Three Thousand Years of Longing (4½ Stars)

What would you do if a genie offered you three wishes? Would you ask for riches? Good health? Those are the things everyone asks for.

When Alithea Binnie (Tilda Swinton) finds an ancient lamp while visiting Istanbul, she rubs it and out comes the genie (Idris Elba). When he asks for her wishes she's not so naive. As a scholar she knows all the tales of genies, and the wishes always turn out bad. She refuses to make a wish, telling the genie he's a trickster who wants to cause her harm. The genie tells her he needs the wishes, because if the wishes aren't made he'll be cursed to live as an invisible entity for the rest of time. Was that part of previous genie in the lamp stories? Alithea sees it as psychological pressure and still refuses to make a wish.

Alithea and the genie spend time talking to one another. Alithea tells her rather bland life story, focussing on an imaginary friend she had in her childhood. The genie tells the story of how he was first imprisoned in the bottle. He was in love with the Queen of Sheba, who was also a genie. She abandoned him for King Solomon, which broke his heart. In the tale Solomon was a great sorcerer. He trapped the genie in a bottle and cast him into the sea. Over the following 3000 years the genie was occasionally freed, but he was always put back in the bottle.

In his stories tragedy always struck the ones who made wishes. Alithea sees this as proof that the genie was a trickster, but he insists it wasn't his own fault. The people made wishes that were bad for them. He even tried to talk them out of wishes, but their greed made them insist.

But this isn't a typical genie in the lamp story. Alithea and the genie fall in love with one another, and he goes back to live with her in London. She doesn't make wishes, because he has to leave her after she's made her third wish. Was he lying about the curse after all? After watching the film a second time I can see a few discrepancies that I missed the first time in the cinema, but it's still a beautiful love story.

And they lived happily ever after?

Not quite.

But what would I wish for? I'm not sure. I need time to think it over. I don't need riches. Good health would be a blessing, especially after my sickness last year. And I'd like to have good hair again. It would be wonderful to be kept as a sex slave for the rest of my life. The genie says he isn't allowed to grant eternal life, but could he return me to my childhood while I retain all the knowledge I have now? That would definitely be one of my wishes.

I'll end with a small joke. An Irishman rubbed a lamp, and a genie offered him three wishes. It was a hot day, so he asked for a glass of Guinness. The Irishman took a big drink, and the genie told him, "It's a magic glass. However much you drink, it will always be full". The Irishman looked at the glass and it was still full. The genie asked him what he wanted for his other two wishes. The Irishman says, "That's great. I'll have another two glasses".

Success Rate:  - 2.6

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

Asteroid City (2 Stars)

What is the director Wes Anderson trying to do? Does he want to entertain the audience or just provoke us? I honestly don't know. I felt provoked. There were two young women sitting in front of me who felt just as provoked. Every time something strange happened in the film they turned and looked at one another. About half an hour from the end one of them put on her jacket and wanted to leave, but her friend tugged at her and told her to stay. It's a film that I almost walked out of. As it was, I was the only person in the cinema who remained seating to watch the bird hopping around during the final credits.

It's a film within a film, or rather a play within a film. It's about a playwright who writes, casts and directs a play about a group of people, mostly stargazers, who come together in a fictional city in the desert. While being told about an asteroid that fell in the desert thousands of years ago, an alien arrives and takes the asteroid away.

It's deliberately left unclear what's part of the play and what's really happening. It's possible that a real alien arrives while the play is running.

Wes Anderson has put a lot of work into the visual effects of the film. That's the only reason I haven't given the film a one star rating. I didn't enjoy it, and I have no intention to ever watch it again.

Orlando (4 Stars)

This film is based on the novel with the same name, written by Virginia Woolf. Orlando is a young page in the court of Queen Elisabeth I. Despite his absent-mindedness, often appearing in court too late, he's the Queen's favourite. She loves him for his youth and good looks. Having no children of her own, she thinks of him as a replacement son. Shortly before her death, she makes Orlando a lord, on one condition: he must never grow old.

Orlando takes this to heart. He lives a long life, and his appearance never changes. A hundred years later he's appointed the British ambassador to Constantinople, holding the office for 50 years. He's injured in a war, and falls into a deep sleep for seven days. When he wakes up, he finds that he's become a woman. He accepts this placidly. Looking at himself/herself in the mirror, he says "I'm the same person, just a different sex".

Legal disputes begin which last for centuries. Some claim that Orlando was always a woman, so he received the gift from Queen Elisabeth under false pretences. Others claim that the real Orlando has died and been replaced by an imposter, because it's impossible for someone to live for centuries.

Orlando has love affairs before and after his transition, but both of his lovers abandon him. His first lover is a Russian princess, who leaves England at short notice. Her second lover is an American adventurer, a freedom fighter who doesn't want to be tied down by marriage. He leaves her pregnant, but the baby girl isn't born until a hundred years later.

The novel "Orlando" has been praised as a feminist classic. Feminist ideology isn't flaunted in the film, but it's there, at least in a few scenes. As a man Orlando is praised for his learning. As a woman (the same person with a different sex) she isn't taken seriously. Those were the double standards of the 18th Century, possibly still held when Virginia Woolf wrote the book in 1928, but today we're more enlightened. Aren't we?

Tilda Swinton does an excellent job portraying Orlando before and after his transformation. She frequently breaks the fourth wall, turning and speaking to the camera when things of note happen. The whole film has a dreamlike atmosphere. Maybe the film is too slow. Maybe too little happens. "Orlando" isn't a film for everyone, but it's enjoyable if you're prepared to make the effort required to watch it.

Success Rate:  + 1.3

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

Three Thousand Years of Longing (5 Stars)

It's a story that's been overdone as long as books have been written and films have been made: someone finds a bottle, rubs it and a genie comes out who offers to grant three wishes. If that sounds boring to you, think again. "Three Thousand Years of Longing" adds new ideas. Apart from which, how could anyone turn his back on a film with Idris Elba and Tilda Swinton in the leading roles? I know I criticised Idris Elba's performance in "Beast" earlier this week, but in this film he's back in top form. As for Tilda Swinton, she's always been in top form.

Tilda plays Dr. Alithea Binnie, a narratologist. That's a new word to me, but in the context of the film it's obvious what it means. It's a person who studies stories and story structures. She visits Istanbul to hold a lecture on the historical importance of stories. Today we have science, but in the past stories were necessary to explain anything for which there was no scientific explanation. We still need stories today, because science hasn't yet explained everything, but as scientific discovery advances stories will gradually fade away.

Alithea buys an old lamp in a shop in Istanbul. She cleans it with the help of her electric toothbrush. Yuck! Then a genie (or Djinn, depending on the transliteration) comes out and offers to grant three wishes.

As a narratologist Alithea isn't naive enough to accept the offer. She says that stories of wishes being granted all end in tragedy. There's always a trick. The genie insists that he isn't a trickster, but isn't that what all tricksters say? Instead of this they spend the following hours talking to one another. Alithea tells the genie about her past, which is relatively mundane in comparison to the tales the genie has to tell of his life in the past 3000 years. Yes, his tales tell of women who suffered after making wishes, but he claims that he didn't trick them. It was the women's own fault that they wished for the wrong things.

Alithea is still reluctant to make wishes, but the genie is desperate. He says that if he doesn't grant three wishes he'll be sentenced to wander as an invisible, disembodied soul. Alithea still doesn't believe him. Is he applying emotional blackmail because he can't appeal to her greed?

But... no, I'll stop there. No more spoilers! All I'll say is that this isn't just a fairy tale, it's a deeply philosophical story with romantic undertones. I had tears in my eyes as the film came to an end. It's a brilliant film!

Adaptation (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #55

Nicolas Cage was nominated for an Oscar as Best Actor in the 2003 Academy Awards. He didn't win. That was a miscarriage of justice. "The Pianist" was a good film, but there's no way that Adrien Brody was a better actor.

Meryl Streep was nominated as Best Supporting Actress, but lost to Catherine Zeta-Jones in "Chicago". That's a close call, but I still think that Meryl was slightly better.

Chris Cooper won the award as Best Supporting Actor. So there's still some justice left in the world. His performance in the film is incredible.

It's almost 20 years since "Adaptation" was in the cinemas. How many of my readers know it? I consider it to be a cinematic masterpiece that's been unjustly forgotten. It's rarely been shown on television, and even in our Netflix days television is the best way to keep films alive. Random films are thrown at viewers who just tune in to watch whatever's on.

I don't often watch television. Almost never. Usually it's only when I'm a guest in someone else's home and they have the television running in the background. Today was the first time I consciously watched television in my own home for more than five years. I watched Prince Phillip's funeral. Before it started there were advertisements for films that would be shown in the evening: "Thor: Ragnarok" and "300". They're both good films, in their own way. I'd say that they're better television films. What I mean by that is that there's a lot of action, so if you walk into the room while your wife or kids are watching you'll be attracted and sit down to watch the rest.

"Adaptation" isn't a good television film. Anyone who walks in and sees it will say "Huh? What's this?" and walk out again. It's a film you have to give yourself to. You have to sit down and devote yourself to the plot. It's a film for thinkers. You have to actively participate in the film and think about everything that happens. I'm sure that television planners realise this, which is why it's not shown.

In my opinion, this is the most intelligent film ever made. I wouldn't say it's the best film, just the most intelligent, as far as the plot is concerned. It's been called a meta-film, but it's really a meta-meta-film. It's a film about a film about a film about a book about true events. "Adaptation", the film, shifts constantly between the different levels, so that at the end you don't know what's real and what isn't.

In 1998 the journalist Susan Orlean wrote a book about John Laroche, a man who was arrested for stealing rare orchids. The book was a surprise bestseller, so it was decided to make it into a film. When the screenplay was finally written it was shown to Susan Orlean for approval, and her reaction was "Absolutely not! Are you kidding? This is going to ruin my career!" The film portrayed her as a drug addict who posed for pornography sites. There was no truth to this, but it's well known that films often take liberties with the truth. She eventually changed her mind and allowed the film to be made. That surprises me. Most respectable authors would have refused to be slandered in this way. Maybe she treated it as a joke.

Charlie Kaufman was hired to write the screenplay for the book. He was an unusual choice for such a task. In my opinion, he was the wrong choice. He suffered from writer's block, so eventually he made the unusual decision to write a film about himself suffering from writer's block while writing the screenplay. He's hampered in his writing by his fictitious twin brother Donald, who also wants to be a screenwriter. Charlie considers Donald an idiot, but he has to stand by and see that Donald is considered a genius. It's significant that Charlie only succeeds in finishing his screenplay when Donald is killed.

This is a film that I can wholeheartedly recommend to everyone who likes to watch films that he can think about.

The film is universally available on DVD, but it's only been released on Blu-ray in America. The Blu-ray disc is locked to region A.

Success Rate:  - 0.3

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

Suspiria [2018] (2 Stars)

When I saw this film in the cinema two years ago, I gave it the benefit of the doubt. I didn't completely understand what was happening, so I thought I would be able to judge it better after watching it again. Today I finally returned to the film, and I understand most of what happened. The after-credits scene still puzzles me. Now that I understand the film, I have to say that I don't like it. There are a lot of good ideas, but that's the problem: there are too many ideas thrown together. There's no reason to include the news reports of the Baader Meinhof Gang and the hijacked plane in Mogadishu. I'm old enough to remember these events, but they'll only confuse younger viewers. The tales of Nazi persecution are interesting, but unnecessary in this film. As for the Berlin Wall, why do we have to see it in the background of so many scenes? There are too many spurious details.

The original version of this film was simpler. The lack of complexity made it better. The remake is beautiful and stylistic, but it's a bloated failure.

And what's the point in having Tilda Swinton play three different roles?

Success Rate:  - 2.6

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

Grand Budapest Hotel (5 Stars)

This is a remarkable film. It received nine nominations for the Academy Awards, of which it won four. It failed to win the Best Film award because of "Birdman", a film I greatly liked at the time, but when I look back, "Grand Budapest Hotel" was by far the better film.

The film is about a hotel concierge and his lobby boy. The concierge is wrongly accused of murdering Madame D, an old rich woman. In her Will she's left him a valuable painting, "Boy With Apple". Madame D's son hires an assassin to kill the concierge, who's assisted in his flight by the faithful lobby boy.

The story in itself is good, but it's all about the cinematography. The colours are bright and dazzling, giving the impression that it's a fairy tale. In addition, every scene is perfectly framed like a piece of art, giving the impression of hyper-reality.

The concierge and the lobby boy. Do you see what I mean about the colours?

So this is the painting that people were willing to kill for? I don't understand art.

I've never seen Edward Norton looking so amart. It doesn't suit him. He's a jeans and t-shirt man, like me. But just look at the perfectly framed scene.

There are close-ups of newspapers several times during the film. The articles are all well written, albeit with American spelling. Very few films make the effort to use good texts in newspapers. However, there's one small error. Look at the date of the newspaper: Friday, October 19th, 1932. Wrong! It was a Wednesday.

Here's another edition of the Trans-Alpine Yodel, dated Tuesday, October 28th, 1932. That's wrong again. It was a Friday. But there's another error. The dates aren't even consistent with themselves. If the 19th had been a Friday, the second newspaper, printed nine days later, would have been printed on a Sunday. That's sloppy.

Success Rate:  + 4.9

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

Avengers: Endgame (5 Stars)

Stan Lee didn't create the character Thanos. He was created by the writer/artist Jim Starlin in 1973, when Stan had already given up most of his writing activities at Marvel. Nevertheless, Stan Lee laid the foundation for the Marvel Universe, and he created the Avengers and most of the other heroes in the film. His contribution to comics and modern culture overall can't be underestimated.

The Blu-ray disc of "Avengers Endgame" that I watched today has a short tribute to Stan Lee. It's not a full tribute, it's just a review of his cameo appearances in the Marvel Cinematic Universe films.

These words, spoken by director James Gunn, express my thoughts precisely:

"My hero. The greatest man alive".

Stan Lee has passed away since this photo was taken, and the world is a poorer place without him. However, for me he still lives on in his writing. In the course of writing my Marvel Years posts I read his comics regularly. I'm up to mid 1971, close to the end of his regular writing. Other less capable writers stepped into his footsteps. Some of Marvel's writers were good, some were average, some were poor, but even Marvel's best writers weren't Stan Lee. He had a spark of genius that others could only dream of.

The most touching part of the tribute is when Robert Downey Jr kneels before Stan Lee and kisses his hand. That wasn't an empty affectation, it's a sign that he truly loved him. As do I.

Asking whether there will ever be another Stan Lee is like asking if there will be another William Shakespeare. It's not impossible, but it's highly unlikely.

On an unrelated matter, I've been running into the limitations of Google's Blogger (Blogspot). I add labels to posts to list the actors who appear in a film. Not every actor, just the ones that I consider to be the major actors. That's five or six actors per film, on average, but the last two Avengers films, "Infinity War" and "Endgame", have an overwhelming ensemble of big actors. Blogger limits me to a maximum of 20 labels per post, so I've been forced to omit some of the actors. Originally I omitted the actors who play smaller parts. Now I've decided to do the opposite. I've omitted the labels for the actors who play the biggest roles, because people know they're in the film anyway. The actors that I have omitted from the labels are:

Chris Evans (Captain America)
Chris Hemsworth (Thor)
Mark Ruffalo (Hulk)
Robert Downey Jr (Iron man)
Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow)
Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury)

Nuff said!

Success Rate:  + 5.8

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

Okja (4 Stars)

"Never mistranslate. Translations are sacred".

This is a South Korean film, with some of the dialogue in English. It's distributed exclusively by Netflix, so if you weren't lucky enough to see it on the big screen during its original release, it's too late now. Some Netflix films are released on Blu-ray, but not "Okja".

The Mirando corporation has created genetically modified giant pigs in order to solve world hunger and make a profit. They know that the public is opposed to genetically modified food, so they claim that the pigs are offsprings of a rare type of pig found in the wild. To win popularity for their pigs a lengthy promotional campaign is staged. 26 piglets are sent to farmers around the world, and after 10 years the most beautiful pigs will be selected for breeding.

The film is centred around Okja, a female pig raised by an old farmer in the mountains of Korea. He doesn't have to do much, because the pig has been adopted by his granddaughter Mija. For her Okja is more than a farmyard animal, she's a pet, even a friend.

After 10 years Okja is collected to be taken back to America. This is devastating for Mija. She attempts to prevent this happening, and she has unexpected allies. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) attacks the transport convoy and attempts to steal Okja.

A lot of people don't like CGI in films, but this is an example of CGI making the film what it is. The giant pig has been perfectly crafted by the film's special effects engineers, and it looks so sweet and lovable. Okja is the real star of the film, and Okja's co-star is Ahn Seo-hyun, who was 13 when the film was made. The big names in the film, Jake Gyllenhaal, Tilda Swinton and Paul Dano, only appear in minor roles.

It's worth pointing out that Jake Gyllenhaal plays a very untypical role for him, as the obnoxious television host Dr. Johnny Wilcox. We can't help but hate him whenever he appears on the screen.

Success Rate:  - 23.8

Avengers: Endgame (5 Stars)

This is the third time I've seen "Avengers: Endgame". The first time I saw it was in a German cinema. The second time was in an English cinema. Today I watched it in a friend's house, in beautiful 4K resolution and supposedly Dolby Surround Sound. I say supposedly, because I wasn't aware of being surrounded by the sound. It seemed to be coming to me from the front, like a normal stereo soundtrack. I'm saying that as a compliment. If I'm watching a film that's taking place in front of me, I don't want to hear the noises behind me.

I feel quite jealous of the beautiful movie system that I enjoyed today. It's not a matter of money. I could afford it if I wanted to. My trouble is the size and layout of my room. The furthest I can sit away from the screen is 135 cm (53 inches), so the largest screen that would be sensible for me is 49 inches.

Yesterday I watched "Avengers: Infinity War", which helped me to appreciate "Avengers Endgame" in its context. "Infinity War" has action all the way, whereas "Endgame" is slow and  mournful, with only occasional action scenes, all of which are splendid when the action breaks out. For the first hour very little happens at all. We meet the characters, and we share their sorrow after having lost so many friends.

I'm pleased to see that Captain Marvel's powers haven't been toned down in the film. Of the highly powered heroes, she's the only one who lives up to her strength in the comics. This makes her the most powerful hero in the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe), unlike the comics, where several heroes have greater power, such as Warlock and the Silver Surfer. The original male Captain Mervel in the comics was also stronger than her.

Where do the Avengers go from here? Where does the MCU go from here? Kevin Feige, the producer of the MCU, has promised that there won't be an early reboot, starting the Avengers again from the beginning with younger actors. In "Endgame" several characters were killed, and others will disappear because the actors haven't renewed their contracts, so now they've gone for good. They'll be replaced by other Marvel characters; there are so many to choose from. This is a good idea, but we can't go on like that forever. The best, most appealing characters are the ones that Stan Lee invented in the 1960's, and cinema audiences will grow bored when they've disappeared. A reboot is inevitable, but when will it happen? I don't know yet. The Marvel bosses will make a decision based on the viewing figures.

"Avengers Endgame" has become the highest grossing film ever, if the figures aren't adjusted for inflation. That's one of the advantages of my Success Rate. It's a relative number from comparing the budget and the box office takings, so inflation doesn't play a role. My way of calculating the Success Rate makes "Endgame" the most successful film in the MCU, but less successful than the non-MCU Marvel film "Venom", which scored + 6.6.

Success Rate:  + 5.8

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

In the review I wrote yesterday about "Avengers: Infinity War" I said that Thanos would never retire and become a hermit or a farmer. One of my friends sent me a message, saying that I was mistaken. He pointed out, quite correctly, that after he lost the Infinity Gauntlet to Adam Warlock he became a farmer, "scraping out a living from the soil". However, this is what he became after losing the Gauntlet. He would never have become a farmer if he had remained the universe's supreme being. He was exiled to live alone on a remote planet by Adam Warlock, so what else could be do except to farm the land?

As we can see, he's become very stoic. He accepts his new position in life. However, I don't believe he would have taken this position voluntarily.

The story of Thanos continues in Marvel comics, some of them written by Jim Starlin, but for me this page isn't just the end of the Infinity Gauntlet saga, it's the final end of what I consider to be Marvel canon.

The Dead Don't Die (4 Stars)

Jim Jarmusch is never predictable. Every new film is a surprise for the audiences. We never know what to predict. "The Dead Don't Die" isn't a surprise because it's a zombie film, but because it's so funny. It's a zombie comedy with the emphasis on the comedy. I honestly thought Jim Jarmusch was too serious to make a film like this.

The setting is Centerville, a small American town presumably in the centre of the USA. It only has 738 inhabitants, but it has a diner, a motel, a hardware store, a funeral parlour, a cemetery, a police station, a juvenile detention centre, an old people's home and a gas station. That's all any town needs, isn't it? The only thing I can think of that's missing is a church, but there must have been one. It wasn't shown because it wasn't important to the plot. What about a school? In a town that small the children are probably sent by bus to the next large town.

Polar fracking has tipped the Earth off its axis and changed the speed of rotation. This has caused the dead to rise from the graves as zombies. The main characters are the policemen Cliff Robertson and Ronnie Peterson, played by Bill Murray and Adam Driver. (I wonder if the similarity of the the name Peterson to Adam Driver's character in Jim Jarmusch's last film, "Paterson", is deliberate).

Ronnie repeatedly breaks the fourth wall by referring to things outside of the film. He knows that things will end badly because he's read the script. This adds to the film's hilarity.

I can imagine that this isn't a film that everyone will like. Jim Jarmusch's films are always a matter of taste. I didn't even like "Only Lovers Left Alive" until the second time I saw it. The cinema audience today seemed to enjoy it, judging by the laughter throughout the room. I can recommend it to my readers. If you don't like it, watch it a second time. Then tell me what you think. That's what my comments box is for.

The film's theme song, "The Dead Don't Die" by Sturgill Simpson, is the most blood curdling thing about the film. I shuddered every time it played. It will give me nightmares when I close my eyes tonight.

Avengers: Endgame (5 Stars)

While I was in Birmingham this week I went to see "Avengers: Endgame" again. It was suggested by my daughter Fiona. She saw it last week, but she didn't understand it. That's not surprising. The first MCU film that she watched was "Black Panther". "Endgame" – I'll shorten the title – refers to so much of the early films that it must be totally incomprehensible to any johnny-come-latelys. Or should that be spelt johnny-come-latelies? I don't know if there's a special rule for the plurals of adverbs.

I sat explaining to Fiona the previous 21 MCU films, concentrating on the ones most prominently referenced in "Endgame": "The Avengers", "Thor: Dark World" and "Guardians of the Galaxy". At first she sat attentively, but as I continued she was overwhelmed by the long list of names and her face went blank. She found a full review of "Endgame" in YouTube and listened to the first minute, but it was awful. The reviewer was just rattling off the plot at a breakneck speed, which confused her even more.

So we went to the cinema. There was a 4DX screening at Cineworld on Broad Street, which we chose because neither of us have seen 4DX films before. If you don't know this technology, it's a way to immerse the viewer in a film by provoking his other senses, not just sight and sound.

This is the 4DX theatre in Cineworld Broad Street. Eight rows with 20 seats each, arranged in groups of four. The gap at the front left is possibly for wheelchair users, but I would have to ask about that. I don't consider 4DX suitable for wheelchair users, unless the functionality is limited.

I know that it's officially been allowed to give away "Endgame" spoilers now, but I shan't. I'll just review the 4DX experience.

There are extensive warnings on the door before you enter. You shouldn't use 4DX if you're pregnant, you shouldn't use 4DX if you're shorter than 1.30 meters (4'3"), plus many seemingly random restrictions. The cinema obviously wants to protect itself from all possible lawsuits.

When you sit down you're supposed to put your head on the headrest and your feet on the footrest. The only controls on the seat itself are for the water. You can turn off the water sprays to stop yourself getting wet. That's a setting for wimps. Why would anyone want to stay dry in a cinema?

The most enjoyable feature was the chair motion. The chairs move in all directions at different speeds. When there are fights the motion is fast and jerky. I found it effective that when a plane was flying the chair very slowly tilted forward, giving the impression of movement.

There was frequent wind blowing, mainly from my left. That's possibly because I was sitting on the left of the four-chair group. It gave me the impression of being outside. This was mostly appropriate.

One strange feature is the vibration of the chairs. This was usually done whenever there was a loud noise. I found it somewhat arousing, because the vibrations went straight through my testicles. I suspect that it might be even more exciting for women. However, I have to admit that despite the cheap thrill this did nothing to enhance the movie experience.

During the fights I was sometimes poked by a rod underneath my right shoulder blade. When I checked the chairs afterwards I found two rods, on the left and the right, but the left rod was never used. Maybe it was broken on my chair. This was a weird feeling. It would have had to hit me a lot harder to simulate a fight.

There was a very pleasant smell in the scene where Thanos is walking in his garden. I liked it a lot. The scent feature was only used in this one scene. I would like to experience it in a film more often, so I can compare the scents, whether they change from scene to scene.

One thing I didn't like was the lights that flashed on the sides of the theatre when there was an explosion or something similar. This was highly annoying.

What about the water? "Endgame" isn't a very wet film, but I experienced it in one of the opening scenes. When Hawkeye killed the Japanese Yakuza boss I felt his blood splashing on my face. That was a nice touch. In a later scene, when it was raining, I felt a few drops of rain on my face. That wasn't enough. I should have walked out of the cinema with my t-shirt dripping wet.

My overall impression is that 4DX is a nice gimmick, but it's not something I like enough to want to do it often. 4DX costs £4.70 more than the normal ticket, and for that price it's really not worth it.

Avengers: Endgame (5 Stars)

This is the 22nd film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in April 2019.

You won't find any spoilers here, so look somewhere else.

Hail, Caesar! (3 Stars)

I gave this film five stars when I saw it in the cinema three years ago. In retrospect, I don't understand why. "Hail Caesar" has many good points, but it's not a great film. Maybe I was biased in its favour because I like all the other films made by the Coen brothers. Watching it again today, the first time since 2016, I felt disappointed by the story. On the plus side, I love the cinematography. Every scene is perfectly framed, especially when the production of 1950's films is shown. It's a perfect homage to the golden age of cinema. Or is it the silver age? I don't know what's what in cinema terminology.

The film is about the making of a big budget film called "Hail, Caesar", an obvious parody of "Ben Hur". It's a film about Jesus Christ as seen through the eyes of a Roman centurion called Autolycus, played by Baird Whitlock, who's played by George Clooney. Baird is kidnapped when he has only one scene left to film, his speech at the cross. A group of Communist screenwriters hold him to ransom for $100,000. The studio boss pays up immediately, and the money is donated to the Communist cause; or rather the Russian cause.

I know the film is a parody, but it seems to be glorifying Hollywood's anti-Communist sentiments in the post war years. I doubt this was intentional when the Coen brothers made the film, but it's the impression I get. This gives me a queasy feeling in my stomach. The film's sub-plots are totally irrelevant to the main story. There are two rival celebrity gossip columnists, both played by Tilda Swinton, and there's a pregnant film star who wants to adopt her own baby to avoid a scandal. I don't know why these stories were included, except to pad the film out to a full 90 minutes.

There's one small remark that I'd like to close with. After seeing Channing Tatum sing and dance I'm convinced that he should have played the lead role in "La la Land". Ryan Gosling was the wrong man for the role.

Success Rate:  + 0.9

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

Doctor Strange (5 Stars)

This is the 14th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in November 2016. I voted it my top film of 2016, but to be honest, I could just as well have picked "Deadpool" or "Captain America: Civil War". All three are outstanding films, and it's difficult to decide between them.

Stan Lee appears for about three seconds as a bus passenger in New York City. He's reading "The Doors of Perception" by Aldous Huxley, and it's making him laugh out loud. I don't know what the significance of his laughter is. I read "The Doors of Perception" when I was a teenager, probably 15, and I don't recall finding it funny. The book was an influence on my poetry over the next few years. I wrote about experiences after eating peyote, but the experiences were fake. I was never able to find peyote on sale, and I could only take LSD as a substitute.

I only took LSD for a few years, and I only wrote poetry for a few years. When I stopped taking LSD I stopped writing poetry. Without it I lost my inspiration. I'm still curious about peyote today. From what I understand, it's a weaker substance than LSD, so it's easier to dose.

The more I watch "Doctor Strange", the more I can accept Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One. I still think she was a curious choice for the role, but she's such a good actress that she plays the part perfectly. On the other hand, I never had any problems accepting Chiwetel Ejiofor as Baron Mordo. His racial characteristics in the comics are ambiguous, so he could have been played by a white or a black actor.

At the risk of making enemies, I have to say that I've never considered Mads Mikkelsen to be a good actor. He's too one-sided. He can only play characters that are cold, or troubled, or both. That's just the sort of person Kaecilius is, so he was the right person for the role.

I still can't make my mind up whether or not I like Benedict Cumberbatch as an actor. When I first heard that he'd been cast as Doctor Strange I groaned. Anyone but him! I changed my mind after seeing the film. He totally won me over. It's as if he was born to play the role. He doesn't just look like Doctor Strange, he walks and talks and casts spells like Doctor Strange. At least, he casts spells like the 1970's Doctor Strange drawn by Gene Colan.

Doctor Strange has appeared in other MCU films since this, but I'm still waiting patiently for his next solo film. From what I've read a sequel has already been planned, but no release date has been announced.

Success Rate:  + 2.1

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

Suspiria [2018] (3 Stars)

I often say that when a film is remade it has to offer something knew while being based on the same story. The screenwriter for this film took that advice to heart, but he's pushed it too far. Yes, it has the same premise as the classic 1977 horror film. Yes, the characters have the same names. It's the same mystery that the young American woman encounters in a German dance school, but that's where the similarities end. When the mystery is finally solved at the end of the film the hidden secrets are totally different. I can't help thinking that the screenwriter, in collaboration with the director, wrote the film for fans of the original film. He wanted to shock these fans by giving them the opposite of what they expected.

It's been more than eight years since I last watched the original version of "Suspiria", but I still remember it well enough to be one of the people who was shocked.

It's not an easy film to understand. I'm not alone in that opinion. After the film I spoke briefly with the four people sitting next to me, and the consensus was "I don't get it". If anything, the final scenes and the after-credits scene – make sure you don't miss it! – made the film even more confusing. These scenes seemed from their style to be wrapping up the story, but I couldn't see how they were relevant.

The film takes place in September to October 1977. Susie Bannon is a young woman from a strict Mennonite community in Ohio. From what we're told she loves her family, but the religious atmosphere stifled her creativity, so she wanted to get as far away as possible. She's travelled to West Berlin to apply for membership in the prestigious Markos dance school. It's a risk. If she's turned down she's gone halfway across the world for nothing. However, Susie is self-confident and is certain she'll be accepted. She impresses the school's choreographer, Madame Blanc, so much that within two weeks she's given the lead role in the next performance, the presentation of a 1946 piece called "Volk".

Susie could only get this role because the school's previous lead dancer, Patricia Hingle, has suddenly disappeared. The other students think that she's left to join a terrorist cell. The film shows that this isn't true. She visits a psychotherapist, Dr. Josef Klemperer, asking him for help. He diagnoses her with acute paranoia. After a single visit she leaves her diary with him. He reads that the dance school is controlled by a coven of witches, ruled over by three ancient witches who have lived for thousands of years. He becomes fascinated by this story. He doesn't believe it, but he investigates anyway.

That's as far as I'll go with the plot. It's not just that I don't want to give away spoilers; I don't understand everything that happened. That's my reason for the relatively low rating. When I go to watch a film I at least expect to understand it. There might be unclear details that necessitate watching the film a few times, but the major plot points need to be clear. I walked out of the cinema feeling somehow empty.

One of the film's amusing features is that Tilda Swinton appears in three different roles. She looks so different that it's impossible to recognise her as the same person.

Tilda Swinton as Madame Blanc. This is the Tilda Swinton that I know and love.

Tilda Swinton as Dr. Josef Kemperer. Holy Sex Change, Batman! I honestly don't know why she was used for the role. Couldn't they have found an old man to play the doctor? Tilda even wears a fake penis in a brief nude scene. Maybe there's some subtle intention in putting the same actress into the two main roles. Maybe it's just a joke. I don't know.

I haven't found a photo of Tilda Swinton's third character that I can use. All I'll say is that she looks different to both of the above characters.

I need to watch the original film again. I'll probably watch the new version again. It was made by Amazon Studios, so I expect it to appear on Amazon Prime before too long.