Eternity (4 Stars)

It's unfortunately common that a film has a premise that sounds great, but the story lets it down. In the case of "Eternity" it's the other way round. The premise sounds ridiculous, but the resulting film is well written and well filmed. I'm glad I went to see it. When I read the film's description on my cinema's web site my initial impulse was to stay at home because it sounded too stupid.

The premise: when people die they arrive in a waiting area where they can pick their own afterlife. They have seven days to choose, during which time they're harassed by hundreds of salesmen with leaflets promoting their styles of afterlife experience. The catch is that decisions are final. Once you've decided where you want to go, that's where you stay forever. Eternity.

The only way to postpone your choice is by getting a job in the waiting area. Some people do this because they don't know where they want to go to – for instance, a beach or a mountain resort – whereas others want to postpone their choice until their loved one dies and they can choose together.

That's what happens to Larry (Miles Teller), who dies after choking on a pretzel. He knows that his wife Joan (Elizabeth Olsen), to whom he's been married for 65 years, has terminal cancer, so he delays his choice to wait for her. Luckily she arrives a week later.

This is where the problems start. Joan had a husband before Larry who died in the Korean War. Luke (Callum Turner) has been waiting for Joan for 67 years. Now Joan has to decide between her two husbands.

This was the introduction. Now the real story starts. It's an amazing film, deeply emotional.

Fantastic Four [2015] (1½ Stars)

I shouldn't torture myself like this. I've watched the 2015 Fantastic Four film twice, and I gave it a bad rating both times. It deserved another chance. Didn't it?

No! It's awful! I can hardly think of any words to describe how bad it is. The only reason I haven't given it a rock bottom one star rating is because the early scenes of Reed Richards as a kid are entertaining. The following scenes where he's a college student are average. But as soon as the four heroes get their powers, the film falls apart. It's so dreadful that I feel like smashing the Blu-ray with a hammer. This is the worst Marvel film ever made. It's even worse than Ang Lee's "Hulk". If there's any justice in the world it'll soon be out of print and be forgotten forever. If I watch it again I deserve a kicking.

Success Rate:  - 0.6

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

Fantastic Four [2015] (1½ Stars)

It's difficult for me to write about this film without feeling angry. It's so bad, I don't understand how it could ever have been made. It's not the worst film I've ever seen, but it's not far off. It's definitely the worst Marvel film ever made. How did it ever come to this? Stan Lee was executive producer, which gave him a veto right. Why didn't he use it? Recently, when talking about Captain Marvel being changed to a woman in the new film, a friend of mine said, "If Stan Lee could accept a female Captain Marvel, then traditionalist fanboys ought to be able to as well". That's no argument. My reply is that if Stan Lee could accept his greatest super-heroes being downgraded in this piece of trash, then it's proof that in his final years he'd lost control of the company he loved so much.

Maybe Stan Lee didn't realise this 2015 film was so bad. Maybe he did, but he wasn't in a position to stop it. Either way, it's a disgrace. Reed Richards is too young. Susan Storm is too intelligent. Ben Grimm is too scrawny before his change. Johnny Storm is the wrong skin colour. Doctor Doom bares almost no resemblance to the original character. And while we're on the subject, what's the modern obsession with sending Victor Von Doom along for the ride when the Fantastic Four get their powers?

Maybe the film is interesting as a sci-fi romp. Apart from the poor special effects during the first visit to Planet Zero, it looks like fun. But it's not a film about the Fantastic Four. Not even close.

George R. R. Martin has said, "You can't go wrong if you stick with Stan Lee. That's always been my opinion on these Marvel movies. The best ones are the ones that are closest to what Stan Lee did. It's when they start to be creative, when they think they can be better than Stan Lee, mostly they can't". He knew what he was talking about. That's why the 1994 Fantastic Four film is still the best. Roger Corman had a deep respect for Stan Lee's comics, which can't be said of the later directors and producers.

I didn't intend to buy this film after seeing it in the cinema. Last week I changed my mind when I saw it on sale for five Euros. Now that I've watched it I think the price was five Euros too high. It doesn't even have a Stan Lee cameo to give it some sentimental value. Maybe he refused to do a cameo in order to show that he didn't want to be identified with this film.

The Fantastic Four were the first super-heroes that Stan Lee created in the 1960's. From the third issue on he called it "The World's Greatest Comics Magazine", which was printed on the cover for over 400 issues. The film shows nothing of this greatness. It's a stain on Stan Lee's magnificent legacy, and it deserves to be forgotten.

Success Rate:  - 0.6

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

Allegiant (4 Stars)

"Allegiant" is the third film in the Divergent series, based on the novels by Veronica Roth. It begins after the death of the Erudite leader Janine. Tris and her colleagues from the Dauntless faction want to go out of the city to look for another civilisation, but they are prevented from leaving by Four's mother Evelyn. Eventually they succeed in escaping. Outside the city walls they encounter a highly advanced race that claims the city of Chicago is an experiment that has been running for 200 years. The outsiders seem benevolent, and Tris trusts them completely, but Four suspects they might have bad intentions.

The lines between good and bad become less and less clear in this film. Tris realises that she has to fend for herself. The fight sequences are more exciting than in "Insurgent", making this a better film.

Insurgent (3 Stars)

"Insurgent" is a sequel to "Divergent", beginning a few days after the end of the first film. The ruling Erudite faction has blamed the Dauntless faction for slaughtering the Abnegation faction, even though it was the Erudite leader, Janine, who orchestrated the attack. Tris and the rest of her Dauntless colleagues are on the run, sheltered first by the Amity faction, then by factionless rebels.

"Insurgent" has flashier special effects than "Divergent", but something is missing. The main characters aren't pleasant enough for us to sympathise with them. In the first film Tris (Shailene Woodley) at least looked pleasant, but in the second film she cuts her hair and looks boyish, no longer feminine.

As a sequel this is a disappointment. I dread to see what the third part will be like when I watch it at the weekend.

Divergent (4 Stars)

This is a rather typical modern story. A teenage girl has to rebel against the system around her. Most of the men and boys she meets are her enemies, but there's one that she falls in love with.

I find the story's premise rather weak. The idea that everyone has to fit into one of five accepted categories is unnatural. In society there are usually only two categories, the rulers and the ruled. Nevertheless, it's a heart-warming story about a young girl who doesn't fit in, even though she wants to.

Whiplash (5 Stars)

This is a tale of passion and obsession. It's all about music. That's something that people can become passionate about. That's something that people can become obsessive about. When I was in school kids made fun of one another because of their tastes in music. Some of the kids capitulated and pretended to like what the others liked. Not me. I stood my ground. I never lied about what I liked.

When I was at school my favourite album was "Mëkanïk Dëstruktïw Kömmandöh" by Magma, but my tastes have shifted over the years. If you asked me today, December 31st 2015, what my favourite album is I would say "Master of Reality" by Black Sabbath. Two years ago I would probably have said "Irrlicht" by Klaus Schulze. If you ask me again next year I might say something else. At this point in my life I have more of a passion for live music than recorded music. The atmosphere and the spontaneity of live performances is much more exciting than listening to a polished studio recording at home.

The film is about two men who share a passion. One is Terence Fletcher (J. K. Simmons), a music professor, the conductor of a music school jazz band, who dreams about finding a new Charlie Parker among his students. The other is Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller), a boy who has been drumming since childhood and dreams of becoming the next Buddy Rich.

The two clash from the beginning. The professor recognises Andrew's talent, but he doesn't show it. He exercises tough love, yelling at his smallest mistakes. He even promotes an inferior drummer over him in order to motivate him.

The unspoken love and respect between the two turns to hate. It became apparent to me today that the film follows the plot rules of romantic comedies, as ironic as that may seem. Andrew is the girl in the relationship. If you analyse the film carefully you'll see what I mean.

There's one thing I've noticed in my years of listening to music. In the 1970's, maybe into the 1980's, there were a lot of true virtuosos as drummers in rock groups. Their drumming was an integral part of the songs their groups performed, and during live concerts they usually performed drum solos. Examples are Bill Ward (Black Sabbath), Ian Paice (Deep Purple) and John Bonham (Led Zeppelin). Even the lesser skilled drummers of amateur bands felt the need to emulate the greats and insert at least a short drum solo into their concerts. That's changed today. Most of the drummers I know in rock groups today are what I call solid. They keep the rhythm, they support the rest of the group, but they don't stand out as musicians in their own right. If you want to hear a first rate drummer today you have to listen to jazz.

Incidentally, the last CD that I bought this year was "Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung" by Grausame Töchter. Let's see what my first CD in 2016 will be. I don't have any plans, yet.

Fantastic Four [2015] (2 Stars)

For more than 40 years every cover of Marvel's Fantastic Four comic bore the inscription "The World's Greatest Comic Magazine". If a film is made about these iconic heroes it deserves to be called "The World's Greatest Film". But it isn't. Far from it. This reboot doesn't even live up to the rather dull 2005 film.

I went into the cinema today with the conscious intention to enjoy the film. I had heard a lot of bad things about it, but I've been a Fantastic Four fan for 50 years, so I wanted to like it, I really did. I didn't expect it to be too accurate to the original 1960's comics, because it's based on the "Ultimate Fantastic Four", a third-rate Fantastic Four clone published in the 2000's when Marvel had run out of new ideas.

I did enjoy the opening scenes. It was fun to see Reed Richards as a brilliant eccentric child and his mismatched friendship with the less bright kid Ben Grimm. I groaned when I saw that Susan and Johnnie Storm were only siblings by adoption, but I bit my tongue. Everything was good in the film until the four characters became the Fantastic Four. Then it fell apart.

So what's wrong with the film?  Almost everything. It's so bad that Stan Lee refused to do a cameo. Let me try to list a few of the mistakes. The list certainly won't be complete, so feel free to add your thoughts in my comments section.

The film's biggest blunder is to cast Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm. As soon as I heard he had been cast I feared the film was heading for a disaster. I know that it's customary for Marvel films to make at least one white character black for racist reasons, but this time they picked the wrong one. It was acceptable to make Alicia Masters black in the 2005 film because she was a minor character. But casting a black man as blond-haired blue-eyed Johnny Storm is utter stupidity. No amount of apologetics can deny the fact that Michael B. Jordan is the single biggest reason that the film flopped.

Miles Teller is too young to play the grey-haired scientist Reed Richards. Okay, in the Ultimate Fantastic Four he was young, but that's no excuse.

Jamie Bell is too scrawny to play Ben Grimm. Even before he became the Thing he was a tough guy. In the comics he was an ex-wrestler.

Kate Mara looks quite good as Susan Storm, but in the film she's too intelligent. In the comics she was a ditzy blonde, only interested in fashion and shopping. It's wrong for the film to show her as a scientist.

I don't know where to begin with Doctor Doom, played by Toby Kebbell. The character in the film isn't Doctor Doom. There's only a vague physical resemblance when he pulls a hood over his head. The film shows him as a fellow scientist who worked with Reed Richards and travelled with him to the other dimension, gaining super powers and becoming disfigured at the same time. Wrong, wrong, wrong! In the comics Victor Von Doom never worked with Reed Richards because he considered Reed to be inferior. His disfigurement came from an explosion when an experiment failed in which he was attempting to combine science and magic to bring his mother back from the dead. And Doctor Doom always wanted to rule the world, not destroy it.

The film's final battle between the four heroes (who hadn't yet decided on a group name) and Doctor Doom (who only called himself Doom) didn't grip me. Pyrotechnics and people flying around. Boring. In the Avengers and X-Men films the group fights are a lot better. Josh Trank lacks the experience to direct a film of this magnitude.

To sum up, this is one of the worst Marvel films so far, even worse than the second Ghost Rider film (which I generously gave 3 stars but don't remember why).

Whiplash (5 Stars)

Every now and then a film comes along that is truly miraculous. Usually the miracle is that it's totally unexpected. Even the cinema bosses didn't have faith in the film with the intriguing name "Whiplash". It wasn't given a general release in the USA, but earned rave reviews at the few cinemas where it was shown.

Empire Magazine writes, "Sum up the plot and it sounds interminable. Watch the film and it will spit you out elated, exhausted and cheering for an encore". That's the film's only problem. The plot sounds so dull that it's difficult to attract viewers in the first place. It's about a first year music student at America's top music school who's given the chance to play drums in the jazz orchestra of the school's top professor. In the film the school is called the Schaffer Conservatory, but it's obviously based on the Juilliard School, which is universally acclaimed as the world's best music school.

The professor, Terence Fletcher, is a man who ruthlessly berates the slightest mistakes of his students, more like a drill sergeant than a music teacher. He picks on the slightest weaknesses of his students (weight, sexual orientation or family background) to hurl insults at them. What seems like sadism is intended to push his students to become the best they can be, as he admits in a quiet moment, but the insults are nevertheless hurtful.

J. K. Simmons gives the performance of his career. His performance is the best I have seen by any actor in any film ever. He has been nominated as the best supporting actor for this year's Academy Awards, but regardless of how much screen time he has he's really the main actor. Everyone else, even Miles Teller as the young drummer, fades away into his shadow. "Whiplash" has been nominated in four other categories, including Best Film, and it really deserves to win. It'll be a close race. "Birdman" and "The Imitation Game" are also exceptional films, but "Whiplash" is the best of the three. None of the other nominees deserve to be mentioned in the same breath.

Before I forget... the film is named after a song performed by Don Ellis and written by Hank Levy. Click the picture below the hear the song.

Divergent (4 Stars)

The film takes place in Chicago "100 years after the war". As far as the people of Chicago know they are the last remainders of civilization, but they also fear that something exists outside the city, because they have built a protective wall around the city. Mankind has been divided into five factions, depending on their abilities and functions in society: the Erudite (the intellectuals), the Dauntless (the police force), the Amity (peaceful farmers), the Candor (philosophers who value truth above all else) and the Abnegation (charitable people who look after others). The Abnegation are the city's rulers. There are many who don't belong to a faction, but they are treated as outcasts, having to live on the streets and not allowed to work. They would starve, if not for the Abnegation giving them food.

When they turn 16 children have to decide which faction they want to belong to. They are given an aptitude test as a guideline, but they can choose any faction regardless of the test results. 95% of the children choose the faction of their parents. Any who choose a different faction have to leave home to live with their new faction. Beatrice and her brother Caleb are Abnegations, but she chooses to join Dauntless while he chooses to join Erudite. The film follows Beatrice's training to enter Dauntless. There are 30 new Dauntless members, but they are told that only 10 will be accepted; the 20 who perform worst during training will be expelled and become factionless.

People reading this must be asking themselves if everyone fits neatly into one of the five categories. That's just the point of the film. In the authoritarian structure of the future everyone is expected to exactly fit his role in society. Those who don't fit in are called "divergents" and are executed. In her aptitude test Beatrice is found to have the traits of three factions, Abnegation, Erudite and Dauntless, but the tester protects her by not making the result public.

The film is based on the first of a series of books for young people by Veronica Roth. It seems to be yet another candidate for a film series intended to be a successor to the Harry Potter films. It's quite adequate for this. It has more action and moves faster than "Mortal Instruments". Let's see how the sequels pan out.