Insomnia [Norwegian Version] (5 Stars)

Few crime thrillers have achieved the reputation enjoyed by "Insomnia", the 1997 Norwegian film directed by Erik Skjoldbjaerg. Long before the Hollywood remake starring Al Pacino and Robin Williams, the original established itself as one of the defining Scandinavian thrillers of the modern era. Nearly three decades later, it remains a benchmark for Nordic crime cinema and a deserved cult classic.

The film follows Swedish homicide detective Jonas Engström, played by Stellan Skarsgard, who travels to Tromso in northern Norway to investigate the murder of a young woman. The endless daylight of the Arctic summer soon becomes an enemy in itself. Unable to sleep, increasingly paranoid and burdened by guilt after a tragic shooting incident, Engström finds himself trapped in a psychological battle with the killer he is pursuing.

What makes "Insomnia" so extraordinary is its atmosphere. Unlike many thrillers that rely on darkness and shadows, the film creates tension through relentless sunlight. The bright Norwegian landscapes become oppressive, almost surreal. The perpetual daylight reflects Engström's deteriorating mental state, turning the investigation into a study of guilt, exhaustion and moral compromise. Skarsgard delivers one of the finest performances of his career, portraying a man whose confidence slowly collapses under pressure.

The film's cult status comes from its unusual approach to the crime genre. Rather than focusing on the mystery of "who did it", the audience learns the killer's identity relatively early. The suspense instead comes from watching the psychological relationship that develops between hunter and hunted. This emphasis on character, morality and atmosphere helped pave the way for later Scandinavian crime dramas and the wider Nordic noir movement. Many of the themes that would later become associated with Nordic crime fiction are already present here: flawed investigators, bleak moral ambiguity and a landscape that becomes an active participant in the story.

The influence of "Insomnia" can still be felt today. Its combination of psychological depth, visual originality and moral complexity remains remarkably fresh. While many Scandinavian thrillers have followed in its footsteps, few have matched its hypnotic power. As both a gripping crime story and a haunting character study, "Insomnia" stands among the greatest Scandinavian crime thrillers ever made and remains essential viewing for anyone interested in the evolution of Nordic noir.

Return To Montauk (4 Stars)

"There are only two things that matter; there is the thing you did that you regret, the thing that cannot be undone; and there is the thing that you did not do, that you should have done, that you regret too, but it's too late now. It's easy to say that these things do not matter, because they're over, but they do. They are in fact all that matters. The things in between do not matter at all".

"Return to Montauk" is built around the terrible symmetry of regret. The quotation at the beginning doesn't just introduce the story; it becomes the film's entire emotional architecture. Everything Max does in Montauk is haunted by the two kinds of failure the quote describes: the love he lost through cowardice and compromise, and the life he built afterwards that can never quite compensate for it.

What makes the film so affecting is that it refuses to offer easy redemption. Max returns hoping that memory can somehow be corrected, as if revisiting Rebecca might undo decades of emotional damage. But the film understands that regret doesn't disappear simply because people finally say the things they should've said years earlier. Time itself becomes the enemy. The tenderness between Max and Rebecca is real, but so is the knowledge that they are no longer the people who once had the chance to make different choices.

Director Volker Schlondorff keeps the film quiet and restrained, avoiding melodrama in favour of melancholy observation. Stellan Skarsgard gives Max a weary sadness that feels painfully authentic; he isn't simply mourning a lost woman, but an entire unrealised version of himself.

In the end, the opening quote proves brutally accurate. The ordinary years in between fade into the background. What remains are the moments that shaped a life forever; the choices made, and the choices avoided. "Return to Montauk" suggests that people never really escape those moments. They carry them silently, until memory itself becomes a kind of final reckoning.

What Remains (1 Star)

This is the 30th film in the Stuttgart Fantasy Film Festival.

"What Remains" is an international mash-up. It's a true story about Mads Lake (aka Sture Bergwall), a man who lived in Sweden in the 1990's. The director is Chinese, and he decided to make the film after reading about Mads. The film crew is Chinese. The actors are a mixture of Swedish and English. The film's dialogue is in English. The locations are claimed to be in Sweden, but it was actually filmed in Finland.

The film begins with Mads in a psychiatric hospital. It's not stated why. Two months before his release he began to talk about a boy who had disappeared seven years previously. He claimed to have met the boy on the day of his disappearance, but he couldn't remember what happened. There was a police investigation. The police officer was convinced that Mads was a serial killer and questioned him about other boys who had disappeared at the same time. Mads confessed to 33 murders, but his psychiatrist said that Mads was innocent. Mads was found guilty of eight murders, but 20 years later the verdict was overturned. The incident became a scandal in Sweden about how a mentally ill person could be convinced that he was a killer.

I find the story fascinating, but the film is badly made. It rambles on for 126 minutes, mostly conversations between the various characters. The film is much too long and much too dull.

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: 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.

Glass House (4 Stars)

I'm happy to say that this film has been released on Blu-ray in Germany, even if it's only available on DVD in England and America. I have the impression that Germany takes films more seriously than other countries. American films released in Germany always have the original English dialogue in addition to the dubbed German version. You can choose between dubbing and subtitles. Don't knock the dubbing. Even though I prefer subtitles, Germans dubbing is very good.

The film is a psychological thriller. Two young children, Ruby (16) and Rhett (11) are orphaned when their parents die in a car accident. The children are adopted by their godparents. At first it all seems too good to be true. Terry and Erin Glass live in a luxurious house overlooking the sea in Malibu. Slowly Ruby realises that it isn't all as ideal as it seems. Terry is deeply in debt to mobsters, and Erin is a drug addict. Ruby persuades Rhett that they need to run away, but what can children do?

17-year-old Leelee Sobieski is excellent in the role of Ruby Baker. She was my favourite actress for years. She retired from acting at the age of 29, giving as an excuse that 90% of film roles require sexual stuff. She's deluding herself. Of the 31 films that she made in her career, only two contained sexual stuff, and even that was tame. That's 6%. It's sad that such a wonderful actress as her should give up her career for a nonsensical reason. She could have continued acting for another 50 years without filming any more sexual stuff.

Success Rate:  - 1.3

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

Dune (2 Stars)

I watched David Lynch's version of "Dune" many years ago. I still have the DVD in my cellar, but I doubt I'll watch it again. It wasn't like his other films. It was too conventional, if you know what I mean, but even as a conventional science fiction film I didn't like it. 

I like the new adaptation of Frank Herbert's novel even less. It's an epic film that rushes straight into the story without taking time to introduce the characters or their backgrounds. We pick up details along the way, but everything still seems rushed. I would have preferred the film if it had been an hour longer, with extra scenes at the beginning.

Maybe these extra scenes aren't in the book? The director Denis Villeneuve has taken great pains to keep close to the book in order not to offend the fans. After the film one of my friends told me that I'd appreciate the film more if I'd read the book. I can understand that. In a chaotic film with lots of characters, knowledge of the book would give the missing background knowledge. However, that's not an excuse. A good film should be enjoyable by everyone, whether they've read the book or not. I don't intend to read it. The only science fiction books I read are the ones written by Michael Moorcock.

The book was previously considered unfilmable. Maybe that's the problem. Denis Villeneuve has taken on an impossible task. He was destined to fail. He should tackle an easier project, like Michael Moorcock's "Dancers at the End of Time" trilogy. Maybe even a new adaptation of "The Final Programme" which doesn't omit as much from the book. Leave "Dune" alone.

In Order Of Disappearance (5 Stars)

This is an utterly amazing film that stars Bruno Ganz and Stellan Skarsgard. The idea behind the story is something that's been filmed many times before, but the story's setting makes it unique.

Nils Dickman is a highly respected snow plough driver in a small Norwegian village. His son Ingvar works at the small local airport. Everything seems peaceful, but there are crime syndicates at work. Two gangs are distributing heroin, and they've reached an agreement to divide the area between them. One gang is ruled by a young Norwegian businessman who calls himself the Count. The other is ruled by an elderly Serb who calls himself Papa.

Both gangs bring their drugs into Norway through the same airport. One of the airport staff steals a bag of heroin. The Count incorrectly suspects Ingvar and kills him by injecting him with heroin. When the police find him they treat it as an accidental death, but Nils is certain that his son wasn't an addict. He investigates, and he manages to kill three of the Count's men. But that isn't enough. He wants to kill the Count himself.

The Count has no idea who's attacking him, so he assume it's the Serbians trying to wrest control of his area. He kills a drug courier, not knowing that it's Papa's son. This sparks an all out war between the two gangs, with Nils caught in the middle.

Some reviewers call this film a black comedy. That's not true. There's nothing at all funny about what happens in the film. However, the film is given a slight comedic element by keeping a tally of the deaths. Every time someone is killed his name is presented on the screen with a cross. In most cases we didn't even know the name of the person before his name is written.

Maybe the reviewers find the film amusing because the main character spends most of his time driving around in his snow plough. That's hardly a suitable vehicle for a man on a killing spree. I can appreciate the absurdity of the situation, but it's not meant to be funny. We see that anyone can seek vengeance, even a snow plough driver.

Stellan Skarsgard and the late Bruno Ganz are both superb actors. Seeing them side by side is a pleasure. I don't recognise any of the other actors, most of them Norwegian or Danish, but they're all highly skilled. The film can't be faulted.

"In Order of Disappearance" has been remade in America as "Cold Pursuit". I missed it when it was in the cinema. I'll have to look for it now, to see if the remake is successful.

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

Avengers: Age of Ultron (4½ Stars)

This is the eleventh film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in May 2015. Stan Lee appears in a short scene as a proud World War II veteran at a party in the New York Avengers headquarters. Thor is sharing a flask with Captain America.

Thor describes the drink, "This was aged for one thousand years in the barrels built from the wreck of Grunhel's fleet. It is not meant for mortal men".

Stan Lee, sitting nearby, butts in, "Neither was Omaha Beach, blondie. Stop trying to scare us. Come on".

Thor agrees and pours a small amount into a glass. Moments later we see Stan being carried out slurring the single word "Excelsior".

He really was an army veteran. In 1942 he volunteered to join the US Army, and he served in the Signal Corps from 1942 to 1945. After initially serving as a lineman he was transferred to the Training Film Division, where he wrote material such as training manuals and the scripts for propaganda films.

In this wartime photograph Sergeant Stanley Lieber – that was his real name – is shown designing a poster. That's curious. In his career he was never an artist.

In June 2017 Stan Lee was made a lifetime member of the Signal Corps Regimental Association. Better late than never. Most people knew nothing about his military history, so it needed a comic book fan in the Signal Corps to suggest him.

This is a video of the award being presented. After the presentation Stan says, "This is one of my proudest moments. Excelsior!"

Often when news reports talk about Stan Lee they refer to him as "Stan Lee, the creator of Spider-Man". That description gives a point of reference for the people who aren't dedicated comic fans, but it's always annoyed me. He created so many other characters, both heroes and villains. Here are a few of the other characters he created, all of them featured in "Avengers: Age of Ultron".

Hulk (May 1962)

Thor (August 1962)

Iron Man (March 1963)

Nick Fury (May 1963)

Quicksilver (March 1964)

Scarlet Witch (March 1964)

Black Widow (April 1964)

Hawkeye (September 1964)

I can't guarantee that their film representations resemble their original appearances in the comics. If you want on-screen realism you have to watch Axel Braun's Marvel films.

Success Rate:  + 1.2

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

Thor: Dark World (5 Stars)

This is the eighth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in November 2013. I had my doubts about the film at first, but after repeated viewing it's grown on me, and I now consider it to be one of the best MCU films.

The Stan Lee cameo scene lasts for 56 seconds, but we only see him for the last eight seconds. Dr. Erik Selvig was arrested for running through the Stonehenge stones naked. I'm not certain that a person would really be arrested for that. There are a lot of hippies who congregate at Stonehenge, especially on the summer solstice, so I expect that nudity is common at Stonehenge. Dr. Selvig is being held by the police for psychological evaluation. In this scene we see him holding a lecture on the upcoming convergence of the nine worlds to the other inmates.

Dr. Selvig uses two shoes to demonstrate how the convergence will take place. The light coloured shoe was borrowed from one of his listeners: Stan Lee. In the cameo Stan asks if he can have his shoe back.

Other reviewers have written in more detail about the notes written on the blackboard, because they're an interesting mix of scientific theories and Marvel mythology. I'll just point out three small details:

In the centre we have the tree Yggdrasil, which connects the nine realms (of which only eight are shown).

Above the tree we see the label "616 Universe", referring to Marvel's current habit of calling the main Marvel Universe Earth-616. I wonder how Dr. Selvig came up with this magic number.

In the bottom right there's a sketch of the Nexus of All Reality. This is the cosmic portal guarded by the Man-Thing. There was a film about the Man-Thing made in 2005, but it didn't include any references to the Nexus. It would be good to have a second film about the Man-Thing set within the MCU.

This is the company that Stan Lee is keeping. I wonder why he was arrested. Maybe it's because he's been accused of impersonating Larry King and Hugh Hefner.

There's some smart product placement in the film. Here's Darcy Lewis with an empty Vimto can. It's well known in the UK, but how many people from other parts of the world have tasted Vimto? It's delicious.

Here are more typical British products: Shreddies and McVities Digestive Biscuits. Dr. Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) is more interested in Kat Dennings' chest. That's understandable. I'd stare at any girl with a 34DD chest, and since she's only 5'3" her breasts look even bigger.

I mentioned in my review of "Thor" that the hammer Mjolnir isn't extremely heavy. It can't be picked up because of a magic spell, but it's still light enough to be hung in a coat rack.

Once more, Tom Hiddleston's performance as Loki is overwhelming. However evil he might be, he's a tortured soul, and we can't help feeling sympathetic when his words are emphasised by his sorrowful face.

When Loki laughs mischievously we laugh with him instead of worrying what he's laughing about.

Kat Dennings has a beautiful smile as well, although I suspect it's her real smile, not something she put on for the film. It's beautiful enough to tear my eyes away from her chest. Briefly.

I love the pictures shown at the end, during the final credits. They're the sort of pictures I'd like to frame and put on my wall. It's a shame that most of the pictures are covered with text.

When the film was released I read comments in a newspaper saying that it wasn't like a normal superhero film. Whoever wrote that is ignorant of Thor's origins in the comic created by Stan Lee. All of his other heroes were new creations. Thor was an adaptation of existing legends. His modernisation of the old Norse myths is one of his greatest successes. This gave the Thor comics a slightly different style to the other comics, resulting in a different type of film, but all of Stan Lee's comics were original. I'm still waiting for a big screen adaptation of Daimon Hellstrom, the Son of Satan. That will be a very different type of superhero film.

Success Rate:  + 1.8

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

The Avengers (5 Stars)

This is the sixth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in May 2012. It finally unites all of the Avengers to battle Loki and an alien race called the Chitauri. The members of the Avengers are:

Iron Man – first seen in "Iron Man" (2008)

Thor – first seen in "Thor" (2011)

Hulk – first seen in "Incredible Hulk" (2008)

Captain America – first seen in "Captain America" (2011)

Black Widow – first seen as a supporting character in "Iron Man 2" (2010)

Hawkeye – first seen as an unnamed supporting character in "Thor" (2011)

Whoever first conceived the slow, steady build up to the release of "The Avengers" is a marketing genius. Was it Avi Arad? Was it Kevin Feige? Was it someone else? It was an ambitious plan to map out a series of 22 films from 2008 to 2019.

Maybe the original plan wasn't for exactly 22 films. The first film ("Iron Man") and the last film (the as yet unreleased final battle between the Avengers and Thanos) were planned, but the route between the two points has been changed on the way. Iron Man was more popular than expected, which is the reason a second Iron Man film was released so soon. Another change concerned Spider-Man. It wasn't agreed until 2015 that he could appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Stan Lee has a 4½ second cameo at the end of the film. After the Chitauri have been defeated there are a series of television interviews showing the public's reaction. Stan Lee appears as a sceptic sitting in the park playing chess with a man who looks suspiciously like Ian McKellen. The words he speaks are

"Superheroes in New York? Give me a break!"

How many people recognise the irony in this interview? There's a subtle in-joke that only fans of the early Marvel comics would recognise. In the early 1960's DC Comics were the market leaders in superhero comics. All of the DC heroes were located in fictional American cities, for instance Batman lived in Gotham City, Superman lived in Metropolis, the Flash lived in Central City, Green Lantern lived in Coast City. When Stan Lee began to write superhero comics in 1961 he didn't want his stories to be set in a far distant Marvel Universe, he wanted them to be accessible by being set here in our own world. With the exception of the Hulk (New Mexico), all of his superheroes lived in New York. That's the real meaning of the ironic interview in the park. Until 1961 it was considered impossible that superheroes could be in New York. Then Stan Lee changed history by putting dozens of superheroes in the middle of a city that everyone knows and can relate to.

Here are the six members of the Avengers staring upwards at the Chitauri attack. If you can't name them all you have to stay behind after school and watch all the MCU films. Although that's not much of a punishment. I would consider it a reward.

Clint Barton and Natasha Romanoff aren't referred to by their customary superhero names. They're called Agent Barton and Agent Romanoff, since they're both members of SHIELD.

We see them called Hawkeye and Black Widow on a computer screen in the SHIELD helicarrier. This is the only time Clint Barton is called Hawkeye in the film, although on one occasion he's called the Hawk. Natasha Romanoff states early on that she carried out a mission with the codename Black Widow, but it's not used as her standard name.

In this film Phil Coulson was killed by Loki. That was a mistake. The fan backlash was immense. He had to be brought back from the dead for the TV series "Agents of SHIELD". They did it in a much too complicated way. They could merely have said that Phil Coulson was revived in medical treatment shortly after Loki's attack, but Nick Fury didn't tell the Avengers because he wanted to motivate them.

Loki is the best film villain ever, with Magneto a close second. Yes, Loki is evil, yes, Loki is a murderer, but he's still so cool and charismatic that it's impossible not to like him. That's what makes a villain good. Clear-cut confrontations between black and white are boring. Interesting heroes are ones with flaws, and interesting villains are ones we can admire or feel sorry for.

Success Rate:  + 4.9

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