The Mandalorian and Grogu

This film has the dubious distinction of being the only "Star Wars" film that I haven't seen in the cinema - even the rather poor "Clone Wars" movie from 2008 isn't on that list. (Incidentally, that film really doesn't hold up, and since it wasn't particularly good even on first viewing that's not terribly good. On the other hand, it's the jumping off point for the outstanding "Clone Wars" TV series, so it's still worth the pain.)

Anyway, LC and I watched M&G over the course of the last week, and my overwhelming conclusion is that, frankly, I'm glad it's one that we skipped.

Don't get me wrong - it's a perfectly serviceable film with a handful of good moments. But more than anything else, it feels like Filoni and Favreau took their plans for a fourth season of "The Mandalorian", dropped the bits featuring Bo Katan, and then mashed the rest together and called it a film. Which is fine, but it all felt remarkably low budget for a "Star Wars" film.

In terms of performances, it's fine, but the film is seriously hampered by having one lead in a face-covering helmet pretty much all the time and the other being a puppet with almost no lines. That said, I enjoyed seeing Zeb in live action, liked Rotta and the other Hutts, enjoyed Scorsese's turn as a street food vendor... and, of course, Sigourney Weaver was excellent as ever - hopefully that's not the last of her we'll see in "Star Wars".

Speaking of Grogu, I had very mixed feelings about the effects there. On the one hand, it was refreshingly quaint to see almost all of that done with puppets and practical effects - there was something very "Labyrinth" or "The Dark Crystal" about it all, which was surprisingly cool; on the other hand, it lacked the slickness we've come to expect from CGI. I guess that was the point. (The same was also true of a couple of guardian droids later in the film - they were pretty cool, but also pretty odd.)

Ultimately, though, my impression of the film was kind of... hollow. It didn't really give us anything in terms of character growth, or much insight into the galaxy, or presented anything we hadn't seen before. Bo Katan was a huge miss, largely because Katee Sackhoff is another actor who it's always good to see in action. Basically, this was all just a bunch of stuff that happened. It was fine, but like "Solo", it was nothing more than fine.

Ah well.

In closing, I'll note that I think that ties into much of my frustration with modern "Star Wars". I'm very much not in the camp who decries everything Disney has done with it, or hailing everything Lucas did as genius. But I'm really frustrated that some of what Disney has done is absolutely brilliant: "Rogue One", much of "Andor", the first two seasons of "The Mandalorian", and almost all of their animated output (notably the final season of "The Clone Wars", "Rebels", "The Bad Batch", and "Maul: Shadow Lord"). But some of it has been utterly forgettable ("Solo" and "The Mandalorian and Grogu"), while some has been outright bad or even worse ("The Last Jedi" and "The Rise of Skywalker" - in particular that last). If it was all terrible at least I could just walk away and have done. But the occasional gems means there's motivation to keep coming back, only to be disappointed most of the time. A shame.

Supergirl

"Supergirl" is a female-led superhero movie, and as such the reviews are utterly useless - there's a loud and obnoxious strain of review-bombers who would have you believe this is the greatest insult to filmmaking ever consigned to the screen, and there's a misguided counter-movement who consequently cannot bear to admit any flaw in the piece. It's really quite maddening.

Supergirl is a character who has had several interpretations on the screen (and, like most superheroes, even more in the comics): there's the "female Superman" iteration portrayed by Melissa Benoist and Helen Slater, there's Sasha Calle's brutalised and damaged version from "The Flash", and here we have Millie Alcock's drunken and messy version. (There's also a version in "Smallville", but I didn't get far enough into that show to see it.) My favourite, generally, is Benoist's take... but I do have to note that "female Superman" is a largely redundant character - it's fine if Supergirl is essentially the only Kryptonian in your shared universe, but doesn't work if you're doing a Cinematic Universe centred around Superman himself. You need something different.

Anyway...

There were parts of this version of "Supergirl" that I really enjoyed, and I thought Millie Alcock was very good indeed in the role. I liked the tone of the piece, and I thought that the action sequences were mostly well done.

Sadly, there was also a significant amount that I just didn't care for. I found pretty much all of the rest of the cast largely wasted - even the usually-reliable Jason Momoa was largely forgettable (though I'm guessing Lobo will appear again...). The villains were bland (more on this later), the secondary hero was wasted, and generally it was just a whole lot of people who existed to take up space. A real shame.

I'm now going to have to go into some spoilers, so if you want to avoid, stop reading now!

There were two things in particular I didn't like about the film. Firstly, Supergirl kept finding herself getting caught out and poisoned, or incapacitated, or poisoned and incapacitated. Once was fine, but this kept happening over and over again. After about the fourth time I really started to get bored - let's just get to the end, please!

The other big problem was the villains of the piece, who were frankly all over the place.

They are introduced as raiders come to shake down a blacksmith to steal some swords - the best ever forged. Fair enough. They proceed to slaughter everyone, leaving the daughter, Ruthye, as the sole survivor. An important note: they were clearly aware that she was there, but just left her.

Ruthye then takes up her family blade, swears revenge, and draws Supergirl into the action. Except that Kara is determined not to get involved - unfortunately for her, Krypto is poisoned and she needs to get the antidote.

Later in the film, having stolen these swords, they then made no use of them whatsoever. Instead, their motivations had changed: they're now an all-male species (how?) who capture lots of young women to be their "brides" and propagate their species. Consequently, they're shown as being quite keen to capture both our heroes.

The key problem with that? Ruthye is the very same daughter that they clearly saw, but just as clearly left alone at the outset of the film. So, really, it would have been much, much easier just to take her right at the start. And then none of it happens.

But the whole "brides" thing is problematic in another way - they're another example of characters existing in the film to take up space, rather than in their own right. As mentioned, Supergirl isn't motivated by this obvious and horrible wrong - she wants the antidote for her dog. Ruthye is motivated by her desire for revenge. In terms of story, both of those are perfectly coherent motives, but they fall somewhat short under the circumstances.

Worse than that, none of the "brides" actually exist as characters. There's one who has a couple of lines (because the script required a reason for a sudden but inevitable betrayal), but barely that.

Thinking on it, it feels like the "brides" were probably added to the script quite late, and so don't really fit with the rest - they probably exist simply to show how beastly the raiders are. And that's fair enough, I guess - they deserved a good punching.

Anyway, "Supergirl" is an okay film. It's not the abomination the review-bombers would have you believe, but it's a long way from being a masterpiece. In terms of similar films, I'd consider it much better than the previous "Supergirl", a little better than "The Marvels" or "Wonder Woman 1984", but less good than "Captain Marvel". It's also much less good than "Wonder Woman", which probably remains the best female-led superhero movie (though itself not without it's flaws).

Ladies First

This is not the absolute worst film I have ever seen, but it's fair to say that it's right up there.

The film has a well-worn premise: a sexist arse finds himself transported into a world where the gender roles have been flipped, and is forced to learn a salutary lesson in order to get home. That done, he's a new man. Huzzah!

The fundamental problem with the film is that it appears that the filmmakers have spent the last fifty (or at the very least the last ten) years in a bubble, completely oblivious to anything that has happened since. The behaviours depicted were not acceptable even when I started work thirty years ago, never mind following Weinstein and "Me Too". It really undercuts the parody when the thing that is being parodied doesn't actually exist, except possibly in some script-writers fevered brain.

In fairness, there are two mildly funny moments in the film.

Ultimately, though, this is one to avoid. We got it bundled as part of our Netflix subscription, and it still felt like being ripped off.

The Flash

"The Flash" has finally made its way to Netflix and so, being at something of a loose end, I've gradually watched my way through it. It is offensively bad.

Firstly, though, there are some good things:

• Seeing Keaton back as Batman is really good fun. In fact, all three of the Batmans in this film do really good turns, with two of them giving their best-ever performances in the role.
• Similarly, Sasha Calle is really good as Kara. There's not much too the role, and they seem to be doing a weird take on the "Red Son" Superman comic, but that's fine - she does well with the material she is given.

And that's it. There are many, many bad things (spoilers from here):

• Basing a film about a character whose main trait is that he is annoying is an... interesting choice. To base it around two instances of that character, each more annoying than the other is not a good idea.
• The CGI looks terrible. Seriously, it is genuinely woeful at times. I've seen AI-generated videos that are streets ahead. The zombie cameo by Christopher Reeve is the absolute worst of them all, and the one that leads me to call the film offensively bad, but it's far from being the only offense.
• As with all time-travel films, it has a scene detailing the "rules" of time travel for the universe. As with all time-travel films, they're utter nonsense. However, these have absolutely no rhyme or reason... and serve to make the events of the film impossible even in-universe (if changing time affects both the future and the past then you can never again get back to the point that you've changed - the point in time no longer exists).
• There's a comic book trope called "women in refrigerators" where a woman exists in a story solely to die offscreen in a suitably horribly manner and thus motivate the (inevitably male) hero into action. "The Flash" features a particularly egregious version of this: the action is motivated by Barry's desire to prevent the murder of his mother (which happens off-screen). He does so, but Nora Allen is then given all of two scenes in the film, absolutely no character development, and indeed we learn basically nothing about her other than that she's "nice" (and that from the perspective of her son, so hardly an unbiased source). And then, as in so many time travel films, the resolution is to go and put things back the way they were - back into the fridge with her! (And to compound things, having learned his lesson not to meddle with time, Barry decides "what the hell" and does so anyway, this time managing to save his father, who had been falsely accused of the murder all along. I'm not saying there's a double standard or anything, but...)

Anyway, that's that. It's not the absolute worst film I've ever seen, or even the worst I've watched all the way through. But it's right up there. Avoid.

Bad Boys: Ride or Die

This is an interesting one, because it really should be an awful film, and yet somehow manages to be pretty okay.

As I mentioned in my review for "Bad Boys For Life", I think the first "Bad Boys" film is actually a very good action film, the second has aged really badly, and the third is better than it really should be - and, indeed, is better than the second.

The fourth film really shouldn't work, not least because the premise is that their beloved captain is being framed for crimes he didn't commit and they have to help him... except that he died in the third film. So that's weak to start with.

Still, I suppose the premise of a film doesn't actually need to be stellar - especially a dumb action film, it's really just about kicking off the action and then you go from there. And the action in this one, while being exactly what you'd expect from this type of film and nothing more, is still well handled.

The upshot of all of that is that "Bad Boys: Ride or Die" is somehow a step up on the okay-ish "Bad Boys For Life", and a big step up from "Bad Boys 2". It's not as good as the first film, but that's not a surprise.

(This does mean that "Bad Boys" is now joining "Mission: Impossible" and "The Fast and The Furious" in being a series that seems to be getting better as it goes on - and, in all three cases, after a very weak second instalment. Though I think they may have left it a bit too late between the second and third films for it to have the legs for a long run, unless they can find a way to pass the torch on.)

Anyway, as regards this film my recommendation is the same as for the third: if you enjoyed "Bad Boys" you'll probably enjoy this; if you didn't you almost certainly won't. And if you have a subscription to the appropriate service (currently Netflix - I don't know if that's their permanent home) then it's worth a watch. But, as always, I wouldn't subscribe just for this.

The Last Voyage of the Demeter

This is a film I'd been wanting to see for some time, and we finally took the opportunity this weekend. It's a bit of a frustrating film - I enjoyed it, but also have to acknowledge that it could clearly have been a lot better.

Apparently, the film spent a lot of time in development hell, suffering multipel rewrites, changes of director and cast, and general messing around. And, sadly, it shows - it feels like it could have done with either one more, or several fewer, rewrites, a bit of tightening up. Oh, and some humour, at least in the first section.

The other thing to note is that we already know going in that this is a doomed voyage - even for the occasional viewer unfamiliar with "Dracula", the title of the film gives that away. So the film might as well lean right into that. It's a feature, not a bug, so perhaps the crew should acknowledge their fate a whole lot earlier and start making plans based on that fatalism. But that doesn't quite happen.

I don't really have much more to say than that. As I said, I enjoyed it, and it could have been better. Given the chance to view it as part of an existing subscription, I would recommend it as a decent use of two hours, but I wouldn't recommend subscribing just to get this film.

#9: "The Two Towers", by J.R.R. Tolkien

Two Films

I'm not terribly happy with my previous post, so thought I'd add something about two things we watched that I did very much enjoy:

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire

This was really an odd one, and again didn't end in the best possible way. But the lead up to that end was really good fun. (And the ending was also unambiguously a good thing, so that's a win!) The highlight, for me, was the bringing together of the old and the new casts for that finale - the use of the original Ghostbusters was very sparing, and wisely so, but it all worked well. I do hope they may another sequel... though I'd be inclined at that point to retire the originals.

The Roses

On a completely different note, "The Roses" on Disney+ was an amusing look at a disintegrating relationship, with Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Coleman in fine form. I don't have much to say about this film, except to recommend it - it was well worth the couple of hours spent watching it. (Which is also why it doesn't get a whole post to itself!)

Gladiator II

There’s obviously a spectrum of sequels: most sequels are just more of the same, which makes them inherently a bit less good than the original. Sometimes, of course, you see a sequel that is better than the original (“X-Men 2”), indeed sometimes much better (“The Dark Knight”). Then there are sequels that are bad (“X-Men 3”), and indeed some so bad that we collectively agree they never happened (why, for instance, did we jump from “Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home” to “Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country”?). And then, very very occasionally, you get a sequel that perfectly complements and elevates the original, somehow serving to not only be great in their own right but to actually make the original film retroactively better (“The Godfather Part Two”, “The Empire Strikes Back”).

But “Gladiator II” has achieved something that I don’t think I’ve ever seen before: it perfectly complements the original and diminishes the whole, retroactively making the first film worse.

It actually starts off well enough, beginning with a Roman attack on a frontier city, this time shown from the point of view of the defenders. Good stuff. Naturally, the Romans are victorious and our hero finds himself made a slave, and then a gladiator.

The story then unfolds in much the same way as the original. And all the characters from the original are present, but each is moved around the board one space: we have the person of colour who is a co-gladiator and friend to our hero… but this time he dies early. We have the stablemaster (Denzel Washington instead of Oliver Reed), but he’s not the benign figure from the original. We have not one, but two made emperors… but they never set foot in the arena. And so on and so forth.

And it’s fine, for about two thirds of the run time – a completely unnecessary sequel-by-numbers that would ordinarily fit into my very first category.

And then it goes horribly wrong. It’s almost as if the writers knew the story they wanted to write, knew how it should all play out to a certain point, knew what the end-point should be from there, but just couldn’t make the last few dots line up. And so the last forty minutes consist of everything falling apart in a stream of nonsense, characters making endless bad decisions because they need to because of the plot, characters announcing the plot because otherwise it’s just incomprehensible… basically, it’s a mess.

And, as I said, it all fits perfectly with the original, such that the two now feel permanently entangled. They’re not two separate films; they’re two parts of a whole. This film makes the original feel worse than it did before.

Avoid.

Nostalgia for Things I Didn't Like

Here's a weird thing: for me, the best bit of the recent Doctor Who finale, "The Reality War" was the appearance, very briefly, of Jodie Whittaker's Thirteenth Doctor. And yet, as I've mentioned before, I really didn't care for that era of DW - while JW is very definitely a talented actor and has done good work in other things, I felt she was sorely let down by the material she had to work with and was asked to play the role in a manner I found fairly grating.

But that's not the only time that's happened.

One of the best parts of the (very excellent) "Star Trek: Prodigy" was seeing Janeway back in action (and, for that matter, Wesley Crusher, Chakotay, and others). But back in the day, when watching "Star Trek: Voyager" I really didn't like Janeway, or indeed most of the rest of her crew. And, as I am gradually rewatching ST:V, I'm finding that this wasn't just a bad first impression - much of that series just isn't great.

Then there's "Ahsoka", in which the reappearance of Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker made for the very best part of the very best episode (which itself is probably the single best thing Disney have done with Star Wars... including "Andor" and "Rogue One"). And yet, while HC received a lot of very unfair flak for his portrayal, the prequels were really not great (and, for my money, the best of them is "The Phantom Menace", in which he does not appear).

It's very odd.

Part of it, I think, may be just the passage of time. And with so much of the newer material really not being great in general, perhaps time is kind to those things.

But perhaps part of it is that these things fit better in the hands of other writers - that RTD was able to draw something out of Thirteen than Chibnall was, because it wasn't his beloved character.

Or maybe it's just that these things are good to see but strictly in small doses. Who knows?

How to Train Your Dragon

For my birthday, we took the kids to see the "How to Train Your Dragon" remake. Though as it happened Surprise! fell asleep halfway through, while Funsize was really toiling by the end, so it was mostly LC and I who watched the film.

The original "How to Train Your Dragon" trilogy is almost unique because, at least in my opinion, the first film is actually the weakest. 'Weakest' is still very much a relative term, of course, as the first film is still very, very good (and, of course, it builds the foundation for the other two to stand upon), but both the other two are outstanding - and, for my money, better.

This remake, then, takes that first film and turns it into live action, in their vein of "Aladdin" or "Beauty and the Beast".

And the result?

This new film is basically a shot-for-shot remake of the first film. There's almost nothing new here. And that's no bad thing - so often we've had remakes that have felt the need to put their own stamp on things, only to mess up the source material. And with a strong cast, truly great music (again, basically the same music), and some great visuals, it made for a good experience. At least, I enjoyed it.

One thing: this is a film to see in the cinema - the small screen won't do it justice in the same way, such that you're basically just as well watching the original.

And now... bring on the sequel!

Captain America: Brave New World

Once upon a time, we went out to see all the MCU films in the cinema. These days, we've dropped to seeing only a few of them. Which is a shame - I would have liked to see this in the cinema at the time. But, between the need to arrange childcare, and the cost of cinema tickets, and the fact that the MCU just hasn't been the same since "Endgame" and, more than anything else, the fact that films go from the cinema to streaming in a few short months, we just can't justify going all that often.

And so, we came to watch "Captain America: Brave New World" on Disney+ this week.

And it's fine, a perfectly serviceable action film with a coherent plot, good performances, and (mostly) good special effects. (Although, like most modern action films, it does have some truly awful CGI as well. I'm not sure how, but they seem to have gone backwards in recent years.)

They've gone for something of a "Winter Soldier" vibe for this one, which is probably wise as that was probably the best of the MCU films prior to "Endgame". On the other hand, it does invite a comparison that "Brave New World" doesn't necessarily benefit from. Plus, as I've seen noted elsewhere, it kinda feels like it would be better as a Hulk film - so many of the characters and plot points tie back to the "Incredible Hulk" film that it does feel that it wants Banner, not Wilson, at the helm.

But one thing this is definitely not, however, is the bin fire that some parts of the internet have claimed. Unfortunately, there's a noisy minority that will decry any film that doesn't have a straight white man at the helm. And this one in particular, with the passing of the torch from Steve Rodgers to Sam Wilson, was always going to come under attack.

Needless to say, I have no time for such lazy critiques. As a practical matter, if nothing else, we can't have a situation where every story has to center around a straight white man - in addition to the monstrous unfairness that would represent, it would also be deadly boring.

(I do find it rather unfortunate that, too often, Hollywood has taken their efforts at increased representation to mean license to just cast a person of colour or a woman in the lead role, and then just make the same films they've been making for decades, showing nothing at all new. But that doesn't work - neither women nor people of colour are obscure and exotic beings whose mere presence makes for a new and exciting experience. Diversity and representation are good things, and indeed deserved and necessary things, but they're not sufficient by themselves. Basically, if the film wouldn't work with a bog-standard straight white male in the lead, it probably won't work if you simply switch out the lead.

But none of that applies to this film, where one of the key themes of the story is precisely that Sam Wilson is not Steve Rodgers. Not just because one is a person of colour, but in the differences in their characters, the differences in the approaches they bring to the situation, and even in the level of certainty they present in their chosen course of action. There was a part of me that was a little disappointed that Sam never used Steve's comment that "I could do this all day"... but it's actually a good thing that he didn't.)

Anyway...

I thought Anthony Mackie was really great in the lead role, giving a quiet, sensitive, and nuanced portrayal. I thought Harrison Ford did extremely well stepping into the role of Thunderbolt Ross, and I thought the whole thing fit together pretty neatly.

That said, it's not as good as "Winter Soldier". And, sadly, it adds another to the list of post-Endgame MCU films that are fine, but just not hitting the same heights. The whole thing is just starting to feel a bit tired at this point.

My recommendation for this one is pretty straightforward: if you have Disney+, it's worth investing the couple of hours in a watch. I wouldn't recommend subscribing to Disney+ just for this. But, then, I generally do recommend Disney+ - there's just so much good stuff on these.

Enjoyably Stupid

A few weeks ago Netflix got “Fast X”, the tenth film in the increasingly daft “Fast & Furious” series. Then, last week, Netflix also got “Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning”, the seventh film in the increasingly daft “Mission: Impossible” series. In both cases, these were billed as the first part of the final part of the series. (As I said, increasingly daft.)

Being a sucker for a suitably daft action film, as well as having seen all the previous films in both their series, I proceeded to watch them. And they are, as might be expected, both enjoyably stupid.

In fairness, I must note that “Fast X” is not the stupidest film in the series. The previous film, “F9” featured a scene where our heroes decided to take a car into space (no, really), and that just can’t be topped for stupidity. Not that they didn’t try – between having an omniscient villain, another nuclear submarine (because one can never be enough), and the return of a character who very definitively died earlier in the series, there’s a lot here to mock.

But I was particularly amused by the scenes in Rome. It’s always more fun watching a place get blown to hell when it’s somewhere you’ve actually been, and so that was great fun. And with the characters playing automotive football with a giant bomb on the streets of Rome (no, really), what could be better?

Seriously, if you like these films, you’ll probably find this one a worthy entry. And if you don’t, the tenth instalment in the series is probably not the place to start.

Meanwhile, “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning” is likewise enjoyably daft. By this point there’s a very clear formula to the films, and this one follows it to the letter, with perhaps the fun wrinkle that Ethan goes rogue before he even properly starts his impossible mission. But there’s the usual fakeouts, hijinks, action scenes, and loads of intense looks at the camera. Oh, and of course lots of running. Good stuff.

I had two favourite scenes in this one. Top of the list, in terms of daftness, was when they found themselves once again on a runaway train – our villain set things up by killing the crew, opening the throttle fully, and then destroying the brakes.

On a steam train.

Now, I’m no expert on this, but I’m reasonably sure that the reason steam locomotives have a huge tender of coal, and someone whose job is to shovel that coal into the engine isn’t entirely decorative. That is, if you stop feeding the engine with the fuel that it needs to keep going it is quite likely to, well, stop going. So in short order that runaway train would… not be running away.

But I was particularly amused by the scenes in Rome. It’s always more fun watching a place get blown to hell when it’s somewhere you’ve actually been, and so that was great fun. And with Ethan finding himself handcuffed to another character, and forced to keep moving to ever-smaller cars, what’s not to like.

Seriously, it was highly amusing watching these two films in close proximity, partly because they mostly chased down exactly the same streets and destroyed all the same landmarks in most of the same ways, but also because the films were made at more or less the same time – the people of Rome must have really loved having their city shut down for weeks for one and then the other.

As with “Fast X”, “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning” is a case where if you enjoyed the previous films you’ll probably like this one. If not, the seventh film in the series is not the place to start. But I enjoyed it, and I look forward to the “final” part of the series.

The Next Bond: A Proposal

Every so often the news about casting the next James Bond flares up for a while, and then seems to go cold again. A bunch of names are in the frame, and then gradually they all fall out and it starts again. The latest news is that they're apparently looking for someone to fill the role for the next 5ish movies across 15ish years, so they're looking for a male in his early to mid thirties.

I must admit, though, that I think they're making a mistake.

The thing is, "No Time to Die" represented a fairly definitive end to the adventures of James Bond as-was. Whether you consider the Daniel Craig films to be a continuation of the previous continuity or being their own thing, he pretty clearly died. This gives the producers an opportunity to wipe the board clear, and start over.

What I'd be inclined to do, therefore, is to produce a number of standalone, and more experimental, Bond films. Do something unexpected with the character, and see how the audience takes it.

So, for instance, they could cast Idris Elba as an older Bond - if he's only signed for one film, why would his age be a barrier? Or they could see if Dalton would be willing to come back and do a much older Bond, forced back into action by circumstance but forced to contend with the fact that now there are people who can do it better.

Or maybe they could revert back to the 60's and show Bond in his pomp, or even the 1860s and explore how the situation changes if, instead of being an agent of a fading world power, he's an agent of the dominant world power. Or maybe they do a film about Commander Bond of the Royal Navy in WWII - something to do with the Nazis having stolen nuclear secrets, perhaps?

They could even use this as an opportunity to do the "female James Bond" they've been talking about for 20 years. I think it's a terrible idea (on a par with a "male Jane Eyre"), but maybe they just need to get it out of their system?

Anyway, that's how I think I would approach it at this time. And maybe they find something that has real legs, and can turn it into a whole series. Or maybe they do a few, let a decade pass, and then cast someone we haven't heard of yet and start over.

#4: "The Maps of Middle Earth", by J.R.R. Tolkien (sort of)
#5: "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban", by J.K. Rowling (a book for Funsize)

Bad Boys For Life

This is a rather belated review, but I finally got around to watching this film. I consider "Bad Boys" to be one of Michael Bay's few decent films, and at the time I considered "Bad Boys 2" to be pretty much the last decent action film (though it has aged really badly, and there have been some better ones since).

"Bad Boys for Life" is one of the belated sequels that I tend not to like, but it's actually not all that bad - it mixes many of the things I liked about the previous two with some new stuff that is actually worthwhile, the action scenes are handled well (and the car chases rather better than BB2), so it's fine.

It's certainly not classic cinema, though! Basically, if you liked the first two, you'll probably like this one. If not, you won't. And if you're looking for something suitably brainless, this is a decent candidate.

And that's that. Hopefully, I'll watch a film that's genuinely good next!

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

I had been planning to see this for my birthday, but in the event we decided against due to some truly horrendous reviews. Now that the film has come to Disney+ we watched it over the course of a few nights.

It's not terribly, but it's not particularly good either.

The truth is, these belated sequels are generally poor - somehow Stallone managed to make a decent one with "Rocky Balboa", but it is very much the exception. "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" was terrible, and while "Dial of Destiny" is better, it's not a patch on the original three.

There are several problems, but the biggest of these is the use of CGI in the action scenes - the characters are very obviously weightless and made of rubber, which means there is no peril and no stakes.

There is also, I'm afraid, an issue caused by Indiana Jones' age - like Picard in the Next Generation movies, he's just not able to carry an action movie, which means the bulk of it is carried by Wombat, effectively making Indy no longer the protagonist in his own movie. Which wasn't good in "Mad Max: Fury Road", but at least the rest of that movie made up for it.

All that said, and despite my comment about CGI earlier, I did find the start of the film (with a de-aged Ford) extremely impressive. In fact, we're only a few years away from Disney being able to do an entire film as a WWII period piece, and with Ford providing just the voice (or even a synthesized voice as with Vader and Luke in recent Star Wars projects). Which on the one hand sounds really grim, but on the other probably represents the best way to do any new Indy film. And we know they're not going to just let it lie.

All in all, I'm glad we skipped this one at the cinema, but I also don't regret watching it now that it has become available. That said, I can't see myself ever watching is again - for me, "Indiana Jones" will remain a trilogy, just like "Toy Story", "Lethal Weapon", and others.

Transformers: Rise of the Beasts

I'm on the verge of cancelling Paramount+, but in a piece of remarkably good timing they've just got the most recent Transformers movie. These have ranged from mediocre to abysmal (though "Bumblebee" was okay-ish), but I've watched all the others so I figured I'd try this one.

And, surprisingly, it's okay. It's not a good film by any stretch, and frankly it's nothing we haven't seen half a dozen times before, but it's not a cinematic abomination like some of the others.

Which isn't exactly high praise. But it's still much better than I expected.

That's What Passes for a Good Movie These Days?

The other thing I did on Sunday was finish watching "Top Gun: Maverick", which I'd made three previous attempts to watch and only managed ten minutes (the joy of Funsize and Surprise! discovering TV). It was one of a handful of things I wanted to watch before our Paramount+ subscription expires (the remaining two being "Scream 5" and a second watch of the D&D movie).

Anyway, I had been quite hopeful about TG:M, as it had had some rather good reviews.

Um...

The film follows a time-honoured formula: Maverick is a hotshot pilot who falls afoul of authority. He finds himself called back to Top Gun as an instructor, taking on the mentor role from the original film. There he deals with students with such well-developed personalities as "the arrogant one", "the angry one", "the female one", and, um, "the other one". (There only being three character traits possible for a fighter pilot, and "has boobs" is one of them.)

He also rekindles an on/off affair with Generic Bar-owner #1, in which Jennifer Connelly does her absolute best with a character with no personalty at all. (In theory, the character does also have the hook that she's a single mother. But as far as I can tell, her daughter exists for the sole reason that the two of them can have a conversation about a boat, thus passing the Bechdel Test.)

Anyway.

Maverick has to train his students for an almost impossible mission: they have to blow up a uranium refinement plant in an entirely-undefined enemy nation (might as well be Canada). The approach to this will not be easy: they are required to skim the surface to this point. Then they have to hit a target point that is only two metres wide. Oh, and they have to use missiles, presumably because the shaft is ray shielded. (They even have a bit where one of the characters has to make do without a targeting system, presumably using the Force instead.)

Throw in a couple of scenes lifted almost whole-cloth from the original (replacing beach volleyball with beach football), and then add a handful of callbacks to the first film to tug on nostalgia. And we're done.

On the one hand, it's a work of absolute genius - huge numbers of people went to see it and by all accounts had a great time, and to do that with no originality in either characters or story is impressive. On the other hand, it's just plain silly.

So I must admit, I'm perplexed as to how it can have garnered such impressive reviews - I can buy "terrific, brainless fun", but anything beyond that...?

How Did They Get That So Wrong?

Spoilers for "The Flash" ahead. If you don't want to know, skip this post!

The best superhero movie I've ever seen is probably "The Dark Knight" (though "The Winter Soldier" comes close). The superhero who has been in the most good movies is probably Iron Man. But if you ask me to name a superhero, my first go-to will always be Superman. And the most iconic of all Supermen is Christopher Reeve. Indeed, so iconic was his portrayal that the entire look of Superman changed.

So I presume that the decision to include a cameo of Reeve's Superman in "The Flash" was made for people just like me.

But having seen it, it is an horrific thing. It just looks bad.

And here's the thing: I'm actually not inherently opposed to CGI cameos of characters played by dead actors - I quite enjoyed seeing Tarkin appear in "Rogue One", for instance. But they have to be done well, and this one wasn't.

In addition to the look of the thing, there's another thing that bugs me: in the cameo Superman's entire world is about to be wiped out... and he stands there and watches. I'm sorry, but that's not Superman. Frankly, the ludicrous cameo by the Nic Cage Superman and the giant spider (which is hilarious in its stupidity) is better than this mess.

I still haven't seen "The Flash" as a whole. It had put me in a bind: on the one hand the trailers looked really good; on another the DC films have largely failed to live up to their promise (the first "Wonder Woman" and "Aquaman" were okay); on a third, there were the star's well-publicised issues.

I guess this one makes it quite easy for me: I'll watch it in a few years when (if) it makes it to Prime.

D&D: Honour Among Thieves

I had a window of opportunity on Monday, and so made my way out to see the new D&D movie. I was lucky to catch it - it had already left our local cinema, and none of the other nearby ones had shows I could catch. Luckily the one near my parents' had a couple of showings, which meant I stepped back in time. That said, they've refitted their screens with reclining chairs for all customers, which was a pleasant surprise. And so, I sat down in an almost deserted cinema to watch the film.

And it's okay. It's a perfectly fine film, a diverting way to spend a couple of hours, with the same blend of action and comedy one might expect from a "Guardians of the Galaxy" or recent "Thor" film. The cast were all pretty good, the pacing was good. It was all good.

And almost completely unmemorable. Indeed, almost all of the best bits of the film had already been released, in the form of the trailers, TV spots, and other promotions. What was left was the connecting tissue, which was all fine but was mostly just... there.

Ultimately, my view is... yeah, it's okay.

On the plus side, it isn't the cinematic abomination that was the previous films, so that's a positive. On the other hand, that's not exactly a high bar to reach. And I'm struggling to find a reason to watch this one over, say, watching "Guardians of the Galaxy" again (which is funnier, more action packed, and just generally a bit better on every metric).

Make of that what you will, I guess.

#7: "Flying Scotsman and the Best Birthday Ever", by Michael Morpurgo (a book for Surprise!)

Terminator: Dark Fate

There now follows a review of a not-very-good film from a few years ago. Feel free to skip this one!

Over the past few years, Hollywood has hit on the marvellous wheeze whereby they can make hundreds of millions by retelling exactly the same stories as in the 70's, 80's, and 90's but with a female protagonist. Which is a bit tedious, but is absolutely fair enough - boys had it all their own way for decades, and turnaround is fair play.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to have mentioned to the team behind this film that the scheme doesn't actually work if you already had a female protagonist - in this case, Sarah Connor.

The upshot here is that we have a film that is essentially a retread of "Terminator 2", sometimes looking like a shot-by-shot remake. Pretty much all it has going for it are updated special effects... that somehow are both technically superior but look much more dated.

The film also commits the cardinal sin of the remake (in a manner I haven't seen since "Alien 3") - in an instant, right at the start of the film, it completely negates and trivialises everything that has gone before. Everything that our heroes fought and suffered for is rendered meaningless. Good job.

Beyond that, there's not much to say. It's probably the third-best Terminator film, but pretty much by default. The protrayal of Sarah Conner is genuinely great. But the film is really not worth watching for that - it's two hours I'd rather have back.

Avoid.