Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)

 "Gods don't have to choose. We take."

SPOILERS.

I've been waiting to see this film for a while, and it's a relief to have finally seen it. It is, after all, clearly quite big in being the first film (although Loki got there first, I believe) to establish ther multiverse. And it's bloody good.

For a film that literally links all the Sony Spider-Men and baddies to the MCU, quite an undertaking, this is a deeply witty and enjoyable film, chock full of actors, although they may have aged a bit. Alfred Molina has aged somewhat, but that's mitigated by the reaction of Peter, MJ and Ned to the name "Otto Octavius". Yet Jamie Foxx and Willem Defoe are awesome in their own right.

Tobey Maguire, though, and Andrew Garfield, deserve as much praise as Tom Holland and- indeed- Benedict Cumberbatch, who has conceded the title of Sorcerer Supreme to Wong by means of being dead for five years. That'll do it.

Despite the multiversal shenanigans, though, this is all about the characters. Spidey's reaction to May's death is heartbreaking, but not as heartbreaking as the fact that the conclusion has to revolve around everyone- including MJ- forgetting Peter. Ouch.

Yet, alongside the tragedy, and the blealk ending of everyone forgetting who Peter ids, threre's humour, which is very Spider-Man. And, while the late Aunt May is much nicer and much more relatable than in the comics, there's also J. Jonah Jameson, played superbly by J.K. Simmons, being a total ***. He's the real villain.

Yes, this probably won't stand up well to repeated viewings. But I love it.

All this and Matt Murdoch. So all them series are canon?

Ladyhawke (1985)

"Oh God, is it Lent again already?"

I expected this film to be one of those Sword and Sorcery or Tolkien-esque fantasies that abounded in the '80s. Instead I got a rather fun swashbuckler clearly inspired by Abelard and Eloise, bizarre concept though that is.

Here, though, our Abelard is not literally castrated. Instead, we have a family-friendly metaphor. Navarre is cursed, by a jealous, evil, devil-worshipping bishop in mediaeval France, to be a wolf by night, whereas his lover Isabeau is a hawk by day. It's tragic, it's romantic, it's as '80s, somehow, as the ever-present music in this film.

Yet the lovers are not the stars; that would be a very young and very impressive Matthew Broderick, with a sly comic timing and an ability to find chemistry with all ofbthe established stars- Michelle Pfeiffer, Rutger Hauer, Leo McKern- with whom he stars.

It's odd that a film I'd expected to be set on a generic fantasy world should instead prove to be set in a mediaeval France (albeit filmed in Italy) where the inevitable mythology turns out to be Christian and the villain a wayward bishop. This link to real history adds a certain weight, heft and realism, with Philippe introduced as a thief who escapes judicial murder. This helps us to get to know him, via his ever-present monologues with God about his very naughty thievery. Rutger Hauer is also superb, however, as is Rutger Hauer.

A superb film. I'm glad I've seen it at last.

Frozen II (2019)

“You can’t just follow me into fire.”

“Then don’t run into fire!”

This afternoon Mrs Llamastrangler and I visited our local cinema accompanied by a certain little girl who was in equal measures nervous and excited. Yes, Little Miss Llamastrangler is both four years old and completely obsessed with Disney princesses, and this seemed like a good choice for her first ever film at the cinema. And it was. She loved everything about it, which ultimately should probably outweigh the more qualified praise of her forty-two year old father.

A Disney film sequel that isn’t a casually tossed off straight-to-video release is a rarity, but this is the real deal, with cast and creative team reuniting to dig for more box office gold-successfully, I suspect. But, with no original fairytale source to draw upon, the pressure was on.

But I needn’t have worried. Yes, the early scenes seemed overly cosy and devoid of the conflict that all good drama needs, but the magical mystery of the nearby enchanted forest gives the film the injection of epic fairytale magic that it needs. And by the hilarious Olaf song about how everything make sense when you’re an adult, and you in know way feel like an older child who’s winging it, I was well and truly won over. The animation, the story, some nice characterisations and the humour all worked well, and one of the songs in particular had Little Miss Llamastrangler singing all the way home.

Is it as good as the original? Probably not. But it’s a solid, moving, funny film that probably deserves the success it’s pretty much certain to get, particularly as a more cynical cash-in would doubtless have done just as well.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

"And it rides up in the crotch a little bit too."

Hmm. Still not entirely enamoured with Sam Raimi's take on Spider-Man in spite of having to admit that it has to be considered, objectively, as a very good couple of films so far. It's stylish, well-directed and acted, a faithful recreation of the style of the early comics from Stan Lee and Steve Ditko with a student Peter Parker. And yet... where are Spidey's funny quips?

At least this is the sequel and therefore not another bloody origin story; it's nice how scenes from the first film are used during the opening titles but this is a film which is, yes, about Doctor Octopus (Alfred Molina is very good casting), but really about both Peter's roller-coaster relationship with MJ and the increasing disintegration of Harry Osborne- and the fact that Peter may be a hero but he and his Aunt May are struggling with very real poverty, which is brave to show. It's 2004, but Peter must use a pay phone because he has no mobile. We even get a funny cameo from Sam Raimi perennial Bruce Campbell and, of course, a blink-and-you-miss-it appearance from Stan Lee. And, indeed, a minor role for Daniel Dad Kim, who plays Gavin Park in Angel. J. Jonah Jameson is awesome ("Guy names Otto Octavius ends up with eight limbs. What are the odds?") to the point that J.K. Simmons was surely born to play him.

Ok, it's a good film. Very good, in fact. The central romance is brilliant and, yes, it's faithful in many ways to the source material. Not being an origin story allows this film to breathe and grow, and it lacks a lot in without ever feeling too long. But... where are those quips?

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

"Snakes! Why does it have to be snakes?"

This film still feels fresh thirty years later: not bad for a movie based on the movie serials of the '30s and '40s. What makes it work is that the action never stops, with set piece piled on to exciting set piece and even the exposition scenes being made dramatic. On top of that you have Harrison Ford being, well, himself, Ronald Lacey as the perfect Gestapo baddie and loads of money obviously spent. This is a superb film.

I'm sure many archaeologists would raise an eyebrow at this somewhat glamorous depiction of what they do for a living, of course. Indy is clearly shown to be an academic. Others would raise eyebrows at the spiders, snakes and booby traps galore. The more churlish of us may well raise an eyebrow at the made up mythology if what's supposed to have happened to the Ark, particularly Ethiopians. Personally my own eyebrow is raised a little at the idea of Nazis being so obsessed with such a very Jewish artifact- that must have been awkward for them.

We have all sorts of Indiana Jones tropes here from the start- travelling by map (copyright The Muppets), the action-packed standalone opening sequence and Indy just shoring that bloke who waves a fancy sword at him. It's a brilliant start to s brilliant series. If you haven't seen this, where have you been?

Except, er, Indy doesn't actually accomplish anything, does he? The Ark would have blown up the Nazis whatever happened. Still, at least he gets a nice little Egyptian holiday with some snake-related activities.