Iron Man 2 (4½ Stars)

This is the third film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in May 2010. Stan Lee's cameo is disappointingly short. We only see him for 1¾ seconds. He's playing the role of Larry King. I can see the similarity. Everyone is applauding him. Is it because they love Larry King or Stan Lee? It must be the latter, because I couldn't imagine people being excited about seeing Larry King.

"Iron Man 2" takes place about six months after the first film, which ended with the shocking words "I am Iron Man". For me as a Marvel fan those words are shocking, because they were never spoken in the original comics. There are even reporters mocking the story that Iron Man is Tony Stark's bodyguard, even though that's the story that Stan Lee wrote. It's disrespectful to speak badly of Stan Lee's stories. I mean the major plotlines of his stories. I'm honest enough to admit that Stan had his bad days, such as when he wrote the wedding story in Fantastic Four Annual #3. That must be the worst story he ever wrote, unless he intended it to be a parody. As a parody I could just about accept it.

The villain in the film is Ivan Vanko, a Russian scientist who has built a suit similar to Iron Man's. A lot of reviewers – including me, unfortunately – have called him Whiplash, connecting him to the Marvel Comics villain with this name. That's not correct. When the film was made Marvel knew people would complain about the non-canon nature of the character, so they hurriedly wrote a four-part mini-series, "Iron Man vs Whiplash", for fans to read before they went to the cinema.

I disagree with such tactics, but I still enjoyed the character in the film. Mickey Rourke plays the character perfectly, with an attitude that could have given him a place in the early Marvel stories. Maybe he could have been just a touch more corny. Maybe he could have shouted "I am Whiplash" in response to Tony Stark's televised confession.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is advanced by the introduction of the Black Widow, even though she doesn't use that name yet. She's only referred to by her real name, Natasha Romanoff. Don't you think it's about time she had her own solo film?

The ever-smiling Phil Coulson also returns. I don't know what it is about him that's so appealing. His immaculate suit and tie, combined with his neat hair, annoy me, and yet I still like him. He's so square that he's cool.

Nick Fury gives Tony Stark the eye. That's creepy!

In the after-credits scene a hammer is discovered in the desert in New Mexico, and Phil Coulson is sent to investigate it. It's Thor's hammer, of course, but nobody knows. My question is simply, why all the fuss? People uncover old junk all the time, some of it valuable, most of it not, so what's the big deal about a hammer? It would only be worth sending government agencies to retrieve it if they knew it's Thor's hammer, which they don't.

I was about to end this post when I realised that I've written a review of an Iron Man film without including a picture of Iron Man. Here you go! Are you happy now?

Success Rate:  + 1.1

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

Ocean's 8 (4 Stars)

Debbie Ocean, the younger sister of Danny Ocean from the Ocean's Trilogy, is released after spending five years in prison for art fraud. She's spent this time meticulously planning an extravagant jewel robbery in her head. All she needs to do is find a team to help her. She assembles a team of six women with different skills around herself. It's only women, because she doesn't trust men. It was a man who snitched on her and got her thrown into prison. The eighth woman is added late in the film.

The target is a diamong necklace worth $150 million that's been locked in a vault at Cartier in New York for 50 years. They manipulate the host of the yearly Met Gala event into borrowing the necklace to wear at the event. She's accompanied at all times by two armed security guards, but Debbie has everything planned.

This is a very good film about suave and manipulative women who manage to keep their cool while fighting against overwhelming odds. The film takes time to introduce all the characters, and by the middle of the film we're rooting for them and hoping they'll be successful. Sandra Bullock is excellent as the criminal mastermind who doesn't actually take part in the robbery; she just stands back and watches as her team do their jobs.

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: 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

Iron Man 2 (4½ Stars)

There's one important thing I forgot to point out in my previous reviews of "Iron Man 2". This is the film that introduced the Black Widow, played by Scarlett Johansson. To make up for it I've posted the extra-large picture above. Take a long, hard look at her. Isn't she beautiful? Since then we've seen her in "Avengers Assemble", "Captain America: The Winter Soldier", "Avengers: Age of Ultron" and "Captain America: Civil War". Let's hope she'll return in many more Marvel films. Even though I prefer her costume from the canonical Marvel comics of the 1960's I have to admit that her costume in the film, based on much later comics, does look sexy.

Some of my readers might wonder what I mean when I refer to Marvel stories as canonical or non-canonical. By this I mean, naively speaking, a division into what really happened and what was made up. Of course, all the stories were made up, but the difference is that in the early years Stan Lee held a tight grip on the stories and made sure all the comics were consistent with one another. In later years stories were written without paying attention to what had happened in the past. If there were contradictions they were just shrugged off with the excuse "My story takes place in an alternative universe".

So where do I draw the line between canonical and non-canonical? Temporally, I'd say that everything from 1961 to 1974 is canon, starting with Fantastic Four #1 and ending when Roy Thomas resigned as editor-in-chief. Everything written since 1991 (after the Infinity Gauntlet mini-series) isn't canon. As for the years 1974 to 1991 I have to differentiate. Those are the years when Marvel continuity began to fall apart, although a few writers held on to the foundation. Anything written in that period by Roy Thomas, Steve Englehart and Jim Starlin is canon. Anything written by Mark Gruenwald and Jim Shooter isn't canon. I would have to go through all the other authors one by one. Please don't think that when I say "not canon" I mean "bad". For instance, I find Frank Miller's Daredevil stories highly enjoyable, but for me they're not canon because they rewrite Daredevil's origin as laid out by Stan Lee.

As always, I appreciate opinions on this subject. If you disagree with me write something in the comment box below. It's best to leave a comment with your name (or code name), not just sign as Anonymous, so that I can tell who is writing what.

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

X-Men: Apocalypse (4 Stars)

I always have trouble reviewing the X-Men films. There have been nine of them so far, if "Deadpool" is included. I don't just have trouble writing about them, I even have trouble rating them. I'm a big fan of the X-Men comics, especially the issues with the original line-up written by Stan Lee and Roy Thomas. The comics written by Chris Claremont from 1975 to 1991 are rightly regarded as classics. Whatever happened after that is simply non-canonical for me. Marvel's continuity was disintegrating from 1985 onwards. Chris Claremont was one of the few authors who was holding things together in the style of the bronze era of comics (1970-1984), despite the interference of his bosses at Marvel. Since his comic, "The Uncanny X-Men", was the highest selling Marvel comic, they asked him to write two issues a month instead of one. That was fine. But his bosses wanted to rake in even more money, so a range of X-Men spin-off comics were devised, including "The New Mutants", "X-Factor" and "Excalibur". The writers of the other books had less artistic integrity than Chris, and they went as far as changing the characters he had previously written. For instance, in his most famous story, the Phoenix Saga (Uncanny X-Men #101-108), Jean Grey was shown to die and be resurrected by something later called the Phoenix force. In a storyline in "X-Factor" it was revealed that during the Phoenix Saga it had never been Jean Grey, it was just a clone. It's hardly surprising that Chris Claremont eventually left Marvel in a rage.

But I realise that I'm rambling on. I'm not really writing about the film. The problem with the X-Men films, this one in particular, is that there are too many characters being thrown at the viewer. This works well in the comics. If you read 300 issues of a comic the characters are only gradually introduced, and you have time to get to know them. In films it's different. The character who comes off the weakest in "X-Men: Apocalypse" is Psylocke, shown on the left in the picture above. "Who's she?" is what most of the people in the cinema audience must have been asking. Nobody could possibly know, unless they've been reading the X-Men comics for years.

The whole film seems to be full of winks and nods that only the comic reading fanboys can understand. The film doesn't repeat what happens in the comics, many of the characters are re-designed, but there are repeated references to what has happened in the X-Men comics over the last 40 years. The end result is enjoyable, but probably confusing to most people.

Is it a well-written film? Probably not. It would have been better if they'd thrown out most of the peripheral characters and kept the remaining cast to a minimum. Did I enjoy it? Yes, especially the poignancy of the relationship between Professor X and Magneto. I think my four star rating is fair, but I shan't argue with anyone who rates it less favourably.

Zoolander 2 (4 Stars)

Normally I would groan when a sequel is made 15 years after the original film. It seems too much like an act of desperation to get people into the cinemas. However, I do have faith in Ben Stiller, especially as a director. He's someone who takes risks and gets things right. I even like "Cable Guy", which is generally considered to be his worst film. Apart from this, I read that Ben Stiller wanted to make "Zoolander 2" for years, but he didn't do it because he was waiting for a suitable script.

It seems that not many people have the same faith in Ben Stiller's judgement as me. Only four members of the Birmingham film group decided to see the film with me. Actually there were five, but one of them didn't turn up because he fell asleep on the sofa. Life is hard.

I don't think that "Zoolander 2" is quite up to the quality of the original, but it's still a very good film. When a sequel is made to a comedy film the temptation is to repeat the same jokes. See the second Austin Powers film for an example of this.This was only partially the case with "Zoolander 2". A few of the original jokes were repeated, enough to make me feel comfortable and accept it as a sequel, but most of the humour was new. Overall, the film went in a new direction. The first film was all about exposing the shallowness of the fashion industry. In the second film this subject is only mentioned in passing. Instead of this we have an epic battle between good and evil.

That's all I'll say about the plot. My recommendation to my readers is that if you enjoyed "Zoolander" you'll probably like "Zoolander 2" as well, even though it's a different film. If you didn't enjoy "Zoolander" this probably isn't a film for you, but give it a try anyway, you might like it. If you've never watched "Zoolander" I suggest that you watch it first. There are enough references to the first film to make "Zoolander 2" slightly confusing if you don't know the original.

Iron Man 2 (4½ Stars)

I think this film is growing on me every time I watch it. Even though it isn't corny enough. Even though Tony Stark keeps opening his helmet to show his face. Maybe next time I watch it I'll give it a full five stars. I'm tempted.

In the first film Stark's friend Randy Rhodes was played by Terrence Howard. In this film he's been replaced by Don Cheadle. There's a story behind this. In the first film Terrence Howard was the highest paid actor, receiving $4.5 million for his role. We have to remember that before "Iron Man" Robert Downey Jr. was a relatively unknown actor. That was his breakthrough role. By the time the second film came Robert Downey Jr. was already an A List star and could demand a higher salary. Terrence Howard was only offered $1 million for the second film, so he stormed off in a rage and Don Cheadle took his place. His pride at no longer being the film's highest paid actor backfired. He said that after "Iron Man" his career was ruined and he was only being offered $60,000 per film. If he had taken the million offered his career wouldn't have crashed.

As replacements go, it's not too bad. The two actors aren't identical, but they're similar enough to be credible as the same character.

Terrence Howard

Don Cheadle

Iron Man 2 (4½ Stars)

Everyone says this is better than the first film. I disagree. Sure, it's a good film, but it has some negative points. Let's just go through it and say what I don't like. I'll leave the positive criticisms to others. And before anyone accuses me of ripping the film apart, look! I gave it a 4½ star rating!

The technology is very over-the-top, bordering on caricature. It seems to have been filmed to make people who know nothing about today's technical limitations say "Wow!" Anyone who knows and works with high tech will only shake his head and say "That won't be possible for another 100 years or more".

The bad guy, Ivan Vanko, isn't corny enough. He's modelled on the Whiplash character in the Marvel comics, but he doesn't use the name. I would have been much happier if there had been additional dialog on the race track:

Tony Stark: "Who are you? What do you want?"
Ivan Vanko: "My name is Whiplash. I'm here to kill you".

The drones confuse the final fight scenes. They should have been dealt with quickly to allow a longer battle between Iron Man and Whiplash. I also disliked the way Jim Rhodes' suit was operated by remote control. Too many enemies at once.

"The Avengers Initiative"? Gimme a break! This is an awful rewriting of Avengers lore. The Avengers began as a chance alliance of random superheroes, provoked by one of Loki's schemes against his brother Thor. That's how Thor, Iron Man, Giant Man, the Wasp and the Hulk came together. Not as an organisation created by Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D. And remember that Captain America joined later, he wasn't the first Avenger, he was the sixth.

I'm waiting for an explanation in the upcoming Thor film, but what was that hammer doing in the desert in New Mexico? Everyone knows that Don Blake found the hammer in a cave in Norway. Why change things unnecessarily? I grudgingly accept setting the Marvel heroes in the present, although I would have preferred the films to take place in the 1960's. But changing vital plot lines and origins? No no no!