Recensioni di dfle3

Many weeks back I heard this show discussed on a TV segment of my local radio network (ABC Local in Australia, on the Nightlife programme) and that featured an audio clip of a scene from the series concerning the making of a film about zombies with an 'interesting' method of spreading their contagion. Oddly, once I started watching the series, that episode wouldn't drop until many weeks later, so I'm not sure how the radio show got such an advanced, unaired episode. Anyway, the show seemed like it would be fun and I somehow got a free trial of Apple TV for a few months (maybe via spending a certain amount on an Apple gift card or something...$30, say), so I made a point of watching it.

From the first episode, the series has the feel of an old style screwball comedy (not really a genre that I'm familiar with and looking up that term, it only partially matches what I'm thinking of here, things like a highly stylised manner of speaking between characters). Seth Rogen plays Matt Remick, a senior figure in the fictional Hollywood film corporation Continental Studios...who also happens to be a man-child. He is about to become the head of this studio and discover that the reality of his promotion won't meet his expectation of how he imagines it will be. It seems he will be internally conflicted between his love of cinema as an art form and the pressure to make a tonne of money for the corporation.

The main cast really only serve to illuminate different facets of Remick, as in they don't seem fully formed characters with personalities of their own, as happens in such great sitcoms as Seinfeld, Cheers, Yes Minister or Fawlty Towers, to name some of the best. Perhaps that could be construed as a reflection of the 'type' that populate these positions in this industry...or the show's writing isn't as sharp when it comes to characters other than Remick? They are perky and hyper but lack depth. Like Gervais' The Office, this is very much cringe comedy, with Remick being the focus of that. It works. In my notes I did write some quotes from the show which I liked, such as Remick saying "I got into all this 'cause, you know, I love movies but now I have this fear that my job is to ruin them" (episode 1). Episode 2 has one character illuminate a facet of Remick by saying of him "His film boner is at full mast". The language does get stronger in this series, so if such language offends you, it would be best to give this series a miss (there is also one raunchy sex scene in the first series). In the same episode, I got a laugh when Remick says "I'm trying to support women". Of course, the humour here derives from his weird way of demonstrating that.

A feature of this series is that famous industry figures have roles here. Now, some names I was familiar with but would struggle to identify them in a police lineup...I'd have better luck if I had a multiple choice option to pick them...for example, someone like Martin Scorsese. However, there were many industry figures that I was not familiar with, as I haven't lived and breathed films for a while now. Personally, it would have been funny to me if the joke was that the series used actors to play actual industry figures, as I wouldn't have known that in any case...or that the person really existed anyway. In any case, I had no trouble recognising Ron Howard when he appeared. All these famous/'famous' people play versions of themselves, for comedic effect, obviously.

Going on my notes for the series, here are some comments about the episodes that prompted me to write something down:

Episode 1, "The promotion" - very well constructed with a nice payoff. It has Martin Scorsese in it. Remick digs holes for himself and tries digging his way out of them. It would be interesting to know how much the series draws on actual practice in the industry versus drawing on real world events. For instance, a part of this episode reminded me of the news story where people with damaging claims against Donald Trump had their story bought by magazines like the National Enquirer and the US Weekly in order to 'bury' them...the term "catch-and-kill" was used in that case. In other words, the magazines did Trump a favour in order to help him get elected as president.

Episode 2, "The oner" - I've already included a couple of quotes from this one but I did note that a figure of $800,000 was mentioned as the price to use a Rolling Stones song in a film. Is that about right?

Episode 3, "The note" - I was amused when one character says of Ron Howard's film "He should not be burdening audiences with his catharsis. Go to therapy, save us 45 minutes of f_ing runtime". The scene where Howard has an outburst at the poster art for the film meeting...I thought that was a ruse by him to get the film to Patty instead of Continental. In any case, tongue planted firmly in cheek, perhaps, I'd say that the episode should have ended at that scene!

Episode 4, "The missing reel" - Shot in a film noir style. At the time I felt that this was the weakest episode. It became funnier once the mystery had been resolved.

Episode 6, "The paediatric oncologist" - I think that this is the worst episode of the first series. The portrayal of the doctors as that petty didn't strike me as being plausible...they're sitcom doctors...and I wasn't having much fun with them.

Episode 8, "The Golden Globes" - I started cringing when Zöe Kravitz' character (herself) approached Remick when he was behind the scenes, trying to get credit for her film. However, they managed to turn things around quickly and it became an amusing scene (I have a low cringe tolerance or something). This moment isn't unlike Gervais' sitcom/mockumentary The office.

Episodes 9 and 10 - I couldn't get past how the supposedly stoned characters didn't really strike me as being stoned...that might just be a good thing...was I expecting them to go all 'method' for their roles?

Anyway, this is my first experience, really, of "streaming" TV, from memory. One thing which REALLY annoyed me was how the closing credits were shrunk and moved to a corner to make way for a promotion for something else on Apple TV. I'd repeatedly fight the screen to leave the closing credits on full screen so that I could read them! The start of each episode also starts with a promotion for another programme on Apple TV, which you can skip, it seems, thankfully.

Paying to watch TV isn't really my thing so no doubt I'll cancel my subscription just before my free trial expires. Can't say that I'm desperate to continue further series of The studio. Hopefully it's not one of those traditional TV network type of shows where they just keep it going and going...and going and going...until it just dies a belated death...like the US Office? Gervais' had the better concept of how long to keep a series going.

For my score for this first series, I was thinking of giving it 75+%, which would mean giving it 8/10 stars here. Think I'll drop the + in my score, which means, since I don't round up, a score of 7/10 stars here. I was entertained by this series and if you closely follow the Hollywood scene you will no doubt get a lot more from this series, as you see real people that you follow play strange versions of themselves.

I saw this film on my EPG the other week and immediately decided to record it. It was broadcast on 27/04/2025 at 11:25pm on ABC TV. It's the story of Ned Kelly, Australia's most famous/iconic bushranger (a robber who commits crimes beyond populated areas). It should be noted that Australia was not yet a nation when he lived. Ned Kelly has been depicted many times in various forms of art and literature to this day.

Perhaps this was the film's premier on any form of TV?. I viewed and reviewed most of it the next day. The remains of the film are bookended by NFSA notes at the start and its signage at the end. From the start of the former to the end of the latter, the running time of the broadcast is 31:50 minutes. The film proper would have a running time of 30 minutes from start of intertitles to the end of the last.

I'll provide a selection of the notes on the broadcast which introduce the film below:

"This print is from the National Film and Sound Archive of Australia.

Introduction

The 1906 film The Story of the Kelly Gang is believed to have been one hour in length. Only fragments are known to survive.: 296m or 971 feet which totals almost fifteen minutes of screen time when projected at 18 frames per second.

This study version aims at reconstructing the film's narrative based upon the best evidence provided by the original footage and intertitles. Combined with additional titles and other associated material, postcards, the poster, the original program booklet, a more complete sense of the structure of the original production is created...The original titles are shown as they are in the film. Reconstituted titles are based on text from the original program booklet (Melbourne, 1906) and appear in normal text.

Additional narrative titles have been created where no intertitles exist. They appear in italics to clearly distinguish them."

A longish sequence of intertitles in italics begins proceedings before the film proper begins. Of the substantial live action sequences, there are four by my count:

1) Police at the Kelly homestead (1:16 minutes @)

2) The Kelly gang at the Wombat Ranges, the police at a camp nearby too (2:48@)

3) The Kelly gang at Younghusband's station (8:24@)

4) Sequence at the Glenrowan Hotel, interior and exterior (7:23@)

@ = from start of live action to end of live action but including intertitles with no live action. That's a total of 19 minutes and 47 seconds of 'actual' film, not counting intertitles preceding the initial live action footage. Live action footage from these 4 sequences totals 1:06 (2 segments), 1:30 (4), 7:06 (10), 5:04 (13). So, the running time of all substantial live actions sequences is 14:48.

Now to the film itself. Assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the bookends of the live action sequences correspond to their place in the full version of the film (the final live action sequence seems likely to have ended the full film), it seems that the story starts in the middle of things: a policeman has an arrest warrant for Dan Kelly, Ned's brother, at the Kelly homestead. Unless you are familiar with the story of the Kelly gang, you are left none the wiser as to what Dan is wanted for by the police. I certainly was.

There are a couple of other narratively confusing elements to the film:

Firstly, why did Dan and Steve shoot at each other inside the Glenrowan Hotel? I had the impression that "Steve" hadn't been introduced to the audience and I couldn't remember who he was. Skimming back to the start of the film, I did see that Steve was mentioned in the sequence set in the Wombat Ranges, where he was named as part of the Kelly gang. Looking online on a website concerning the Kelly gang, it isn't certain what happened as far as Dan and Steve went (I skimmed the text), so the filmmaker look like they've taken liberties in what they've depicted as occurring. The actual live action depiction of the intertitles of what happened ("Steve and Dan shoot each other") is utterly bizarre, as in there is no rhyme or reason for this. Ideally the full film would have made this event explicable by what has occurred before this moment, via the use of intertitles.

Secondly, Ned Kelly's legendary armour just miraculously appears in the story. Perhaps the story of that armour and Ned's use of it would have been common knowledge at the time the film was made but to the casual viewer, it just seems to materialise from out of nowhere. Again, ideally, the full film would have dealt with this in a way which makes more sense.

A nice touch to the film was the use of a red tint for the scene where the Glenrowan Hotel is alight. Presumably that was in the original film. I wondered whether the tint was to disguise that there was no visible flame on the building but looking closer, I could see flames at one point. That would be a novel yet natural cinematic trick for using tint.

Perhaps the film is having a bet each way as to how it is portraying the Kelly gang. One intertitle has the gang stating that "We do not rob ladies or children". At the Younghusband's station, the gang members are also seen to doff their hats to the ladies there! Perhaps the film leans on the side of being sympathetic to the gang, for instance, the first sequence with the policeman at the Kelly homestead. One intertitle reads "Disguised in their borrowed clothes" but we know that the gang has stolen the clothes from their hostages.

Maybe I should have mentioned this earlier but there is no sound at all to this silent film...perhaps this film predated the use of music to accompany the images? Another thing is that the action in the film sequences plays at normal speed. I've seen early 20th century films in clips and it always looks like the reel is being played too fast, say double speed or something of the sort. It's nice to see the action take place at a normal speed. The NFSA intertitle mentions the film being projected at 18 frames per second...I wonder what the rate was for this contemporary broadcast in order to make it appear normal speed...and whether the original frame rate also played the action at a normal speed.

One very big issue to note is that some sections of the film are so deteriorated that they are unwatchable and the image quality can change in the space of one scene. From my point of view, I wonder whether AI could be used now to fix that damage without entirely manufacturing the scene from inference or whatever it is that AI can do. A further step would be to create from scratch missing scenes which could correspond to intertitles which the NFSA mentions in their note.

Some random notes:

* Two Aboriginals are in the film, appearing as trackers. They didn't look happy to be there. I wonder if there is a story behind that.

* There are some tiny fragments of live action which I haven't counted in my list before. Maybe it's on this website that a reviewer or reviewers have pointed out that there are scenes in the film we now have which were actually outtakes or some such of the original and not included. Perhaps the scene of a woman riding sidesaddle is an example of that. It looked like she had a smile on her face (on a still, at least), so perhaps that footage was never intended for the original release. It was impressive to see her mount jump a small fence with her on it. Whether the women who associated with bushrangers rode sidesaddle is one which intrigues me. Perhaps they didn't?

* £8,000 reward for the gang's capture poster...that's 1870s money...what would that be in today's money? The Brave search engine AI suggests that it would be A$1,270,396.80, via UK inflation data as Australia didn't have its own CPI until 1922. I input the poster amount for the year 1879, which I'm not sure is right but it's close enough, I'd say.

* The hawker's van had this signage on it: "Hawker on sale drapery, clothing, cutlery, boots, shoes, books, tobacoo, cigars & pipes &c" (that last 'word' is my best guess for the writing, as in it's short for "etc."). The hawker did a good job of reversing his horse!

* An extremely odd bit of acting is done by the man playing the policeman in the Wombat Ranges sequence...right before we move to the Younghusband's station. He was melodramatically fruity, one might say. What was he aiming for? Of course, later films would have highly kinetic and larger than life gesturing, as this one does. Still, passing strange mannerisms by him.

* One man cops a knee up the bum, which looked real...and painful!

* Moustaches and hats are the order of the day for the men.

* The cinematographer seems to want to include all the actors in the same shot, which does make the scene look implausible.

* Italicised intertitles were ambiguous in the hostage situation.

N. B. I haven't scored this film as most of it is lost to history, unfortunately.

Wikipedia entry for this film has a URL which ends: TheStoryoftheKelly_Gang

"In 2007, The Story of the Kelly Gang was inscribed on the UNESCO Memory of the World Register for being the world's first full-length narrative feature film".

This is the third in a so-called 'trilogy', a framing which I expressed doubts about in my review for the second in the sequence, "For a few dollars more". So, from my perspective it's a matter of complete indifference as to how many in this 'trilogy' you see and in what order you watch them. That being said, if you watch all three films you will observe the tropes that are common to this 'trilogy'. In this one the plot concerns three men on the make who end up chasing a fortune in gold during the American Civil War (American history is not my forte, so looking at Wikipedia for the span of this war, I'd guess that it takes place towards the tail end of it, in the mid 1860s). The three men on the make are referred to in the film's title. Skim reading Wikipedia's entry for this film, there is an interesting thing to note about the title: "In the theatrical trailer, Angel Eyes is referred to as The Ugly and Tuco, The Bad. This is due to a translation error; the original Italian title translates to "The Good (one), the Ugly (one), the Bad (one)"". That quote misses 'the good one', which, in this case, is Clint Eastwood's character of 'Blondie'. I'm using scare quotes for his name because it's a nickname and also a trope of this trilogy, in that he always plays a character whose name we aren't sure of, whether we think we know it or not. Lee Van Cleef plays 'the ugly one' and Eli Wallach plays 'the bad one'.

"The good, the bad and the ugly" returns to the opening title style of the first film, "A fistful of dollars", initially, at least. Here you'll get Ennio Morricone's famous composition which is, musically, at least, his most accomplished, as in you'd want to get the soundtrack for this film because it is so good as a piece of music (it's an earworm!). His score for the previous film worked better as a soundtrack for a film, as in it heightened tension or what have you. When Eastwood's character is revealed (or at least the back of his head, while he is smoking), that famous score plays. That seemed to tie it to him but it would later repeat for the character of Tuco. I'm not sure what we are meant to glean from the fact that the phrase "Directed by Sergio Leone" is in three different fonts! The opening titles have a letterbox aspect which is dropped for the rest of the film, as was the case with the earlier films.

Back to the tropes of this film, there is the visual style of Eastwood. It looked as though his stylistic trope of wearing a poncho would not occur in this film but it did towards the end. As I noted for Eastwood's character in the previous film, I would say the same thing about Lee Van Cleef's character for this one: he's not the same person in both films. Once again you eventually get something resembling a visual trope for him, after thinking it wouldn't occur: his pipe smoking. Lastly, going on the two previous films, you would expect there to be a main villain of the piece. Maybe I thought it was (or might be) Gian Maria Volonté but he is 'replaced' by Eli Wallach. Wikipedia does mention that Volonté was considered for the role but Leone wanted to cast someone who could add a different dimension to the character. Having him in all three films would have made for interesting processing of what this kind of casting means for the trilogy. In any case, perhaps it's a nice symmetry with Eastwood being the constant and Volonté and Van Cleef being either side of the trilogy for two films.

Some of the dialogue in this film did catch my attention, as it did in the first film. Both of these films would make good material for a high school subject like history or media studies or what have you. Amongst the meaty dialogue in this film are lines like: (an official reading the charges against a condemned man) "raping a virgin of the white race; statutory rape of a minor of the black race"; a business man speaks of the Confederates: "as soon as these cowards hear a blue shirt is around, they run. These rebels have no will to fight. They'll soon be finished. We get rid of these bastards, then we begin making money on those Yankees. They carry gold, not paper dollars and they're going to defeat the South"; a Confederate sergeant says: "the only thing we care about is saving our own hides".

In my reviews I've noted the sense of humour of Eastwood's characters. In the first film it is playful. In the second it is guarded (maybe I should have used that word there!). Here it is cruel (in an early scene). This is just another demonstration to me that Eastwood is not playing the same character in all three films. Of all the three films, Eastwood's character is the most unpleasant here, which makes his designation as "the good" (in a postmodern fashion by Leone, using on-screen text) as seemingly ironic. When he calls Tuco a "greasy rat", it makes me wonder if there is an ethnic dimension to the choice of villains in all three films. That might be a meta observation of the trilogy by me though. Some of the humour isn't intended as cruel though. For instance, there is a funny scene where 'Blondie' and Tuco wonder what side of the civil war an approaching cavalry is on. Another scene with Tuco, in a prison camp, brought to mind a scene in the film Pretty Woman, which was played for laughs. 'Blondie' is definitely a dodgy character and his scheme at the start of the film is novel (to me) although I do wonder about continuity errors as far as his partner in crime goes. Their seemingly first meeting doesn't really square with what happens later. How Blondie is seen to become partners in crime with this person also illustrates how odious his character is.

Another major aspect of this film is its depiction of war. It made me question whether it was being used a prop. Is what the film saying about war merely glib? War isn't glorified here in any case. Perhaps it's not odd that I found some scenes of war being taken to a town had echoes in what is currently happening around the world. The makeup used to depict war injuries strikes me as having a realistic look to it. In a more oblique manner, I did note the use of targets in a shooting range looking like Native Americans. It's such a throwaway moment but it struck me, as did similar moments in the first film, concerning Native Americans.

Of the three films in this 'trilogy', this is the one that I'm scoring the lowest. All of the films had their moments which strained credulity or buggered belief. It's just that for this one, it really went beyond pushing the envelope for me. Even though Eastwood's character's entrance into the final showdown of the first film was unbelievable, I still found it satisfying for its mythic quality. This unbelievability just increases from film to film in an unsatisfying way. One example of that is the depiction of the captain at Branson Bridge. His behaviour just didn't seem grounded in reality. I'm not including the fact that he looks swarthy, as do most of the soldiers on the Confederate side, for some reason. It was filmed in Europe, especially Spain, so I won't hold that against them. Generally speaking, I just didn't find the main characters believable in how they related to one another, given their history. As a side note, this film had a non-linear feel to it but I suppose that the ugly one's search for Carson is a thread.

Of the 'trilogy', I'd say that the first is the one that I'd most likely revisit again sometime. The second one, maybe, after a long absence. The third film is much longer but it's not for that reason that it doesn't feel to me like something that I'd be interested in revisiting, although it does have its moments. My thoughts on what I should score this range from 75% (no + sign meaning I give it 7 out of 10 stars on a site where you can't give half stars) to maybe 67.5% if I'm feeling unaccommodating. 72.5% or 72.5+% isn't unreasonable but maybe I'll just stick to what this site gives me, 7 out 10 stars?

Random notes:

* I viewed the "Extended English language version" which had a "2003 restoration and remastering". Recorded on 11/10/2024. SBS World Movies, 9:55pm. Running time of 2:51:15 without the six lots of ads during the film (measured from the start of the MGM lion's roar to to the end, being after the trademark still of the lion, which, for the first time, didn't have a lion's roar), which brings the running time up to 3:11:51. I must say that I appreciated the fact that SBS didn't play ads during the lead up to the ending (the last ad ended 2:26:04 on the unedited film). Audio Described and Closed Captions. It was rated M for adult themes and violence. I viewed this film over two days, from 23/11/2024 and made these notes. I started writing this review on 07/12/2024 up to here and a bit more. Another first for this trilogy is the inclusion of end credits.

* The option for Closed Captions was appreciated by me but I still found an online site with the script to refer to at times. SBS' captions (I presume it was theirs) were good. For instance, whilst the online site didn't include Spanish utterances, SBS' did and I got a strong language translation when I typed it into a translation app on my PC. Sometimes the online script had words which the CC didn't. Sometimes the online script had the right word and the CC didn't.

* Once again, I hear what sort of sounds like words in Morricone's score, in this case "Go, go, go, echo". He has actually composed music which features lyrics for this film: "The story of a soldier" and those lyrics were written by Tommie Connor.

* Not sure if Tuco's sign of the cross is correct...which might be the point, perhaps.

* Interesting casting for the first character we come across called "Shorty". I wonder what his story was. Wikipedia doesn't answer that question but interestingly I see that he is yet another actor who has appeared elsewhere in this trilogy...and you'd think that I would have definitely remembered seeing him before!

A lone man on horseback is seen travelling slowly towards us from a distance. Soon there is a seemingly senseless act of violence. It isn't clear to me whether this 'loose end' is resolved later on in the film or whether it mainly functions as worldbuilding, for the benefit of the viewer, letting them know how little value human lives have in this place.

After the opening credits follow on from this, the film proper begins. We see two men in a train carriage. The face of one is obscured as they are reading the Holy Bible, according to the text on it. We come to know the man with the obscured face as the film unreels. Not really having read any reviews or such like of this film, I wonder if I am the only person to ponder at the end of this man's journey whether that introduction to him was in earnest or ironic. It's perhaps hard to tell. After all, Americans see no tension between loving Jesus and loving money, as the 'prosperity gospel' theology attests.

The main story concerns two independent bounty hunters in America's frontier, near Mexico. There is uncertainty as to how the two bounty hunters (the film uses the term "bounty killer") chasing the same bounties will play out. Is conflict inevitable between them? We have a sense of when all this action takes place, as, at a later point in the film, one of the minor characters is part of a humorous scene where we can see the disruptive influence of the recently introduced passenger train service to the region.

The early action of the film put in mind video games for me, with how some action games might have small bounties for the player to chase when they first start and increasing in size as the gamer becomes more proficient at taking on their targets and seeks larger rewards to gain better equipment or what have you. As the bounties in the film increase in size, they seem to correlate with "on rails" video games. In other words, I found this film to have more of a sense of linearity to it than its predecessor, "A fistful of dollars".

One of the bounty killers looks familiar for those who have seen "A fistful of dollars". It's the character played by Clint Eastwood. So, obviously, there is a physical resemblance of the two characters and perhaps they even dress identically. However, to me they seemed two different characters, as in it's not the same person. As I mentioned in my review of the earlier film, Eastwood's character had a playful aspect to him there. In this next film in the sequence, though Eastwood's character is not exactly humourless, his humour is more wry or sardonic. No, that doesn't quite capture what I'm wanting to say here. In the first film, 'Squint' Eastwood was playful and he shared that quality with at least one other character (I have in mind the 'hanging around' scene), whereas in this film Eastwood's character plays his cards held tightly to his chest. In other words, he is amused by some things but is not letting on to anyone else that he is (I have in mind the scene I mentioned earlier, with the minor character talking about the impact of the introduction of trains on him).

Wikipedia mentions these first two films being part of a trilogy: "The dollars trilogy" or "The man with no name trilogy". Since I don't find myself considering the Clint Eastwood character in both films that I've seen so far to be the same person, I'm leaning towards taking these films as being like "The Cornetto trilogy", in that they are three unrelated films with the same principle actors and loosely bound together. I have to admit to being totally clueless about this "Cornetto trilogy", despite having seen the first two: "Shaun of the dead" and "Hot fuzz". Apparently all three films make passing mention of Cornetto ice creams. That is what makes them a 'trilogy'. Perhaps Clint Eastwood's poncho is Sergio Leone's Cornetto counterpart? Maybe the third film in this 'trilogy' will prove me wrong but it doesn't seem a "trilogy" at the moment like the Star Wars films are.

An interesting facet to these first two films of the 'trilogy' that I have seen so far is how one is supposed to relate to returning actors. As I've said, I'm viewing Clint Eastwood's characters as being different. Another returning actor is Gian Maria Volonté, who once again plays the principle villain of the piece, although he is clearly a different character in both. He must necessarily, of course, be of the same ethnicity. In any case, we have two archetypes in common for both films: the poncho wearing man with no name and the swarthy villain. An action archetype in both films is a scene with a beating, although the one in the first film was the more brutal, I think. The only other returning actor that I noticed was Joseph Egger. Since this paragraph and below was written a couple of weeks after I started this review, things like this aren't fresh in my memory, unfortunately.

Speaking of men with no name, in this film, 'Squint' Eastwood's character is referred to as "Manco" and it seemed to be an actual name to me. The translation app on my PC translates this variously as "one-armed" (for Spanish and Italian) or "not even" (for Latin). Not sure how good my translation app is but it's not really clear to me how Clint's character is "one-armed".

When the film concludes, there is a sort of 'maybe, kind of, not really' ambiguity to it. There probably really isn't, as far as what that character would do in that situation, after retrieving a certain item. It's just good that the film ends there and you are free to ponder what that character will do with that item.

Random notes:

* I'm scoring this film 75+% (since I don't round up, the + sign adds an extra star to my rating here). This film has more implausibility to it than the first film which makes it harder for me to get lost in the story. The main way this is demonstrated is how characters interact with each other. I couldn't believe that Manco would accept a proposition from his rival to do something, as that set off alarm bells for me, as far as possible double-crosses go. Likewise, Manco getting accepted for a heist. Character motivations and actions often just didn't seem believable to me.

* Ennio Morricone is credited for the score, unlike in the first film, where, for some reason, he is credited as "Dan Savio". As far as dramatic music goes, this feels his best score so far, especially effective with the percussive textures during the El Paso bank robbery scene. One thing niggling at me is that I can't place what other piece of music some parts reminded me of. A few notes perhaps put in mind some 1960's surf-rock song...maybe something by The Shadows but maybe something else which I can't recall at the moment (the scene leading up to the bank robbery). A flashback scene has some eerie music. After the robbery scene, I wonder whether I hear the words "Go! Go! Go!" as part of the score...it sort of sounds like words are being used but maybe they're just meant to be suggestive vocalisations? More toward the start of the film, it sounds like the vocalisations are "We can ride!".

* There is an odd mix of childlike depictions of violence (which are perhaps more Classical Hollywood Western in style, although I have not seen too many of these and not since I was a child in any case) and more realistic depictions of the consequences of violence. So, you will see a man fall to the ground after being shot but the shooter's gun was facing toward the ground, not the victim. And the victim does not bleed. On the other hand, on very rare occasions you will see graphic bullet wounds in freshly made corpses. It therefore seems like a transitional moment in cinema between these two styles...sort of like The Wizard Of Oz was for black/white and colour films, perhaps.

* There's a scene where Manco forces an occupant of a hotel room to leave, so that he can have that room for himself. For me, this reflected badly on his character.

* Architecture...when Indio's gang enters El Paso, one of the first buildings looks like a prop, as far as the first storey goes. The "Cosmopolitan Theatre" has the UK spelling convention. Of more interest, it looked to me like a heavily secured internal section of the El Paso bank had an unsecured window at its heart...but maybe we can rationalise this by thinking that the bank is as weird as The Overlook Hotel in Kubrick's film The Shining? One shot of a town's main street made me wonder if it was shot in a studio, probably due to weather effects.

* The fight scene between two bounty hunters is very formal, stylised and ritualistic. Not that there's anything wrong with that! This contrasts with another scene in the film which put in mind Jon Pertwee era Doctor Who fight scenes, with the Doctor's risible 'Venusian karate' (just looked that up for the term. In any case, it looks pretty harmless!). \

* Print quality: sometimes bits of film seemed to be missing. Maybe you'd see a white patch on Mr. Mortimer's face. Another time the effect is cooler, as the missing film makes it look the fresh corpse has a bullet hole.

* Just the random nature of the morality in this film...some actions seem to conform to a moral code but then the same character can do many greatly immoral things. Hmm. People are strange.

Recorded on 10/10/2024 at 9:35pm SBS World Movies. Running time of c 2:06:12 hours, without 5 lots of ad breaks, which increased it's running time to c 2:24:42 hours. In both cases, I edited to the start of the MGM lion's roar before the film started to the end of its roar at the conclusion of the film. Viewed 16-17/11/2024. Rated M for violence and AD (audio described) which once again meant, unfortunately, that were no closed captions.

A lone white man riding on horseback slowly approaches a well near a couple of isolated homes, in order to drink some water. He observes a little boy running between the two homes and then entering one. The little boy is unceremoniously ejected from the home by two non-white men with pistols. You can tell that they are bad men because they shoot bullets next to the boy in order to scare him. A young woman, perhaps the boy's mother, looks on anxiously. The little boy runs to the other house and calls out "Papa!" to the man who comes out of that house. The bad men then proceed to physically assault the father. The bad men observe the lone white man but ignore him. The lone white man makes eye contact with the young woman and gives a gentle smile to her, without opening his lips. She slams her wooden window shut, which has bars in front of it. He moves on to some other place.

Next stop for our lone rider is a town. He is approached by the town's bell ringer, who informs him "everybody here has become very rich or else they are dead...You will get rich here or you'll be killed". This he says after helpfully mentioning (to both the viewer and the unnamed white man) a couple of important surnames in this town, Rojo and Baxter. As the lone rider proceeds down the dirt street in the town, the residents in their homes peek anxiously through their curtains to watch him. It's a town in fear. Next in the street are some white looking men (their accents would suggest a different ethnicity but that's probably just dubbing, perhaps?) armed with pistols who proceed to fire bullets next to his horse in order to run him out of town. However, our protagonist decides to 'hang around', so to speak, in one of a few comical moments in this film.

Needing much more exposition, we are introduced to the owner of the town's cantina. Again, names aren't really used in this film. The cantina owner asks our protagonist what he wants in this town. "Food and something to drink" he says, to which the cantina owner replies "Eating and drinking and killing. That's all you can do, just like the rest of your kind". They've only just met and already with the assumptions! He goes on to say: "if you don't mind doing a little killing, you will have no trouble finding someone eager to pay you".

Later in the conversation we finally learn of the town's name from the cantina owner. It's San Miguel. Maybe it's a fictional town but the Wikipedia entry for this film says that in the film, it's on the border of Mexico and the US. When the lone rider says to the cantina owner "Any town that sells guns and liquor has gotta be a rich one" we get the big dose of juicy exposition needed from the cantina owner, who informs us that "Not the town, only those who buy and sell, and the bosses are the ones who clean up...but when there are two around, then I'd say that there is one too many". This brings us back to the names mentioned by the town's bell ringer: Rojo and Baxter. Our well of exposition, the cantina owner, says: "The Rojos boys, three brothers who sell liquor. And then there's the Baxters, big gun merchants. If I'm not mistaken, you already met Baxter's gang, didn't you?". After referring to our protagonist's horse as a "mule", the cantina owner learns that our interloper sees his position thus: "Me right in the middle". Cantina owner: "Where you do what?". Interloper: "Crazy bell ringer was right. There's money to be made in a place like this". This said after the cantina owner has told him of the two gangs that "They've enlisted all the scum that hangs around both sides of the frontier, and they pay in dollars".

That's pretty much as much of the plot that I want to tell you. Much later in the film, the coffin maker/undertaker refers to our protagonist as "Joe". It struck me that either the undertaker just called him that or our protagonist did tell him his real name...or just created one to tell the undertaker. Anyway, "Joe" asks the cantina owner which of the two gangs is the stronger then soon after bumps into the head of the Baxter gang, John Baxter, who is, ironically...the town's sheriff! How will all this play out? Watch the film to find out, obviously...but maybe the cantina owner was perceptive, because later on in the film, "Joe" informs him that "The dead can be very useful sometimes. They've helped me out of tough spots more than once". Hmm. What on Earth?

Despite being a mysterious figure, "Joe" does reveal some titbits about himself (perhaps), which might explain his character or why he does things. On one occasion he says "I never found home that great" and on another occasion, when asked why he would help a woman, he responds "Why? I knew someone like you once. There was no one there to help".

Random observations:

* I did have a preconception that the protagonist of this film would be a godlike figure and that is sort of confirmed in the film. At one point "Joe" says (on the 1st floor balcony of the cantina) "Things always look different from higher up". Ramón Rojo at another point says "I don't like that Americano. He's too smart to be just a hired fighter".

* The version of this film which I watched was screened on SBS World Movies in Australia, on 09/10/2024, at 9:30pm and I watched it over two days from 09/11/2024...because the lack of subtitles meant that I had to grind through the film, replaying bits to work out what was being said, or reading an online transcript. That was really disappointing and in other circumstances I would have deleted the film without watching it but I persevered and did find it rewarding for it's narrative engagement. After removing the ads, the length of the film was about 1:35:48 long, from the start of the MGM lion's raw at the beginning to its end at the end. The four lots of ads had a sum total of 16 minutes and 26 seconds.

* SBS had a rating of the film of MA15+ which I didn't feel was justified for the most part. To explain that, there's a scene where the cantina owner says to "Joe" the following: "It's like playing cowboys and Indians". That comment struck me as being a bit meta. As a film made in 1964, maybe it was violent for its time but now? There was no realism to the gun violence. There was no blood, really. It was really only for the fist fight that the no doubt primitive make-up got quite gruesome and warranted such a rating. It's the art of this film that even though the physical violence isn't particularly realistic and the blood looks fake (more like paint), the scene evokes gruelling punishment.

* It's not clear to me that the director of the film, Sergio Leone, has done anything other than re-present America back to itself in a way which accords with its own self-perception. There are mere glimpses of a story which would deconstruct that self-mythologising...the cantina owner on who visits San Miguel: "Bandits and smugglers. They come down from Texas. They cross the frontier to stock up on guns and liquor. The cost is much less here. Then they go back and sell the guns and liquor to the Indians"...and lastly, when "Joe" says to the cantina owner (later identified as "Silvanito") "Well, guess your government will be glad to see that gold back". Now, my history isn't the best but...'Mexico's' gold? Yes, we have here a case of a tale of two colonising societies and only allusions to the victims of that.

* There is an ecstatic element to the bloodlust of the Mexicans towards the end of the film.

* Even though this film was, in a way, "playing cowboys and Indians", I really enjoyed the engaging narrative. Whilst the lead up to the resolution of the conflict wasn't logical, it charmed me with its mythic quality...a quality that Americans would, no doubt, love to see about themselves.

* In what seems like a continuity error, the bullet holes in the poncho don't match to what was underneath...I happened to pause my PVR at this point, randomly, so I just followed through with that.

* There are only credits at the start of the film. There is something akin to the James Bond gun barrel sequence in the animated opening sequence. I wondered if Ennio Morricone wrote the score...it sounded a bit like him. The credits list Dan Savio as the composer but luckily Wikipedia lists Ennio Morricone as the real name of the composer. A part of his score at the start of the film reminded me of something...maybe it was "When Johnny comes marching home"...or maybe it wasn't. There is some vocalisation in the score and it seemed to me as if the words were "We can fight!" but maybe there were no actual words used.

* If Clint Eastwood has ever had the nickname "Squint", then a scene about 53:19 minutes in would be a good example of why that was the case. When did he first start squinting? On television first?

* The scene with the armoured suit made me think it would be relevant at a later point...it didn't in a way that I thought that it might. In any case, there are some nice callbacks in the dialogue to other events in the film.

* I was thinking of giving this film 7 stars out of 10 on this site with an actual score of 75% (I round down the stars on this site) but the storytelling was so engaging and the mythic elements pleasing enough for me to bump up my score despite the inexplicable lack of subtitles for this broadcast affecting how I consumed this film.

This is the kind of sequel that one might have expected to the original, classic, first outing of what has (xeno)morphed into a franchise/IP, namely, "Alien". By that I mean we have a return to 'the scene of the crime', that is, the spaceship Nostromo etc.

I liked how the new soon-to-be-victims get a good background story for this kind of belated sequel. That is to say that there is some good worldbuilding accomplished, as far as where these new victims come from and their circumstances. One might describe that world as "Dickensian" (though I haven't read anything by Charles Dickens). Another point of comparison would be the world of "Blade runner". There are quite a few English accents in this film, which did make following the dialogue difficult at times, though that might have just been how that was recorded.

A bigger picture is painted of the Weyland-Yutani corporation and their mining operations on a planet the new victims work at. Whereas I've found the character actions in the recent Ridley Scott outings of this IP to be really stupid, in this film, at least, the character stupidity does have motivations that are all too human.

Overall, the film does have the requisite strong female characters we've come to expect from this franchise and there is the usual gore that audiences expect. Some scenes were quite tense. I won't give any more plot details. What has become clear to me now is that this IP is like one of those xenomorph eggs...they're just waiting in stasis to be rediscovered by film studios in the future, so there will be no story arc or resolution to all this. There will always be another sequel or prequel which may get made. That might be why I'm not loving these new films. The original Alien film was self-contained, with its own resolution. While there is still money to be made from this IP, the crime scene will always be revisited. The motion is perpetually sideways. Your grandchildren might not see how the story ends, if there are more of these films to come.

Random notes:

* In one of the recent Ridley Scott outings of this IP, I did comment on how the growth of the xenomorph seemed incredibly fast. This is brought up in this film. If you are asked why the xenomorphs grow so fast, well, now the answer is, I suppose, "because they do".

* On the topic of Scott, some lore from his recent films is included here.

* The xenomorph biology is already too complex for me...it seems to require a minor in xenobiology to grasp. My memory of the first Alien film is that the 'facehuggers' emerged from eggs, after a period of stasis, due to outside movement. In this new film, they seem to be running around for some reason, with no need for 'hibernating' in egg-form. This and my previous random note makes me wonder if we are getting new lore for the xenomorphs or whether the lore is now contradictory.

* On the same topic, does this new film explain or contradict previous films as to why the Weyland-Yutani corporation wants these dangerous creatures? As a casual viewer of this franchise and one who doesn't immerse myself in the lore, I can't say.

* The end credits list Ian Holm in a way which seems novel to me. I've noted this direction in films in my review of the most recent Indiana Jones film.

* I did find amusing the scene where the spaceship engaged...windscreen wipers!

* Didn't see any mention of where the film was shot but I may have missed it. Perhaps it was all in a studio in England or something. The end credits did mention contributions from Australia, New Zealand and Canada to the film's production. Maybe all Five Eyes countries took part.

* Although this film is not for the squeamish, there was no scene as confronting as the 'birth' scene from the sci-fi film "Xtro". One scene in this film did make me wonder though...the scene where the abomination meets its host. That is, could there have been different outcomes for the host, depending on how they reacted? Perhaps one could make a parallel here with Frankenstein's monster. In any case, that abomination in this Alien film did bring to mind a monster in the XCOM 2 video game...and I suppose the monster related to it also has a counterpart in the Alien franchise.

* Apart from the early worldbuilding which I enjoyed, there was also a terrific scene in zero gravity near the end of the film, involving acid. That struck me as something that would have looked great in 3D but I'm not sure if that is an option or not.

Expect the usual mix of 'realism' undercut by copious amounts of breaking the fourth wall which constantly reminds you that you are watching actors act in a film which has a commercial imperative. Suspend disbelief then have have the rope holding you up severed. Rinse and repeat, to good effect. This makes the Marvel universe (MCU) cross-promotion not just palatable but also enjoyable. Any cynicism by the audience is anticipated by Deadpool (played by Ryan Reynolds) and it is he who lands the first blow.

Not having watched any trailers for this film beforehand, I went to the cinema without any advanced knowledge of what happens. I'd already forgotten the previous Deadpool films but I've reviewed them both here and liked the first one more than it's sequel. This might be my new favourite in this franchise.

I had seen clips or read somewhere how Reynolds was mindful of not tarnishing the memory of Wolverine (played by Hugh Jackman) as seen in that superhero's last solo outing. I hadn't even remembered that Wolverine had died there but the flashback to this scene in this Deadpool film reminded me that I think I've seen that film...and given it a good review on this site. Fans of Wolverine concerned with this issue have a Pyrrhic victory on that front, in a manner of speaking.

It looks like I've missed a few new developments in the MCU, especially with regard to the TVA (Time Variance Authority). They seem to be a temporal equivalent to parking inspectors or "grey ghosts", as they are known in Melbourne, Australia. Maybe. I won't give away the plot but it is up to Deadpool to save the universe. Mind, Deadpool will often tell you that he isn't the type of person to the save the world. And the world is a bit smaller than the universe.

What's appealing about this sequel is that it seems that Deadpool often appears to address me, personally, a casual fan of some of the MCU. He's like me in that often he doesn't have a clue who some of these other superheroes are. He'll ask them to introduce themselves, which is helpful to both of us.

The first big 'reveal' of a potential ally for D & W in The Void drew a blank from me, until he did his superhero thing and I could place him (I could dimly remember that character from a rather uninspired film from prior to the MCU, some many decades ago). In other words, I couldn't put a name to the character but the character rang a bell.

Another time I was more on the ball. A black character appears in The Void and I could pick the character, I felt, without the need for an introduction. Reading the actor's name in the end credits was a surprise...it would seem that AI was used to represent him, along the lines of what was done for Harrison Ford in some scenes of the last Indiana Jones film. Basically, the look of this character triggered my recall of him from a film that I don't really remember, having seen it many decades ago.

Back to Deadpool being helpful to casual viewers, there's an amusing scene where he pointedly says what I'm thinking when a superhero is speaking English in a thick French accent ("thick" along the lines of that Spanish character in the sitcom Blackadder).

As for Wolverine, well, Jackman has a chest like a barrel in this film, which makes me wonder whether he has kept in shape since his last turn as Wolverine or he got into shape for this film. Not being immersed in all things Marvel, the significance of the pairing of Deadpool and Wolverine was no doubt wasted on me. Personally speaking, a pairing more likely to make me cream in my jeans would be Deadpool and Tom Baker era Doctor Who. Both characters are mouthy, irreverent and go about saving the world. They just do it in vastly different ways. Deadpool can't do it without spilling Olympic-size swimming pool amounts of blood and gore. Lots of people die. However, Doctor Who does have a particular set of skills well adapted to the direction the MCU has gone with this film and elsewhere. Having AI do some of the VFX for the representation of Tom Baker would be ideal too.

Other match-ups would no doubt infuriate Marvel nerds due to how anti-climactic they are.

This was a fun and enjoyable film. I could probably watch it again for pleasure, not just because I often missed lines of dialogue here, for whatever reason, whilst in the cinema. Blu-ray would be my choice on that front, just so that I could enable subtitles when the dialogue isn't clear.

If you like jokey, fourth wall breaking stories with plenty of blood and your favourite superhero frequently French kissing an ugly dog, then this is the film for you. When it was attempting to be serious, it did pull that off with feeling.

Notes to self:

In the end credits, two people are mentioned...Len Wein as a "significant contributor" to the X-Men and Raymond Chan, who is described as "an anchor", in the sense intended by its use in the film.

Towards the end of the film, I was thinking that it would end with a plot hole but it didn't.

That dramatic finale was very nicely done, in how it misdirected our expectations.

Mad Max is referenced in the film and some of the scenes made me wonder how it could have so similar transport to the recent Furiosa film, which they presumably would not have had access to when they were making this.

The use of snippets of existing songs got ridiculous towards the end. It's as if they realised that they needed to meet a quota for a double album soundtrack for the film and had to get cracking in the last few minutes to do that. .

Rated MA15+ in Australia. This is presumably the same film that is rated R in the US.

The man on dog tongue action was way too much for me.

If you saw "Mad Max: Fury Road" (2015, reviewed at this site by me) and wanted to know the backstory of the heroine of that film, Furiosa, you should enjoy this. Here we first encounter Furiosa as a young child (played by Alyla Browne) and see the circumstances under which she wound up in the harem of Immortan Joe in the earlier film. Watching how that happened, my initial thought was that young Furiosa had herself to blame for her subsequent circumstances but on reflection, her actions at the beginning of this film were justified.

These early scenes with a young Furiosa I found to be really narratively engaging. There wasn't the kind of hectic action that you associate with Mad Max films (as in extended car chase scenes) and it didn't suffer from this in the slightest. In fact, if that storytelling strength continued on in this way, I would have scored the film at least 80%. At some point, however, the storytelling turned to things (i.e. Action) happening. No doubt for fans of the Mad Max franchise that is entirely as it should be.

Apart from the initial storytelling, another thing that pleased me were the echoes from the past that I saw. When Dementus (the leader of a huge gang) first appears (played by Chris Hemsworth), you could mistake him for the title character in a film about Jesus. In a later action scene, Dementus takes part in an event which closely resembles something quite famous in The Iliad. Then there's the whole absurdity of how he rides about on his 'chariot' like Ben-Hur or something. The last time that we see Dementus in this film, it struck me as something which could have been recounted in Classical antiquity. In any case, Furiosa will have to navigate such tyrants if she is to keep her promise to her mother to return from whence she came.

Maybe I could have scored this film 77.5% but I found myself getting lost and not seeing the bigger picture, so to speak. There was all this action happening but the strategy behind it wasn't conveyed easily to me. There was talk of there being 3 fortresses in the wasteland but I can't say that I remember what the first one was. Dementus spoke of wanting to have a meeting of warlords (himself, Immortan Joe, I think, and someone else, perhaps) by a certain time. It seemed to me as if that talk came to nothing. Sure, stuff happened, but why? What was the strategy behind it? Maybe these questions would be more easily answered in a setting outside of the cinema, where you could have the luxury of pausing and rewinding the film in order to more better follow what was happening. Or maybe there could have been better exposition through what the characters said.

Not having seen "Mad Max: Fury Road" since it was released in the cinema a few years ago, I can't say how the two films gel chronologically. Watching the end of this latest film, I had the impression that maybe it ends pretty much exactly where the previous film begins, as far as the time period goes.

Another thing which made me question how successfully the two films gel was some scenes between an older Furiosa (played by Anya Taylor-Joy) and a man. Now, this man made me wonder if he was who I thought that he might be. The closing credits confirmed his identity to me in any case*^. Given that, I now wonder if the scenes in this film will gel with the chronologically later film, as in does Furiosa actually recognise this man when she first meets him in the earlier film? If not, what would explain that? In my review of the earlier film, I lamented a casting choice made in it and here the ripples of that choice echo in and muddy the water, so to speak.

To explain my comment in the heading here about this being the most brutal and nightmarish of any in the Mad Max franchise, well, that's because some of the imagery here is worthy of the Apocalypse. Sometimes I caught a glimpse of something or thought that I heard someone say something horrific and I would question whether I actually saw or heard what I thought I did. 'Fortunately', such things would be revisited and you would realise that, yes, you did see and hear what you thought you did.

Random notes:

* I got a laugh out of hearing the names of Immortan Joe's sons (maybe I forgot about them from the earlier film).

* Furiosa inexplicably develops an American (?) accent as she matures, for some reason.

* Bruce Spence is listed in the closing credits. I didn't spot him, I don't think. Fans of the franchise will know him for a different role in the greatest entry of this franchise.

* I did wonder where this film was shot. That's because the last one was shot overseas, as, tragically, the usual ___location was a lush green hue. It looks like that has been rectified.

* A few times I couldn't decipher the dialogue being spoken by characters. That includes that of Dementus, who perhaps became harder to understand the more intense the situation was. Speaking of this character, maybe you could say that an interview that I saw with George Miller and Chris Hemsworth (ABC TV's "7.30" programme, 02/05/2024. There's an extended interview online, as opposed to the shorter version that I saw on free-to-air TV) made watching this film more enticing for me. Hemsworth spoke of basing his accent on that of a relative, if I'm not mistaken...someone who had an old-style Australian accent. I did expect something more broader in the film but it was quite mild, when I could understand him.

* An interesting sort of Marxist appeal to the masses expressed by a character at one point.

* Scenes of petrol-guzzling antics when petrol is supposedly a rare commodity.

* One scene did seem to use a green screen. Even though it looked flawless, something about it made it seem not real to me. Other reviewers here have observed more CGI, apparently, but I didn't notice this enough to be bothered by it.

*^ N. B. I think I may have misinterpreted what happened and I think that was intentionally orchestrated by the director, George Miller. Rewatching the film might clarify my mistake. The day after I posted this review, I read a review here by arogers-72852 and they also mention how confusing the film can be but if they're right, they clarify the issue of the man that confused me and a name in the closing credits (their review gives more detail than I like to give, though). It's easy to miss details watching films in a cinema.

These will be general impressions of this film, whereas my review of the first film was more detailed as far as characters and plot goes. In its initial release, many cinemas have been screening Dune and Dune: Part Two back-to-back, which I would recommend if you haven't seen the first film yet. The story is dense and you would be completely lost if you start watching this series with the sequel. That being said, there is handy plot exposition in the dialogue at the start to refresh your memory of what happened in the first film (I saw the first film in the cinema in early December, 2021 and didn't rewatch it prior to seeing Dune: Part Two today, although I have read my Dune review a few times since then, so that was also a refresher, of sorts).

Not being fanatical about this story as far as reading the source material or watching the first Dune more than once, I have to say that I don't think that I grasped everything that happens in the sequel. I was vague on details about who people were or the origins of peoples. E.g. At the start of the film, I was thinking that a young woman was our hero's (Paul Atreides, played by Timothée Chalamet) sister but it turns out that she was his mother. My review of Dune doesn't mention that she looked too young to play his mother but she does. That Paul says "sister" around her sometimes didn't help me. Later on I saw an older man in a scene and I thought he might have been one of the good guys from the first film but since he was in a spice harvester now, I was confused. Why was he in that? I'm not sure that that is explained satisfactorily but that does raise one issue that I had with this film: being able to clearly understand the dialogue being spoken. Sometimes it was unclear due to characters' accents, other times due to ambient noise and other other times due to stylistic effects being utilised. It would have been good if I could have heard the last thing that Paul says to Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (played by Stellan Skarsgård). It's at times like these that being able to rewind the film or turn on closed captions would have been appreciated.

Not being able to recall how romantically involved Paul was with Chani (Zendaya) in the first film, it did seem that in the sequel their romance blossomed at a very fast rate. Perhaps more time had elapsed that I realised within the sequel itself, as far as that went. Sometimes the transitions from one scene to a different one was unclear. For instance, there's one scene where Paul is meant to be having a trial in the desert by himself and in the next scene it wasn't clear to me that the man in a military ambush was him but in my defence, he did have his face covered in the latter scene. So, maybe these switches were handled too abruptly or maybe I just lost concentration during the transition.

There are many times in Dune: Part Two where some of the 'natives' on the planet Arrakis comment that their religion is just a means for others to manipulate them for the other's political ends. Similarly, the same sentiment is expressed by some of the colonisers too. At the risk of sounding like comedian Kenny Everett's character Quentin Pose: "religion is the opiate of the masses and yet...". And yet, on the other hand, the all-female religious order does have what seems like supernatural abilities. In other words, it's hard to be definitive about what is happening with the hero's journey here.

Another time I felt more detached watching this film was just finding silly how Paul exceeded the prophecies concerning 'the chosen one'. The signs or proof of Paul's prophetic status are magnified and overblown. Then there's the issue of him being white and being worshipped by the non-white 'natives'. No doubt there is a post-colonial critique to be made here. Just a question for myself: are the 'natives' of a Arrakis genuinely of this planet or were they just the first colonists there? Did the first film explain that? Did the book explain that? My last word on finding the film silly at times would be those scenes where characters worm-ski. Really? It's probably fortunate that no attempt is made in the film to try and rationalise that, because I doubt that I could suspend my disbelief.

Towards the end of the film there was a point where I thought that that conclusion would serve as the end point of the series, perhaps. However, the story continued and made it obvious that that wouldn't be the case. Since I haven't read the book on which the films are based, if I was to hazard a guess, I would say that this Dune story would be a trilogy but I wouldn't rule out a 4th film in this arc. In other words, this would be a 3 or 4 film adaptation of the original Dune book by Frank Herbert (I imagine part 4 as being some sort of 3 hour epilogue). I'm still interested and invested in this story. I want to see how the relationship between Paul and Chani evolves. With this sequel, the worlds depicted did seem quite alien but the thought occurred to me that it would be familiar to people who lived in earlier times, for instance, those attending the Nuremberg rallies or the Colosseum 'back in the day'.

Note: I didn't see a listing for a 3D screening for this film in cinemas here but the closing credits makes it clear that such a version exists. I can't vouch in that case as to how worthwhile it would be to view that version. When I saw one of the Disney Star Wars films in 3D it was laughably woeful on that front. The first Avatar film is the benchmark on that front.

Random notes:

* I toyed with scoring this film 70%, then 75% seemed most likely but I decided to add a "+" sign to that, which is my tipping point for adding a star to my rating, as IMDB does not do half stars.

* I laughed out loud when one character said words to the effect that Paul's denial of being the messiah was proof Paul was the messiah!

* Christopher Walken is such a distinctive looking individual that he stands out like a dog's bollocks, visually. The rest of the cast didn't have that 'baggage' with me, even though I've seen some of them in unrelated films. In other words, I thought "that's Christopher Walken" when I saw him. Perhaps you could say that his presence affected my 'immersion' in this world.

* Nice misdirection in the final fight scene.

* American pronunciation of "Dune" by Paul, as in "doon".

* As per my review of the first Dune film, I've collected another IMDB "Iron bladder" trophy.

I went into this film without reacquainting myself with the earlier instalments beforehand, apart from seeing a clip somewhere showing the use of AI (artificial intelligence) to make the title character, Indiana ("Indy") Jones, look younger than Harrison Ford, the actor who has played him in the franchise. It starts off at a cracking pace and is classic Saturday afternoon movie matinee material, with derring-do and mostly non-stop action. A lot of people are killed in the film but it's not depicted graphically, so it's not unsuitable for a young, teenage audience, I suppose.

Early on, we see an AI enhanced Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones once again facing Nazis (whom he hates) during the Second World War. In a nice echo of the first film of the franchise (the classic "Raiders of the Lost Ark"), we once again have an artefact (which may or may not be a McGuffin, as my understanding of the concept is slight) which both Indy and the Nazis want to gain control over because of....mumbo-jumbo magic thingy (although I'm guessing that it has some sort of basis in historical fact).

Pretty soon we see old Indy and the film flits back and forth between different time periods, which will become an understatement. I really don't want to give away too much of the plot, except to say that it's easy to follow and strange scenes can become a subsequent justification for some implausible later scene (I have in mind a scene where a young boy is engaging in unusual play). It seems to me that this film could be the kind of exhilarating experience for young children which "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was for me at a similar point in time. However, I do wonder whether it will have repeat viewing value, as perhaps the non-stop action will pall with later viewing. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" isn't a film I've revisited again, I don't think, in the way that I have with the original Star Wars film. Star Wars (i.e. Episode IV) stands the test of time, it seems to me, as does it's first sequel. Episode VI not so much. Which is all to say that a film with a good story has greater lasting value than one with mere non-stop action. Perhaps this criticism is wasted for a younger audience.

That brings another thought to my mind: who is the target audience for this latest (final?) instalment of the franchise? Young children as well as nostalgia buffs? My question is whether young children would be willing to idolise an old Indy. Perhaps that explains the presence a cast of diverse age, from a young(ish) woman who is a major character ("Helena" played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge, who I have not seen before but I have heard good things about her TV series "Fleabag") and the teenage boy who plays "Teddy", Ethann Isidore, who also has many scenes in the film and could be there, perhaps, to provide someone for young fans to identify with.

There are some returning characters from previous instalments in the franchise, it seems but I have long since forgotten about them. The last time I've seen an entry in this franchise was for "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", which I saw at the cinema when it was released, many moons ago. My review of that is here and I've just reread it. It seems that I was disappointed by it and wasn't keen to see anything new in the franchise as a result. As with other films in this boat, like the last Matrix film, it seems that time heals old wounds, allowing me to take the plunge with a new entry, seeing as my disappointment with the last one is not fresh in my memory.

Back to the use of AI: it didn't bother me at all. I think that in my review for the last Star Wars film in the 3rd trilogy that I expressed the view that I would have been okay if an artificial Princess Leia had been created, following the death of the actress who had always played her, Carrie Fisher. Earlier I mentioned that this could be the final instalment of the franchise. But AI. Maybe the studio could have more sequels featuring an entirely artificial likeness of Harrison Ford, so that we could see a young(er) Indy in all of them? Perhaps Ford or (eventually) his estate would earn 10c for every $100 million films featuring his likeness made at the box office?

Random observations:

* One character gave me Elon Musk impressions...it turns out to have been Mads Mikkelsen...no doubt also 'enhanced' by AI. That being said, what his character got up to did seem like something Elon Musk may go in for.

* I was surprised to see Antonio Banderas listed in the closing credits and couldn't think who he might have played. Looking at the Wikipedia entry for the cast, I think that I can now.

* The film is dedicated to the memory of Michael DeBeer, which IMDB has an entry for in the field of visual effects.

* Eriko Nakamura is also listed for their wisdom or some such.

* The credits show that COVID is still a thing...as are tax credit consultants!

* The Australian Government might have provided some tax credits for this or something.

* The banter between characters often got lost in the hubbub of the frenetic action although what I did hear wasn't exactly sparkling wit.

* I wonder how truthy the US president giving a medal to a Nazi scientist for helping the US put a man on the moon is.

Baz Luhrmann's film "Elvis" covers the life of Elvis Presley from a young boy to his premature death, after becoming the most famous performer in popular music in America, if not the world, where he influenced musical acts which followed his popularising of the new form of music called "rock and roll" (although such influence is not covered here). The early days of Elvis clearly establish how Elvis himself was heavily influenced by African American gospel music and blues.

The entire film is framed from the perspective of Colonel Tom Parker, the man who managed Elvis' career from the beginning. As played by Tom Hanks under a lot of prosthetic make-up, Parker has a very...weird accent, especially for someone called "Tom Parker". He also looks like a dangerous character in an illustrated fairy tale book...I'm not sure what the right term would be...troll? Goblin? Something of that sort, in any case.

Now, as Parker narrates Elvis' story, he is persuasive but there is always cause to pause for thought and think him delusional at times. For instance, he argues that Elvis' Christmas special was his idea but as represented in this film, you cannot imagine the outcome of that special turning out the same if Elvis had blindly followed Parker's instructions. To be candid, I did find reason to believe that Parker could have been the factor which helped to make Elvis so successful. That being said, even if that was true, you do have to wonder how entitled he was to the money that he was charging Elvis. Maybe Elvis wouldn't have risen so fast and high without Parker, but still...

That brings me to another question that this film raises: how much of it is true? Is it anachronistic at times in order to resonate with historical moments occurring during Elvis' life or be pointed references? Is artistic licence used a lot? For instance, early in Elvis' career, you see him in the company of African American musicians who would belatedly get the recognition that they deserved for pioneering rock and roll music. Did Elvis really socialise with these people? You see newspaper photographs and stories which suggest that Luhrmann might be drawing on archival material to represent the truth. Another example would be Elvis being drafted into the military. Was he really in danger of going to gaol for his performance style, which being drafted was a more palatable alternative? For the latter I did consider that this might have been a machination of Parker but given the latter's stance on Elvis touring overseas, it doesn't seem make sense.

As someone who had a parent who was a big fan of Elvis and who became a big fan of Elvis as a small child in Australia, I like this film. Austin Butler makes for a suitably good looking Elvis and the closing credits list him as singing some of the songs which are played in extract throughout the film. Not ever having taken a deep dive into Elvis' biography, I can't vouch for the authenticity of what is depicted in this film but it seems to cover the landmark moments of his life and I liked how his life was connected to the broader, historical drama occurring around him. Knowing how polarised the US is now, it wouldn't surprise me if even people who adore Elvis would take umbrage at how his story is tied to the condition of African Americans. Perhaps if I was to look at some reviews of this film on this site I might see some unreasonably negative reviews because of this. I noticed such reactions when I reviewed films here like the recent "Candyman" reboot or "The Eternals". In any case, I wasn't invested enough in Elvis' life to demand historical accuracy, authenticity, a lack of of political themes or a hagiography. As far as I can tell, this seems a reasonably authentic account of Elvis' life, through the prism of race relations in the US.

Given that the film is framed through the perspective of Tom Parker, I have to say that getting a resolution to the mystery behind him would have been appreciated but to the extent that that is covered, it is skipped over lightly, as is Elvis' initial relationship with his future wife, Priscilla. Having recently seen a video online covering scandals in the music industry, the case of Jerry Lee Lewis' young wife was brought to mind. Again, not knowing too much of the truth of Elvis' relationship with Priscilla back then, there is a marked difference between the public reactions to both of these relationships.

As a final comment, I had wondered if I had seen an earlier Elvis biopic. Looking up Wikipedia for this review, I think that it might have been a 1979 release of the same name, starring Kurt Russell. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the star, it was directed by John Carpenter. I have a faint memory of a young Elvis in that film, where he is shooting a scene in a film and he makes the comment when the camera isn't filming that he naturally walks in that odd way...a cowboy's walk or something.

Anyway, this 2022 biopic was informative to me as it explained many of the choices that Elvis seemed to be making as far as his career was concerned.

Recommendations:

The Beatles: Eight days a week (directed by Ron Howard, the star of the tv show "Happy days"). Reviewed on this site by me.

Not having seen the stage production of "West Side story" or its first film version, which I understand is regarded as a classic, I really don't have a point of comparison for this new film version of the long-running musical theatre staple. Of course, with the US being so effective at exporting its pop culture around the world, I was aware of songs and scenes from the original Hollywood film, which had positive associations for me, even though I live in Australia.

The story was inspired by a much earlier tale, which I won't mention here because...spoilers. In any case, the second film version (presumably...at least as far as US film versions go) of this story is set in a slum in New York in the 1950s (the "West Side" of the title). The setting is very nicely established, with an opening shot of some partially destroyed buildings which a sign states are being demolished to make way for the gentrification of the area. The flats in the high-rise buildings nearby have a suitably "slummy" look without the aesthetic being overdone. From out of this no man's land emerges what turns out be a gang of Anglo background, known as "The Jets". You can tell that they they are bad because they soon terrorise the neighbourhood with dancing and singing, with no one daring to stop them. It has to be said, at this point, the realisation of a musical in the modern era hasn't lost my interest. Fit young blokes dancing and singing and clicking their fingers in time in the streets of a big city doesn't seem all that ridiculous now.

We soon learn that The Jets have a rival group which they want to remove from 'their turf', a gang known as "The Sharks", which are of Puerto Rican ethnicity. The basis of The Jets' animosity to The Sharks is basically an issue of race (and that is also the basis of the police department's animosity towards The Sharks as well). The Sharks do not 'belong' in the US and they should 'go back to where they came from'. The first encounter we see between these two rival gangs is a violent one and it's pretty clear that things will escalate from here between them.

If you're thinking that nothing thrown into this tinderbox could make it any more flammable, well...enter Tony (played by Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler). Tony is the co-founder of The Jets but after a stint in prison for a shocking beating he gave to an Eyptian man, he is trying to be a better person, now holding down a steady job and no longer involved in his gang's activities. Maria is the sister of Bernardo (David Alvarez), a man who is trying to fight his way out of the slum (literally). Bernardo has a chip on his shoulder about the Anglos, who make life difficult for his community. He plays the father-figure at the flat that he shares with his girlfriend and Maria. The prospect of Maria dating a "gringo" is unacceptable to him, as we later find out when...Tony and Maria meet at a dance event and...instantly fall in love. He is also the leader of The Sharks.

That moment when Tony and Maria fall in love at first sight is very sweetly done. Maria, as played by Zegler, seems like an old-fashioned Disney princess at first, being very timid but then being quite forward...perhaps like a (modern day?) Disney princess? (Since I'm not well-versed in Disney films about princesses, I'll have to defer to the judgement of people more informed than me on this subject.) The lyric from the song "Hurts so good" by John Cougar comes to mind about her: "you ain't as green as you are young". Zegler/Maria is very attractive in a winsome way. Director Steven Spielberg has really captured a winning performance from her. It occurred to me after writing down my initial thoughts on this film that Zegler would be a worthy nominee for "Best actress" at awards time. Even though I haven't really seen any 'quality' films this year, I think I know a quality performance when I see one and I don't think that a best actress award for her would be undeserved.

If you think that Maria couldn't be any more adorable, well, you should hear her sing. She has a lovely voice, in my view. To me, she's the standout voice of the musical. Elgort tends towards falsetto at times. On the subject of the music, I'd say that I'm pretty sure that if you just wanted to listen to the musical on CD or whatever, then there would be better versions of that from previous productions of this story, whether on stage or screen. By that I mean perhaps the music elsewhere is bolder, brassier or arranged more pleasingly (to my ears, at least) and that would apply to the vocal performances as well. However, since I haven't heard other versions, I can't recommend one for you.

It also later occurred to me how similar Tony and Bernardo are (which I've retrospectively alluded to in my earlier comments about how both of them plan to get out of the slum). Another point of comparison with Bernardo would be The Jets' new leader, "Riff" (Mike Faist). They both mirror each other as far as attitudes to "the other" goes.

In any case, just when Tony thought he was out, Riff pulls him back in again, as far as gang activities go.

I liked this film and had moments of recognition with it, with regards to clicking fingers and many songs. One event which did jar with me was how Maria reacted to Tony when she heard some fateful news about him. It just didn't ring true to me. Maybe with a greater passage of time it could have worked. Later, when the police officer goes over the whole timeline, the short duration was a shock too.

The film was on track for a score of 80% from me but since the drama near the end of the film elicited emotion from me, I added another 5% to my score to reflect that.

Random notes:

* Is the ending different to previous versions of this story? If it is, you can either read it as a return to sanity as far as character motivation goes or as a Steven Spielberg tendency.

* There is some realism to the violence, so not suitable for very young children, I don't think.

* I couldn't quite tell if there was some strong swearing at times or if it was toned down.

* Curios: 5c for a Milky Way, $15 for a fashionable store scarf, I think.

This is the third sequel to the classic film "The Matrix", so, really, it's best to start at the start with this franchise, although the next two sequels were major disappointments. That first film made an impact with its special effects and playing with the notions of Scepticism, as in the idea that we can't be sure that what we perceive to be reality really is real. It married such philosophical ideas with exciting action sequences to great effect. The first sequel gave me the sense that it was treading water but that the trilogy could still end strongly. Unfortunately, the last film in the trilogy sank for me, which would retrospectively have made the first sequel sinking, rather than treading water. It's a good thing that there was enough distance between me seeing the previous sequels at the cinema and this new entry, as I still had fond memories for the first one.

Since the last time I saw the previous sequels was at the cinema on release, I have to say that I had already forgotten what transpired in them, having just a vague recollection of some blonde-haired male twins in them, causing havoc for our hero, I think. Apparently Neo (played by Keanu Reeves) and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) died in the last one. Apparently they were also romantically involved too, which I don't remember either. So, that makes the concept of a sequel in which these two characters feature rather problematic. Fortunately, the title of this new entry spells out how things will proceed.

It has to be said that the latest in this franchise is very "meta". By that I mean it depicts scenes which could be about the very making of this film itself. You are introduced to the idea that the original trilogy isn't what you thought it was, which would be...in keeping with the nature of the series, where the world of this story is...not what you thought that it was. How much you enjoy this new entry might depend on how much you like your films to be "meta". Personally, I was okay with this and in fact could have gone along with the direction the film seemed to be going early on. By that I mean I would have enjoyed a film which really has no connection to the world of the original Matrix trilogy and where there was no physical action at all to speak of. Having said that, I should point out that if they made anything which was unlike the first two sequels, I would have liked it more than those first two sequels. As it stands, I liked this film as it was. It doesn't go the full Monty, as far as "meta" goes. I remember reading Miles Franklin's "My career goes bung", which was written at the start of the previous century and being disappointed that it went "meta", which was not what I was hoping for in her (belatedly published) 'sequel' to "My brilliant career" (which was turned into a great film). Since I have heard mixed things about this new Matrix film, maybe the Franklin reference is apt (for some)?

The "meta" aspect to this film makes me wonder how much truth there was in those scenes and whether it could have gone harder on this angle. Were the writers and star self-loathing at the prospect and 'necessity' of doing this all over again? Perhaps Thomas Anderson (Keanu Reeves) could have been represented as succumbing to the temptation of a lot of money to keep the franchise going? Maybe dialogue was written which was cut for being too close to the bone as far as how Hollywood works? If so, I think that THAT could have worked really well in this film. It's not clear whether the film is having fun with the 'necessity' for its existence or feeling dirty about its creation.

Anyway, this new film does have a clear focus on the relationship between Neo and Trinity. Keanu Reeves has a stilted way of delivering his lines for most of the film, as if he's been concussed and is a little 'slow' as a result. In the scene where things are just about to go pear-shaped in the toilet with Neo and a black man, Keanu's approach works nicely for that moment. Speaking of that black man, I didn't mind how the film handled old characters returning in a novel way. That could have been included in the "meta" aspect of this film, I think.

Back to Trinity, I had a genuine moment of emotion in this film, as in a sort of subdued joy, perhaps you could call it, when Neo is waiting for her with his 'therapist' at a restaurant, I think and...she enters. At this moment, what is to follow is not certain but I felt my emotion swelling at the possibility that something good was about to happen. These kinds of moments are so rare in the films that I've been watching lately that I have to give kudos to films which elicit this response. Marvel films would like to trade in that kind of emotion but they've never drawn that out of me, as far as I can remember. They just don't have those kind of film-making chops.

As for the how the film ends, well, it works as a final chapter in the series but it could also function as the start of another Marvel-like explosive diarrhoea of new content. A trilogy of trilogies, perhaps? Do the Wachowskis yearn to complete this second trilogy and then for Disney to buy the rights to the franchise and make a final trilogy? Maybe Keanu Reeves could develop a personal friendship with Mark Hamill and turn to him for consolation? I dunno.

Random notes:

* This film was tracking for a score of 80%. Dipped to 75+% on the thought that was maybe too generous (but the plus sign means I'd still give it 8 out 10 stars whereas I wouldn't without it). That moment with Trinity put it back up to 80% but the Marvel-like ending brought it down to 77.5+%. The Marvel-like post closing-credits sequence made me drop the plus sign...it's a cliché aspect to the film which undoes the film's good work in it's use of the other cliché "meta" element. Is it meant as a throwaway joke or is it part of the story? Why bring this "meta" into play again?

* The desires of audiences are discussed in the film. The sense is that rubbish is produced because they want it. That seems to imply that the producers of culture are blameless and that it's the audience's fault for all the rubbish being made. I'd suggest that the producers are more than capable of being derivative, lazy and woeful even when they're aiming high.

* When the 'Sandman' is at 'Rapunzel's tower', is that a narrative mistake of the film (which can be 'fixed' in a sequel) or was it intended?

* Who was Tiffany's reflection on the table when she was having a coffee with Thomas?

* Is the therapist's black cat a red herring?

* A machine in this film reminds me of Songbird in the BioShock Infinite video game.

Following on the from the ending of the previous film in this series, "Spider-Man: Far from home" (which I've reviewed here), where the identity of Spider-Man is revealed to the world, we see Peter Parker/Spider-Man wish that that wasn't the case. As they say, be careful of what you wish for. Dr. Strange has some unkind words to say about Parker in the aftermath of this but what's that saying about people who live in glass houses? Did Peter subject the good Doctor to peer pressure to get what he wanted? Did Strange want to be one of the "cool kids" by giving Peter what he wanted? Anyway, bad things happen as a result and they need to be fixed. Apparently granting people their wish allows illegal aliens without the correct documentation to enter from multiverses into our own world.

As I said in my review for the previous film (not having the seen the one prior to that, which was the 3rd reboot of the Spider-Man franchise, I believe), I didn't find it a satisfying film until near the end and that ending made me curious to see the next entry, which I've done. It's déjà vu all over again this time, as whilst I didn't find that this new film was as bad as the previous one was (for the most part), it did end in such a way that I was sort of curious to see the next entry in the series as well as the other MCU films which are promoted in the closing credits. These are the kinds of film that I don't really feel happy about paying top dollar to see them at the cinema. If there was a day of the week where you could watch a film cheaply at the cinema, it could be do-able for me. Cheaper than that. I'd settle for seeing it on the non-commercial ABC TV network in Australia, or a summary of the happenings in a Tweet.

"Spider-Man: No way home" is better for not having that 'awkward teenage romance' aspect of the previous film but the way that it dealt with Peter Parker's identity as Spider-Man being revealed just didn't grab me. Maybe I would have preferred a more domestic focus on the impact this has on Peter but then again, maybe the way that it is handled in the film is fair enough. After that stuff is resolved - and I'm not even sure that it is resolved in a way that makes sense, as in it makes sense why Parker is no longer a hunted target - the film focuses on providing fan service to long-time devotees of this character's forays into film. You'll see familiar villains return as a result of Parker's wish, which he'll have to deal with in one way or another.

I might have mentioned in a previous review for a Spider-Man film or elsewhere online that I thought it was ridiculous how many reboots this franchise has had in such a short space of time. Maybe I should have waited for the next actor to play Spider-Man to find one that I can enjoy an entire series of films with? Maybe this whole "multiverse" conceit makes that more possible? E.g. You could have dozens of Spider-Man films being released each year with different actors in all of them. Anyway, it's ironic that multiverse 'logic' has the post facto effect of making all those previous iterations of Spider-Man seem as some sort of 'grand plan' by Marvel Studios. With these kinds of fantasies I like to imagine that the superhero inhabits OUR world. With the multiverse, it's a case of: "Oh, so we're watching a film set in some OTHER universe". If I was to see a new actor play Spider-Man in the future and it had the conceit of being set in our world (until a later sequel?), it would devalue the story of the Spider-Man in this film (S-M:NWH) being OUR Spider-Man.

That being said, I think that long-time devotees of this cinematic character will enjoy the fan service that this film provides. When this happens, some of the exchanges between characters are fun and you're glad that those questions are asked or whatever. However, I do feel that the writers could have spent a bit more time thinking about what kinds of conversations could have been had and writing those down, perhaps in a quieter setting too, so that the viewer could dwell on them. Years ago I said on an online forum or somewhere that I wondered if or why Peter Parker didn't weave a 'brown web of justice', referring to the physiology of spiders. That topic gets brought up in this film, albeit less crudely than I put it.

How to score this film? I'd say that I was leaning on a score of 70% but the fan service later on in the film made me decide on 72.5%. However, with these kinds of films, I think that my scores which are around the 70% mark might be more like a professional critic's 60% score. In that case, maybe I should score this film 65% (but 6 out of 10 stars on IMDB) or 65+% (to get 7 out of 10 stars on this site according to my scoring system)? Take your pick

Notes to self:

* There's an 'interesting' scene where a surprise visitor meets Ned's mum (?) and they recognise one another, it seems to me. My question is: what effect does that have on the 'reality' of the world we are seeing? Does it even make sense anymore? If they do recognise each other, then looks like a logical loophole, it seems to me, in the film's world-building. The same sequence has another inexplicable moment, when someone says "They're not your friends" and action ensues. I have no idea what that was all about either.

* There's a line in the closing credits which reads something like: "Avi Arad the original true believer". I see that that person is the executive producer of this film so it would be interesting to know the background to that assertion.

* I'm not so personally invested in this series to get excited about some of the surprises that this film had in store but it didn't sound like anyone else in the cinema was that much of a superfan either to get THAT excited. However, I do concede that I found some of those moments of interaction to have emotional gravity which was well conveyed by the actors concerned.

When I was in high school, I think that I once came across Frank Herbert's book "Dune" in a random manner in the library. If I borrowed it or began to read it, I don't think that I made it too far into the first page before deciding that it wasn't for me, as in I just had no interest in continuing reading the book. Many years ago (in 1984) there was a film adaptation of the book which, by many reports, was a mess but I can't comment on this as I never saw it. These omens did not bode well for me in deciding to watch this latest adaptation of the very long novel. So, in the spirit of just giving this film a go, I went to the cinema today to see it, perhaps with a nagging suspicion that I would find it to be very dry and very boring. Despite its long running time (156 minutes), I enjoyed this epic science fiction tale which, at the start, announces that it is the first part (unlike the promotional material for it). Although I have no idea how many sequels are to follow, I will look forward to seeing the next one, at least. Perhaps I might even consider watching David Lynch's 1984 version at some point in the future...after I see the conclusion to the new adaptation.

The story concerns the royal family of Duke Leto of House Atreides (played by Oscar Isaac) being commanded to take over the spice mining operation on the planet Arrakis from the incumbents, House Harkonnen, by an emperor we never see. I appreciated how well the film portrayed both the nature of spice and the politics behind the emperor's decision to change which royal family ran the mining operation.

Looking at the film, you can see how Herbert modelled this world in a galaxy far, far away (perhaps...or is this some future where humans have colonised other worlds?) on human historical eras. Even the word "spice" would conjure history lessons some of us might have taken (if I studied the spice trade in history lessons, well, I've already forgotten about it). In any case, in this film, spice is a substance which has differing value/s to the 'indigenous' Fremen and the colonising royal rulers from other planets who exploit it. You don't see the results of this lucrative trade beyond the world of Arrakis, really. Hopefully the next instalment will reveal that. In any case, spice being so lucrative has left House Harkonnen enraged that they no longer control the trade and that will create problems for House Atreides. There will be blood spilt.

House Atreides comprises Duke Leto's concubine Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson), who has a background in something akin to a religious cult, perhaps, and her son with the Duke, Paul (Timothée Chalamet), who is a young adult and the Duke's only child and heir. Paul has dreams of Arrakis and the 'natives' there, who are akin to Arabs in deserts here on Earth. The 'natives' have striking blue eyes, due to the influence of the substance spice in their environment. Paul has never been to Arrakis though. A hero's quest is in play here, which is nicely undercut by a remark of Lady Jessica's 'cult' superior. Maybe Paul can be likened to the Luke Skywalker character from the Star Wars films...Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgård) has a flicker of Darth Vader about him too (no plot spoilers there and I'd add that the scene where he is introduced is lifted from "Apocalypse now" where we first meet Colonel Kurtz, from memory). Despite this Star Wars analogy by me, "Dune" is a more sophisticated science fiction epic. Its analysis of the galaxy's politics as well as the nature of religion are more nourishing to the mind than George Lucas' Star Wars films or, at least, more grounded in realpolitik which is recognisably human in nature. Having brought up Star Wars, I'm now reminded of another parallel...the worms of Arrakis...they remind me of a scene in "The Empire strikes back" where Han Solo tries to avoid pursuers by going into an asteroid field. It wouldn't surprise me at all if George Lucas drew influence from Frank Herbert's novel. (Edit in: and then I remembered "the voice" element of this film, which again has an echo in Star Wars...and then I read The Age's review of this film - 02/12/2021 - which confirms the influence on George Lucas.)

All in all, this film kept me engaged for its entirety and I do remember laughing out loud for one part of it, probably the scene involving spitting. I did have concerns whether my bladder could last the distance but fortunately it did...I suspect that it could have lasted another 30 minutes, at least. There should be an IMDB badge for this, with a picture of a bladder saying: "That all you got?".

Random notes:

* The scene where the nephew of Baron Harkonnen, Glossu Rabban (played by Dave Bautista), is introduced seemed a bit overplayed, as in it was signalling in an obvious manner that he was metaphorically drunk on power.

* I don't know how much content was missed in the film compared to the book. On reflection, a large distance is covered between the start and where it ends, however, I never felt like there was too much missing and perhaps any shortening is justified for a film.

* Some of Paul's interactions with his family's warriors seemed out of place, a bit too 'dudebro', for my tastes, as if it was a Disney Star Wars film.

* Some aircraft reminded me of dragonflies.

* Every now and again I struggled to hear clearly what was being said.

For the scoring of this film, it was an easy 80%, which I considered turning into 85% (but still 8 out of 10 stars from me on this site) to 85+% (in order to nudge it to 9 out of 10 stars on this site). 90% was considered but maybe 87.5% is fair, considering it was an engaging experience from start to end and I want to see the sequel. Having seen a few Marvel films recently, I half expected to see a closing credits sequence where we see how the franchise will overlap with another Marvel character's franchise. It's a relief to not get that in this case!

N. B. Maybe for younger viewers, they could find watching this film "boring" but I suspect that if they do find it so, they may very well find it more rewarding rewatching it when they're older. I can't imagine that people would find this film boring and not something like George Lucas' "Star Wars: Episode 1 - The phantom menace". After the joy experienced seeing his first film (as a child) in this franchise ("Star wars", episode 4!), it was a poor way to start a new trilogy in this world.

Where the adventures of an alien life form from outer space known as "Venom", which is cohabiting in the body of previously unremarkable journalist Eddie Brock (played by Tom Hardy), continue. Eddie seems otherwise normal but when danger arises, Venom may protrude from his body or even transform him into Venom in order to deal with it. This time the plot concerns how the reckless actions of Venom gives rise to a new foe which scares even Venom himself. Why that fear should exist in him (it?) is glossed over in the film but perhaps is explained in some other medium in which the characters exists, like comics or whatever, so, in that sense, it excludes the casual viewer of this film.

The principal antagonist is Cletus Kasady (played by Woody Harrelson). With Frances Barrison (played by Naomi Harris), they are star-crossed lovers, following a well-worn trajectory: boy meets girl, girl is forced into high-security detention due to an X-Men kind of superhero ability, boy becomes even more of a mass murderer than he was before and...you can guess the rest, I'm sure.

I saw a trailer for this film in the cinema a few weeks back and it looked interesting enough to take a chance by seeing it, even though I hadn't seen the original film in this new franchise which is, no doubt, the origin story of the Brock/Venom pairing (not quite as formidable a pairing as Brock/Richards or Brock/Perkins but still). Generally I found the film amusing enough for the odd couple antics of Brock/Venom. Well, since I've never seen the TV series "The odd couple", maybe the better analogy is to invoke the antics of an old couple which bickers most of the time. Most of the humour comes from Venom but maybe I only understood what he said about two thirds of the time, due to the special effects applied to generate his voice. There's violence in the film but I don't remember it being too shocking (I saw this today), however, if you are squeamish, I suppose the appearance of Venom out of Brock could be a bit much for some although it's more anodyne body horror than anything else. Otherwise there's really not to much to wag your finger about. There was frequent talk of "brains" in the film but, again, any horror or violence is only intimated. The "M" rating the film has in Australia is appropriate.

If you can say that the narrative arc of Kasady and Barrison is shown here, maybe you can also say that other characters' origin stories as superpowered are also shown but once again, I'd guess that to get full value from those scenes, you'd need to be immersed in the lore of this world from other media, like comics etc.

Maybe others will get more value from the Kasady/Barrison narrative arc than I did and rate this film higher than me. Which is not to say that I don't realise that Kasady does raise a fair point to Brock late in the film. This film was entertaining enough but even the usual Marvel teaser during the end credits didn't leave me with the desire to see the next Venom film. I do have a vague recollection of that original film being received negatively by audiences and critics, which was confirmed by looking at the Wikipedia page for it in writing this review. That being said, I might be interested in seeing that Venom origin story...and I missed the chance to record it on FTA commercial TV the other day...so...maybe next time? I would hazard a guess that the humour works better in this first sequel, in any case...although...I found the character of Doctor Dan (played by Reid Scott) a wet blanket in this film. There's not much sophistication to his time on the screen. Maybe he's not bad...he's just drawn that way?

26/25 (25th of 25 official Bond films)

Daniel Craig departs his service as James Bond, Agent 007 on a high. His tenure has been unique in the franchise insofar as his films have had a coherent, narrative arc which charts the course of this character, from go to whoah. You could do worse than to start this franchise with the Craig films, in chronological order, starting with "Casino Royale". That first outing of his was one of the best in the franchise. Whilst, in my opinion, Roger Moore had more good films playing this character than anyone else, the films which bookend Moore's tenure are two of the worst in the franchise's history. Craig is also unique in starting and finishing his tenure in such a strong manner. I've mentioned in another Bond film review here that Sean Connery's Bond never acknowledged the existence of other actors' turns as the character. Craig's tenure is sort of similar, in that his Bond's narrative arc is self-contained and excludes other films in the franchise for that reason.

I won't divulge too much information about this latest entry in the franchise but as can be expected, world peace or the fate of the world are in peril due to weaponised high tech which governments or criminal organisations around the world would love to get their hands on. Another thing to note is that this film is one of the most serious in tone of the franchise (there's an easy to miss small quantum of humour) and is one of the few entries where Bond has formed an intimate relationship with a woman. As usual, Bond is unaware of the background of the women that he forms serious relationships with...perhaps surprisingly. Does nobody screen them?

Devotees of the franchise will no doubt appreciate all the reminders from previous films in the series, irregardless of which actor it was that played Bond before. I'd say that this film recalls my favourite and pick as the best Bond film. We could disagree on what that film would be but with so many references to other Bond films, we could still agree that it recalls the best Bond film.

This film was tracking at 80% throughout for me but just with the ending, I became aware that I was comparing this film with the more popcorn entries in the series. Somehow the ending predisposes me to be more generous with my score, to factor in its dramatic effect. Having just seen the film the same day that I started writing this review (today...but I'm finishing writing this review the next day), at the moment I feel inclined to score this film higher for the drama of the ending. Maybe that inclination may change over time or with a repeat viewing, sometime, if ever, in the future. For some reason, another finale to a favourite character from another story is brought to mind: Dexter. In that TV series, I can't say that the ending pleased me (I have learned that just now, years later, the character and TV show is being revisited). I got the impression that the ending was shoehorned and made to fit the expectations of some sort of 'ideal' audience, whatever that may mean (probably conservative Christians, to be cynical). Similarly, the conclusion to Craig's time as James Bond seems to be invoking some sort of teenage boy's romantic 'ideal' of how to conclude the story...or maybe it's just suited to the real world, where we are living with the COVID-19 pandemic! Given the flimsy connection between Bond movies as a whole and their lack of cohesion, an alternative finale to the character of Bond can be found in the unofficial Sean Connery (the first actor to play Bond in this franchise) outing "Never say never again". At least, that was how I interpreted the end of Bond's career in that film.

No doubt I'll make a point of continuing to see the next actor in the role of James Bond, whenever that film is due to be released. I've seen every canonical film in the series as well as the one non-canonical film that I've seen (I've not seen the 1967 spy parody film "Casino Royale", which, whilst loosely based on author Ian Fleming's character of James Bond is neither canonical nor the same story which Daniel Craig debuted as Bond). What will intrigue me about the next official Bond film though is how it follows on from this. Daniel Craig's last entry in the franchise will be a tough act to follow. If you're interested, I've made a list at this site ranking what are, in my opinion, the best Bond films, canonical and non-canonical.

What follows is a resumption of my formulaic review elements of the previous Bond films that I've seen:

* I was going to say that "No time to die" didn't have the usual Bond pre-title sequence but I suppose that you could say that it sort of does, just not the typical fare, though.

* In the gun barrel sequence, Bond walks too quickly for mind but I'm not sure if it's quicker than usual for Craig's Bond.

* The theme song, by Billie Eilish, is interesting but I think that having lyrics which tie closely to a Bond film might make it lack a more general longevity and it being its own thing. Then again, my favourite Bond songs didn't have this problem, e.g. Any of Shirley Bassey's classic contributions, like "Moonraker" and "Goldfinger", even though they could be nothing other than a Bond related song. And so it goes.

Random observations:

* It seems some Bond fans hated the high tech aspects of Pierce Brosnan's Bond in "Die another day". I wonder how the high tech in Craig's last film will be viewed. Is it believable?

* I doubt that any evil genius could have orchestrated the actions of a certain woman in Italy, early on in the film, as asserted later.

* Despite being the longest of very many Bond films, it's length wasn't an issue for me.

* Generally I find Bond films forgettable. The main villain here seems like I should know him from previously. It seems I should know Bond's love interest too but it's been years since I saw the previous film, so I'd already forgotten her. I can't even remember why M changed. I'll probably remember this film though.

* A brickbat to Scott Murray's review of "Dr. No" in The Age's Green Guide lift-out (21/10/2021), for including too much information about "No time to die". As if any mention of the new film was required for a review of the very first one.

Serving as a belated prequel to the lauded mobster themed crime-family drama television series "The Sopranos" (which concluded in 2007), "The many saints of Newark" purports to explain how the anti-hero of that series, mob boss Tony Soprano, came to be the man that he is. After the film had ended, I wouldn't have said that it did this at all. The poster for this film asks the question "Who made Tony Soprano"? Perhaps the word "made" acts as a pun, by suggesting the mafia connotation, as in "made man". In any case, nothing that I saw on the screen suggested to me that the main character of this film, Dickie Moltisanti (played by Alessandro Nivola), "made" Tony Soprano, in any sense of the word. For most of the film, Tony Soprano is a peripheral character, either as a young boy, then a teenager, although he does become more prominent later in the film.

My main gripe with this film is that I found knowing who these characters were or how they related to each other was difficult. Looking up on Wikipedia the date on which the series concluded (at least in the US) might explain that. If I knew the character names from the TV series, I had long since forgotten them. Maybe the film does make an effort to help you in that regard. The film starts by using a narrative device used in the film "American beauty" but I didn't end up linking the narrator's voice to any character in the film. Well, actually I did but I just linked it to the wrong person, Dickie Moltisanti (edit in: well, looks like I didn't, going on the article on this film in The Age's Green Guide liftout, 02/12/2021. Still, I just found this aspect confusing here in a way that I didn't for the film "American beauty"). Is the narrator actually seen in the film? Perhaps the film assumed too much familiarity with characters and events in the TV series? In any case, I was mostly lost as to who these people were. At least with a television series you can get to know characters over an extended period of time and have at least a slight sense of where they fit into the big picture. Since I saw this film in a cinema, I didn't have the luxury of pausing or rewinding the film to clarify what was happening, so I just reluctantly went with the narrator being Dickie. By contrast, at least it was clear what was happening in "American beauty" when the same narrative device was being used.

The story concerns the family life of Dickie Moltisanti, in both the traditional and Mafia sense of the word "family". He is the uncle (uncle?) of Tony Soprano, hence they often interact with each other. You get a sense of what kinds of criminal activity Dickie conducts to make his money and...for other reasons. There is one particularly gruesome torture scene and one sex scene where you see a woman's bare breasts but otherwise it's not a particularly bloody assault on the senses. When you see young Tony Soprano and teenage Tony Soprano, you can see a family resemblance with James Gandolfini, who played Tony in the TV series...perhaps more for the younger Tony, perversely.

The film seems set in the 1960s and extends into the 1970s, I think. One aspect of it which did surprise me was the prominence of African Americans in the drama (I can't remember there being much, if anything, of this in the TV series). Not being American, I can't say whether the scenes of race riots and carnage depicted in Newark has some basis in actual events. It was sort of amusing to see significant black mobsters dressed like pimps (I assume, based on my knowledge of old US TV shows!). Maybe they really did dress like that? I don't know.

Returning to my earlier point about this film not really explaining how Tony Soprano was made (disregarding any ambiguity about the poster's line, as in on one reading it suggests that the film is not about Tony but on another reading it's nothing but about him), well, I suppose that I would ask the question: if Tony's father had spent more time at home, would things have been any different for Tony? I don't think so. In other words, I don't think that any one person "made" Tony Soprano. He grew up surrounded by criminals, what did you expect him to become?

Going back to my earlier point about not knowing who the people in the film were, well, actually, sometimes my recollection of the TV series was triggered. For instance, I remembered that Tony had a sister in the series and I'm pretty sure that I remember what she looked like. That recollection came to me during the film. After watching the film, I remembered Tony's mum from the series and I think I recall what she looked and acted like there too. All this makes me think that maybe the film could have done a better job at placing the characters or reminding us of how this all links back to the TV series? One odd impression that I got from this film was...just about every other female character in the film reminded me of Edie Falco, who played Tony's wife, Carmela, in the TV series! I could have been watching "Being Edie Falco"!

Another moment of recognition came towards the end of the film, when I wondered if one character was such-and-such from the TV series and I'm pretty sure that he was...I think I have in mind the man who also played in Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band.

My final moment of recognition came when I thought that one character kind of looked like an older version of that bloke from that great film about mobsters, "Goodfellas". Turns out there was a good reason for this resemblance!

I'd close this by suggesting that maybe it would be best to see this film if you have recently watched a lot of the original TV series which this film was based on. Maybe you would find it easier to follow than me?

This new entrant in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is the origin story of a group of extraterrestrials known as "Eternals", who have been on Earth for millennia, sent here to protect humans from a deadly threat known as "Deviants", which are beasts that prey on them. Then things get complicated. If you've been watching the MCU entries and wondering why you haven't seen or heard of them before, well, the film does explain that, which you may find more or less plausible. Or not. The Eternals look like humans but they just have superhero kinds of powers. And they never age, which kind of makes sense, given that they're called...

The breadth of this film is epic, covering the dawn of human civilisation to the present day, I suppose you'd call it or, at least, after "The Blip", which occurred in "Avengers: Infinity war". That being said, as an origin story, there is no need to be familiar with previous MCU films in order to feel confident watching this one, as it's a stand-alone outing.

An interesting aspect to this film is how it offers an alternative myth to the rise of humans as well as implying that myths and legends which exist in our actual history are wrong. The names of the Eternals play on this notion, with characters called Ikarus (played by Richard Madden), Sersi (Gemma Chan), Ajak (Salma Hayek), Gilgamesh (Don Lee) and Thena (Angelina Jolie) to name but a few. Given how American Christians have protested against 'Satanic' heavy metal music or even Harry Potter, for goodness sake, I'm surprised that they haven't protested against this film for challenging biblical accounts of the nature of the universe!

Now, seeing how these Eternals are depicted as advancing human civilisation over millennia, I suppose that could make one roll one's eyes in disappointment. Maybe I did this initially but I just submitted to the myth and went along for the ride. At the back of my mind, however, was the thought that this depiction patronised humans. If Marvel's counter-myth, which short-changes the ingenuity of humans offends, well, at least be calmed by the knowledge that the works of William Shakespeare aren't attributed to any of the Eternals!

I can't say that seeing this film was something that I was keen to do but I did come across some information somewhere that it was (or would be) directed by Academy Award winning director Chloé Zhao, a woman who grew up in China (she is the first Asian woman to win an Academy Award for direction). Even though I hadn't seen any of her previous films, that titbit was enough of a lure for me to see the film, out of curiosity at least. It was a punt which I'm glad I took, in contrast to a similar scenario, which was also in the MCU, where another Academy Award winning director Ang Lee (a man who was born in Taiwan) directed "Hulk". That Lee film was quite a disappointment to me (I'd say that I saw that before I began reviewing films on the original "The movie show" website and then moved to this site when SBS closed their website). It was conceivable to me that I would also find Zhao's film pretentious and underwhelming but she's done a solid job here. Seeing a trailer for this film recently, it didn't look promising on the comedy front at least, with that scene where an Eternal breaks a table. It looked like humour aimed at very small children. However, I can say that I did laugh other times, so the humour improved (I especially liked the inside humour about online video creators).

If you've seen the two most recent "Avengers" films and the opinions of supervillain Thanos gave you pause for thought, well, you might like the direction that "Eternals" goes into, as it takes this to a whole 'nother level, perhaps, with the character of Arishem.

Anyway, I enjoyed this film but I don't think that I'd make a point of seeing it again and I might not be interested in seeing any sequels (unless, maybe, Zhao also directs it and...the Avengers aren't in it, perhaps). This MCU outing had a diverse cast and diverse characters. A minor gripe for me though was finding it hard to understand dialogue on some occasions, either because of accents or the use of audio effects, like that used for the voice of Arishem.

The following are just random observations for my own benefit:

* Is it weird that Eternals are extraterrestrial in origin yet are otherwise like humans? I mean, I assume that humans can interbreed with them!

* Is it weird that the extraterrestrial Eternals have sex in the missionary position?

* Is it weird that these supreme Eternal beings include the deaf amongst their ranks?

* One Eternal, "Sprite" (Lia McHugh) reminded me of a similar character in "Interview with the vampire" (I think...my memory could be faulty here). Why is there such a young Eternal? What's that all about?

* I was also wondering about the point of the Deviants but if I imagined them to be the inspiration for the concept of "demons", they didn't bother me so much.

* One of Ikarus' superpowers reminded me of Superman...this is referenced later on in the film.

* One part which I found to be unbelievable was where early humans take up arms against obviously much more powerful Eternals...which have just helped them. That didn't ring true to me...for those two reasons.

* Product placement and endorsement by Eternals was quite marked. I counted two such scenes. How about you?

* One scene was presented as being in Australia...I had my doubts about this, for some reason.

* Climate change is brought up in the narrative.

* Lastly, I found the Eternals' frequent ruminations on what makes humans worth saving insipid.

* Lastly, lastly, my scoring for this film was tracking at 75% (7 out of 10 stars here), then 75+% (8 out 10 stars) then my final score of 77.5%.

"Shang-Chi and the legend of The Ten Rings" is a superhero origin story which seems more like a Chinese martial arts film than the next entrant in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Many years ago I saw "Crouching tiger, hidden dragon" and found the fight scenes in that literally unbelievable a lot of the time. "Shang-Chi" often seems subtle in its fight scenes by comparison but then does have action sequences which are more like MCU superhero films. As an origin story, it assumes no familiarity with the MCU and in fact plays mostly as a non-MCU film, which is what I liked about it.

Simu Liu plays Shang-Chi/Shaun, the son of a mobster, Xu Wenwu (played by Tony Leung) who could quite easily have been the subject of a film or franchise himself, due to his legendary characteristics. Shang-Chi's mother Ying Li (played by Fala Chen) is also a legendary kind of character. This contrast of 'Eastern' legendary figures and 'Western' MCU legendary figures worked to the former's advantage, as the latter often come across as plastic toy figurines being used in a sandpit by small boys to play with.

The plot concerns how Shang-Chi/Shaun sought to move from under the shadow of his father to become his own man but just when he thought he was out, he is pulled back into Wenwu's orbit. The film mixes the seriousness, perhaps, of Chinese martial arts films with the jokey style of American Hollywood films. As should be expected from a MCU film, eventually the fate of the world will come into play and someone will have to play the hero to save it.

The martial arts in this film juxtaposes frenetic fight sequences with elegant and fluid fight scenes which have their own particular charm. Other times the action sequences seem lifted from a Disney live action family film and that was enjoyable too, if you just suspended disbelief.

Speaking of comedy, I found the earliest instance of this to be aiming very low for laughs, which isn't uncommon in MCU films but I warmed to later instances of it. For instance, I was amused by the character of a thespian who sounded like he was from Liverpool, when he reminisced about what he took from a film that he saw as a teenager and how that inspired him to get into acting. That actor playing the thespian did seem familiar, perhaps for his voice but I did recognise his name in the closing credits and remembered the role that he is perhaps best known for.

An interesting aspect to this film is its subject matter, i.e. An Asian superhero and a mostly Asian cast. Is this another attempt by Hollywood to crack the now important Chinese market? If it is, then the cooling relations between the US and China is an unwelcome fly in the ointment for Hollywood studios trying to make a lot of money from Chinese cinemagoers.

Another question that came into my mind was whether "The Ten Rings" is based on Chinese legend or is a Marvel appropriation of Chinese culture, tailored for 'Western' audiences that don't care about cultural authenticity. If it isn't the former, then I think that there could be a niche for films which mine authentic 'Eastern' legends and myths. That could be something which might interest me (Sinophiles would no doubt reel out a long list of films which have done just that!).

As you might have guessed, I wasn't the first in line to see this film. In fact, I wasn't even sure that I wanted to see it, as I haven't watched every line of superhero films in the MCU (maybe I should watch "The Black Panther"?). As it stands, I think it was worth the punt in seeing it. I'd go so far as to say that seeing a sequel to this would be more appealing if it wasn't tied to The Avengers franchise! Furthermore, I would have liked this film not to remind that it was part of the MCU, which it managed to do, at least until the closing credits, which I didn't welcome when it made its first appearance. With that being said, this is the kind of film that you could watch again, after a suitable break. Although I didn't watch this film in 3D, it might be worth it to do so (as sometimes the extra cost of the ticket gives added value to the experience and...sometimes it doesn't).

Notes to self:

* The narrative did have some logical gaps in it, for example why Shang-Chi was attacked on the bus. What was that all about?

* The film was dedicated to the memory of Brad Allan, I think. Not sure who that was...searching now, a few websites list him as the supervising stunt coordinator.

* Reading the closing credits, I was reminded that this film was shot in Australia, which isn't obvious watching it, so, good job studio (I think I saw or heard something on ABC in Australia about how Asian Australians got to be in this film, perhaps a kung fu exponent or exponents)!

* My score for this film was tracking from 75% (7 out of 10 stars) to 75+% (8 out 10 stars) to just a flat 80% final score.

"Halloween kills" follows on directly from the previous entry in this franchise, "Halloween" (2018)...eventually. Maybe it doesn't matter if you haven't seen the 2018 film...or the original 1978 film of the same name but it would make sense to watch the 2018 film first, since this follows on from it.

Unexpectedly, the film draws on moments from the earliest entries in the franchise (I've seen at least the first three entries of the original series, then "H20" and lastly these two most recent entries) as well as adding to them, a bit like seeing something that would exist in a "director's cut" of those original films, even though they don't exist.

Something that I like about this film is that you get a glimpse of inspiration for what the story of inhuman serial killer Michael Myers (for some reason I think that that should be spelled "Meyers"...maybe it was originally spelt that way?) could be. In other words, what is his nature? How did he become what he is? How do you bloody well stop him killing again (glancing at Wikipedia for this franchise, it seems that sequels that I haven't seen have delved into some of this territory)? Another way of saying this is that the film tries to grapple with the nature of its subject. That makes the prospect of seeing the next film in this series something that fills me with anticipation (I probably shouldn't have looked up this film on Wikipedia before seeing it, because it has a 'spoiler' that there will be another film in this franchise out next year). That being said, these 'glimpses of inspiration' for the story might just be teases, an empty promise, that even if delivered on, would underwhelm as any such explanation would necessarily disappoint for being unsatisfactory in some way, shape or form, if you pardon the pun. Of course, one lives in hope that the next instalment could in fact deliver something satisfying on that front, so it would be worth the attempt to come up with something good by the film-makers.

As for the film itself, well, as with the last one, it's not really scary, as far as I remember (I did review the previous film here) but it is gorier. After I watched it, I was thinking that it really should be an R rated film, not the MA 15+ that it is here in Australia. It looks like the film is rated R in the US, which would leave teenagers unable to see it. You can't really say that Michael Myers is revelling in the carnage...I would say that the film-makers are, for the benefit of the implied audience. So, there is an emphasis on extreme horror, as opposed to fear, which isn't really generated here. The carnage can be nasty, cruel and sadistic, with the camera lingering on horrifying situations, unnecessarily so, I'd add. Early on, the murder of two black people in their home had me thinking of Michael Meyers "You monster!"...just because they were not typical of the kind of victims you get in this genre of film.

Also unexpectedly, there is some social commentary to this film, concerning mob violence, which was not something that I saw coming. This element does add some poignancy to proceedings and you could ponder the morality of the ones which bring about this outcome or how they compare and contrast to Michael Myers himself.

Watching this film, I did wonder how much I had forgotten from the original, 1978 film...without looking at Wikipedia, I'm thinking that maybe names have been retrofitted to previously nameless characters but even if that is right, maybe they became more than nameless characters in the sequels that I haven't seen?

Before seeing this film, it was likely, I thought, that I would include in my review of it that I would end my involvement with this franchise here, just because I was bored with it or finding it mindlessly repetitive. As I say, instead this film has whetted my appetite for the sequel. Hopefully that will be final instalment for this franchise. Hopefully it can at least function as a canonical ending to the series...until some producers think that they can make some money resurrecting Michael Myers, which is probably where I will finally have lost interest in seeing any more of these films. There is actually a film in this franchise with the word "resurrection", I see!

My prediction at the end of my review for the previous film as to where I thought the next film would go was dead wrong (I didn't state my predictions but I had some thoughts on where it could go, given the finale of that previous film). Instead, after a strangely long opening credits sequence, this film offered up some more surprises for me (even though in some respects, it necessarily follows in the footsteps of "Halloween II", the sequel to the 1978 film). That's what has lifted my score for this and made me interested in seeing the next instalment. Hopefully it can deliver on some of the promise in this one, perhaps be a bit less gory and wouldn't it be nice if it was scary to boot?

Recommendations:

Halloween (1978). Years ago I learned that this was one of the most successful films of all time, based on box office returns on the production costs.

Halloween II (I'm going on memory here, I saw it a very long time ago on VHS rental but remember liking it).

Hellraiser. This film is the stuff of nightmares and I found it genuinely scary, from memory.

The shining. I came to regard this Stanley Kubrick film as an artistic classic, after initially not finding it as horrific as it was hyped to be by the students in my high school.

The exorcist

Candyman (1992)

Evil dead II (I found this to be a very funny horror film!)

Scream

Showgirls (haven't actually seen this but it's meant to be absolutely frightening!)

Note to self:

Maybe I should watch the Rob Zombie reboot of Halloween films?

The plot of this film concerns an extremely realistic looking world in an online, open-world action video game called "Free City" which is very popular amongst gamers in the real world. An ordinary looking person in that game, called "Guy" (played by Ryan Reynolds), starts having a very disruptive effect on people who play the game in the real world...as well as characters in the game itself. As we later get a glimpse into the real world, we learn that there is some drama between the makers of the game and other game developers. This tension supplies the action quotient of the film, which plays out in both the real world and the world of the game.

"Free guy" ("Free Guy"?) has elements of fairytale, action, comedy and romance. Some way into this film, I was thinking that it might have worked better as entertainment if it was aimed at a much younger audience, as in being an actual Disney family film, where the whole family could watch it and enjoy it. On many fronts it functions on that level, from the comedy, to the action and to the romance, with the latter being very chaste. However, there is one scene very early on where a character gets a very badly broken nose, which is not pleasant to look at, so moments like that definitely rule out a younger audience, even though it is otherwise a Disney kind of family film in most other respects. That being said, the humour is at times queer in this film, uncomfortably so at times, though not without raising a smile, like the scene where Ryan's best friend "Buddy"(! Played by Lil Rel Howery) gets friendly with a familiar looking big, strapping bloke.

"Guy", as played by Ryan Reynolds is pretty much a variation on the character he's played in all the other films that I've seen him in recently, like "Hobbs & Shaw" and the "Deadpool" films. In this film, Reynolds turns his usual schtick up to "4". It makes me wonder if Reynolds contributes dialogue to the characters that he plays or whether he has a usual collaborator who comes up with this kind of weird stuff. His dialogue can be inappropriate yet amusing, for instance when he makes religious references.

For what it's worth, I managed to work out the mystery surrounding Guy before the characters which brought my attention to this mystery.

"Free guy/Guy" did bring to mind other films that I have seen, like "The matrix" (I see no reason why you couldn't also get philosophical and deep with this film) and a couple of other films for specific elements, like "Dark City" (with regard to a ___location in the film) and "They live" (which I haven't seen but the thing with sunglasses here reminded me of what I read about the older film). Looking at a review online, I was reminded of "The Truman show" which would also be a point of comparison for this release.

Watching this film, it was tracking to score 70% from me but leading up to the halfway point it wasn't really doing it for me, so I was looking to score it maybe 67.5+%. However, from the second half onward I found myself laughing more and getting more out of the film. That's just to say that I found it reasonably entertaining without regarding it as the best example of a Hollywood 'popcorn' film. I enjoyed Reynolds' performance more in "Hobbs & Shaw" (going on memory) and I liked "Boss level" more, which also has a video game element to it (I've reviewed both films here). However, "Free Guy" does work on a slightly-inappropriate-for-a-Disney-film level.

Looking back at my review of "Suicide squad", I see that all the negative criticisms that I had about the original are now positives in the later film with nearly the same name: this time the characters are engaging; this time it doesn't matter if you have no idea who these characters are; this time I laughed more than once. I laughed numerous times; this time the soundtrack wasn't used to substitute for the film's inability to offer up anything engaging or entertaining. The early use of Johnny Cash's song "Folsom Prison blues" was relevant. It reminded me of how dark his lyrics were, when he sang: "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die". Wow! That surely sets up the characters we are about to see!; lastly, I think that this film actually has some repeat viewing value, given enough time between sittings.

Now, the plot. Does anyone really care about this for Hollywood comic book related multiplex offerings? If you insist, a team of supervillains is assembled in a notorious gaol in order to undertake a black op of a suicidal nature (hence the film's title) which, if successful, would see the surviving supervillains get a discount on their gaol sentence. Of course, the supervillains need an incentive to cooperate with the authorities running the covert US government operations. The black op will be centred in a fictional island off of South America and science fantasy elements will feature.

Idris Elba's supervillain character of "Bloodsport" is engaging, as far as what motivates him to join the suicide squad. There's a great scene where he meets his daughter for the first time in a long time. Margot Robbie's character of "Harley Quinn" is no doubt considered by the studio to be the pivotal figure of this franchise but I must say that I found John Cena's turn as "Peacemaker" much more enjoyable, especially early on, where he contributed more than his fair share to the comedy quotient of this film. Later on, Harley Quinn's narrative arc did become more satisfying but not being a consumer of the comics or cartoons, I can't say that she held a lot of cultural cachet for me (I really have to mention Chloë Grace Moretz' wonderfully brilliant turn as Hit-Girl in the comic book related film "Kick-Ass"). As an Australian, I was surprised to be actually amused by some dialogue from Jai Courtney's "Captain Kangaroo". I can't remember having that thought for the first film. It wasn't exactly champagne comedy from him but at least it was passable.

This revamped Suicide Squad seems to have been written by actual, professional screenwriters who know how to construct a good popcorn movie although, I have to say, with the amount of blood and gore in this film, I'm not sure if everybody would be glad to have chosen to be eating something whilst watching this film. In Australia, this film has an MA 15+ rating, so it has blood and gore but unlike a horror movie, there's not a lot of detail on the gore, if that's any recommendation. Given my comments about the first film in this franchise, I would hazard a guess that that first film was written by the studio's marketing department, with input from the accounting department. A rubbish script, in other words.

Another aspect to the comedy is how some of the characters say things that the audience is no doubt thinking, like how ridiculous a character's superpower is. Since I'm not familiar with the comics or cartoons which inspired this film franchise, I can't say whether all the characters here have featured elsewhere. But gee, David Dastmalchian's "Polka-Dot Man" is a ridiculous concept for a character. Sylvester Stallone's "King Shark" isn't much better. There is some fun to be had with these characters though. Perhaps this kind of treatment of the material is because of the impossibility of taking it seriously? That's why this film treats it subject matter so ironically, perhaps. Maybe it's just me though. Watching The Dark Knight trilogy, I came to realise that Batman is actually a boring character and I just wanted to see Heath Ledger's Joker dominate proceedings in the second instalment. Speaking of The Joker, he isn't in this film. That's not something that bothered me at all either. In any case, the characters in "The suicide squad" to give one the impression of this is like watching children play pretend and coming with some cheap, home-made ideas for comic book characters, hence the risibility of it all.

On the subject of ironic treatment of material, this film eschews film clichés like text on the screen indicating place or proceedings. Instead, elements of the picture will form this information, to interesting effect at times. If that's not the kind of thing that you find clever, at least you might appreciate the frequent use of callbacks as far as character proceedings go. In other words, a scene will recall something which happened earlier with a particular character.

Lastly, I should note that the film does critique America's real involvement in that part of the world, as far as supporting brutal regimes go (or least it can't but help remind us of this). There's actually a funny moment in this film where a revelation is made after you see the suicide squad kill a lot of people on their mission. They pretty much embody, at that moment, America's foreign policy strategy and outcomes in the real world. Perhaps that outlook is common in this fictional world? Could you describe that critique of US foreign policy as 'woke'? If this film was directed by Jordan Peele, an African American, would it be considered woke? I ask that because I've noticed that Peele's soft reboot of "Candyman", entitled..."Candyman", has been review bombed on this site for being "woke". Reviewers here are actually using that word. This speaks to who has the 'right' to critique America.

Stay for the post-credits. It might entice viewers to watch a sequel to this.

The plot of this film concerns a young black artist, Anthony McCoy (played by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), who is in a relationship with a successful African American art gallery director, Brianna Cartwright (played by Teyonah Parris ). They live in a gentrified part of Chicago which was once home to poor black people. There are some obvious racial implications with this context. Anthony learns of an urban legend, concerning a black serial killer called "Candyman" and he becomes obsessed with this story and creates some new art works on this theme which are part of an exhibition. The urban legend of Candyman goes that if you stand in front of a mirror and say "Candyman" five times, you will summon the murderous spirit of Candyman. McCoy's exhibition references this. Soon after, people associated with his exhibition begin being murdered, as do some of the people who attended it. Is Candyman responsible for these grisly murders?

Seeing a poster for this film at my local cinema, my initial impulse was to not see it, as I do remember really liking a film of the same name from many years ago, which I probably hired on VHS (I've reviewed that earlier film here), making the assumption that it was a remake which wouldn't be as good as the original. However, a name on the poster rang a bell in my mind: Jordan Peele. Despite not having seen any of Peele's films, I was aware that his films dealt with issues of race and were both critically and commercially successful. So, I thought that I'd see this film, to, hopefully, get a contemporary, race-conscious take on this tale.

Watching the film begin, I thought that this was a reboot of the original film but having some months earlier come across, sort of randomly, the term "soft reboot" on the tvtropes website, I'd say that that sounds like the term to use for this new film. I say that because later in the film, it references the story in the first film and builds on its mythos.

As far as the horror quotient goes, it seems pretty standard as far as mainstream, cinema multiplex films go, with an MA 15+ rating here in Australia. There's not a copious amount of murder scenes but there is a lot of blood and shots of wounds when they are shown. Not for the squeamish, in other words.

Maybe mainstream horror films have to work harder to impress me now or scare me. I was conscious of being less interested in the horror aspect to this story than the perspective that Peele would bring to it. Perhaps it took too long for the penny to drop for me but at some point the suggestion in the film to "say his name", when it came to Candyman, did bring to mind all the news of the last year or so concerning "BLM" (Black Lives Matter). On that front, I feel that the film falls short on what I would have liked it to do, once I formed the opinion that what it was doing wasn't enough for me. For example, earlier this year (31/05/2021) there was a story on NPR, I think, concerning the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa race massacre/Black Wall Street massacre, where mobs of white thugs razed a thriving black neighbourhood to the ground, murdering, on some estimates, 300 black Americans (via Wikipedia). This history demonstrates that truth is more horrific than what horror films can conjure. For that reason, America has suppressed/repressed its black history. How much more powerful could a film like "Candyman" have been if it referenced countless historic moments like this? Which is to say, I would have appreciated a Quentin Tarantino kind of take on this story, a la his films like "Once upon a time in Hollywood" or "Inglourious basterds". In any case, it's an open question on how "say his name" interacts with the real world and the film's world.

Another aspect on the horror genre here was my failure to take seriously the horror premise of this film: saying "Candyman" five times in front of a mirror. Reading the end credits I saw that the source material for this urban legend was a short story by white author Clive Barker, called "The forbidden". Now, many years ago I encountered another film adaptation of one of his works, called "Hellraiser". The scenario in that was just more compelling than that of "Candyman". In other words, the world he creates there just seems more logical, as far as why people would do the things that summon these nightmares.

Like one of Ridley Scott's sequels to "Alien", the people in "Candyman" just struck me as being stupid at times. For instance, the art critic's line of questioning at home to her guest. Not sure why she invited that person there, given her questions. It was also really odd that McCoy didn't see a doctor about his hand...or that none of his friends suggested he do so! The visual aesthetic of these scenes reminded me of the remake of "The fly". Also, no doubt unfair but are painters usually as buff as McCoy?

One thought which occurred to me was the nature of the Candyman killings, as far as who the victims were. That reminded me of the first time watching films that this kind of thinking occurred to me: Freaky. I've also reviewed that film here. After seeing this new Candyman, I just thought that there would have been scope for a more "What goes around comes around" kind of interpretation. Then again, the victims of 'Candyman' probably do fit that bill. This film was tracking to score 75/100 (7 out of 10 stars) but I liked the turn it took towards the end, so I added a "+" to it, which justifies the bump up to 8 out 10 stars here.

The original's sensuality makes a repeat viewing desirable. The 2021 version doesn't have that quality but it does have some irony and humour.

Miscellaneous:

* McCoy's mother looked too young to be his mother, I thought!

* It later occurred to me that the depiction of a gay couple in this film would have been a lot more transgressive if their race was swapped. Perhaps Peele would have felt that that was a bridge too far for a mainstream American audience?

It occurred to me to watch this film after hearing a review of it on Nightlife (ABC Local radio, Australia, 06/04/2021). The regular film reviewer, Alexandra Heller-Nicholas, mentioned how it put you into the circumstances of the main character, an elderly man who is losing his mental proficiency. That aspect intrigued me, so I thought that I would see it and this cinematic technique prompts my headline of it being an 'old person simulator'.

Anthony Hopkins heads a strong cast as the elderly father of the title, Antony (that's how the cast pronounce the name). He is fiercely independent and resists the attempts of his daughter, Anne (played by Olivia Colman), to have someone look after him at his flat. Hopkins is so believable in his portrayal of a man in those circumstances that it would be quite easy to believe that one was watching a documentary on this topic. For that reason, he deserves to be in contention for Best Actor awards this year.

Despite its subject matter, The Father can be funny at times, either because of the occasional boyish charm of Antony or because of the dramatic irony of the things that he says. There was one striking moment for me though, when I caught a glimpse of Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter, near the end of a sequence with Laura, a carer Anne had arranged to meet Antony for the first time that day. Antony was an engineer but up until that moment, amuses her with accounts of what he used to do. These seem like banter to me, rather than symptomatic of anything.

If it wasn't for the review on Nightlife, I might not have thought to wonder if the film was playing tricks with me, with regard to a sequence with Antony and a woman telling him that she is his daughter. Later in the film you do get noticeable instances of characters unexpectedly appearing and reappearing again in different form. This is all part of the 'old person simulator' that I speak of. It's engaging as a cinematic device, as I like how it afforded me the opportunity to reinterpret what I had seen before and to try and grasp reality with this knowledge. One way to characterise this cinematic device would be to say that it messes with your head. That is in no way is a negative for the film. Some things remain mysterious without being annoying, like the 'other' daughter that Antony constantly speaks about but whom we never see.

Despite the narrative device of an 'old person simulator' being used, I did find some moments more marked for perhaps inexplicable reasons. For example, there is one sequence where Antony overhears a conversation between Anne and her partner. This moment serves as bookends for a sequence. For some reason I found that bookended sequence more incongruous than anything else in the film.

In the same way that I enjoyed reinterpreting what I had seen earlier in the film and feeling that I could touch reality with it, I wonder whether Antony could too, at the end. There is dramatic irony in the closing sequence and if Antony does gain the insight that the viewer can, you might feel sure that it is only momentary.

Notes to self:

* Listening to the music at the start of the film, I felt that it would be a Michael Nyman composition (a frequent collaborator with director Peter Greenaway) but the opening credits proved me wrong. Later on there is some, I assume, classical music which predates Nyman's compositions, which makes me think that the influence is going the other way, as far as Nyman is concerned. In any case, it might be worth buying the soundtrack to this album, as it seems to include both original compositions and classical music repertoire.

* An initial query on my part as to the plausibility of the events of this film concerned the woman at the end of the film. I did wonder whether her patience with Antony was believable. Not long after that, I did wonder whether Anne's approach was believable too. In other words, it occurred to me that maybe this story of a daughter and her elderly father might be more believable in another context, for example, if set in France (the film is co-written as well as directed by Frenchman Florian Zeller, based on his earlier play). I'm not familiar with these scenarios in any case, so it might be easily plausible on both counts.

* There was one concerning scene between Antony and Anne's partner, where Antony ended up crying. I did wonder whether the incident actually occurred or not.

* Lastly, with regard to where the film ended up finishing, I am left to wonder whether what we saw from the start of the film actually occurs before then, as in the film being a sequence of temporal slices which actually happen and are witnessed by the viewer as they happen. If not, then that seems to me to make less incongruous that bookend scene where Antony overhears a conversation between Anne and her partner. However, it now does occur to me that maybe I am put in the position of Antony and one of his 'tests' for whether carers are thieves or not.