quentin Tarantino named six films which he considers to be perfect. The films, in the order he named them, are:

• "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (1974)
• "Jaws" (1975)
• "The Exorcist" (1973)
• "Annie Hall" (1977)
• "Young Frankenstein" (1974)
• "Back to the Future" (1985)

That's an interesting list. I've seen all the films except for "Annie Hall", but I've only reviewed "Jaws" and "Young Frankenstein" in my blog. I ought to watch all of the films in a row to see what he means. He claims the films are technically perfect, regardless of a person's personal tastes. That's difficult for me. My reviews are subjective, and I don't think I'm able to make an objective decision whether a film is perfect. I'll do my best.

Quentin should have added one more film to the list: "Inglourious Basterds". Maybe he was too modest to name one of his own films. The film's chapters are a series of vignettes, each of which can be judged on its own merits. Each vignette is perfect. If anything is imperfect, I'd like to hear Quentin himself tell me what's wrong with it.

Success Rate:  + 2.6

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

Inglourious Basterds (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #24

This film should be called "How the War should have been won". It's the first film in which Quentin Tarantino rewrote history. It's a fictional film, but it features authentic historical characters, such as Adolf Hitler. The film shows Hitler dying in France in 1944, a year before his real world death. Tarantino's most recent film, "Once upon a time in Hollywood", also rewrites history by showing Sharon Tate survive the attack by the Manson Family.

So who kills Hitler? It's a joint effort. There are two plots running in parallel. One is the fighting group called the Bastards, eight Jewish soldiers led by Aldo the Apache (Brad Pitt). It's Aldo's right hand man Donny Donowitz (Eli Roth) who fires the bullets that kill Hitler. When you look at his face it seems like he isn't just acting, he's really enjoying killing Hitler. But Hitler wouldn't have survived anyway. He's locked in a cinema that's being burnt down by Emmanuelle Mimieux, the cinema's owner who's secretly Jewish. Aldo's Bastards and Emmanuelle don't meet, and they aren't even aware of one another's existence.

As I've mentioned many times before, I consider the opening scene in a French farmhouse to be the best scene ever filmed. It's perfect. It's slow and intense with seemingly harmless conversation between the French dairy farmer and the SS officer Hans Landa. In fact, the whole film moves slowly, and there are only occasional short bursts of action.

This is a film I can watch again and again and never get bored. The same is true of all of Quentin Tarantino's films. If you haven't watched it yet, what are you waiting for? Please don't shy away from it with excuses like "I don't like war films". This isn't a normal war film, which should be obvious as soon as the background music begins. The music sounds like it comes directly from a spaghetti western.

Success Rate:  + 2.6

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

X-Men: Dark Phoenix (4 Stars)

I gave this film five stars when I watched it in the cinema two years ago. That was too much. It's not as good as "First Class" or "Days of Future Past". 

I'm not sure whether the last four X-Men films are consistent with one another concerning Jean Grey's timeline. I suspect there's an error with her being eight years old in 1975, but I'll need to rewatch the films in order to check for errors. Some people call the films starting with "First Class" a reboot, but that's not correct. It's telling stories in the past that lead up to the events of the initial X-Men trilogy. Of course, the events of "Days of Future Past" rewrote the timeline, so the events of "X-Men 3" never happened. That's the film in which we first saw Jean Grey become Dark Phoenix. Now it happens again, this time earlier. How many years earlier is unclear. In this film she became Dark Phoenix in 1992. In "X-Men 3" no date is stated, but we can assume it took place round about the time when the film was released, i.e. 2006.

The Dark Phoenix story is told more accurately than in "X-Men 3", although it still deviates significantly from the comic book stories. The Phoenix force in "X-Men 3" was an innate mutant power, but in "Dark Phoenix" it's something that possesses her. In the comics there were actually two stories, the Phoenix Saga (X-Men #101 to #108) and the Dark Phoenix Saga (X-Men #129 to #138). The first saga shows how she received the Phoenix force and used it for good, while the second saga shows how she lost control of the Phoenix force and used it for evil.

I've read that it was originally planned to make two films, a two-part story. That would have been much better and would have done the original stories justice. Sadly, the film studio blocked this. 20th Century Fox was in too much of a hurry to reboot the X-Men, and this was the last film, so it had to round things off. I find it highly unusual to talk about a reboot before a film is made. What are the film studios up to?

There's a hint at the end of the film that Jean Grey has survived, but who cares if the series is going to be rebooted anyway?

Not as many X-Men members are shown as in the previous films, just a team of six members, without Wolverine around to hog the spotlight for himself. This offered a chance for strong character development, but the chance was missed. Apart from Charles Xavier (Professor X) we only spend time with Hank McCoy (Beast). Mystique, Cyclops, Storm, Nightcrawler and Quicksilver are all blank characters. If we hadn't seen the previous films we wouldn't know who they are. An extra 30 minutes running time would have solved the problem.

Success Rate:  - 0.7

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

Steve Jobs (5 Stars)

I chose to watch this film today deliberately. Last week it was on a short list of films that I was considering adding to my top 100 films list. I decided against it and only added "Kick-Ass". I realise now that I made a mistake. "Steve Jobs" is a film that should have been in the list, not at the bottom, but somewhere in the top 50.

I like Michael Fassbender as an actor. I've admired him ever since I first saw him as the fallen angel Azazeal in "Hex". His portrayal of Magneto in the X-Men films is stunning. I've never liked a bad guy so much. He steps up and gives a stunning performance as Steve Jobs in this film. There are probably other actors who look more similar to Steve Jobs in their facial appearance, but Fassbender captures his mannerisms and traits so perfectly that we can believe he really is Steve Jobs before our eyes.

The film is a play in three acts. We see Steve Jobs presenting new products in 1984, 1988 and 1998. We don't see anything of his childhood and very little of his early business years. That isn't the film's intention. It shows his relationship with his daughter and his business colleagues, especially John Sculley and Steve Wozniak. At the three presentations the same characters arrive to speak with him, most of it arguing. The film is well crafted in not demanding any technical knowledge from the viewers. My good friend Emma Roberts refused to see it in the cinema because she said she knew nothing about computers. That was a mistake. She would have enjoyed it as much as me.

As I've pointed out in my previous reviews, the whole film is spent in character development. In a normal film the character development comes first, and then the action. This is a film that doesn't need action. It's a talkie. From the very first scene Steve Jobs is involved in conversations with the people around him. The film is so intense in its lack of action that I had tears in my eyes at the end.

Success Rate:  - 0.9

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

Inglourious Basterds (5 Stars)

The world according to Quentin Tarantino is better than the real world. In Tarantino's world the last thing Hitler saw was the face of a laughing Jewish woman. In the real world he died in or just outside a cold bunker. Tarantino gave him a sexier death. I'd like the last thing I see to be a laughing woman, Jewish or not.

It's a fairy tale, not meant to represent the truth. It opens with the words "Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France". Fairy tales have happy endings. The big bad monster dies, and they don't come bigger or badder than Adolf Hitler.

The film shows two unconnected plots to kill Hitler. The one is a big operation ordered by Winston Churchill, carried out by the Jewish American squadron called the Basterds. The other is a solo effort by a Jewess who wants revenge for the death of her family. I know that Hitler killed six million Jews, but that's just a number. A number on a piece of paper is abstract, it means nothing. What makes it personal is if Hitler and his followers kill just one person that you know, a family member or a friend. That's what spurs revenge. That's what makes Shosanna Dreyfus aka Emanuelle Mimieux laugh.

Hitler's death takes place in a cinema. This is no coincidence. For Quentin Tarantino films are important, and cinemas are important as the place where films are shown. He loves films, and he openly displays his nostalgia for old films.

This was the film that helped Daniel Brühl make his breakthrough into Hollywood. He'd already been a successful German actor for ten years, but this is the film that made him well known internationally.

Martin Wuttke was primarily a stage actor in Germany, but since appearing as Adolf Hitler in "Inglourious Basterds" he's been cast in a string of American films.

Brad Pitt is the film's anti-hero. He's one of the good guys, but he's so mean in carrying out justice that he makes the audience shudder. His aim isn't primarily to win the war, it's to kill Nazis. For him, anybody wearing a German uniform isn't a human being, he's a Nazi, and he has to die. Obviously, this attitude is completely wrong. The vast majority of the German soldiers didn't put on uniforms because they were Nazis, they put on uniforms because they were conscripted. But it's just a film. The characters aren't meant to be perfect.

Christoph Waltz won an Academy Award as Best Supporting Actor, but anyone who's seen the film knows that he was really the Leading Actor. Despite having less screen time, Brad Pitt was named as the Leading Actor for two reasons:

1. He's more famous than Christoph Waltz.

2. Bad guys aren't usually the Leading Actor.

But look... isn't that a foot rising up Christoph Waltz's jacket towards his medals?

Yes, it's Diane Kruger's foot. I promised you that I would point out the bare feet in Quentin Tarantino's films.

Christoph Waltz gets to put a shoe on Diane Kruger's foot. Most actors work for 50 years and never get a chance like that.

Here are both of her feet, one of them in a plaster cast.

Before anyone accuses me of having a foot fetish, no, it isn't true. All I'm doing is acknowledging Quentin Tarantino's foot fetish. I have many fetishes, too many to list, but a foot fetish isn't one of them. I would rather look at Diane Kruger's face than her feet. She's beautiful, isn't she?

I definitely have a Sitting-In-The-Cinema-Watching-A-Laughing-Woman-Telling-Me-I'm-Going-To-Die fetish. That's a good idea for my blog. I should have a Fetish Of The Day feature. All year long!

This is probably Quentin Tarantino's best film. It's difficult to say. Every time I watch it I'm stunned, like I'm watching it for the first time. My definition of a good film is that I want to watch it at least three times. Today I watched "Inglourious Basterds" for the seventh time, and I still want to watch it again. That makes it better than good.

Success Rate:  + 2.6

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

Song To Song (1 Star)

I very rarely give a film a one star rating. For me that's rock bottom, it means that the film has no redeeming qualities. Whenever I see a film I don't like I deliberately search for things I can praise about it. I did that today when I watched "Song To Song".

The film is about love and music. Those are two topics I like. In both cases, the film is about them, but we don't see them. There are big concerts, and we see artists like Iggy Pop, Johnny Rotten and Patti Smith talking backstage, but we don't see them perform. There are couples who say they love one another, but we don't see any passion. It's all so sterile.

But what is the film really about? What does the director want to say? If the film has a message, I can't see it. Supposedly the film's original cut lasted eight hours, but it was shortened to two hours for the theatrical release. Maybe the eight hour version would have explained more. Or maybe it would have been four times as boring.

Despite the abundance of great actors, I sat in front of the screen feeling bored. It's painful to even write about it, so I'll stop here.

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

X-Men: Dark Phoenix (5 Stars)

The original American name of this film is "Dark Phoenix", but in the rest of the world it's called "X-Men: Dark Phoenix", even in other English speaking countries. Usually I prefer to use the original film titles, but in this case I'll make an exception. Naming the X-Men in the film title seems appropriate. Apart from anything else, it will make sure that all the X-Men films are listed together in my alphabetical list of posts.

"Didn't we already have a film about Dark Phoenix?" some people may ask. Yes, we did. "X-Men: The Last Stand" already showed how Jean Grey aka Marvel Girl became the Dark Phoenix. (Was she ever called Marvel Girl in the films?) This film ended with Jean's death, and yet she's back now. Was there a secret reboot somewhere? No, this all happened within the same continuity. In the fifth X-Men film, "Days of Future Past", Wolverine travelled into the past and changed history, meaning that the events of "The Last Stand" never happened, or if they did, they occurred in a parallel universe.

It was an inevitability that Jean Grey should become the Dark Phoenix, and Wolverine's temporal meddling accelerated events. "The Last Stand" took place in the early 21st Century, but "Dark Phoenix" happens in 1992, 10 to 15 years earlier. On a meta-level, the new film is slightly closer to the plot of the the original comics.

There was a lot of politics and negotiations off-screen. Even before "Dark Phoenix" was made, it was decided that it would be the last X-Men film before a reboot of the franchise. That's highly unusual. Normally talk of reboots doesn't start until after a film has been made, usually many years later, but in this case they jumped the gun. It's as if Marvel had lost faith in its own film, not considering it deserving of a sequel.

This uncertainty has rocked the box office. Based on initial box office figures, it looks like it will be the least successful film in the X-Men franchise. My local cinema also didn't seem to expect it to be successful. It's a multiplex, with theatres in four different sizes. Even though "Dark Phoenix" is in its first week, it's being shown in the third largest room. Tonight the largest room was showing "Aladdin", now in its fourth week. The second largest room was showing "John Wick 3", now in its second week. (Films usually start later in Germany than in America). The smallest room was showing "Godzilla: King of the Monsters".

I was aware of the politics and the fact that the film has had bad reviews from the critics, so I feared I would be disappointed. Imagine my surprise when I sat watching the film and realised it was brilliant. How could anyone not like it? It's one of the best films of 2019.

If you haven't seen it yet, don't be put off by the bad reviews or the whining of the critics. If you're a Marvel fan like me, you'll love it.

The Counselor (2 Stars)

I feel so annoyed when I look at the title of this film in my blog. The systematic spelling mistakes made by Americans are an eyesore. Everyone knows that the correct spelling is "Counsellor".

I often remember watching films in the cinema, especially if I was in a special place or with a special person. This is one of the rare cases where I remember not seeing a film in the cinema. The Birmingham Film Group went to see the film, but I was unable to go. I had a cold or some other trivial illness. I said I would go watch it by myself a few days later. The next day I asked my friends, and they were unanimous in their opinion. "Don't go to see it, it's awful". That puzzled me, because it's a film directed by Ridley Scott, and his films aren't awful. He's made some outstanding masterpieces in his life. Nevertheless, I listened to my friends and didn't go. I know them. I know their tastes. There are some that I don't listen to, because I know they think differently to me, but there are others whose opinions I take seriously.

It's only today that I've returned to this film, whose name I refuse to write again. It's one of a few films that I've found on Netflix that star Bruno Ganz. As I found out when I watched it, it's only a small role, a single scene lasting less than 10 minutes, but I watched the film out of principle. I'll watch any film that he appears in. But let's describe the film itself.

The film is about an American attorney who wants to make extra money from a drug deal, buying cocaine in Mexico and selling it in Chicago. He already has contacts both sides of the border, presumably criminals that he's got to know through his job. He only wants to do one job, because it promises a profit of $20 million. His contact in Mexico says he'll get a taste for the easy money of the drug trade and will want to continue. His contact in America tells him it's a risky business and advises him not to do it unless he has a rock solid escape plan.

The deal goes badly. That's all I'll say.

My first impression of the film, based on the opening scene, was that it's a poorly written erotic thriller. Don't get me wrong, I'm a very sexual person and I enjoy watching films with sexual scenes, but the opening scene with Michael Fassbender and Penelope Cruz wasn't erotic, it was just silly. The poor dialogue was delivered without any passion. Instead of A-List actors, it looked like a shoddy high school project.

The film continued with less eroticism, just talking and drama, but that made things worse for me. It's a pattern I know well. If a film is dull and the director knows it's dull, he puts an erotic scene at the beginning to get the viewer interested.

From then on the film plods from one scene to another. In the hands of a better director it could have been a good film, but wait... shouldn't Ridley Scott be one of the better directors? If I hadn't seen his name on the credits I wouldn't have recognised it as one of his films. I would have guessed that it was made by Brian De Palma, but even for him it would have been a weak film

I would probably have watched the film eventually, even if it hadn't starred Bruno Ganz. I like Ridley Scott. I'm glad I've got it over with. There's no reason for me to ever watch it again.

Success Rate:  + 0.8

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

Centurion (3½ Stars)

In the year 117 AD the Roman ninth legion, which was stationed in York, marched north to battle against the Picts. It never returned. That much is true. This film tells a story about what might have happened.

The ninth legion is travelling northwards, guided by a mute Celtic scout called Etain. She leads them into an ambush, because she's really a Pict, not a Celt. Only seven men survive the attack. The centurion Quintus Dias leads the group, hoping to travel south to safer territory. The King of the Picts, Gorlacon, puts Etain in charge of a hunting group to kill them. One by one the soldiers are killed, until only Quintus is left.

This is a very brutal film. The opening scenes shocked me. It took me at least 15 minutes to get used to the violence. If I hadn't known already it would have convinced me that war is ugly.

I consider it a mistake to have made Etain a mute. The Picts overall are very anonymous in the film, with the possible exception of King Gorlacon. Not allowing Etain to speak made her even more distant. It's as if the Romans are facing an abstract enemy, a force of nature.

Success Rate:  - 1.9

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

Inglourious Basterds (5 Stars)

Yesterday I went to see "Loving Vincent" in the cinema with the Stuttgart Cinema Meetup. I asked one of the other members what his favourite film was, and he answered "Inglourious Basterds" without hesitation. I'm always glad when someone has an answer ready for that question. It shows that they've sat down and seriously thought about films. I know it's not an easy question to answer. I've changed my mind a few times in the last 20 years, but however often I might change my mind I can always tell you with certainty what my favourite film is today.

This was the reason why I decided to watch "Inglourious Basterds" again this evening. I sat watching it while asking myself "Is this the world's best film?" After the film came to an end I didn't think it was quite good enough to knock my current favourite off the number one spot, but I do have to say that it's technically one of the best films ever made. I already consider the film's first scene, the farmhouse scene, to be the best scene ever filmed. These 20 minutes are perfection. I can't think of any other scene that comes close. However, several other scenes in the film are also of incredibly high merit. They're all scenes in which Christoph Waltz appears. That's probably not a coincidence.

Today I watched the film with my son Benjamin. It was his first time seeing the film. He was shocked to see that Adolf Hitler was killed. That was also my reaction the first time I saw the film in the cinema in 2009. It's something I didn't expect to happen. What I mean is, there have been dozens, maybe even hundreds of films about Hitler, and he never dies, unless it's in his bunker in 1945. After the initial shock I laughed about it and said "Why not?" If a film is a piece of fiction there's no need for it to agree with historical facts. Quentin Tarantino, who both wrote and directed the film, decided to rewrite history. For that I thank him. Tarantino's version of history is better than what really happened.

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

X-Men: Apocalypse (4 Stars)

This is the first time that I've watched "X-Men: Days of Future Past" and "X-Men: Apocalypse" back to back. Almost back to back, at least. They were two days apart, but that's still close enough for me to make a direct comparison. More than anything I noticed a difference in the pacing. "Days of Future Past" moves fast and keeps the viewer excited throughout the movie. "Apocalypse" moves slowly, and even when there's action it doesn't last long. There's too much stop and start.

Apocalypse isn't successful as a villain. What I mean is, at no point do we have the slightest sympathy with him. He's just a Big Evil with no redeeming qualities. Compare him with Magneto, who makes us cry when we see the inner suffering that makes him do evil things.

William Stryker is an even worse villain. Who is he? Comic fans will jump up and answer that question immediately, but we can't assume that cinema audiences have read hundreds of comics before buying their cinema ticket. The film should explain to us who he is, but it doesn't, leaving him as a blank slate.

After making the film Olivia Munn, the actress who plays Psylocke, said that she wants Psylocke to have her own film. Let's not laugh that off as the empty request of an actress who thinks too highly of herself. I think she could pull it off. Unlike most of the characters in the X-Men films she actually looks like the character she's supposed to be playing, including the costume. She didn't have much screentime, and there was absolutely no background story. (The same applies to Angel. There was poor character development throughout the film). In the comics she's a heroine, but a solo film could pick up where "Apocalypse" ends, showing her as a villainess seeking redemption, struggling to get back tothe right path. The public would love a film like that.

I'm still not sure about my rating. I always have problems rating X-Men films. Maybe four stars is too high, but that's what I'll stick with for now. I might think differently next time I watch it.

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

X-Men: Days of Future Past (5 Stars)

This is the fourth time I've watched this film, and my rating has been bobbing up and down like a yo-yo. Evidently I don't know what to make of it. Who knows what I'll rate it next time! Today the story gripped me like it hasn't in the past. Maybe I was just in the right mood for the film. That's why I could never be a professional film critic. I'm much too erratic.

Hank McCoy is apparently a Star Trek fan. He has one eye on Bolivar Trask, the other on Star Trek reruns. By a strange coincidence the episode being shown is "City on the Edge of Forever", in which the Enterprise and its crew has to travel into the past to change the present.

Jennifer Lawrence appears as Mystique and shows that blue is beautiful.

Or do you prefer her with a normal pink skin? It's hard to choose.

There's a newspaper shown in the film. Wolverine is checking it out, holding it in place with his unenhanced bone claws. But take a closer look at it. The first two columns are about the peace treaty between America and Vietnam, but in the third column everything breaks down. The text is about the murder of Isidore Fink, the owner of a small laundry at 4 East 132nd Street. It's strange that this report is in a 1973 newspaper, because the murder took place on 9th March 1929. As if this weren't bad enough, the same text is repeated in the fourth column. That's all very sloppy.

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

The Snowman (4 Stars)

This is the second time I've gone to see "The Snowman" in the cinema this month. That's unusual because I didn't intend to see it in the first place. The first time I saw it was in England with my daughter Fiona, the second time was in Germany with my daughter Gillian. I'm glad that I was persuaded to see it, and I'm also glad that I was persuaded to see it a second time.

Fiona loved "The Snowman" so much that she said it's the best film she's seen for years. Gillian was less enthusiastic. She found it okay, but boring in parts. Scandinavian films are a matter of taste. Yes, I know that the main actors are Hollywood stars, but the director is Swedish and the film has a typical Scandinavian style. I need to narrow that, because I don't mean all of Scandinavia, just Norway and Sweden. Is there a word that includes only those two countries? I'll continue to say "Scandinavia", as long as my readers understand that I'm not talking about Denmark.

Scandinavian films, regardless of their genre, tend to be slow, depending on an intense mood to invoke emotions. The best films I can think of as examples of the Scandinavian style are "Insomnia" and "Let the right one in". I can understand that people not accustomed to Scandinavian films might find them boring.

The Snowman (4 Stars)

Depending on its success, this is the first in a series of films about the Norwegian detective Harry Hole. Is that a typical Norwegian name? Up until now the author Jo Nesbo has written 11 books about him, all of which have become international bestsellers.

The film didn't take much to win me over. As soon as I saw the beautiful Norwegian scenery in the first five minutes I was in love with it. I would have given it a good rating whatever happened next. However, there were no disappointments for me, even though I'm not a big fan of murder mysteries.

Over a period of seven years women have been disappearing in different places in Norway. Sometimes their bodies were later found cut up into small pieces, sometimes they simply remained missing. Detective Harry Hole from Oslo is the first to suspect that the cases are related. They all have in common that the woman who was killed had a child from a man who wasn't her husband. A snowman was always found outside the woman's house; as we find out later in the film the snowman was built before the murder in preparation.

The film weaves through a series of surprises and fake clues, keeping the audience guessing until the end. The murderer taunts the detective, sending him clues about who his next victims will be before he kills them.

Michael Fassbender puts on an excellent performance in the lead role. The supporting characters also fill their roles well, especially Rebecca Ferguson as Harry Hole's assistant Katrine.

I've seen reviews that criticise the film for its complexity. It's impossible to please critics nowadays. Either a plot is too simple ("predictable") or too complex. I enjoyed the way the case kept heading towards a conclusion, only for something to happen at the last minute that proved the detective was wrong his assumptions. That's good storytelling.

X-Men: Apocalypse (4½ Stars)

This is a film based on a Marvel villain who was first invented in 1986, when Marvel's non-canon period had begun. For that reason I'll make no attempt to reconcile Apocalypse with the comics, whether it was the Uncanny X-Men or any of the other myriad X-Men spin-off comics.

Apocalypse is said to have been the first mutant. This jars with me, because the whole premise of mutants is that they were a new arrival in the 20th Century. This is briefly mentioned and dismissed in the film: "We always assumed that mutants didn't arrive until the 20th Century, but we were wrong". So Stan Lee was wrong? I'm sad that he gave his approval to the film by appearing in a small cameo. Doesn't he realise what they're doing with his valuable creations, twisting and distorting them however they wish?

I'm not sure that "X-Men: Apocalypse" is even retaining continuity with the previous X-Men films. I shan't comment any further until I have a chance to watch all the X-Men films in release order, starting with the adult X-Men films and then continuing with the prequels.

Apocalypse is shown as the ruler of Egypt in 3600 BC. In the middle of transferring his consciousness into the body of another mutant he's betrayed, and his pyramid is destroyed. In 1980 he's awakened by the prayers of his loyal servants, who are unfortunately destroyed as he arises. He intends to destroy the world and recreate it in his own image, but first he searches for four mutants to support him, his "four horses of the Apocalypse". He selects Magneto, Psylocke, Storm and Angel, who he considers to be the world's strongest mutants. Only later does he discover Charles Xavier, who he considers to be the strongest mutant of all.

Once more the Phoenix force is shown to be part of Jean Grey's mutant powers. That annoys me every time it's said. I might not care if Apocalypse is shown differently from the comics, but Jean Grey should be portrayed accurately.

Nevertheless, this is a good film, full of action and excitement. Michael Fassbender proves once more that he's the best Magneto, giving the character even more emotional depth than in the first films.

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