Nosferatu [2024] (4½ Stars)

"Nosferatu" is a curious candidate for a remake. It was made in 1922 by the German director Friedrich Murnau. He wanted to make a film based on Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula", but he needed permission from the owner of the book's rights, Florence Balcombe, Stoker's widow. Since she was a racist who hated Germans, she refused to allow Murnau to make the film. Refusing to be put off, he made a film based on the story, changing the names of the characters and the locations of the events. For instance, Count Dracula was renamed Count Orlok. He thought he could get away with it, because his film was only planned to be shown in Germany. Balcombe found out and sued him. The court ordered that all copies should be destroyed, but several copies were rescued. In retrospect, "Nosferatu" (the 1922 version) is considered one of the greatest horror films ever made, while Florence Balcombe's name lives on in infamy.

In 1931 she allowed the book to be adapted by an American director. The film was called "Dracula", and the characters had the correct names. Since then more than 50 adaptations of the novel have been made, not counting the many films in which Dracula appears as a character. It's the most frequently adapted book ever. I own several of the films on disc. It's interesting to see which ones are more accurate and which ones leave out details.

But "Nosferatu" stands alone as an adaptation that deliberately changed the details. Why should something incorrect be copied? Nostalgia?

In 1979 Werner Herzog made a film called "Nosferatu the Vampyre", but I don't count it as a remake of the 1922 film. Not quite. He copied the visuals of the 1922 film, but he called the characters by their correct names.

The new film is a dedicated remake of the 1922 Nosferatu film. The wrong names are used throughout. The only reason I can think of for calling it "Nosferatu" is to set it aside from all the other films called "Dracula". The suspense is outstanding. Instead of slavishly following the 1922 film it adds several details from the book.

I'm happy to say that despite being in its second week the cinema was packed, about 90% full. I don't know how it's doing in other countries, but in Germany it's a big hit.

The Garfield Movie (4 Stars)

Does this film fall into the category of a delayed sequel? The first five Garfield films were made from 2004 to 2009. Now there's a sixth film after a 15 year delay. Usually that's the sign of a poor movie, but I can't really judge, since I've never watched the first give films. Apart from that, I was impressed by the film I saw today. The children in the audience were laughing, and I was laughing as well.

The story's premise is that Garfield finally meets his father Vic after years of separation. But who's his mother? We meet Vic's ex-girlfriend, an evil Persian cat called Jinx, but it's never suggested that she's his mother. Maybe, maybe not. Garfield and Vic are sent on an (admittedly over-complicated) mission to get milk from a dairy. Don't worry that so much of the film doesn't make sense. The animated slapstick humour makes up for it.

Renfield (5 Stars)

When I first heard that Nicolas Cage was going to play Dracula, I had my doubts. Even the first trailers for "Renfield" didn't reassure me. He seemed to be playing the role as a comedy figure. Then I saw the film today, and I was knocked off my feet. We can't rely on trailers. They often include footage that's not in the film, and that's the case with the "Renfield" trailer. In the film itself, Nicolas Cage is stunning. I don't know why I ever doubted him. Dracula, in all of his major screen incarnations since 1931, is a pompous, overbearing character. That's the sort of character that Cage plays best. Especially his monologues as Dracula are convincing. He's a madman who wants to conquer the world, and he has the power to do it.

Nicolas Cage bases his performance on Bela Lugosi. As is often said, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. After seeing "Renfield" today, I'm hoping that he'll make another dozen Dracula films.

But the film's main character is Renfield. It's good to see him projected into the limelight, and who better to play him than Nicholas Hoult? He's been a background character ever since Bram Stoker's original novel. Some of the film adaptations have omitted him altogether. When he's shown he's a madman who's desperate for Dracula's attention.

The Renfield that we see in the new film isn't mad. He's Dracula's trusted servant. He goes out in the daytime to find fresh food for Dracula. If Dracula says he wants a busload of cheerleaders, he goes out and gets them.

Robert Montague Renfield, to give him his full name, is immortal. This was never stated in Bram Stoker's novel, but we can read it between the lines. He's been serving Dracula faithfully for 90 years, even though Dracula is a cruel boss who frequently beats him. Renfield gains strength from eating insects, and he's healed by Dracula's blood.

Renfield's strength makes him a skilled fighter, able to take out dozens of armed opponents with his bare hands.

Apart from Dracula and Renfield, the main character is the New Orleans traffic cop Rebecca Quincy. She sees the good in Renfield and helps him rebel against Dracula. Awkwafina plays the same sort of character that she did in Marvel's "Shang-Chi". I like this character. She's jovial and lovable, the sort of person I'd like to sing karaoke with. In the film she's a counterpart to the serious characters around her.

A terrific film. I can't wait to see it again.

The Menu (5 Stars)

This is my last film of the year, and it's a terrific film to end with. I've wanted to see it for some time. At this year's Fantasy Film Festival a trailer for it was shown before every single film, which means I saw the trailer 24 times. That's a lot. The trailer was shown in German, but it still fascinated me. Today I managed to see it in English, which is the only way to watch an American film.

Wikipedia calls it a dark comedy horror film. I don't think that's a good description of the genre. Yes, it's dark, but it's not really a comedy, and as for it being a horror? It's a borderline case. There are a few scenes which could be called horror, but mostly it's a tense psychological thriller.

The film is about Julian Slowik, a master chef who's invited 12 people to a private island for a meal, charging them  $12,500 each. The courses served are practically satires of the meals served by top chefs. They're delicious, but such small portions that the guests are left hungry.

Nicholas Hoult plays Tyler Redford, an enthusiastic food fan, not a professional critic but an expert on fine food. His partner left him shortly before the meal, so he's found a replacement at short notice. This disturbs Julian, because he's carefully selected the attendees. For him the balance of the guests is just as important as the mixture of foods in the menu.

As the film progresses we find that Julian has issues with all of the guests (eleven of them, anyway). They've all wronged him in some way, and he wants revenge.

I had to ponder for a long time how to rate the film. It's excellent, as far as the acting is concerned, but many of the things that happen are highly infeasible. I wasn't sure whether that was reason enough to lower the rating. I eventually decided to suspend disbelief and judge it as a fantasy. Five stars. It's one of the best films I've seen this year.

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

Dark Places (4 Stars)

Do you pay attention to the success rate that I post at the bottom of my reviews? It's the relative success of a film, proportionally to its budget. I don't always have the details, but when I do I post the value. Basically, any film with a positive success rate (especially if it's larger than +1) is a success, while any film with a negative success rate is a flop. "Dark Places" has a success rate of - 5.7, which means it bombed at the box office, despite its collection of A List stars. That's unfortunate. It's a good film that deserved to be successful.

When Libby Day was eight years old her mother and her two sisters were murdered. She was the only witness, and in court she testified that her brother Ben, aged 16, was the killer. That's a trauma that would ruin anyone's life, and it's certainly ruined her life. For 28 years she lived off her mother's life insurance, but now the money is gone, and she faces the possibility of having to work for the first time in her life. That is, if anyone will hire a 36-year-old who's never worked. Her chances look bad.

She receives a letter from a man called Lyle who promises her $500 for attending a meeting. That sounds too good to be true. She meets him at night in a launderette. It seems weird, but he says it's the best place, because he owns the launderette. He belongs to a group called the Kill Club. Its members are people who are fascinated by unsolved murder cases, so they want to meet her. Why Libby? The murder of her family was solved, wasn't it? Lyle says that the members of the club don't believe Ben was the murderer. They think that Libby's testimony was too confused and didn't match the evidence.

Libby thinks Lyle and his Kill Club are a bunch of cranks, but she needs the money, so she helps with Lyle's investigations. It's more accurate to say that she leads the investigations herself. She visits Ben in prison for the first time in 28 years, and he's not at all bitter, even though he claims he's innocent. Over the next few days Libby tracks down childhood friends and acquaintances, and she uncovers things that she's either forgotten or never knew. There were conspiracies involving drugs, Satanism, child abuse, and worst of all: heavy metal music!

Watching the film today for the first time, it fascinated me. How could a film like this possibly have flopped at the box office? There are first class performances by Charlize Theron, Christina Hendricks and Nicholas Hoult. Chloe Grace Moretz is a good actress as well, but her character, Ben's girlfriend, is constantly smoking. That puts me off. Despite that small negative aspect, I can strongly recommend the film to my readers.

Success Rate:  - 5.7

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

Clash of the Titans [2010] (4 Stars)

It's getting very difficult for me to write reviews at the moment. The people I'm living with are panicking. The first Coronavirus case has been reported in the village where I live. As a result a doctor's surgery has had to be closed until the staff have been tested.

People are afraid of dying. Why? I don't see any logic in the fear of death. If you're a religious person, you know what's going to happen after you die, so you can make plans for it today. To use religious jargon, "Get right with God".

If you're an atheist, you know that there's nothing after death. Dead is dead, so why worry about it? If you die you won't even know you're dead.

Maybe the problem is that you believe in a fickle, unpredictable God waiting for you after your death. That's the situation in "Clash of the Titans". Zeus created man, and he even says that he loves man, but he's selfish and does what he wants. So the crops fail two years in a row, even though the farmers prayed to him? Sorry, he was too busy chasing virgins to listen to prayers. And when you die you're in the hands of Hades, a cruel God who's fuelled only by his hatred for Zeus.

But nobody believes in Zeus and Hades today, do they? Maybe the trouble is that people don't know what they believe. People in the West have abandoned their faith in Christianity, but they're worried it might really be true. They get sentimental and feel religious when they walk into a beautiful church for a wedding, but the feeling wears off the next week at work.

"Clash of the Titans" is about a war between the man and the Gods. It's not that people don't believe in the Gods, they just don't want to obey them any more. The film's hero, Perseus, fights against the Gods, even though Zeus is his father. Would I have followed Perseus? That's the question I asked myself while watching the film. I think not. I would have followed the Gods, but it wouldn't have been blind devotion. I wouldn't have fought the Gods, but I would have attempted to educate the Gods. I would have told them to listen to mankind instead of partying all day long.

Maybe I'm someone who ought to be afraid of death. I'm an agnostic, someone who doesn't know what's after death. I'm still not worried. If there's a God waiting for me, he needs me to educate Him. (Or Her. Or Them). He needs me to tell Him what He's been doing wrong.

The first time I watched this film I thought it was almost as good as the original 1981 version. Today I changed my mind. It's a very slick, polished film with high quality special effects, but it's lacking the naive beauty of the original. In the original version, Perseus is rewarded for his labours by being allowed to marry Princess Andromeda of Argos. In the remake he turns his back on her, having fallen in love with Gemma Arterton as Io. I think my readers know which choice I would have made.

Success Rate:  + 1.9

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

Tolkien (4 Stars)

This is a film about the early life of the author John Ronald Reuel Tolkien from 1902 to 1916, with a short epilogue that takes place "many years later".

After being home-schooled by his widowed mother in his early years, he went to King Edwards School in Birmingham. This was an elite school, visited by the sons of the richest people in Birmingham. Tolkien didn't fit in as a boy from a poor family, but he made an immediate impression by reciting Chaucer texts by heart. He made friends with three other boys and formed a group called the TCBS, the Tea Club and Barrovian Society. They vowed to remain friends for as long as they lived, even though their university paths separated them. Two of them went to Oxford, the other two only went to Cambridge.

After his mother's death in 1904 Tolkien and his younger brother were put in a boarding house in Edgbaston. That's where he met Edith Bratt, another orphan, who later became his wife. A major part of the film has to do with his experiences in the Great War, as it was then called. He spent less than a year in the war before he was sent home with fever, but it affected him for the rest of his life.

I've known Nicholas Hoult for a few years, mainly for his roles in "Mad Max: Fury Road" and the X-Men films, but I never realised until today what a good actor he is. He plays a perfect young gentleman, the sort of man who lived in England at the beginning of the 20th Century. This sort of person no longer exists, so it's astounding that he can play the part so perfectly.

Throughout the film I couldn't help imagining myself in Tolkien's place. If I'd been born in the 19th Century, before computers were invented, I would probably have followed a similar path to Tolkien. When I was 18, language was my second interest, after computers, so I would probably have become a professor of linguistics, rather than following a real career. I'm an academic, not a practical person, even though I spent most of my adult life programming microcomputers for the automobile industry. Now that I'm older I look back on my life and regret some of the career choices I made. I lie in bed at night and ask myself What If.

Some of my friends have called this film dull. I know what they mean, but I disagree. The portrayal of academia, at grammar school or university level, is dull to many, but to me it's fascinating. The parts of the film that I didn't enjoy were the portrayal of war. War is ugly, and the First World War was probably the most horrific war ever for the soldiers on the battlefield. I'm fortunate that I could live in the interlude of peace between the Second and Third World Wars. J.R.R. Tolkien wasn't so fortunate. Two of his friends from the TCBS died in battle. What a waste of brilliant young men!

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 Favourite (4 Stars)

This is the the third film in the Stuttgart White Nights Festival.

"The Favourite" is a film in everyone's mouth at the moment. It's a satirical period drama about the intrigues in the house of Queen Anne in the early 18th Century. Unlike "Mary Queen of Scots", which I watched yesterday, it makes no attempt to be historically accurate.

Queen Anne (Olivia Colman) is shown to be sickly, unable to walk because of gout. She's being cared for by a noblewoman, Sarah Churchill, the Duchess of Marlborough (Rachel Weisz), who is also the Queen's lesbian lover. The household is joined by Sarah's cousin, Abigail Hill (Emma Stone), who has lost her nobility because her father lost her in a game of cards. Now Abigail joins the house as a servant. The Queen takes a liking to her and gives her priority over her cousin.

The film tells the story of the rivalry between the two women to become the Queen's favourite.

After hearing so much about the film I found it not as good as I expected. It's a good film, but not brilliant, and I fail to see why it's received such critical acclaim.

Clash of the Titans [2010] (4½ Stars)

It's taken me a long time to get round to watching this film. It was strongly recommended by my guest writer Kaylena in her review, but I was still reluctant to watch it. The problem is that I love Ray Harryhausen's version so much. For me it's perfection that can't be improved upon. On the other hand, the new version stars Gemma Arterton in one of her early films before she quit Hollywood, which is a reason to watch any film. It's not just her beauty and grace. She has acting skills which set her far above her peers.

Any doubts I had about the quality of the film were washed away within the first five minutes. The cinematography and special effects are perfect, as realistic as computer graphics can make them. Forgive me if it sounds blasphemous, but my first thought was "This is the sort of film Ray Harryhausen would make if he'd been born 50 years later". The flying horse, the Djinn, the winged monsters -- whatever they're called -- they all looked perfect.

Unfortunately, I found that the final scene was a letdown. I don't know what happened, why the portrayal of the Kraken was so disappointing. Maybe the special effects budget had run out by the end of the film. Maybe the director thought that an overpowering, invincible monster would be better portrayed by close ups with only a few complete  shots. Whatever the reason was, I'm disappointed. Compare the two Krakens:

Ray Harryhausen's 1981 Kraken.

The 2010 Kraken.

Do you see what I mean? Even though the older version is obviously a model, it looks more terrifying. It looks more real. Surely today's computers could have done a better job.

I think I detected something of a message in the film. Some of the dialogue seemed to be referring to religion in general, including today's Christianity, not just to the ancient Greek Gods. I'm not certain. Next time I watch it I'll pay attention to this aspect, and I might write something about it.

	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

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

X-Men: First Class (5 Stars)

I've read various articles that call the first X-Men film, made in 2000, to be the best super-hero film ever made. Even writers at Empire magazine subscribe to this opinion. I don't understand why anyone would say something like that. The best super-hero film is Sam Raimi's Spider-Man, made two years later in 2002. Usually I accept other opinions because I know that tastes differ, but in this case it's so obvious that "Spider-Man" is better that I want to shake the head of anyone who contradicts me.

Even among the X-Men films the first film wasn't the best. "X-Men: First Class" is a much faster paced and better crafted film. I consider it to be the best of the six X-Men films. It catches the essence of the early X-Men comics, even if it features different characters. Apart from Charles Xavier (Professor X), the only member if the original group that appears in the film is Hank McCoy, the Beast.

There's one thing that the X-Men films do better than the comics. That's the portrayal of Magneto. He was admirably portrayed by Ian McKellen in the first three X-Men films, and Michael Fassbender was even more impressive as a younger Magneto in "First Class". In the comics Magneto was aloof. He always wore a helmet, so we never saw his face. He was utterly evil. It wasn't until the 1980's, 20 years after his first appearance, that we found out his real name was Magnus. Later it was said that his name was Erik. First it was said that Magneto came from an East European gypsy background, but later he was said to be Jewish. Marvel went on to write stories to explain the discrepancies, saying that he used different pseudonyms in his youth and only pretended to be a gypsy. That was merely an attempt to fix a mess that should never have been there in the first place. In the 1980's Marvel continuity, the thing Marvel had been famous for since the early 1960's, was breaking down. Different authors wrote whatever they wanted without reading previous comics, and they contradicted one another. They made mistakes. The real Magneto, as created by Stan Lee, faded away some time in the mid-1980's and was replaced by the re-imaginings of less talented authors, despite the valiant attempts of Chris Claremont to hold continuity together.

I'm drifting away from the point I wanted to make. What I want to say is that the real Magneto was a big bad monster that we knew nothing about. The X-Men films develop his character. We know him. We sympathise with him. Even when he does wrong we see that he's trying to achieve good goals. This is the case in all six X-Men films, but never more clearly than in "First Class". This is a film that concentrates on the relationship between the two idealistic young men, Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr.

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

P.S. I want to keep my readers up to date on what television series have been keeping me away from my films lately. This week I've watched the whole second season of "Teen Wolf" and the first half of the second season of "Vikings". Maybe I should write something about "Vikings". Wait and see,

X-Men: Days of Future Past (4½ Stars)

Empire Magazine is well known for publishing its monthly magazines with alternative covers to tempt collectors to buy multiple copies. In January 2014 they outdid themselves. 25 different covers were printed to advertise "X-Men: Days of Future Past". Moreover, the covers could be arranged side by side to make one large picture. I doubt many people have invested in all 25 copies, so here are the 25 covers. You can click on any image to reveal its context between the two images left and right.

1. Sentinel - Moderately powerful mutant-hunting robot.

2. Havok - Absorbs cosmic energy and releases it in plasma blasts.

3. Toad - Super-strong legs, prehensile tongue, gross paralysing mucus.

4. William Stryker - Mutant-hater, military man, nutjob.

5. Bolivar Trask - Robotics genius, mutant-hater, smooth political operator.

6. Mystique - Shapeshifter.

7. Beast - Superhuman strength, agility, speed and furriness.

8. Quicksilver - Runs at supersonic speeds.

9. Magneto - The master of magnetism.

10. Professor X - The world’s most powerful telepath.

11. Wolverine - Accelerated healing, enhanced senses, retractable bone claws.

12. Bryan Singer - Puppet master, franchise creator, director.

13. Wolverine - Accelerated healing, enhanced senses, adamantium-laced skeleton, retractable adamantium claws.

14. Professor X - The world’s most powerful telepath.

15. Magneto - The master of magnetism.

16. Storm - Mastery over the elements.

17. Rogue - Absorbs the mutant abilities of anyone she touches.

18. Warpath - Super-strong, near-invulnerable, and he can fly.

19. Kitty Pryde - Phases through solid objects.

20. Sunspot - Solar-powered super-strength and near invulnerability.

21. Blink - Teleporter.

22. Iceman - Creates and manipulates ice.

23. Bishop - Absorbs energy to redirect it in kinetic blasts.

24. Colossus - Transforms his skin into organic steel.

25. Future Sentinel - Super-powerful mutant-hunting robot.

Click here to see the covers combined as a complete picture. Most web browsers will allow you to scroll left and right. Unfortunately the image has been compressed to 60% of its original size due to limitations of Google's blogger software.