Jurassic Park III (3 Stars)

"Jurassic Park III" proves one thing beyond any doubt: Steven Spielberg was the real star of the franchise. Strip away his direction and you're left with a noisy monster movie that completely misunderstands what made "Jurassic Park" a masterpiece.

Joe Johnston throws dinosaurs at the screen almost non-stop, confusing relentless action with genuine suspense. Spielberg made audiences hold their breath before unleashing his creatures. Here, every five minutes there's another chase, another roar and another narrow escape until the dinosaurs become little more than oversized theme park attractions. The magic has vanished.

Sam Neill returns as Alan Grant and remains effortlessly likeable, but even he can't rescue a script that reduces him to escorting one of the most irritating families ever to stumble onto Isla Sorna. The emotional intelligence, memorable characters and sense of discovery that defined the first film have all but disappeared.

The introduction of the Spinosaurus perfectly sums up everything that's wrong with the sequel. Instead of creating a memorable new predator, the film simply has it defeat the Tyrannosaurus  Rex in a desperate attempt to convince audiences that bigger means better. It's an empty gimmick that feels less like storytelling and more like marketing.

To be fair, "Jurassic Park III" isn't boring. The aviary sequence is genuinely thrilling and the special effects remain excellent. But impressive effects can't disguise the fact that this is the moment the series stopped being intelligent science fiction and became a generic dinosaur action franchise. Without Spielberg's eye for wonder and suspense, "Jurassic Park III" is little more than a loud reminder that anyone can film dinosaurs, but only Spielberg knew how to make you believe in them.

If anything, "Jurassic Park III" is the franchise's first warning sign. The dinosaurs survived, but the soul of "Jurassic Park" didn't.

Success Rate:  + 2.0

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

Jurassic Park (5 Stars)

As most of you know, Sam Neill passed away this morning. I've decided to watch two of his films to remember him, "Jurassic Park" and "Jurassic Park III". He doesn't appear in the second film, but I'll watch it anyway. It's in my top 20 films, meaning it's a film which deserves to be watched repeatedly.

If there's one performance that defines Sam Neill's career, it's Dr Alan Grant in "Jurassic Park". Neill had already built an impressive filmography before Steven Spielberg's dinosaur epic, but this is the role that made him a cinematic icon. Decades later, it's still impossible to think of Sam Neill without picturing the moment he removes his sunglasses in stunned disbelief as dinosaurs once again walk the Earth.

Neill is the emotional anchor that keeps "Jurassic Park" grounded. Grant begins as a brilliant but emotionally distant palaeontologist who'd rather spend his life digging up fossils than dealing with children. Over the course of the film, Neill subtly transforms him into a reluctant protector, and every stage of that journey feels completely natural. Whether he's awestruck by the sight of a living Brachiosaurus, desperately outrunning a Tyrannosaurus Rex or quietly comforting two terrified children, Neill never lets the spectacle overwhelm the humanity of the character.

Spielberg's ground-breaking visual effects still hold up remarkably well, but they only work because the cast reacts with absolute conviction. Neill's expressions of wonder, fear and determination make the impossible believable. His chemistry with Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum gives the film warmth and humour, while his fatherly bond with Lex and Tim provides its emotional heart.

"Jurassic Park" remains one of the greatest blockbusters ever made because it balances breath-taking action with unforgettable characters. At the centre of it all is Sam Neill, delivering the performance of a lifetime. He's enjoyed a long and distinguished career, but this is the role that made him immortal. For generations of film fans, Alan Grant isn't just Sam Neill's greatest character; it's the performance that will always define his legacy.

Sam Neill
14 September 1947 – 13 July 2026

Success Rate:  + 14.4

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

Bicentennial Man (5 Stars)

Netflix Thursday #47

"Bicentennial Man" is a film that was made ahead of its time. When it was released in 1999 it seemed faintly embarrassing, yet it has aged into something quietly fascinating, commonly being called a cult film. Directed by Chris Columbus and starring Robin Williams, it was initially dismissed as overlong, sentimental and tonally confused; a family film that strained toward philosophical seriousness without quite earning it. But in the age of contemporary AI, its reputation has shifted. What once felt naive now feels oddly prescient.

The film, loosely based on Isaac Asimov's novella "The Bicentennial Man", charts the 200-year life of Andrew, an android who evolves from a household appliance to something approaching a human being. At the time, this arc was framed largely as a Pinocchio-style fable; a machine who wants to become "real". Today, that premise lands differently. The question is no longer abstract. With the rise of machine learning systems and conversational AI, Andrew's journey speaks directly to contemporary anxieties about consciousness, identity and rights.

One reason the film has become a cult object is precisely because of how unfashionable it once was. In 1999, audiences were primed for sleeker, more ironic science fiction; the same year saw "The Matrix" redefine the genre with cyberpunk cool and philosophical edge. By contrast, "Bicentennial Man" is earnest to a fault. It takes its time, embraces melodrama and leans heavily on Williams' gentle, increasingly restrained performance. That earnestness, once a liability, now reads as sincerity. The film is not trying to be clever; it is trying to be humane.

And that is the key to its afterlife. Modern AI discourse is often dominated by fear; job displacement, surveillance, loss of control. "Bicentennial Man" approaches the subject from the opposite direction. It asks not what machines will do to us, but what it would mean for a machine to join us. Andrew's desire is not to surpass humanity but to belong to it; to love, to create, to die. The film's central provocation is quietly radical: humanity is defined not by biology, but by experience, vulnerability and mortality.

There is also something newly poignant in the film's incrementalism. Andrew does not leap into consciousness; he inches toward it over decades, through small acts of creativity and self-modification. In an era when AI progress is rapid and opaque, this slow, legible evolution feels almost comforting. It suggests a continuity between tool and personhood that modern systems, with their black-box complexity, often lack.

The film's flaws have not disappeared, but these very flaws are now considered its strengths. The romance subplot used to divide critics; how could a woman possibly have a romance with a robot? But today there are common news stories of people forming relationships with online chatbots, which contributes to its cult appeal. The film is marked as a sincere attempt to grapple with big ideas within a mainstream framework; something increasingly rare.

Ultimately, "Bicentennial Man" endures because it asks a question that has only become more urgent: if a machine can think, create and feel, what, exactly, is left to distinguish it from us? In 1999, that question felt speculative. In 2026, it feels uncomfortably close.

What was once a misfire now plays like a time capsule from a more optimistic technological imagination; one that believed the endpoint of artificial intelligence might not be domination or disaster, but a quiet, hard-won recognition of shared humanity.

The film has returned to the public eye through being revived by Netflix. For that we can be thankful. The DVD releases from the turn of the century are now difficult to find. On Netflix the film is in HD quality, even though it's never been released on Blu-ray. Discerning fans are clamouring for a Blu-ray or even 4K release.

Success Rate:  - 1.0

Jurassic World: Dominion (3 Stars)

I've waited a long time before buying this film. I only bought it this week because the seventh film in the Jurassic Park franchise has just arrived in the cinemas. I need to catch up before I go to see it. "Jurassic World: Dominion" should have been the final film as the third film in the second trilogy. That would have meant the franchise ending on a whimper, not a bang. It's the weakest film in the franchise, despite its success at the box office. Maybe people only flocked into the cinema because they'd enjoyed the previous instalments so much.

The trouble with "Dominion" (please excuse me for shortening the title) is that it's drifted too far away from the initial premise. Back in 1993 "Jurassic Park" was all about people running away from dinosaurs. Put like that, it sounds like a primitive idea, but it was a great film in the capable hands of Steven Spielberg. Most of "Dominion" has the form of a spy thriller, chasing someone who's using dinosaur DNA for his own devious purposes.

Okay, I watched it today, but I feel reluctant to ever watch it again. I hope the next film is better when I go to see it at the weekend.

Success Rate:  + 3.4

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

Thor: Love And Thunder (3½ Stars)

This is the 29th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). I gave it a lukewarm review when I watched it in the cinema last year. Now that I can finally watch it on Blu-ray I wanted to like it, I made a real effort to appreciate it more than last year, but the best I could do was increase the rating by half a star. The film's biggest problem is the main character, Thor himself. He's portrayed as being arrogant and a fool. I can put up with the arrogance. That's something we see at times in the comics. But foolish? Never! He was always a noble God, with or without his arrogance. I can see what Taika Watiti wanted to do as director and co-writer. He wanted to pull Thor down to our level, so we can relate to him better. That's a mistake. He's a God, so there should be a distance between him and the viewer.

But there are also questions about his godhood which remain unanswered in the film. In the comics we read that he's the God of Thunder. That's it. No explanations. He's a God, the same God that the people in northern Europe used to pray to. When Thor was introduced into the MCU the studios were nervous about insulting people, so it was expressly stated (in words spoken by Phil Coulson) that Thor isn't really a God, he's an alien. I'm not happy with that, but in "Love and Thunder" we meet a character called Gorr who claims to be a God killer. So Gorr disagrees with Phil Coulson and says that Thor is a God after all?

It's all a matter of definition. What is a God? Can we make a definition which isn't specific to just one religion? Is a God the person who created the universe? That would exclude Thor. Is a God someone that people pray to? That would include Thor. Is it someone who's immortal? That's a tricky one, because it's conceivable that human medicine can one day promise immortality. Is a God someone who lays down teachings to live by? Maybe, but some religions would call that person a prophet. I don't have an answer. Gorr could evidently tell the difference. For Gorr anyone is a God if he says he's a God and has followers who agree he's a God. That's a very simplistic definition, with obvious problems, but it works for Gorr in the film.

Let's say, for example, that I stood in the street and told people I'm a God (with an article). The first reaction would be that people say I'm mad. But let's get past that. Let's say that people who disagree want to discuss it with me. In order to convince me that I'm not a God, they first have to know what a God is. Many cults begin with a person claiming to be a God and others believing him.

In "Love and Thunder" Jane Foster carries Mjolnir and possesses the power of Thor. She even calls herself Mighty Thor (without an article). Does this make her a God? Maybe not, because the hammer is also killing her. That's one of the things that doesn't make sense in the film. In a book of Norse legends Jane reads that Mjolnir promises health. She's suffering from terminal cancer, so she travels to Tonsberg (New Asgard) in Norway to take the hammer. It gives her the power of Thor on a temporary basis, but it's actually sucking the strength from her body, speeding up her death. Mjolnir should do better. The problem lies with Marvel Studios, in particular Kevin Feige. He wanted to be modern and present a female Thor, but he wasn't brave enough to do it permanently, so he had to kill her off.

There's a passionate kiss between Thor and Mighty Thor. How passionate is the kiss? Are they using tongues? It looks like they aren't. Maybe Gods don't use their tongues. Or maybe Natalie Portman agrees with Kristin Kreuk that it's not professional.

Here's a small feature that was introduced in the previous Thor film, "Ragnarok". There's a play about the events of previous films. In this case Melissa McCarthy is playing Hela. She looks good, but I still prefer Cate Blanchett. Melissa is only pretending to be the God of Death.

How the mighty have fallen! In the comics Thanos claimed to be God (without an article), although he doesn't say this in the films. Nevertheless, he was all powerful. A few years have passed, and now an imitation of his Infinity Gauntlet adorns an ice cream parlour. I wonder if it tastes good. I'll have to try it the next time I'm in Tonsberg.

Success Rate:  + 1.0

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

Thor: Ragnarok (4½ Stars)

Disney Wednesday #14

How many Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films have been made so far? I guessed that it was 32, but I had to check before I continued writing. I was right. Thirty-two films. It looks like even more then I write 32 in words. I couldn't put them in the right order. To help myself, I've put a little green sticker with the number on the spine of my MCU Blu-rays.

While I'm in England I'll be watching the Marvel films (MCU or otherwise) in random order. My son-in-law Mehdi hasn't seen them all, so I'll leave the decision up to him what comes next. "Thor: Ragnarok" is a good choice.

Success Rate:  + 2.7

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

Thor: Love and Thunder (3 Stars)

I'm writing this review with a very heavy heart. I'm a Marvel fan. I always have been. I started reading Marvel comics when I was six and bought the comics regularly until I left university. (After that I moved to Germany, and the comics were less easily available at that time). The Marvel films made in the 1980's and 1990's were disappointing, but in the 2000's high quality, big budget films based on the comics were finally made. "X-Men" was the turning point in 2000, and the films have kept up momentum ever since.

But what's happened now? The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is producing flop after flop. They should have quit while they were ahead. "Avengers Endgame" should have been the last Marvel film, but corporate greed caused Marvel to take more and more risks.

The first three Thor films were good. They weren't perfect, but they were highly enjoyable action romps. So what went wrong with the fourth film, which I saw in the cinema this evening? Too much CGI. Too much humour. Too many characters. Too much humour. Or did I mention the humour already?

I like comedies. Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows that already. But Marvel isn't about comedy. Maybe there can be occasional jokes, but the repeated humour in "Love and Thunder" just got on my nerves. The cinema was packed, and the audience was laughing at the silly little monsters in the early scenes. Most of the audience, that is. I was groaning.

I can't say too much without giving away spoilers. All I'll say for now is that the film is a failure. It's tempted me to never watch another Marvel film.

Jurassic World: Dominion (4 Stars)

This is the final film in the Jurassic Park franchise. For now, at least. There was a 14-year gap between the third and the fourth film. Nobody knows what will happen 20 years from now, when the film studios are desperate to make money. The only thing we can say for sure is that "Jurassic World: Dominion" is the final film of the second Jurassic Park trilogy.

It has all the characteristics of a final film. It goes back to the beginning. It re-assembles the main characters from the first film, Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), alongside the regular cast of the last two films. Alan Grant and Ellie Sattler don't add much to the film. I have the impression that they were only added to the cast for sentimental reasons. Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) are the film's real stars.

The film takes place a few years after the events of "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom". Dinosaurs are now living in the world in a natural equilibrium with mankind. We see news reports at the beginning telling stories of people being attacked by dinosaurs, but these are exceptions, not the rule. We've moved a long way from the first three films, when it was just a matter of running for your life whenever you see a dinosaur. The biggest danger in the new film comes from a corporation called Biosyn. In order to sell its own crops it's created a new species of giant locusts which devour all crops except for Biosyn's genetically modified crops.

That's the film's biggest problem, in my eyes. I would have liked to see more people running for their lives from dinosaurs. That's something that only happens on a large scale towards the end of the film.

"Jurassic World: Dominion" isn't a bad film, but it doesn't live up to the quality of the first two films, both of which are in my top 20 films. The difference is that they were directed by Steven Spielberg. I shan't say anything else to avoid spoilers. I'll write a more detailed review of the film when I own it on Blu-ray.

Jurassic Park (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #12

Blogging is all about momentum. For years I've been used to my daily rhythm of watching a film every day, then writing about it.

Watch. Write. Sleep. Repeat.

What I'm trying to say is that after taking a short break from blogging it's difficult to regain my momentum. I took a break last week to catch up on watching TV series. I watched the third season of "Vikings". At first I only wanted to watch a couple of episodes, but it's so brilliant that I couldn't stop. The murder of the monk Athelstan by Floki was a shock. For me, Athelstan was the series' most fascinating character. A man caught between two religions. As he said at the beginning of the third season, "I love Jesus, but I've chosen Odin". The whole subject of the two religions, along with the strong character development, is what makes "Vikings" so appealing. The Vikings and the English both consider their respective religions to be the true religion, and there's no way for the two to meet, except for Athelstan. His murder has destroyed the only bridge between the two religions.

Today, most people only know the Norse religion – what's it called anyway? Odinism? – from the Marvel films. Odin is Anthony Hopkins with an eye patch and Thor is Chris Hemsworth strutting about arrogantly. I read the Norse myths as a young teenager. I read them as stories, not taking account of the religious aspects.

Maybe I should write more about "Vikings" at a later date. Maybe when I get to the fourth season. I'm getting off topic now. I ought to be writing about "Jurassic Park". Did you forget?

Oops! Wrong dinosaur! I had this unused screenshot from "Bikini Jones" that I needed to share with you.

This is a dinosaur from "Jurassic Park". The difference in quality might not be apparent from the two screenshots. To fully appreciate the superiority of the computer animation, you have to see the dinosaurs moving. When the film was made in 1993, "Jurassic Park" had the most realistic dinosaurs ever. However, due to the restrictions in computer speed, they were used sparingly. 

Steven Spielberg might not be my favourite director, but I respect him as the greatest living director. He knows how to make films, and a Film Studies course could be wrapped around his films without mentioning any other director. In the series "Dawson's Creek" the title character, Dawson Leery, was obsessed with Steven Spielberg. He made frequent references to his films throughout the series, and his dream was to become a director like Spielberg. His films all include strong character development. There's a Spielberg Style, as I like to call it. His films start off with an action scene to get the audience in the mood. Then the films slow down, introducing the main characters, one by one. After that there's a slow build up to the big action scenes. That's the pattern he follows in "Jurassic Park". That's the pattern he followed in "Jaws". They're two excellent films, made 20 years apart, each using the best that the technology of the day had to offer.

The characters in the film are stereotypes. I don't say that as a criticism. By using standard stereotypes, the audience can relate to them. We know who they are and what makes them tick, even before we see the details of their characters. Dr. Alan Grant is a stuffy archaeologist. He would rather sit alone digging than communicate with others, and he avoids children as much as he can. Dr. John Hammond is the carefree millionaire. Dr. Ellie Sattler is a friendly, sociable palaeobotanist who assists Dr. Grant in his work. (For those of you who, like me, don't know what a palaeobotanist is, it's someone who studies old fossilised plants).

Then there are the kids. Dr.  Hammond's grandchildren are present in the dinosaur park, adding human interest. Everyone can relate to young children.

If anyone thinks this is the best film ever made, I won't argue with you. It's a candidate for the top spot. I have difficulty deciding which is better, "Jurassic Park" or its sequel, "Lost World", which I intend to watch tomorrow. "Lost World" has superior graphics, due to the rapid advances in computer technology in the 1990's, but "Jurassic Park" has a better story. Watching them back to back will help me judge them better.

Success Rate:  + 14.4

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

Thor: Ragnarok (4½ Stars)

Normally when I rewatch a film I read my old review(s) first. I failed to do that today. After watching the film I sat down, wrote a few sentences, then finally checked what I wrote in January. Oops! I was writing the same things all over again. I don't want to bore my readers, so I scrapped it and started again. Let's write something new!

This is a very good film. At first I thought it was lightweight, compared to the other MCU films, but that's not the case. The film has a complex plot, but it seems light due to the amount of humour.

In this review I'll just treat you with photos of Cate Blanchett as the Goddess of Death and ignore all the minor characters. Death has never looked so good.

And she has a cute dog. My dog always used to sit on my lap when I was watching films, but I don't think the Hellhound would be so affectionate. I hope not.

Was Hela killed in "Thor: Ragnarok"? Seemingly. I don't see how it could be permanent. You can't kill death. I'd like to see her in a future MCU film.

Which reminds me... when will the MCU be rebooted? I'm not saying that I want a reboot, but it's inevitable. The actors are getting older and have to quit their roles. There can be new phases with younger actors playing new super-heroes, but this can't carry on indefinitely. The core characters of the Marvel universe can't be allowed to disappear. Spider-Man, Daredevil, Captain America, Thor, just to name a few. Marvel wouldn't be Marvel without them.

Success Rate:  + 2.7

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

Thor: Ragnarok (4 Stars)

This is the 17th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in November 2017.

Those familiar with Norse legends will recognise that the Ragnarok shown in this film is a mini-Ragnarok. In the film it has to do with the destruction of Asgard. In the Norse legends Midgard (the name for our planet Earth) is also destroyed.

The film combines two stories. The first story is about Hela, Thor's older sister, attempting to conquer Asgard after Odin's death. The second story is about the Hulk fighting in an arena on a distant planet. The stories could have been told in two separate films, but I think Marvel Studios was too afraid that a Hulk solo film would fail at the box office. As it is, the stories blend well into one another.

Stan Lee appears as a barber on the planet where the Hulk lives. He's responsible for cutting Thor's hair short, so he can comfortably wear a helmet in the arena. Poor Thor. When I was 23 I let my hair be cut short because it's what my fiancée Elke wanted. When I got home and looked at myself in the mirror I cried. Needless to say, I never married Elke. Any woman who tries to change a man before they're even married doesn't deserve to have him. The reverse is also the case. If I fell in love with a woman with certain characteristics, inside or outside, why would I want to change her?

This is Thor with his beautiful long hair.

This is Thor with his short hair. His face alone says that he's not happy.

Most men lose their hair as they get older, so they're forced to cut their hair short. That's different. By the time I was 40 I had a large bald patch, but I could still have worn my hair long into my mid thirties. I should have done so, but after splitting up with Elke it was difficult for me to grow it long again. There was a mental block which I should have tried to overcome.

Thor has no respect for the man who forcibly cut his hair. When asked by Bruce Banner what had happened to his hair he replies "Some creepy old man cut it off". That man might have been the great Stan Lee, but Thor's attitude is understandable. I could never respect any man who cut off my long hair.

Loki is allowed to keep his long hair. As the God of Trickery and Mischief he must have found a way to keep Stan Lee's hands off him.

Doctor Strange has never had long hair. He should try it some time.

Cate Blanchett plays the role of Hela. I've always liked her as an actress, but I considered her appearance plain. But what's happened to her now? She's 47 years old, and this is the sexiest she's ever looked.

Maybe it's just me. I like women to look dark and evil. If makeup and hair dye can achieve this look, all women should do it. It would make the world a much more beautiful place.

I'm not so enthusiastic about her headgear that out-maleficents Maleficient, but her skin-tight outfit is incredibly sexy, and the double swords round off her look.

Hela deserves to wear the Infinity Gauntlet. It's a shame it's a fake.

Hela's face is beautiful when she smiles...

but she's even more beautiful when she scowls...

and best of all is her mean, mocking laugh.

"Thor: Ragnarok" uses the incredible "Immigrant Song" by Led Zeppelin. It's played twice, at the beginning and during the final credits. This is a much better song than "Brandy" in "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2". There were a few super-groups at the beginning of the 1970's. Rock music was made with a fever that was previously unknown. Many consider Led Zeppelin to have been the best of these groups.

---

Immigrant Song by Led Zeppelin

We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs flow.
Hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new land
To fight the hordes and sing and cry
"Valhalla, I am coming".

Always sweep with threshing oar,
Our only goal will be the western shore.

We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs flow.
How soft your fields so green. Can whisper tales of gore,
Of how we calmed the tides of war.
We are your overlords.

Always sweep with threshing oar,
Our only goal will be the western shore.

So now you'd better stop and rebuild all your ruins,
For peace and trust can win the day despite of all your losing.

Success Rate:  + 2.7

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

The Commuter (4 Stars)

Mike McAuley commutes to New York City every day, a 69 minute train journey from Peekskill to Grand Central Station. He's been selling life insurance in the City for the last 10 years. After thousands of journeys on the same train at the same times every day he recognises the familiar faces of fellow travellers, and he even exchanges words with some of them. It's a pleasant enough journey. For almost the whole journey the train follows the bank of the River Hudson. You just have to sit on the right side of the train to enjoy the view.

In a single day his whole life changes. His boss tells him his company is downsizing, so he has to leave. When an American company says "leave" they mean "leave now". No notice is given. Out is out. Mike complains that at 60 he has no chance of finding a new job, but who cares? Out is out.

At the train station a man bumps into him who steals his wallet and his mobile phone. I have some advice for my friends. If you wear a jacket, don't keep your wallet in the jacket pocket. You're too vulnerable. Trouser pockets are much better.

On the train a woman sits down opposite him. She offers him a small job, based on his experience as a regular commuter. He has to identify a person who doesn't belong on the train. He isn't told if it's a man or a woman, just that the person is travelling to Cold Spring. If he succeeds he will be given $100,000. If he fails, or if he tells anyone else about his task, his wife and son will be killed.

That's a very weird task. When I saw the film's trailer I thought it was stupid. However, as the train rolls on from stop to stop it all falls into place. It all begins to make sense.

Liam Neeson amazes me. He's 65 now, five years older than the character he's playing in the film, and yet he's still tough enough to play an action hero. As the plot unravels he gets into repeated fights with other passengers on the train.

The film might be a mystery, but in the foreground there's non-stop action. The film is thrilling from the beginning to the end of the train journey. By the time the film ends you'll be breathless. It's incredible.

Thor: Ragnarok (4½ Stars)

Every new film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is a cause for excitement. I can almost forgive Marvel Studios for messing up the stories by mixing old comics events and characters (from the 1960's) with new events (from the 2000's). As an old school Marvel geek I'd prefer the films to be based on the silver age stories when Marvel was Marvel, maybe with a few elements from the bronze age stories mixed in. Any complaints that I have about the film are based on deviations from the comics.

The first problem that I have with the film is the excess of comical remarks coming from Thor's mouth in the early scenes. He's one of the most serious Marvel heroes. Did he ever tell a single joke in the comics? None that I can remember.

The next problem is the apparent superiority of Doctor Strange over Loki, easily overwhelming him with a single spell. In the comics Loki is far more powerful because he's a God, whereas Doctor Strange is only a mortal. We saw this most clearly in Strange Tales #123, published in August 1964.

This is clearly a result of Marvel Studios scaling down the power of the Asgardians in the films. In the comics they are Gods, even if it's never clearly explained what Gods are. In the films we're told early on that they aren't Gods, they're just aliens from another planet who were mistaken for Gods when they revealed themselves in Norway a few thousand years ago. Why does Marvel do that? Is Marvel afraid of insulting the Good Christian People of America.

I'll stop there. Any other criticisms I might make would give away spoilers.

"Thor: Ragnarok" is a good film. I just think it could be better by sticking closer to the original Marvel comics.