Sexy Beast (4½ Stars)

Who's the sexy beast in the film title? Supposedly it's Gal Dove, a retired gangster played by Ray Winstone. He doesn't look very sexy in this picture. He's put his life of crime behind him. He says that he spent nine years of his life in prison, and he doesn't want to go back. He lives in a remote house in Spain with his wife, a former porn star. Unlike Buster Edwards and his wife, there are no regrets about moving to Spain. They love it. They love the hot weather, they love the food, and they don't miss British culture.

Gal's peace is disturbed by the arrival of Don Logan.

Don is played by Ben Kingsley in the role of his lifetime. He's a former associate of Gal who wants to hire him for a robbery. Gal insists that he's retired, but Don refuses to take No for an answer. They argue. They shout. Neither of them will back down. Something has to give.

The film has been called Tarantino-ish. I can see what they mean. It has distinct similarities with "Reservoir Dogs". The only real difference is the dream sequences. Quentin Tarantino doesn't do dreams.

This was the first film directed by Jonathan Glazer. It's astounding quality for a rookie in the film business. What was his inspiration? In itself, it's a minimalist film, and it's this minimalism that makes the film great. Apart from the dream sequences.

Success Rate:  + 0.4

Black Widow (5 Stars)

What age was Natasha Romanoff, the Black Widow, supposed to be in this film? The actress Scarlett Johansson was 34 when the film was made, but she looks much younger, thanks to the miracles of Hollywood makeup. In the picture above she looks like she's 22 at the oldest.

Speaking of myself, I went through two phases in my life. In my early years, up to when I was 35, Scarlett's age, people always thought I was younger than my real age. For instance, on my 23rd birthday I was waiting at Stuttgart's main train station in the early morning for a friend to arrive. I got into a conversation with some strangers while I was eating a snack, and they didn't believe I was 23. Their estimates ranged from 16 to 18. When I was 45 I returned to England, and everyone I met thought I was older. Their estimates ranged from 55 to 60.

What made the difference was my hair. At 23 I had long blond hair. I started growing my hair long when I was 18, but it was probably at its longest when I was 23. (I cut it short less than a year later, one of the biggest mistakes of my life, but that's a story for another day). My hair made me look young. In my late 30's I had a slowly advancing bald patch, and by the time I was 45 my remaining hair had turned grey. My hair made me look old.

"Black Widow" wasn't released until 2021. It was delayed by the Coronavirus pandemic. It was a posthumous film, as far as the Natasha Romanoff character was concerned. She'd already died in 2019 in "Avengers: Endgame". The post-credits scene shows her sister Yelena mourning at her grave.

Where does Black Widow (the character) go from here? At first I expected Yelena to adopt the role and become the new Black Widow. Now I don't know. The whole Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is fragmenting. The Marvel comics have a large lore to draw upon, with hundreds, maybe thousands of characters that can be used in films. Just being able to do this doesn't mean the MCU has to do it. Less is more. (I like that quote, but there's no consensus about who said it first). For me the breaking point was "The Eternals", totally unnecessary characters in the MCU.

Just writing about this makes me feel sad. There have been complaints about the Marvelization of Hollywood, complaints made by big directors like Quentin Tarantino. I don't think it's a bad thing in itself. It's all about films. I wouldn't mind if Hollywood were completely Marvelized, as long as the films are good. The word Marvel used to stand for quality. Today it stands for making money. I used to be excited whenever I heard the news about a new Marvel film. Now I just shrug my shoulders and hope it won't be too bad.

"Black Widow" is a good film. But it could be one of the last good Marvel films.

Success Rate:  - 0.1

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

Black Widow (4½ Stars)

This year's Amazon Prime Day has come and gone. Usually I'm excited about it. I don't buy things at random. I have a shopping list that I've been preparing for months, and when Prime Day comes I go through my list to see what's on offer. Usually I buy a lot. This year I didn't. The selection of films on Blu-ray was very meagre. The only items on offer from my shopping list were Marvel Blu-rays: Buy two, get one free. Better than nothing.

I clicked around the web site to see what else was on offer. I could have bought an Echo device or a Kindle, if I hadn't got them already. There were 55-inch televisions for less than 300 Euros. Very nice, if I'd needed one. Then I found that Clarks shoes were on sale. I don't know if any of my friends have noticed, but I always wear the same shoes. I have very wide and very high feet, so it's difficult to find shoes that fit me. I've been buying identical shoes for the last 20 years, the Clarks Recline Free. In England I bought them from the Clarks shop in New Street. In Germany I buy them from Amazon. The Prime day offer was 33% off Clarks shoes. I already had two pairs which I wear alternately, but I ordered another pair while they were still cheap.

The Clarks Recline Free are beautiful shoes with a leather lining and leather inner material. Best of all, they're very wide, wider than the "extra wide" varieties of other shoe brands. I can strongly recommend them to any of my readers who have awkward feet. My feet have been a curse all my adult life. My feet are size 9 (EU size 43), but for years I bought size 10 in order to get my feet into the shoes. Then I discovered the Clarks Recline Free shoes, and I can finally wear the correct size.

So the only items I bought on Prime Day were a pair of shoes and three Marvel Blu-rays. I'll watch the other two soon. "Black Widow" is the first film.

When "Black Widow" was made in 2021 the character was already dead. She sacrificed herself in "Avengers Endgame" (2019). Chronologically, "Black Widow" takes place shortly after "Captain America: Civil War" (2016). Natasha Romanoff is a fugitive, because she refuses to accept the Sokovia Accords that regulate the activities of superheroes.

Natasha is sent a package by her younger sister, who she hasn't seen for 20 years. It's a collection of vials which contain a gas capable of undoing the brainwashing carried out in the Red Room. A Russian general called Dreykov has gathered hundreds of young women that he calls widows, an army which he'll use to conquer the world. They're beautiful and they're deadly, and most importantly of all, they've been brainwashed to obey Dreykov unconditionally. 

Is Natasha's sister Yelena intended to be her replacement as the new Black Widow in the upcoming Marvel films? That would be good. Florence Pugh is a beautiful actress with poise and charisma. I just hope she'll drop the fake Russian accent. It sounds silly.

Their father is the Russian super-soldier called the Red Guardian. In the original comics he's terrifying, but the film shows him as inept and overweight. No, I don't want to see him again.

The Black Widow that we see in the film is far removed from the comic book character, so I have to watch the film in its own right. It's a top notch spy thriller, not a superhero film. It's one of the better Marvel films made in recent years. Let's hope Marvel returns to its former glory.

Success Rate:  - 0.1

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

Black Widow (4½ Stars)

Disney Wednesday #2

I admit it. I'm getting annoyed with the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). The whole concept of filming Marvel characters is flawed. The idea is as follows:

Take a character from Marvel comics. Put him (or her) in a film. Keep the name, but give him a new costume. Give him a different background. Change everything. Then say it's the same character from a different part of the Multiverse.

This concept is most obvious in the recent film "Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings". Shang-Chi in the film has nothing to do with Shang-Chi in the comics. Nothing at all. At least the MCU's Black Widow, Natasha Romanoff, could be associated with the comics book character while her background remained vague. Now this film, the 24th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, has made the mistake of giving us information about her early life, emphasising that it's a completely different character.

In the early years of Marvel, from 1961 until the late 1970's, everything was simple. It was a consistent universe, carefully crafted by Stan Lee, and continued by other writers. It wasn't even an alternate universe. Stan Lee wrote everything as if it were happening in our own world. There were occasional references to current political events and world leaders. This was in contrast to DC Comics, in which the characters lived in fictional cities, such as Gotham, Metropolis and Star City. Marvel's heroes (with the exception of the Hulk) were based in New York City, so there were frequent landmarks to give the reader an anchor to the real world. Later on the catchphrase "Marvel Universe" was invented to name the alternate place where the Marvel heroes live. Even later, this universe was numbered. The Marvel Universe is Earth-616.

Marvel itself (the comics company) justifies the deviations in the MCU by saying that they take place in a different part of the Multiverse. This is a list of the relevant alternate universes.

Earth-1218 -- the real world where you and I live.

Earth-616 -- the world where the Marvel heroes live in the comics.

Earth-199999 -- the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Do the numbers look as random to you as they do to me? The rest of the Marvel films have other designations:

Earth-730911 – "Spider-Man" (1977)

Earth-96173 – "Doctor Strange" (1978)

Earth-58470 – "Howard the Duck" (1986)

Earth-58627 – "The Punisher" (1989)

Earth-697064 – "Captain America" (1990)

Earth-94000 – "Fantastic Four" (1994)

Earth-26320 – the Blade films and TV series (1998-2006)

Earth-10005 – the first five X-Men films and the first two Wolverine films (2000-2016)

Earth-96283 – Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films (2002-2007)

Earth-701306 – "Daredevil" (2003) and "Elektra" (2005)

Earth-400083 – "Hulk" (2003)

Earth-58460 – "Man-Thing" (2005)

Earth-121698 – the Fantastic Four films (2005-2007)

Earth-121347 – the Ghost Rider films (2007-2012)

Earth-120703 – the Amazing Spider-Man films (2012-2014)

Earth-TRN554 – "Fantastic Four" (2015)

Earth-TRN404 – "X-Men: Apocalypse" (2016) and "Dark Phoenix" (2019)

Earth-TRN414 – the Deadpool films and "New Mutants" (2016-2020)

Earth-17315 – "Logan", the third Wolverine film (2017)

Earth-TRN688 – "Venom" (2018)

I've listed all of those, even though I consider them nonsensical. The proliferation of universe numbers is only intended to be a justification of the lack of continuity in the films.

As for the Black Widow film, I might write something about it next time I watch it. For now I'll just say that it's a good film.

Success Rate:  - 0.1

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

Black Widow (5 Stars)

When I went to the cinema tonight there was a trailer for the new James Bond film. The Black Widow film that followed was more of a high octane spy thriller than James Bond could ever be. The similarity is deliberate. The action jumps from country to country (USA, Cuba, Norway, Hungary), before finally settling in Russia.

Is the story faithful to the comics? Not really. I was grinding my teeth in annoyance when the Red Guardian was shown to be Natasha's father by adoption. In the comics he was her estranged husband. On the other hand, I was pleasantly surprised that the Red Guardian's costume was so similar to the comics. Here's what he looked like in his first appearance in August 1967.

The Black Widow has gone through many costume changes over the years, but none of them are like the white leather outfit she wears in the film's posters. She first appeared in Tales Of Suspense #52 (April 1964), wearing a sexy long dress, looking like a sultry Russian spy from 1950's films.

How many of you understood the significance of Yelena mistakenly calling her father the Crimson Dynamo? It made me chuckle. When the Black Widow first appeared in Tales Of Suspense #52, she was sent to assist the Russian super-villain Crimson Dynamo.

After their defeat at the hands of Iron Man, the Crimson Dynamo returned to Russia, but Black Widow remained in America. At first she acted alone, but in Tales Of Suspense #57 (September 1964) she teamed up with Hawkeye, who was still a villain at the time. Hawkeye was immediately love-struck, but Natasha was only using him. It wasn't until a few years later that a genuine romance developed.

This is Black Widow's costume in Tales Of Suspense #64 (April 1965). Hawkeye was considering giving up crime, but she tempted him to attack Iron Man yet again. He called her darling, but she felt nothing for him. He should have known better than to trust a woman who calls herself Black Widow. He gave up crime and joined the Avengers a month later in Avengers #16 (May 1965).

In Avengers #30 (July 1966), Natasha claimed that she'd been brainwashed by the Russians and now wanted to defect to America. After that she often aided the Avengers in their battles, but she didn't become an official member until Avengers #111 (May 1973). For months she worked for SHIELD, which separated her from Hawkeye. During this time she met and fell in love with Daredevil. Daredevil and Black Widow were partners from Daredevil #81 (November 1971) to Daredevil #124 (August 1975).

Hawkeye was jealous, understandably. Notice that the title of Daredevil's comic was temporarily changed to "Daredevil and the Black Widow". This was from Daredevil and the Black Widow #92 to Daredevil and the Black Widow #107. It makes things awkward for collectors.

Natasha's inviation to become an Avenger in Avengers #111 was one of the steps in their eventual breakup. Daredevil wanted to turn down Natasha's membership on her behalf. This is typical of the writing of Steve Englehant in the 1970's. Stan Lee had written about super-heroes with weaknesses, such as Daredevil being blind, but Steve Englehart took it a step further. He showed that heroes could have character faults, such as wanting to boss women around. Natasha was a strong, independent woman and didn't stand for it. She accepted the invitation and became an Avenger.

This is the tearful break up of Daredevil and Black Widow in Daredevil #124. Couldn't they have been given a little privacy?

After breaking up with Daredevil, Natasha left the Avengers and formed a new group called the Champions with Hercules, Ghost Rider, Angel and Iceman. I shan't go into it here. Black Widow has a long history in Marvel comics, too much to write about in a short review.

Nevertheless, the film is very good, and I'll write more about it when I own it on Blu-ray.

Cats (3 Stars)

This is my first film of 2020, which automatically makes it the best film of the year so far. Or the worst film. It depends on how you look at it. Three years ago I began to keep a running list of my top 10 films of the year, so I wouldn't have to panic when the last week of the year arrived. That also means that as soon as I've watched my first 10 films of the year – an easy feat for January – I'll already have a top 10 list ready to publish if the worst happens and I'm bedridden for the rest of the year.

The film follows the adventures of Victoria, a cat who's abandoned on the streets of London near Trafalgar Square. She's a kind-hearted innocent cat who only wants to be loved. She comes into contact with the Jellicle tribe of cats, who follow a matriarch called Old Deuteronomy. Once a year she picks one member of the tribe to ascend into a new life. Wow! That's an extravagant clash of fairy tales and religious symbolism.

It's a magical version of London, recognisable but somehow mystical. The whole story takes place in one night.

Having said that, this is a film which has several outstanding features, but also several poor qualities, giving it an overall average rating. On the plus side, the dancing is excellent, especially the tap dancing scenes. It was the right decision to pick a ballet dancer, Francesca Hayward, for the lead role instead of an actress. That was the mistake made in the unjustly praised musical "La La Land".

On the minus side, the character of the film's villain, Macavity, is totally bland. I don't blame Idris Elba, because I consider him one of the best actors alive today. I blame his lack of characterisation in the film's script. We hardly see him, and we're given no chance to sympathise with him. Is it possible that his role was shortened in the film? I can't imagine that the musical itself could have been written so poorly.

Most of the songs were enjoyable, but I was somehow disappointed with Jennifer Hudson. I've liked her as a singer ever since I saw her in "Dreamgirls", but in "Cats" she doesn't unleash her full potential.

One problem that I have personally is the portrayal of the tomcats. Watching the female cats walking in a slinky, feline manner was almost arousing, but seeing the males walk in the same feminine way was distasteful. I'm too heterosexual to enjoy something like that.

For the last few weeks I've been reading bad reviews about the film, but I still had to see it. I like musicals, and I like Rebel Wilson (who plays a medium-sized role). If I hadn't gone to see it I would have been left burning with curiosity. I wouldn't call it a bad film, but I don't want to watch it again.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (3½ Stars)

This is the fourth film in the Indiana Jones series, made with a long gap after the third film. 19 years! Was it necessary to revive the film franchise? That depends on who you ask. It was money in the bank for the film studios. I suspect that there were letters and emails being sent for years begging Steven Spielberg to do it again.

Does it still have the magic of the old films? Sort of. Steven Spielberg has never made a bad film. In my eyes he's the most reliable film director who has ever lived. He knows how to make films, he follows the required steps and he makes a quality film every time. However, he never takes risks. By avoiding risks he doesn't make the truly great films like Quentin Tarantino, but if he took risks he might make the occasional bad film. We need a Steven Spielberg who's consistently good. We also need the risk-takers who occasionally create works of brilliance.

As for "Crystal Skull" itself (I prefer to abbreviate the film title), it's a fun adventure. Harrison Ford travels round the world -- this time to South America -- to prevent mystical archaeological artefacts from falling into the hands of evil empires. In the previous three films the enemies were the Nazis. In "Crystal Skull" the enemies are the Russians. When the film was made there were criticisms from Russia that Russia was demonised, as if all Russians were evil. So what? The film is set in 1957, at the height of the Cold War, and Russia was generally regarded as the world's Evil Empire.

The main representative of the Evil Empire is Irina Spalko, played admirably by Cate Blanchett. She's dressed in an unflattering grey suit, more typical of Chinese Communism than Russian Communism, but the very unsexiness of her outfit makes it bizarrely appealing. She's a caricature, much like the villains of the early James Bond films. All that's missing is a ridiculous name, but Steven Spielberg doesn't do that. That's a shame. She could have been called Irina Spankyu.

An unusual aspect in this film is that instead of dealing with only mystical artefacts there are aliens involved, making this the first Indiana Jones science fiction film. The crystal skull in the title is the real skull of a visitor from another planet.

I've decided to give the film a relatively low rating because of my personal reaction to the film. It ticked all the boxes, I couldn't find any fault with it, but while watching it I found myself getting bored. I'm used to the Spielberg style, so it seemed too smooth and too predictable to me. I doubt I'll watch it again. Maybe, maybe not.

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

Snow White and the Huntsman (4 Stars)

This is a retelling of the story of Snow White. It isn't a film I normally would have watched, but a friend strongly recommended it, and I wasn't disappointed. It's a lot closer to the fairy tale than I expected, the action is exciting, and the special effects are impressive. I only have one fault with the film, and it's a big fault. I waited till the end, when the credits rolled, to see who was responsible for the casting. There it stood: "Casting by Lucy Bevan".

Lucy, Lucy, you should be ashamed of yourself. The film is all about beauty. "Mirror, mirror, on the wall. Who is the fairest of them all?" Who in his right mind would find Kristen Stewart more attractive than Charlize Theron? Charlize is stunning, a Goddess among women, even now that she's almost 40. Despite all the hard work of the make up crew Kristen's appearance was dull. She doesn't even have average beauty, she's simply unattractive. She has buck teeth, large ears, a flat chest and narrow hips. In the fairy tale Snow White has blonde hair. Lucy Bevan did everything wrong. What was she thinking? Kristen Stewart doesn't even make up for her lack of good looks with acting skills. As an actress she is average at most. I'm sure there are at least 50, maybe 100 other actresses who would have been more suitable for the role. The best choice would have been Leelee Sobieski. Apart from being the best actress alive today, Leelee is beautiful enough to rival Charlize Theron. Anyone who has seen Leelee's performance in "Joan of Arc" will agree with me.

Snow White and the Huntsman [Guest Writer] (4 Stars)

All right, after the multitude of nagging from he-who-shall-remain-nameless-but-still-get-stoned-with-rocks I decided to do another review. I was happy to hear that my review of Ip Man was so well received. Go me! So I recently went to go see this in theaters and at first I wasn't even intending to see this originally. I had wanted to see Battleship but since I was 30 minutes late for the movie I decided to opt out for the time being and see this one instead since it did have a favourite actress of mine - Charlize Theron. So before I go on let me lay down the background of this story as I'm sure everyone knows already.

The story:
Snow White is the only person in the land fairer than the evil queen. Unable to tolerate the insult to her vanity, the evil queen decides that Snow White must die. The queen sends a huntsman to kill Snow White. However the huntsman finds himself unable to murder the innocent young woman and instead ends up training her to become a warrior capable of threatening the queen's reign.

So when I first saw the preview for this movie I was skeptical, hell I was more than skeptical I was in downright disbelief that this could be even close to anything good. Kristen Stewart has not instilled me with any faith in her acting with her Twilight films on her resume. I hated Twilight which is why you will never find me doing a review on it on this site because it wasn't even worth the time to write about it. She never seems to play a character for me but it feels more like she's acting as herself playing a character if that makes sense. She's kind of like Sandra Bullock but I love Sandra far far far more than I love Kristen any day of the week. There are some actors that don't have the ability to immerse themselves in a role to the point of becoming that other person because we always see them as their real persona, their acting persona - not the character. Although Sandra did a wonderful job in Blind Side (I'll be doing a review of that soon enough so stay tuned).  Next to Kristen was Chris Hemsworth who bored me to tears in his portrayal of Thor in "Thor" and "The Avengers". Despite all the bruhaha that came from it, as you can read in my previous review of Thor, I wasn't impressed. So, yeah, I was extremely skeptical about paying 8 dollars to see this on the big screen. The only saving grace to my mind for this movie that made me remotely interested in it was Charlize. I love Charlize. I loved her in Aeon Flux. I loved her in Monster. I love her - period. I wouldn't say that she is the most spectacular actress I have ever seen or my #1 favourite but she is on my list. She played the villain quite nicely and had me enthralled every time. Kristen was also a bit of a surprise although she does have a long way to go with her acting, it was an improvement from her recent films (mainly Twilight). I wonder if this improvement is because she was working along Charlize and other notable actors. The world may never know. Chris didn't do so bad himself and I think this role fit him pretty well.

The story was very dark and edgy which I enjoyed very well. The backgrounds and scenes were vivid, dark, and sometimes fantastical. The creatures gave it that "Grimm Brothers" feel which I'm a fan of rather than the Disney rendition. Overall it was a good film. It won't win any awards in my book but it is worth a watch. Is it worth the movie ticket? Hmm, now that one I'm on the fence about. I don't quite regret paying for the ticket to see it in theaters although I still do wish I could've seen Battleship. Oh well, give it a watch and make your own judgements!