This is a sequel to 2019's Black Panther, and has to deal with the unexpected death of Chadwick Boseman, who played T'Challa / Black Panther in that film. Rather than recast the role, instead Wakanda Forever opens with people grieving T'Challa's death, and other countries sensing weakness in Wakanda and trying to exploit this to get hold of vibranium. The way that Ramonda (suddenly made queen) and Shona (who couldn't cure her brother's terminal illness) respond to their grief makes a significant difference to the plot.

As well as grief, there's a heavy theme of colonialism and its long-lasting impact here, and I think it's good that we largely see it from the point of view of the (formerly-)colonised peoples.

All of which means there is some emotional and thematic weight to go with some pretty good action set pieces. The weakness, though, relates to the plot around the Talokan civilisation( spoilers )Overall, then, a bit of a mixed bag.

The penultimate short-listed film for the Hugo Award this year, Soul is a Pixar film about Joe Gardner, a jazz pianist and teacher; and 22, a soul who is stuck in the Great Before. It's a beautifully-animated film with a great soundtrack and some very funny moments (and far too much cringe for my liking!). But I found the plot rang hollow (and its ontology(?) was very strange), and it dragged surprisingly for a relatively-short film. ( More review, with spoilers )

Another Hugo shortlist entry. I wasn't really expecting to enjoy this, as romcoms are very much Not My Thing, but I actually thought it was pretty good (and had plenty of laugh-out-loud moments).

The premise is a wedding day that is an infinite time-loop for a few of the characters - one of whom has been looping for ages, another of whom gets stuck in the loop at the start of the film; so we learn about what's going on as they do. Despite Groundhog Day not being explicitly mentioned ever, this is a plot device that's been used before, but I liked the fun (and near-absence of cringe comedy) and humour of this, as well as the hints of darkness (there's a nihilism under the surface that is never lingered on) that made the characters much more sympathetic.

At 90 minutes, it doesn't outstay its welcome, either.

atreic and I thought it might be fun to watch the Hugh short-listed films this year. I'm beginning to think this may have been a bad idea...

We figured alphabetical order is as good as any, so started with Birds of Prey. This is a DC Comics film about Harley Quinn, and the events that spiral from her break-up with The Joker. It has a similar sassy fourth-wall breaking energy to Deadpool, but is nothing like as funny; and while I enjoyed the chaotic roller-coaster series of events, I didn't find myself caring very much about the plot. Also, I'm not sure this is really SF/Fantasy - it has the same sort of cartoon physics/violence of a James Bond movie, but beyond one appearance of Oynpx Pnanel'f pnanel pel novyvgl there is essentially no paranormal activity here. Entertaining enough, but nothing to get excited about.

Rom-coms are not really my thing, and I can't abide cringe comedy. But I do enjoy Eurovision. I absolutely hated Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga, though. ( you may not want a paragraph of me ranting about how terrible this film was; probably contains spoilers ) Dreadful, dreadful film. In slightly-redeeming features, Graham Norton as himself is quite amusing (though rather phoning it in), and Husavik is not a bad Eurovision-style number.

Anyhow, so far I still think that Possessor (which, alas, didn't make it onto the ballot) is miles ahead...

Inspired by recommendations on disobey_gravity, I went to see Free Solo[0], which is about Alex Honnold's free solo ascent of El Capitan in June 2017. The climb itself was big news at the time, at least among climbers - climbing over 3000ft of steep granite with some technically hard parts, with no protection is an amazing achievement. And also very dangerous. There's a section in the middle where the film remembers a whole series of notable free solo climbers, all of whom have died while climbing.

It's not just a film about the climb, though - there's quite a bit exploring the character of Alex, how and why he does what he does, and so on. We hear from a number of Alex's climbing partners as well as his girlfriend Sanni. I have to admit, I ended up with the impression of someone who is a brilliant and fearless climbing but a rather inadequate human being. He's so focused on his climbs that he often seems blind to his impact on other people. During filming, they learn that Ueli Steck has died free soloing on Nuptse. Sanni relates how when she was talking to Alex about this and wondering how Steck's wife Nicole must feel, he remarked "Oh, she must have known it was coming". He seems unable to grasp the idea that if he dies soloing it will have a significant impact on other people.

Another interesting issue explored by the film is the ethics of filming someone free soloing: does filming Alex make him take risks he wouldn't otherwise take? How would the crew feel if they filmed their friend falling to his death? At a number of points it's clear that the crew (all of whom are professional climbers) find watching Alex solo really pretty stressful.

The final ascent was pretty tense to watch, even knowing that he's going to succeed. While Alex looks so assured on the route, some of the moves he does are ones that would look pretty hairy on lead, never mind soloing 2000ft off the ground!

Free Solo is by turns fascinating, infuriating, funny, sad, and impressive. And it's gorgeously filmed.

[0] a note on terminology. Free climbing is climbing without "aid", i.e. you only pull on the rock; ropes gear and suchlike are just for safety. Free solo climbing is like that but you do it by yourself without a rope i.e. there is nothing to protect you if you fall.

Before going to see Blade Runner 2049, I re-watched the original (in the Final Cut version, which I don't think I'd seen before). It's still a classic, although the treatment of women is terrible (and I seem to notice more of that with each rewatch); the plot and visual tropes have inspired a vast amount of film sci-fi that's come since.

The sequel doesn't disappoint - the city-scape is very much from the same visual and audio space as the original, while the desert-scape of Las Vegas is a suitably post-apocalyptic wasteland. There's the same slow pacing (although at 2h40, this is substantially longer), and it's great to see Deckard back again, although I'm a little sad to see the ambiguity of his replicant-or-not nature from the original resolved. There are some great scenes, including a brawl in front of a holographic Elvis and some very creepy moments from Niander Wallace. And there's the continued theme of what it means to be human, and what sort of relationships we can or should have with those who are not.

There aren't really any new ideas, though, and the treatment of women is probably worse than in the original, which feels less forgiveable now than it might have been in 1982. And the bass was rather over-done to my ears, to the point of dragging you out of the scene sometimes. I'm sure I'm going to want to watch it again, though...

The TL;DR spoiler-free version: good fun, not great, lacking new ideas. ( longer, many more spoilers )

I saw the new Bond offering, Skyfall, and very much enjoyed it. If you've seen the entertaining 50 years of Bond montage, a plausibly-coherent film constructed of 5 minutes of each Bond film in order (i.e. the first 5 of Dr No, followed by the second 5 of From Russia With Love, etc.), you'll be more than aware that the franchise has a somewhat formulaic plot structure. ( review contains minor spoilers ) Skyfall asks how Bond can continue to be relevant in a world that is very different to the one of Dr No, but doesn't overplay its hand in doing so.

On a completely different note, we saw "Final Cut: Ladies and Gentlemen" at the Inverness Film Festival. This is one of those classic love stories, except it's actually made up of clips from over 500 famous films, cut together to tell a story. It could have been dreadful, but actually it was really really great. The clips are very cleverly cut together such that the story is clear to follow (so it works as a film, it's not just a clever trick), but that doesn't mean that all the clips are used in their original context - some of the funniest moments are where a clip is re-used in a manner contradictory to its place in its original film. The music is taken from the films too, and at the end there's a list of the clips and sound-tracks (in order of appearance). I suspect this film will never see a general release due to the rights issues, but if you get the chance to see this at a festival or similar, really do go. The programme described it as "a celebration of cinema; the greatest mix tape ever made", and it won the audience prize at the festival.

I wonder if the Arts Cinema will have this film?

Also, I really really hate PHP. That is all.