John Wick (5 Stars)

When John Wick arrived in 2014, it looked at first glance like a modest, even disposable action thriller. Keanu Reeves, long past his early-2000's peak, was starring in a revenge story triggered by the death of a dog; hardly the stuff of a major franchise launch. Yet the film did something quietly radical; it rethought how a modern action series could be built, not through escalating spectacle alone but through world-building, tone and physical credibility.

At its core, John Wick is disarmingly simple. A retired hitman is dragged back into violence when the last emotional connection to his late wife is brutally taken from him. The script understands that this simplicity is a strength. By stripping away subplots and moral hand-wringing, the film creates a clean emotional through-line that justifies the relentless action. Wick is not positioned as a hero in the traditional sense; he is a professional monster briefly unleashed, and the film never pretends otherwise.

What truly marks John Wick as the birth of a franchise, rather than a one-off revenge picture, is the way it sketches an entire criminal ecosystem without overexplaining it. The Continental Hotel, gold coins, blood oaths and whispered reputations are introduced as everyday facts of life. Characters speak of John Wick in hushed tones, as if he were a myth who happens to exist in the real world. This approach invites curiosity and rewards repeat viewing; it also leaves narrative space for expansion, sequels and spin-offs without feeling retrofitted.

Equally important is the action itself. Directors Chad Stahelski and David Leitch, both with stunt backgrounds, foreground choreography, geography and duration. Fights play out in longer takes than audiences had become used to, allowing Reeves' training in gun-fu and judo-inspired movement to read clearly on screen. The violence is stylised but legible, elegant but exhausting. In an era dominated by frantic editing, John Wick made clarity fashionable again, and its influence can be seen across action cinema in the years since.

As a franchise starter, the film is also notable for its restraint. It does not try to be bigger than it needs to be. The mythology is suggested, not dumped; the ending closes Wick's immediate arc while leaving his world intriguingly open. This balance is precisely why the series could grow bolder with each sequel without collapsing under its own weight.

In retrospect, John Wick feels less like the first chapter of a planned saga and more like a confident proof of concept that audiences embraced. Its success lies in understanding that franchises are not born from scale alone but from a distinctive identity. By combining a minimalist revenge story with rich, implicit world-building and a new standard for action choreography, John Wick did not just introduce a franchise; it redefined what one could look like.

Success Rate:  + 2.3

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

Spider-Man 3 (5 Stars)

Something funny happened today. I sat down to watch "Spider-Man 3". The film began. And then, in the first few seconds, while the Columbia logo was being displayed, a spider lowered itself between me and the television. It was hanging on its web from the ceiling. I was so fascinated that I paused the film to watch it. It hung in front of me for no more than 60 seconds. Then it pulled itself back up to the ceiling, and I haven't seen it since.

A lot of people say that they don't like "Spider-Man 3". I agree that it's not up to the quality of the first two films, but it's still very good. Look at my rating! But too much is happening. Why have Sandman and Venom in the same film? Sandman could have filled the whole film. And the telescoping of the black suit stories removes a lot. In the comics Peter Parker wore the black costume for four years, before it was passed on to Eddie Brock. This story could have been divided into two films. Or three. It looks like Sam Raimi was in a hurry to get the trilogy finished.

Look at the way Sandman lumbers around like a monster from Hammer Horror. And look at the screenshot of Venom in the title picture. This is what Venom should look like, not the comical sock puppet in the Tom Hardy films.

Sam Raimi was planning to use the Vulture as the villain in "Spider-Man 4" and Mysterio in "Spider-Man 5". He was even considering casting Bruce Campbell as Mysterio. But it never happened. I read reports of disagreements between Sam and Marvel Studios. I shan't repeat them here, because I'm not even sure they're true. Just speculation. Whatever happened, the three films he made will always stand up as masterpieces.

Success Rate:  + 1.5

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

Spider-Man 2 (5 Stars)

Why doesn't Marvel make films like this any more? I hate it when my friends say that Marvel films are bad, because I can't argue with them. Most of the new Marvel films are average quality at best. Look at my ratings. I'm honest. There were a few good films at the beginning of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), but ever since "Avengers Endgame" the quality has been sliding. What's wrong? Too many films? Not enough care to find good writers? Or is it just incapable managers looking after Disney and Marvel Studios?

Sam Raimi was the perfect choice to direct the Spider-Man trilogy. If it had remained a trilogy. He already had plans for two more films, but the studio didn't agree. Then the Spider-Man franchise was rebooted with Andrew Garfield. I like to pretend that the "Amazing Spider-Man" films were never made. Shall I ever watch them again? Probably not. But I can watch the original trilogy (2002 to 2007) again and again.

As my regular readers must have realised, I was disappointed with this year's Fantasy Film Festival. Most of the films were average to poor. For this reason I've made a decision. Every time I watch a film that I rate less than four stars, I'll watch at least two five star films, preferably from my top 100. I need to stick with quality. In theory, I could watch my top 100 films one after another for years, never bothering to watch any new films. They're all films that are good enough to watch over and over again.

Success Rate:  + 1.9

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

Wild At Heart (4 Stars)

Last week "Lost Highway" was shown in the cinema, but I couldn't go because it was sold out. I had mixed feelings. On the one hand I was sad, because I've never seen "Lost Highway" on the big screen. On the other hand, I was glad that so many people wanted to see such a wonderful film.

Tonight "Wild at Heart" was shown, also a film I've never previously seen in the cinema. It was a tribute evening to David Lynch. Two short films were shown before it started. The first was a tribute to David Lynch, a montage of short clips from his films and television series. The second was a collection of clips of things he said over the years, mostly taken from interviews. 

Nicolas Cage plays Sailor, a naive young man. He's dating Lula, played by Laura Dern. Lula's mother doesn't approve of him and hires a man to kill him. There's a fight, in which Sailor viciously kills the man with his bare hands. As a result he's sent to prison for two years, but Lula faithfully waits for him. Her mother is furious. She thought Lula would change her mind after having time to cool down.

Lula picks Sailor up from prison, but instead of going home they decide to drive all the way from North Carolina to California. That would be 2600 miles if they drove directly, but Sailor makes a detour through Texas to visit an old friend in Big Tuna, population 603. Meanwhile, Lula's mother has hired an assassin to find and kill Sailor. Since she doesn't trust him, she hires a second assassin, her former lover. (Or maybe he's still her lover, it's not clear).

Sailor drives through the barren landscape, not fully aware of what's happening around him. He's in love, which is all that matters. Nicolas Cage's acting is the opposite of his later performances. In this 1990 film he isn't at all over-the-top, he's supremely laid back.

It's an incredible film. The only thing that disturbs me is the amount of smoking. It's not just an occasional cigarette, Sailor and Lula are smoking in almost every scene. On occasions Sailor even has two cigarettes in his mouth. Maybe David Lynch meant this to be significant, but it's not attractive. In fact, it's repulsive.

Success Rate:  - 0.5

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

Shadow of the Vampire (5 Stars)

After watching "Nosferatu" on Saturday I felt inclined to rewatch the 1922 version of the film for comparison. I changed my mind and picked up "Shadow of the Vampire" instead. When's the last time I watched it? It was before I started writing my blog, so I have no exact date. I remember seeing it in the cinema in 2001, at a time when I rarely visited the cinema. It was one of the first films I bought on DVD, probably in 2003. I know I watched it a few times, but it was long, long ago. For this reason it was a good idea to choose it today.

The film follows F. W. Murnau and his filming of "Nosferatu" in 1922. Rather than tell the true story as a biopic, it tells a fantasy version of the story. Max Schreck, the man who was to play Count Orlok, wasn't an actor; he was a real vampire. After discovering him, Murnau asked him to appear in his film in exchange for being given the German actress Greta Schröder as his bride.

All went well on the film set, until Schreck got hungry and started to eat other members of the cast and crew. Murnau fights to keep Schreck's true identity a secret.

From my description the film might sound like a comedy, but it's played seriously. Willem Dafoe is genuinely scary as Max Schreck the vampire. It's tragic that this magnificent film has been forgotten with the passing of time. Despite its critical success, it's no longer available for purchase except for a Spanish Blu-ray. It has the original English version.

Success Rate:  - 0.6

Nosferatu [2024] (4½ Stars)

"Nosferatu" is a curious candidate for a remake. It was made in 1922 by the German director Friedrich Murnau. He wanted to make a film based on Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula", but he needed permission from the owner of the book's rights, Florence Balcombe, Stoker's widow. Since she was a racist who hated Germans, she refused to allow Murnau to make the film. Refusing to be put off, he made a film based on the story, changing the names of the characters and the locations of the events. For instance, Count Dracula was renamed Count Orlok. He thought he could get away with it, because his film was only planned to be shown in Germany. Balcombe found out and sued him. The court ordered that all copies should be destroyed, but several copies were rescued. In retrospect, "Nosferatu" (the 1922 version) is considered one of the greatest horror films ever made, while Florence Balcombe's name lives on in infamy.

In 1931 she allowed the book to be adapted by an American director. The film was called "Dracula", and the characters had the correct names. Since then more than 50 adaptations of the novel have been made, not counting the many films in which Dracula appears as a character. It's the most frequently adapted book ever. I own several of the films on disc. It's interesting to see which ones are more accurate and which ones leave out details.

But "Nosferatu" stands alone as an adaptation that deliberately changed the details. Why should something incorrect be copied? Nostalgia?

In 1979 Werner Herzog made a film called "Nosferatu the Vampyre", but I don't count it as a remake of the 1922 film. Not quite. He copied the visuals of the 1922 film, but he called the characters by their correct names.

The new film is a dedicated remake of the 1922 Nosferatu film. The wrong names are used throughout. The only reason I can think of for calling it "Nosferatu" is to set it aside from all the other films called "Dracula". The suspense is outstanding. Instead of slavishly following the 1922 film it adds several details from the book.

I'm happy to say that despite being in its second week the cinema was packed, about 90% full. I don't know how it's doing in other countries, but in Germany it's a big hit.

Zero (3 Stars)

This is the eighth film in the Stuttgart Weird Weekender Festival.

Hus Miller is an American businessman visiting Dakar, the capital of Senegal. He wakes up in a bus with a bomb strapped to his chest and a timer counting down from ten hours. A woman gives him a mobile phone and leaves quickly. A voice on the phone tells him he has ten hours to complete five tasks, and if he fails the bomb will explode.

Never mind what the tasks are. The film is ridiculous. If I'd been in that situation I would have handed myself over to the police and given them the phone to have the number traced while the bomb is disarmed. Maybe the mysterious caller would have found out and killed him, but it's obvious from the start that his survival chances are low. Good acting, reasonable action scenes, but a poor story.

John Wick (4½ Stars)

I don't intend to write much about "John Wick" today, neither the character nor the film. I finally bought "John Wick 4" on Blu-ray last week, and I intend to watch the first three films again before I watch it. That's what a serious film fan does.

After giving "John Wick" a five star rating last time I watched it, I've downgraded it to four and a half stars this time. It's the weakest film in the series, though only slightly weaker. The emotional scenes at the beginning aren't convincing.

Success Rate:  + 2.3

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

Spider-Man (5 Stars)

This is the second film I presented tonight for the theme "Do you remember the days when Marvel films were good?" In my opinion, it's the best Marvel film ever. Many people claim that the second film, "Spider-Man 2", is better. I can see what they mean. The action scenes in the second film are better. I prefer the first film for its greater emotional depth. But I'll think it over again next time I watch "Spider-Man 2". Maybe I've placed it too low in my top 100 films list. 

After watching the film today I praised Sam Raimi for making the main villain corny. An example is the way Willem Dafoe holds a speech while looking at the vial in his hand which will transform him into the Green Goblin. Then he drinks it fast, dramatically, before smashing the empty vial on the floor. My German friends didn't understand the word corny, and I couldn't translate it. Google translates it as kitschig, but that's obviously wrong. Is it an English word that has no equivalent in German, the same as English has no word for gemütlich? Back home, it took me a long time to think it over, but eventually I came to klischeehaft as a translation for corny. It's not as common in German as corny in English, but it expresses the same meaning.

When writing about "Howard the Duck" I pointed out the beautiful actress Jorli McLain in a minor role. I'll do the same for "Spider-Man". There's an unnamed lab assistant in one of the first scenes. Her role is so minor that she isn't even listed in the credits. But I recognised her immediately. She's the beautiful South Korean actress Una Damon. She's never had a breakthrough. Throughout her career she's only had small roles in films and television series. That's a tragedy.

Here's one more photo of her. She's beautiful.

Success Rate:  + 3.9

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

Poor Things (2 Stars)

This is a film that's been nominated for many awards, including eleven awards for the upcoming Baftas. So it has to be good. Right? Wrong. To sum it up, the film starts badly, it gets worse in the middle, and towards the end it becomes only slightly better.

The film begins with a Frankenstein-ish character in Victorian London. A disfigured surgeon, also a university lecturer, has discovered how to bring people back to life. He witnesses a pregnant woman committing suicide by jumping off a bridge. He retrieves her body and revives her, but because of her head trauma he removes her brain and replaces it with the brain of her unborn baby. The result is a fully grown woman with childlike intelligence and naivety.

So far it sounds good, but I can't explain the film's problems without giving spoilers. So if you don't want spoilers, stop reading now.

Are you still with me? You were warned.

As the woman, named Bella by the surgeon, grows older she becomes more intelligent, but she remains naive. I forgot to mention that the surgeon's name is Godwin Baxter, but he lets everyone call him God. One of God's students falls in love with the childlike woman and proposes to marry her. She agrees, but a short time later she decides to have an affair with God's lawyer, a last fling before her marriage. They go to Lisbon, where they spend their days having wild sex.

On the way home Bella sees poor children and is so moved that she gives all of their money to them. Bella is broke when she arrives in Paris, so she becomes a prostitute. She does this for a while –  Months? Years? – but eventually returns to London to marry the student.

I'll stop there. I've already given more spoilers than I usually do.

As far as the film's message goes, it's a mess. It shows a woman trying to stand on her own two feet, resisting the men who try to keep her prisoner. That's admirable, but can a woman really find freedom by becoming a prostitute? Her naivety, which she retains throughout the film, is her greatest weakness. She's not a feminist role model, far from it. There are other random things I need to criticise:

Why is the surgeon disfigured? It adds nothing to the plot.

And why does he call himself God? That's rather plump.

There are alternating sequences in colour and black and white. I couldn't detect a logical reason for the differences.

Bella sees blimps flying overhead in Lisbon. I thought it was an anachronism, but after googling I found that the first blimps were invented in 1852. It still looks strange.

The film is just a random mess. Some reviews call "Poor Things" a comedy, I don't see anything funny about it. It's just ridiculous. How could anyone like it, let alone nominate it for awards?

Aquaman (4 Stars)

"Redheads! You've just gotta love em!"

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist heading this review with this photo of Amber Heard. She looks much better with her hair dyed red than with her natural blonde hair. But wouldn't the dye be washed out if she spends all her time underwater?

When I watched "Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom" last month I realised that I could hardly remember the first film. All I remembered was the excessive use of computer graphics. That's usually a sign that it was an average film, because I best remember good films and bad films. I made up for it by logging onto Amazon to order "Aquaman".

Is it an average film? It has its ups and downs. It's uneven. So much is packed into it. Maybe too much. It runs for 143 minutes, but it could have been shortened to 110 or even 90 minutes without weakening the story. There's an exciting fight in Sicily, the best part of the film, followed by a totally unnecessary attack by monsters at sea. Then there's a subterranean world full of flying reptiles that comes straight from the pages of a Jules Verne novel. It looks good, but the mood switches from one scene to the next are exhausting.

To be honest, "Aquaman" can be enjoyed better after seeing "Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom". The same characters return, particularly Black Manta and Aquaman's brother Orm. Seeing how they develop makes their first appearance easier to understand. The second film develops the characters that we already knew.

One strange thing about the Blu-ray I watched today is the way the picture height varies. Was is this way in the cinema? I don't remember. It's possible that the pictures were resized for home cinema. I'd be interested in finding out the reason.

Here are two examples. In this screenshot of Aquaman and Mera the picture is full screen.

In this screenshot of Black Manta the picture is widescreen.

I've never been a fan of widescreen films, neither in the cinema nor at home. It's claimed that the widescreen format makes the picture bigger. That's a lie. It actually makes the picture smaller, because it has to be flattened to show all of it on a cinema screen. It's most obvious at home. The black bars at the top and bottom of the television screen are ugly.

"Aquaman" might not be a great film, but Jason Momoa is a great actor. The first time he won me over was his performance in "Fast & Furious 10", but after returning to "Aquaman" I can fully appreciate his acting skill. I look forward to seeing him return in the next two Fast & Furious films.

Success Rate:  + 5.2

	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.

The Northman (4 Stars)

"The Northman" is an epic Viking saga based on the legend of Amleth. The story of Amleth was the main inspiration for Shakespeare's "Hamlet". "The Northman" is a tale of men and gods. The obvious comparison is with the television series "Vikings", but the difference is that "Vikings" isn't supernatural. In "Vikings" the belief in the Norse gods is a matter of superstition, but in "The Northman" we see the gods directly intervening to guide Amleth's life.

As far as the chronology goes, "The Northman" takes place at the same time as the later seasons of "Vikings". Ragnar Lothbrok lived some time in the eighth Century. The events of "The Northman" begin in 895 AD, and King Harald is mentioned, a person who appears in seasons four to six of "Vikings".

In 895 AD King Aurvandill of Hrafnsey is assassinated by his brother Fjölnir. His young son Amleth flees and is presumed dead. He's adopted by a Viking clan, and he calls himself Björnulfr, which means Bear-Wolf. He becomes their fiercest warrior, but he has no ambitions to rule their clan. One day a blind seer tells him that she recognises him as Amleth, and he should stop running from his destiny. It's time for him to take revenge on Fjölnir.

Amleth/Björnulfr finds out that Fjölnir has fled from Hrafnsey and now lives in Iceland, where he makes a living from capturing and selling slaves. Björnulfr allows himself to be captured so he can be close to him. He makes a good impression and is kept by Fjölnir, not sold. He bides his time, gaining Fjölnir's trust, until he's ready to act.

My biggest problems are with the opening scenes, the first fifteen minutes. The computer generated special effects look artificial. Fortunately, less computer graphics are used as the film progresses. Or maybe the graphics improved so that they looked genuine. The best computer graphics are the ones that look real.

The second half of "The Northman" was filmed on location in Iceland. It's a stunningly beautiful country. This single screenshot isn't enough to do it justice. Next time I watch it I'll include more pictures.

"The Northman" was highly praised by critics, some of them calling it the best film of the year, but its performance at the box office was mediocre. Maybe it was released too soon after the Coronavirus pandemic. I personally wanted to see it in the cinema, but I was lying in hospital with a lung infection. I have the impression that it's a film that can be appreciated better on a big screen.

There's something I noticed about Alexander Skarsgard while watching "Infinity Pool" which is confirmed in "The Northman". Of all the actors in his family, he's the one who's the most similar to his father Stellan. It's not just his facial features. His voice is also similar to his father's voice.

Success Rate:  - 1.0

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

Spider-Man: No Way Home (5 Stars)

Today I watched the "More Fun Stuff" version of the film in the cinema. That's a silly name. Couldn't they just have called it the Extended Version? That would have been more dignified.

I'll refrain from writing about the film itself, even though I didn't say much about it in my past reviews. I'll just comment on the More Fun Stuff changes. The added scenes, a total of 13 minutes, are almost entirely at the beginning of the film, apart from a new after-credits scene. In my opinion, the new scenes don't improve the film at all. They're mostly interviews which just slow the film down. I'm not saying the scenes are bad, I'm just saying that it doesn't matter whether they're in the film or not. If there's a More Fun Stuff Blu-ray release, I'll only buy it if it's very cheap.

The original theatrical version had an after-credits scene that was effectively a trailer for "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness". The More Fun Stuff version has an after-credits scene with Betty Brant praising her fellow students on being accepted into college. It's a cute scene, but totally unnecessary.

Here are a few sketches used in the final credits. They're simple but beautiful. I wish I were a gifted artist. Or even an average artist. I can't draw at all. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'm a zero.

Success Rate:  + 8.4

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

Spider-Man: No Way Home (5 Stars)

This is the 27th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). If you think that I must be smart to remember something like that, you're over-estimating me. I have a list of the films in a spreadsheet which I keep open while writing about MCU films. I also have little green stickers on the spines of my MCU Blu-ray discs, so I know what order they should be on my bookshelf.

Logically, "No Way Home" (I'll abbreviate the title) continues from the 26 previous MCU films, but it's unique in that it incorporates elements from non-MCU films. The film is all about the multiverse, so it re-introduces characters from previous versions of Spider-Man. In particular, we see the previous actors who played Spider-Man reprising their roles.

Three Spider-Men! Or should I say three Spider-Mans? What's the rule for the plural of proper names? Someone who's as fanatical about the English language as me ought to know the answer to that question. Please don't ask me when we meet in person, because I'd be sure to turn bright red.

Welcome back, Spider-Man #1, played by Tobey Maguire from 2002 to 2007. He's aged in the last 15 years. Haven't we all? I wish they'd used makeup to make him look younger.

Welcome back, Spider-Man #2, played by Andrew Garfield from 2012 to 2014. His career was cut short when "Amazing Spider-Man 3" was cancelled. I was never happy that Peter Parker's father was made an important character, but I wish the third part of the trilogy had been made to tie up the loose ends. The final scene of "Amazing Spider-Man 2" introduced the Rhino, possibly as a member of the Sinister Six, but the next film was never made.

Accompanying the Spider-Mans into the Marvel Cinematic Universe are Doctor Octopus, Green Goblin, Sandman, Electro and the Lizard. Strangely, the wrong version of Venom was drawn into the MCU. Eddie Brock from Earth-TRN688 arrived, not Eddie Brock from Earth-96283. I assume this was a blunder, because there's no logical reason for it.

The story is continued in the 28th MCU film, "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness", which I plan to watch later this week. The two films couldn't be more different. "No Way Home" is a serious film, whereas "Multiverse of Madness" is spoilt by too much humour. Still, I'm biased in favour of Sam Raimi, so I'll make an effort to enjoy "Multiverse of Madness" when I watch it again.

Happy Hogan uses a CPAP machine to get eight hours of undisturbed sleep.

This is Zendaya's third film as Peter Parker's girlfriend MJ. She looks more attractive in each film. Remind me to publish a photo gallery showing her development from film to film.

Tasty! I'd visit her café for a donut every day.

Peter Parker doesn't have a sweet tooth. He just orders a cup of coffee.

One question is left unanswered, in this film at least: are there just three Spider-Mans or many many more? Maybe there are many versions of Mike Hood aka Dancer in the multiverse. Some of them probably write better blogs than me. I should meet them to get a few pointers. Or maybe I'm a singularity who only exists in one universe. Until then, don't forget:

I am Dancer.

Success Rate:  + 7.5

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

Nightmare Alley (5 Stars)

This is a wonderful film by Guillermo del Toro, whose last film, "The Shape of Water", won him two Academy Awards for the Best Film and the Best Director. Considering his previous successes, it's amazing that his new film has been so under-promoted. No trailers were shown in the cinema in the weeks leading up to its release. I saw a poster hanging outside the cinema, the one shown above, but del Toro's name wasn't apparent. I didn't know that the film was by him until a friend pointed it out to me. I immediately knew I had to see the film.

"Nightmare Alley" has been described as neo-noir. I don't know what that word means, and I doubt anyone else does. It's just a word thrown about to describe crime films. It was also claimed that "Nightmare Alley" is a remake of the 1947 film with the same name. That's not true. It's the second adaptation of the book called "Nightmare Alley" by William Gresham. The new film isn't in any way based on the old film. Any similarities are the result of having the same source material.

The film begins with Stan Carlisle killing a man. We find out more details as the film continues. Stan goes on the run and joins a carnival. He's fascinated by Zeena, a mind-reader. It seems real, but Stan is told it's all a show perfected by her husband Pete. Stan moves into their house and learns from Pete. He eventually leaves the carnival and sets himself up as a mind-reader.

Stan meets a psychologist, Dr. Lilith Ritter, who sees through his fake readings, but is nevertheless impressed by his talent. Together they devise a scam to get money from rich people in New York. She gives Stan information about them from her therapy sessions which he can use when reading their minds.

For me it was fascinating to hear the tricks of fake psychics. William Gresham must have done a lot of research to find out their secrets.

The film is a slow burner. The suspense slowly builds for more than two hours. We know that Stan's steady rise to the top of his profession will finally result in a fall, but how will it happen? The viewer is left in suspense until the end of the film. It's an excellent film, and I'm glad I didn't miss it.

Spider-Man: No Way Home (5 Stars)

I finally got a chance to see the new Spider-Man film today. It's been sold out for the last two weeks, unlike "The Matrix Resurrections", which hasn't been so popular with cinema audiences.

I don't want to give away too much for a new film, so I'll restrict myself to what we see in the trailer. At the end of "Spider-Man: Far From Home" it was announced to the world that Peter Parker was Spider-Man. This has disrupted his life, so he visits Doctor Strange and asks him to cast a spell to make everyone forget who he is. The spell tampers with the multiverse, so we see various enemies from other versions of Spider-Man appear to challenge him.

To get technical: this film, along with the whole of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), takes place in a universe called Earth-199999.

Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films take place in Earth-96283.

The Amazing Spider-Man films take place in Earth-120703.

Don't blame me! I didn't invent these numbers!

On a less technical level, after the merging and alliances of various film studios, there was a push to reconcile the different versions of Spider-Man with one another. This idea scared me. It's a recipe for disaster. I was pleasantly surprised that the film turned out so well. It's chaotic. Anyone who walks in who hasn't watched dozens of Marvel films over the last 18 years won't have any idea what's going on. Nevertheless, "No Way Home" accurately captures the style and atmosphere of Marvel comics. The plot gets ridiculous as it progresses – no spoilers! – but it fits the story.

Maybe just one spoiler: Wong is now the Sorcerer Supreme? That's just silly!

Spider-Man 3 (5 Stars)

The third film in the Spider-Man trilogy is strongly criticised by film critics and fans alike. Many call it awful. I don't understand it. I find it very good, even if it's not up to the quality of the first two films. I included it in my list of my top 100 films in 93rd place. In retrospect I think it should have been higher in the list.

"Spider-Man 3" has so much in its favour. It neatly brings the Harry Osborn storyline to a close. The Sandman is brought to the big screen as a villain we can sympathise with. The pathos of Peter Parker's on-off relationship with Mary Jane Watson tugs at our heartstrings. My only criticism of the film is that it's too short to do Venom justice. It should have lasted three hours to give bigger battles with Venom.

I'm glad I had enough time to watch the whole trilogy without interruption over the last three days. I haven't written much about the films. Do I need to? I'm not a professional writer. I'm not paid to write 2000 words a day. If I have something on my mind I'll write it, and if I don't I shan't force myself.

The singer Prince was notorious for his sexual activities. At every party he visited he picked up another woman. His songs were also very sexual. In an interview he was asked what he liked doing most: having sex or writing songs about sex. His initial reaction was to laugh and call it a silly question. Then he became pensive and said that he didn't know the answer. Both were important to him. In the same way, I can be asked whether I prefer watching films or writing about films. I prefer watching films, but after eleven years of writing my blog I find that writing about films is also very important to me. Sometimes I write a big post, and the writing takes up more time than I spent watching the film. I enjoy watching films. I enjoy writing about films. I can't separate the two.

Success Rate:  + 1.5

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