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?

Spider-Man: Far from Home (2019)

 "I'm in love with Spider-Man's aunt!"

Yes, I know. I'm well behind oin the Marvel films; I intend to remedy that. And I'm being competist, and trying to track down Blade:Trinity. Anyway...

This film is awesome. It works brilliantly both as an action film and as a farce. It's totally a Spider-Man film- the characterisation of Spidey is spot on, and Tom Holland is superb, plus not only is Jake Gyllenhaal brilliant as Mysterio but the villain works perfectly. He's the master of illusion: what could be more gloriously cinematic?

And yet, at the same time, this is absolutely a big MCU film. It ties Spidey very strongly to the legacy of the late Tony Stark- including, with Happy, an important member of Shellhead's supporting cast. But it's deeper than that. The film takes place in the afteermath of the former dead returning after Thanos's snap. Nick Fury and Cobie Smulders take prominent roles... and turn out to be Skrulls.

And, yes, at the end, a dying Mysterio outs Spidey as Peter Parker- via J.K. Simmonds as J. Jonah Jameson once more!!!- which will have future consequences, but which is also a sign of the MCU disdaining the concept of secret identities. We do not rely on cliched tropes here.

It's mostly an adorable and light farce, though, with lots of comedy, bits of action and romance between Peter and Mary Jane, which is incredibly sweet. Yet at the same time it manages to  be a very Spider-Man film set far from his territory of New York- imagine!- and a brilliant MCU film.

Kevin Feige, you and your underlings triumph yet again.

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

"Can't you just be a friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man?"

Hmm. Well, let me first emphasise that I liked and enjoyed this. All Marvel Cinematic Universe films are fun, have a real wit and lightness of touch, and give a real sense of the wider universe. All of that was present this time and, for what it's worth, this is now my favourite Spider-Man film. But it doesn't quite reach the heights of Marvel's best.

Still, it's a bloody good film. Tom Holland is already cinema's best Spider-Man- a real and believable teenager, young and enthusiastic. Michael Keaton makes a magnificent villain as the Vulture, drawing out Adrian Tombs' depths as a genuinely nuanced character with some rather superb facial acting. Cinema's best Batman turns out to make a rather good baddie for the competition.

And then there's the plot, the script, and the excellent and highly relieving decision not to spend any time rehashing that bloody origin story again. We get only a brief mention of the spider bite and no mention at all of Peter's bloody Uncle Ben. Good. A Spider-Man film should start with ol' Web-Head up and swinging.

But I thought there were nevertheless a couple of misjudgements, not least that excessively Iron-Man-like suit which just isn't very Spidey. And then there's the use of Tony Stark as a mentor figure which gives the feeling that Spidey is a minor offshoot of a very Avengers-centric universe. This feels wrong, perhaps as a consequence of integral parts of the Marvel Universe having been deplorably and immorally pilfered by Fox; the Marvel Universe should not be Avengers-centric. It has no centre. But here we are constantly defining Spidey in terms of the Avengers, which we shouldn't be. It's nice to have a street level story, but the Avengers connections threaten to overwhelm. That's a shame, because the film is otherwise very good indeed.

A good film, then, although perhaps not without flaws. Still, it can surely boast the best Marvel post-credits sequence yet.

Wolf Hall: Episode 5- Crows

"You are not a gentleman born. You should not meddle in the affairs of those set over you."

It's 1535. Charles V is being difficult and no son is forthcoming. Henry is not a happy bunny. And the scavengers are circling: the title says so.

Still, there's Jane Seymour. Henry likes her, and whatever thoughts Cromwell may have had about being in with a chance are well and truly dashed. It's a slow-burn affair, with Jane (with family collusion, of course) being careful to appear chaste during the beginning of the affair. But an affair it is, and Anne knows it.

And so she lashes out against Mary, against the dying Katherine of Aragon, against everyone. She becomes insufferable, and a serious rift develops between her and Cromwell, which becomes of huge dramatic import after Henry's near-death in that famous jousting accident.

On top of this, there is the matter of the small fire caused by an unexpected candle in Anne's chamber. Does this imply a lover? Cromwell is beginning to gather evidence against her in case he needs it.

All this comes to a head with the King's accident. Cromwell is at first concerned about the safety of his son, but when it seems that the King is dead everything seems to fall apart. Cromwell depends utterly on his king. If Anne is now to be regent, he faces ruin and probable death. So does Mary. So do many. The wheel turns and runs many people down with it.

Except it isn't, as Cromwell's rough and ready CPR seems to save the day and the King recovers. But that few minutes exposes the fragility of English society in 1536. Will a woman be accepted as reigning monarch? Mary or Elizabeth? Anne or the Duke of Norfolk as regent? Perhaps, after fifty years of peace, a return to civil war? 

It us now crystal clear: Anne is a danger to Cromwell and to others, constantly turning the King against people in ways which, in Henry's court, mean death. The only course of action is to move against her, and Cromwell has increasing support. A stillborn birth seems to convince Henry, too, that he should never have married her: he was "misled", and God has cursed their coupling so he will have no heir.

All this intrigue is briefly interrupted by Gardiner; it seems a lad he knifed in his unruly youth subsequently died. He didn't know it, but he is literally a common murderer, and this has a profound effect on his sense of self. Is this going to further embolden him to move coldly against Anne in acceptance of his "nature"?" All this is masterfully plotted, and the unity of plot and character is superb.

The episode ends with Henry bollocking Cromwell for overreaching his position with regards to Chapuys and Charles V, and reminding him of his humble origins. Suddenly everyone is quite snarky to this blacksmith's son, until Henry realises he needs Cromwell and frantically backpedals. But this dynamic will inevitably continue to and fro.

We end with Henry and Cromwell as friends again, and Cromwell instructed to discreetly find a way to get rid of Anne...

Child's Play (1988)

“I have to go tinkle.”

It took me ages to remember where I remembered Catherine Hicks from: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. That distraction aside, I rather enjoyed this movie, much as it tended to follow the formulaic course that ‘80s movies often did. The central concept is delicious, though. The 1980s, after all, are the perfect decade for what I assume must be the ultimate satire against the aggressive marketing of crass commercialised toys to kids. And yes, my love of Transformers in no way makes me a hypocrite on that point.

I had to raise an eyebrow, too, at the very ‘80s portrayal of Karen’s blatantly gay boss, with his pink bow tie, but no matter. The only real horror in this film is the 1980s interior décor, but I loved it nonetheless. I suppose the horrors that happen to Karen and her brat in this film all boil down to one single moral: don’t buy knock-off shite.

The design of Chucky is brilliant, of course, and probably the biggest single factor behind the film’s success. There are some great set pieces, too: I love the moment when Karen realises that there are no batteries in Chucky, and the deliciously dramatic irony in the death of the psychiatrist Dr Ardmore, played by the journalist bloke from the 1970s series of The Incredible Hulk. The camerawork from Chucky’s POV is good, too.

You have to wonder about the things that go unmentioned, of course. If I was Charles Earl Ray, reincarnated as a doll, then I’d be rather less sanguine about the sexless existence that would lie before me. No wonder he tries to knife the cop in the balls.

I had to laugh, of course, at the scene where an old dying man reveals Chucky’s weakness with his last words, a trope which is far too well-worn to take seriously and which illustrates the formulaic nature of the film. It’s a good laugh, though, and the ending is pleasingly inconclusive.