What to look forward to in 2022

A new year has dawned, and it's time for a traditional list of some kind. Looking back at my wish list for 2021, it did come true, partly. There was no new Dickens adaptation, and it was a meagre year for costume dramas overall, but Disney animation released two very solid films which I enjoyed much more than I expected, Raya and the Last Dragon and Encanto. On the minus side, they both still followed the new Disney formula, which meant no memorable villains and no romance (to speak of). Chibnall bowed out as show runner for Doctor Who and will be replaced with Russell T Davies, no less (I plan to blog about what to expect from him, and what not to expect, at a later date). I haven't had an opportunity to check out series thirteen, though – more of that below. There was some new Star Wars content, if not as much as I'd hoped; when they announced a squillion new TV series, I didn't realise they meant to release them during years to come, not all at once. I had a good time with the animated series The Bad Batch (though, sorry, no way that Fennec Shand could take out Cad Bane, my favourite bounty hunter), the anime shorts Star Wars: Visions were cute, and The Book of Boba Fett has started out very promisingly.

For 2022, enough interesting projects have been greenlighted for me to fill a list of things which will actually happen (unless postponed by a pi variant of covid or similar) and which I look forward to:

Doctor Who series thirteen (and maybe a couple of specials) As a subscriber to HBO Max, I thought I would have a chance to stream the new series as it aired, or maybe with a couple of days' delay. No such luck. If information gleaned from web searches is anything to go by, HBO Max streams its acquired series approximately six months after they have first been shown in their original channels. So the fastest way for a non-British citizen to get hold of new Who content legally is still through good, old-fashioned DVDs. The good news is, series 13 will be released on DVD as early as the end of January. I can wait that long. Surely.

Though I am worried about the new series, and the possibility that Chibnall could cement his ill-conceived idea of the Timeless Child to the extent that it can no longer be retconned by later show runners, I am still excited about it. Though series twelve was bogged down by the Timeless Child reveal and those awful environmental episodes, I still thought it was a step forward compared to series eleven, so I'm curious to see what Chibnall comes up with next – especially as there will be a clear, continuous story arc this time. Also, I'm looking forward to seeing more of Sacha Dhawan's Master.

The Gilded Age Yes, believe it or not, it's actually happening! This new series written by Downton Abbey's Julian Fellowes has been in the works for ages. I already had it on my list of things to look forward to in 2019, and it had been a long time coming then. But now it's finally ready to be aired (on HBO Max – I knew I had it for a reason) on 24 January, and trailers have been released. The drama takes place in late 19th-century New York, and it seems it will display a surprising amount of snobbishness among the rich families in the Land of the Free. I have mixed feelings about being introduced to yet another Dowager Countess Surrogate Character in the shape of the heroine's Aunt Agnes, but I like the shameless tycoon already.

Downton Abbey: A New Era I still remember, from when I was a teenager, a TV column where the cheeky columnist admitted to being sick and tired of dramas inspired by Ingmar Bergman's parents and childhood experiences. "What next, Ingmar's Parents Buy a Horse?" he wondered sarcastically (the "X buys a horse" template being a classic when it comes to naming sequels of Swedish children's books). It has to be said that the setup for the second Downton Abbey film has a hint of The Crawley Family Buy a Horse about it or, following another classic template, The Crawley Family Go on Vacation. The Dowager Countess, who's still alive (how on earth did they persuade Maggie Smith to return?), has inherited a villa in France, presumably from another of her old admirers, and now the family is set to visit it. At some part of the proceedings we will see Tom Branson and his new flame Lucy get married and be introduced to a glamorous female who looks like a movie star and is probably (I'm calling it now) the main antagonist of the film.

I may go more into detail about my expectations and predictions for the film in future (the release date is in March), but for now, I can say that it looks like another slice of simple Downton, much like the first film. It doesn't seem likely that old plot lines from the series will be explored further, and any threat to the peace of mind of the Downton crew, upstairs and downstairs, will be external. I would have liked more complex drama and exploration of the Downton characters we're already invested in, but Downton is Downton and I'll take what I can get gratefully. As long as Fellowes doesn't split up Thomas and his clandestine love interest Ellis, I'll be happy. Oh, and can Molesley and Miss Baxter kiss, at least? Please?

Around the World in 80 Days I haven't read the novel by Jules Verne and I know the plot primarily from an Illustrated Classic magazine (also, a friend of mine had an illustrated version of the actual novel, and I can remember us poring over the pictures when we were kids). In other words, I shouldn't be too fussed over the latest TV adaptation's accuracy compared to the novel, especially as I remember having a blast with the extremely free TV adaptation from 1989 starring Pierce Brosnan as Phileas Fogg. There are some things about the trailer and information gleaned from a British review that give me pause, though. I don't mind them ethnic-switching Passepartout – I don't think it will be too much of a stretch to imagine that Fogg's servant with the cosmopolitan-sounding name (literally meaning "a key which fits all doors") descends from, say, one of the French colonies – but I don't see why they need to add a female journalist into the mix. There's already a female protagonist in the story – Princess Aouda, Fogg's love interest – who joins the guys later. So why do we need this journalist chick? As a female viewer, I feel patronised: I can enjoy the zany adventures of two men fine, even without Aouda, and certainly without an Insert Strong Woman Here character. Though seeing as the journalist is nicknamed Fix, the name of the detective who chased Fogg in the original, maybe she will be revealed to be an antagonist at some point? That would make things more interesting.

I'm also afraid that the TV series will be tiresomely po-faced about 19th-century politics and not half as much fun as the Brosnan version. So why am I still looking forward to it being aired on Swedish TV, or one of my many streaming services? The answer: David Tennant plays Phileas Fogg. With his mixture of thinking-woman's-crumpet attractiveness and comic ability he feels ideal for the part. And I'm not going to look a gift costume drama in the mouth... too much.

Geeky TV shows on Disney + One great advantage of my long Marvel prep in order to be able to watch Loki is that I'm now fairly well-wersed in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and I find, much to my surprise, that I tend to enjoy MCU products, whether they are movies or TV series. It's not Once Upon A Time or Doctor Who, but I think I can say that the MCU has made it to the "bronze tier" of pop culture I enjoy, where it sits along with (possibly a bit below) Star Wars content. This means Disney + will be sure to cater to my geeky needs all the year round. When the Star Wars franchise doesn't deliver, the MCU surely will. Only this December, Hawkeye (MCU) was followed seamlessly by The Book of Boba Fett (Star Wars), and so I hope it will continue. However, now I'm watching the geeky series in real time, instead of binging on them retroactively, I will probably experience drought periods where I don't especially fancy what's being offered. Not everything from the MCU is solid gold, and I may have to wait for the second season of Loki until next year.  

Is Loki the perfect Christmas gift for villain-lovers?

Yes, OK, seeing as the show has been available on Disney + since spring, this title is a little far-fetched. I did try to find a more Christmassy and less geeky blog subject, but the film I watched in order to achieve this goal (A Boy Called Christmas) proved oddly blog-resistant – it wasn't great, nor was it terrible, it didn't hit the sweet spot for me, but I'd feel mean criticising it. So Loki it is.

As a whole string of blog posts testify, I did a lot of Marvel prep in order to be able to watch this series. So was it worth it? Yes – partly because I liked the Marvel films more than I expected, quite irrespective of their Loki content. Also, I enjoyed Loki the series a great deal (especially after a few episodes – I'll come back to that). All the same, given that Loki is my favourite Marvel character by a mile, I was just a little bit disappointed too. I felt more could have been done with a series which is supposed to focus on him, but doesn't always. In fact, I'm not sure I got that much closer to Loki as a person than I did in the Marvel movies.

The first two episodes were a bit of a slog for me. I found myself thinking "Is it bad that I enjoyed WandaVision more?" (yep, I've watched the much-talked-about WandaVision now, and I have to admit my geeky heart loved it). The premise is this: because of the Avengers' tampering with time, Loki got a chance to escape his fate as described in the Infinity Saga and nab one of the Infinity Stones for good measure. We saw this in Avengers: Endgame, but it was never addressed how it played out or how it didn't affect the heroes' plan not to disrupt time, especially not the Infinity Stone-related events. Now we know... sort of. The Time Variance Agency, the TVA for short, makes sure Loki's escape doesn't alter the course of events by apprehending him and "pruning" the timeline he created. Loki is taken to the TVA's headquarters to stand trial. He is told he is a "variant" who has broken out of the "Sacred Timeline" and will thus be "pruned" or executed in order to preserve the timeline in question. What saves him is that another Loki variant is causing havoc, and one of the Time Agents, Mobius, thinks Loki could be useful in apprehending this bigger threat. With me so far?

I don't blame you if you're not, because I'm barely with myself. The whole explanation of variants and The Sacred Timeline, although pedagogically relayed in a TVA infomercial narrated by the sinisterly cheerful Miss Minutes, had me scratching my head. Loki is needed for the whole Infinity Saga to play out the way we've seen it, so how is the TVA executing him going to fix things? The best I can make of it is that his time infraction, or the TVA's interference, means that another Loki – let's call him Loki Prime – is living out his life the way he's supposed to, while what we're seeing is a separate Loki who is no longer needed and can therefore be disposed of at any time. This could have been made a lot clearer, though.

That it takes two whole paragraphs to outline the premise of the show highlights one of its flaws. WandaVision was complicated too, but you could get into it without knowing a lot of geeky stuff upfront – it was handed out to you piecemeal as the series went on. The premise of WandaVision is easily summed up in a few sentences. Wanda and Vision are living a blissful married life that plays out just like an old sitcom. But they're not sitcom characters, and we know Vision is dead. So what's happening here?

In contrast, Loki hands us a lot of exposition in the first episode which is supposed to clear things up but doesn't quite manage to, while not being a blast entertainment-wise either. The TVA is a curiously boring setting. I can see that the analogue character of the bureaucracy we're seeing is a considered choice, highlighting the TVA's tenacity and un-hackability compared with our own shiny, digital, transigent world. But even I, a self-confessed bureaucrat, didn't get much of a kick of TVA's dreary corridors of power. Variant Loki watching videos of how his life would have turned out and the mistakes he made, though a useful "previously on"-ploy for the viewer, felt like a forced way to get the protagonist through several movies' worth of character development in one go.

And then the other Loki variant is introduced, who turns out to be... a woman, who prefers to go by the name of Sylvie. Now, I know (thanks to YouTube) that the series didn't come up with the female Loki idea – there was already a Lady Loki in the comics. Even so, the last thing I (and I suspect a lot of Hiddleston fangirls) wanted to see was the Marvel Loki we'd grown to know and love be slapped around by some female version who's supposedly cleverer and more competent. When Sylvie is introduced in episode two and hisses to Loki "This is not about you" (er... yes it is, or ought to be. the series is called Loki!) my heart sank. Loki seemed to be on the way to become the Useless Male Love Interest in his own series.

Luckily, there's a course correction as the series continues. The two Loki variants, when stuck on an adventure together, start to appreciate each other and indeed fall for each other. It was a relief to me that this was a mutual thing, not just Loki pining for Sylvie. All the same, and though they have some genuinely sweet moments, I couldn't quite warm to Sylvie: firstly, because there's still some unspoken assumption hanging in the air that she's the "better" version of Loki (she is not); secondly, because I never quite bought that she and Loki were versions of the same character. 

The high points to me were instead Tom Hiddleston being charming in the lead role, the growing friendship between Loki and slow-but-sure Mobius – like Thor, Mobius trusts Loki too much, and for that very reason Loki finds it difficult to dismiss him – and the fun over-the-top villain who's revealed at the end and knows how to make a lot of expositional gobbledegook a captivating viewing experience. This isn't the new Doctor Who, though Hiddleston's Loki has traits in common with both the Doctor and the Master. Given that travelling in time and space is literally what the TVA does, this has surprisingly little importance for the plot. But it's a fun show for geeky villain-lovers, and I'm excited for season two.

Still, I think WandaVision is my favourite Marvel TV show. And no, Marvel's Loki has not replaced Once Upon A Time's Rumple as my major villain crush. Nice try, though.     

It's worth talking about Bruno (and the rest of Encanto)

Is it just my imagination, or hasn't there been nearly enough hype about Disney's latest animated film Encanto? I keep waiting for my nerdy YouTube channels to provide reviews and analyses, but only one of them has stepped up so far with a short (if enthusiastic) review. And yet, I thought this film was really good – better than Raya and the Last Dragon, and I liked Raya a great deal. 

There are so many positives when it comes to Encanto. Mirabel, who provides the focus for the film, is Disney's most engaging heroine for quite a while: she's warm, sweet, fun-loving and just flawed enough to be human. I preferred her not only to stoic warrior Raya, but also to, say, Moana, and to both of the Arendelle girls as portrayed in Frozen 2. The animation is stunning, the characters are charming, and the songs (penned by Lin-Manuel Miranda of Hamilton fame) catchy, sometimes extremely so – I've been humming We Don't Talk About Bruno for days. I watched the film on Friday, when it premiered in Sweden, and was, beforehand, disgruntled that I'd booked a matinée, thus dividing up my whole day. Afterwards, I was grinning happily. This is a real mood-lifter of a film.

The story takes place in a remote spot in Colombia (time period uncertain) and revolves around the family Madrigal, three generations of it living under the same roof in a house full of magic. The house (casita) isn't the only magical thing in the village: since the community settled, each new member of the Madrigal family has been given a magical talent or gift which they have then used for the common good under the watchful eye of Alma, or Abuela (Grandmother) as she is called by everyone. Mirabel is the exception: she never got a gift, much to the disappointment of Abuela (who has no magic either, incidentally, though she does watch over the family's magic candle). Although the Madrigal in-laws – Uncle Félix and Agustín, Mirabel's own dad – are also magic-free, Mirabel feels more and more left out. Then one night, she sees cracks appearing all over the family's beloved casita. When she alerts the rest of the family, though, they are gone. But Mirabel remains convinced that the magic is in danger and that she's the one to save it.

I really appreciated the family dynamics in the Madrigal household. I've always resented that Tolstoy quote about all happy families being alike while each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way (though no doubt it's quoted out of context). Besides being patently untrue – how many unhappy families aren't unhappy in exactly the same way? – it makes happy families sound boring. The Madrigal family is happy, in the main: they are close-knit and loving. The cousins are like siblings: shapeshifting scamp Camilo chaffs his female cousins in the same way a brother would, and Mirabel comforts her little cousin Antonio like a big sister would. The family's marriages are a success: moody Aunt Pepa and enthusiastic Félix make a surprisingly well-matched couple, and Mirabel's parents both do their best to bolster their youngest daughter's self-worth. But that doesn't mean that there aren't rifts and room for drama: For instance, Mirabel is especially envious of her sister Isabela, who has the gift of being able to produce beautiful flowers and who likes to flaunt her seemingly perfect life. And yet, having a magic gift may not be all it's cracked up to be. The film has to keep a balance between keeping the Madrigals likeable and yet making us sympathise with Mirabel's frustration. Sometimes it falters: I didn't think it likely the Madrigals would forget to include Mirabel in a family photo – wouldn't her parents notice and protest? – and Mirabel's solo song about wanting a magic gift didn't tell us anything we didn't already know about her state of mind, and comes across as a bit whiny. But for the most part the balance is kept, and you can sort of see where everyone's coming from (though it's hard to sympathise with Abuela at times). 

I promised to talk about Bruno, so I will. He's the black sheep of the family with the power to see into the future, though mostly the bad stuff (Isabela is the only one who claims to have had a completely positive prophecy about her life from Bruno, much to her little sister's irritation). Bruno is a shoo-in for my favourite character by way of being a villain fake-out. After his apparent disappearance years earlier, the family's kept quiet about him, and when Mirabel asks questions about him they paint him in sinister colours. He's designed to look faintly sinister too, yet when Mirabel meets him he turns out to be a shy, well-meaning bloke freaked out by his own gift and still full of affection for his family. It's no spoiler that Bruno isn't the villain: that's made pretty clear by the trailers. I was half expecting there to be a double twist where it turns out that he's villainous after all ("this is why we don't talk about Bruno"), but the film didn't go there, and though it would have been rather neat I liked non-baddie Bruno enough to be relieved. Another favourite of mine is Mirabel's big sister Luisa, whose magic power is super strength, and who's expected to be "the strong one" of the family both mentally and physically in a very big-sisterly way. (As a little sister, I feel a little sheepish when listening to her song Surface Pressure.)

Are we back to Golden Age-standard Disney, then? Well, maybe not quite. They've still not tackled many of the problems I've had with the latest Disney films, like (again!) the lack of a memorable villain, or indeed any villain this time around, and the fear of giving the heroine a love interest. I say fear, because there's something cowardly about the way Disney avoids romantic plots, so their female protagonist won't be perceived as "weak" by an over-censorius public. (We do get a love triangle with the side characters, so that's something.) Also, the story is rickety, in large part because the magic element of it is never explained. I know that this is supposed to be magical realism (a genre with which I'm unfamiliar) where magic is part of everyday life and you don't make a big fuss over it. But there still has to be cause and effect, hasn't there? If the casita had suddenly had normal cracks, there would have been an explanation, so why isn't there one for the magical cracks? If cracks in the house equal cracks in the family, why didn't they appear when poor Bruno was ostracised? Why does the magic grow weaker when Mirabel has had an important heart-felt conversation with one of her family members, but stronger when she has an important heart-felt conversation with another family member? Why wasn't she given a gift? Is she Abuela's future replacement, and in that case, couldn't she at least have been given a room? What does the magic want? I wanna know!

All in all, though, Encanto – like Raya – is a step in the right direction after the slump of Ralph Breaks the Internet and Frozen 2. But if Disney wants to step away from European fairy tales as source material, they need to up their game when it comes to inventing original stories. A colourful setting is not enough.

The strangely sideways-told story of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde

I had been warned (by a Stevenson fan) that Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is not, in fact, very good. All the same, I was curious: it's usually interesting to read the original of something that has been adapted and retold countless times. A good compromise seemed to be to try an audiobook version of the story, read by Martin Jarvis, no less. I did enjoy it – it's not very long, a comparatively easy listen, and has a Victorian-novel atmosphere which I was ready for after having read (and listened) to a row of modern, not very demanding books. But it's certainly no Treasure Island, and I would probably have been sorely disappointed if I'd started off expecting a masterpiece.

One of the problems with the novella is that by now, everyone knows the twist. It's quite hard to imagine what effect the story would have if you didn't know that Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde are one and the same person. After all, it's set up as a mystery: why is the reputable doctor protecting such an unsavoury young man, even going as far as to make a will in his favour? The story's first readers must have experienced a rug-pull which modern readers miss: it's not that easy to figure out what's going on if you don't already know. Yes, there are clues, but there are also a number of things pointing against Jekyll and Hyde being the same person. How come, for instance, that the doctor is a fairly large, middle-aged man, while Hyde is younger and smaller? A mysterious elixir could account for hairy hands, a villainous countenance etc. but not that, one would have thought. These things are explained at the end, though, and as twists go, Hyde being the "bad" side of Jekyll is quite a good one. Shame that, to us, it's not a twist at all.

Another problem is the curious way the story is told. I quite liked the way it started with two side characters on a walk, one telling the other of an encounter with Hyde: the sideways way into a story feels very Victorian. But then the book continues in the same vein, as we see the events largely through the eyes of Jekyll's lawyer Mr Utterson. Not until the end do we get Jekyll's side of the story. As, again, the mystery Utterson tries to figure out is no mystery to us, this feels oddly unbalanced. Various adaptations and retellings mostly focus on Jekyll, but in the original we don't learn that much about him. There isn't even a romance in danger because of the whole personality-splitting, something most Jekyll/Hyde-inspired stories manage to work in somehow. What's more, we don't learn much about Hyde either (more on this in a bit).

When it comes to Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Stevenson faces what one could call the Tolkien conundrum: if you invent a concept that proves so popular it's aped over and over again, it's easy for people to forget how original your ideas were to start with. It's a bit unfair to state that more could be done with the Jekyll and Hyde idea when it was Stevenson who invented Jekyll and Hyde. There are some intriguing wrinkles to the story, too: for instance, the explanation of the youth and stature of Hyde is that Jekyll's evil side isn't very well developed, so it looks smaller and younger than Jekyll as a whole. I found it noteworthy that the tale of Jekyll and Hyde isn't about a man split into one good and one bad side; instead, Jekyll is still a "compound" of good and bad, like he always was, whereas Hyde is only bad. This means Jekyll as himself is still quite capable of doing bad things. His whole motivation for creating Hyde isn't particularly admirable: apparently, he uses him mainly as a get-out-of-jail-free card, a way to live out impulses he's ashamed of. Another interesting detail is the reason given as to why people take against Hyde right away: as human beings are a mixture of good and evil, they feel the instinctive wrongness of someone who's just evil.

But how evil is Hyde? Perhaps, if Stevenson's story is a bit underwhelming, it's partly because we don't really see Hyde doing that many terrible things. Yes, he commits a brutal murder – mostly, it seems, out of impatience with a passer-by he doesn't want to be bothered with. We also hear about him unfeelingly trampling a child underfoot (the child recovers). But these are more the actions of a boorish delinquent than a creature of pure evil. We don't see him taking delight in other people's misery. As for what he gets up to when Jekyll releases him for recreational purposes, one supposes it's mostly a question of indulging vices such as drinking and womanising, which isn't that awful. (How does Hyde manage to pull, though, if people find him so instinctively repulsive? Surely even prostitutes would try to give him a wide berth.) I came away from the story wishing I got to know more about the titular characters: but then, there are plenty of other writers who have been only to happy to expand on them.

Little Women (2019): Is romance out of fashion?

Right, time for something girly. Recently, I finally watched the 2019 film of Little Women, the latest adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's novel, this time written and directed by Greta Gerwig. I've had the DVD for quite some time, but kept putting off watching it as I'd heard rumours that Gerwig had made changes to the ending I wasn't likely to approve of. As it turns out, the film as a whole was good in many ways, but yes, I did resent the changes at the end, not least the coquettish, "post-modern" way they were served up.

To start positive, I enjoyed this version of Little Women a great deal more than the 2017 mini-series adaptation of the same novel. Whereas the TV version concentrated on the hard life of the March family and their ability to cope, the 2019 film re-introduced the importance of imagination and creativity in the March sisters' lives, which was also a big part of the lovely 1994 film with Winona Ryder. Here again, we see the sisters performing amateur theatricals and hosting their own version of the Pickwick Club. When Laurie gets his first glimpse of the March household, he is thoroughly charmed by the warmth and closeness of the family. I was relieved that this film allowed itself sunny, light-hearted scenes and wasn't dead serious all the time: after all, Little Women the book wouldn't have become such a success if it had been all doom and gloom. 

The casting of the protagonists works very well, though I mostly prefer the cast of the 1994 film. Saoirse Ronan can overdo the tomboyishness of Jo in a take or two, but she is convincing as an energetic and driven young writer. Florence Pugh makes adult Amy surprisingly likeable (though she's not as convincing as young Amy – I think the 1994 film made the right call when they had two different actresses as Amy, even though the one playing the little minx Amy risks putting the polished young woman Amy in the shade). Emma Watson acquits herself well as Meg – and she needs a win after the lacklustre Beauty and the Beast –  and Laura Dern delivers as Marmee, even if it's hard for her or anyone to compare with Susan Sarandon. Timothée Chalamet looks so young and clueless as Laurie you can sort of see why he'd be too immature for Jo. I actually preferred Eliza Scanlen's sweet Beth to Claire Danes in the 1994 film: Danes was very convincing, but there was something slightly passive-aggressive about her Beth ("maybe we should give the Hummels our bread").

I had mixed feelings about the chopping and changing from present to past in this version of Little Women. True, if you're almost over-familiar with the story, it does feel refreshing not to have to sit through the same scenes that always make it into the adaptation in exactly the same order as always. Nevertheless, even if you know the story it can be a bit hard to know where you are in the plot, and I did wonder if someone who hadn't any knowledge of Little Women beforehand would be able to make sense of it all. But mostly, I thought this was a perfectly acceptable way to shake things up and keep the viewer alert.

What was the problem, then? I had a few other quibbles but my main objections all relate to one storyline: Jo's romance – or rather non-romance here – with Professor Bhaer.

Now, I'm not that big a fan of Bhaer as a character. I confess that I have only re-read the first part of Little Women in adult years, while I haven't re-read the part published in Europe as Good Wives since I was a girl (when my mother read it to me). Then, I had no idea why Jo would turn down Laurie's proposal and thought Bhaer was a sad comedown for her, seeing as he was something of a bore who had moral objections to her writing sensational stories. The thing with Bhaer, though, is that he needs to be older (and possibly wiser) than Jo, and someone she can look up to. She falls for someone who can guide her, rather than have to be guided by her, like Laurie. The 1994 film did an excellent job of making Bhaer appealing – I mean, they cast Gabriel Byrne! – while preserving the difference in age and experience between him and Jo, and the contrast between him and the boyish Laurie.

In this film, Bhaer looks more like a glamorous young student than a professor. Louis Garrel could just as well have played Laurie. There is no discernible age gap between him and Ronan's Jo, and his accent sounds more French than German. Byrne as Bhaer made us swallow his criticism of Jo's writing with his gentle, measured manner – you felt he was trying to be constructive, because he sensed that she could do more with her talent. Garrel's Bhaer blurts out "I do not like them" (Jo's stories) and "they are not good", which is effective in that we realise why Jo becomes incensed: those are the very last things you should say to an author. But he doesn't offer any constructive criticism, and there is no reason, on the strength of this conversation, why she should value his opinion. And why does a man who can read and understand Shakespeare express himself so clumsily?

It gets worse, though, when Bhaer re-enters the story towards the end. Here, if the film followed the book, he and Jo should finally get together and get married, after a sweet scene under an umbrella. We do get some romance between them, but it is undercut by a scene with Jo and her publisher spliced in right in the middle of it. Jo is explaining that the heroine in her book does not marry either of her suitors, and her publisher insists that she change the story. We then cut to the umbrella scene – bathed in the same warm, somewhat unreal glow as the film's flashbacks – and then we hear the publisher commending it. It is therefore heavily implied that the romance between Jo and Bhaer and their subsequent marriage only exist as fiction in her novel, while the real Jo remains unmarried. Getting her novel published is her real happy ending.

Now, you could argue that Jo simply didn't want to put her own romantic experiences in her novel – there's a difference between her and her character after all. But she doesn't sound like a happy bride-to-be when discussing the plot change with her publisher (she talks about "selling" her heroine into marriage). The ending is unclear enough for there to be some debate over how it should be interpreted, but from what I've read, Gerwig meant the unromantic interpretation to be the right one. Alcott allegedly wanted Jo to remain single initially but altered the plot to make it more appealing to readers, and Gerwig thought she would honour the writer by giving the film the ending she'd really intended.

Here's the thing, though: whatever Alcott may or may not have intended for Jo to start with, she ended up granting her heroine a love life, and that was the smart creative choice. It's certainly better than some half-baked affair where a male character's only function is to serve as a romantic red herring. Given that Bhaer in the book (as far as I remember) was no Gabriel Byrne, I'd had preferred it if Gerwig had written him out of the story altogether. I could live with that. But where there's a Bhaer, there's a way for him and Jo to be together. Also, there's something self-congratulatory about playing around with the book-within-a-book conceit. Together with rather too many speeches about how the only way a girl in the mid-nineteenth century can make money is to marry rich (though I liked how Aunt March's motive for taking Amy to Europe rather than Jo was that Amy was the most likely to make a good match and save her family's finances), the tinkering with the ending lends the film an air of modern condescension.

We seem to be getting less and less of of romantic plots nowadays, at least from creators of culture and entertainment who want to appear morally irreproachable, and it's starting to get me down. Romance is frowned upon, especially romance between a woman and a man who is older and/or in any way in a position of power in relation to her. I can't help feeling this is hypocritical, to say the least – because, newsflash, quite a lot of women (including me) do find power attractive, however improper it may be to say so. And anyway I like romance, even the blander kind with male protagonists who take their lead from their womenfolk à la Laurie. It's quite true that a woman doesn't necessarily need romance to be happy, but she can still want to experience it through fiction.

A reasonably up-to-speed villain-lover's guide to Marvel - Phase Three B (Infinity War to Endgame)

The final Marvel stint for a while. I have already made inroads into the phase four stuff – including Loki! – but it will keep.

Avengers: Infinity War

So, is Loki in this one? Actually, yes, for the first ten minutes or so. Then he dies.

But that's a fake-out, right, like the other times he "died"? I mean, they made a TV series about him and everything! The TV series is about an earlier version of Loki. It's complicated. Anyway, this time the death is for real, and a way for Loki to redeem himself.

Ugh, always these Redemptive Deaths. If it's a comfort, it's the sneakiest Redemptive Death possible. He's killed by Thanos while trying to doublecross him.

So, is this Thanos any good as a villain? Can't say I like the sound of him so far. Credit where credit is due, Thanos is pretty darn great. Villain fanboys often tend to go for the flashy bad guys, the Beagle Boy kind who revel in their villainy. But this time, they got hyped over a more complex villain, and with reason. The script-writers, directors and not least Josh Brolin who motion-capture-acted the "Mad Titan" expertly should all be lauded for making something interesting of him. Thanos's plan is perfectly bonkers – he wants to wipe out half of everything living in the universe – but the film sells you on the idea that he thinks he is doing the right thing. Obsessed with concerns over over-population since the fall of his own planet, he harbours the extreme-Malthusian belief that the half of the universe's population that remains will flourish once he's done his bit. (Mind you, Malthusians want to curb procreation in order to handle over-population: they're killjoys, not killers.) Thanos is even prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve his goal. Of all the misguided idealists in the Marvel Universe, he's literally the big one.

But you don't tend to fancy murderous idealists. That's right, I don't fancy him. But I am impressed. And I like Ebony Maw, his devoted follower, very much the Saint-Just to his Robespierre.

Overall impression: Like Thanos, this movie is big and awe-inspiring. Despite its length, I was at the edge of my seat during the whole thing, and that's in spite of the fact that I knew how things would pan out (it's been years since the film aired, and I haven't tried to avoid spoilers as I thought I'd never see it anyway). However, you really have to have seen most of the other Marvel films in order to make any kind of sense of it. It presupposes that you know all the characters already and can't wait to see them fighting someone almost impossible to defeat. One for the fans.

The Ant-Man and The Wasp

Loki still dead? This movie takes place briefly before and to some extent during Infinity War, but... yeah, he's not in it.

So who are the villains? Anything interesting? The main antagonist in this film, the "Ghost", is hardly a villain at all – she only wants to cure a horrible condition she contracted as a result of some advanced quantum-portal-nonsense experiments. The problem, as with the comic side villain from the South, is that it would have been very easy to level with them. The "Ghost" wants to be cured now – to which the answer would be "sure, hon, just wait until tomorrow when we've got my wife/mother out of the quantum realm". The Southern faux-gentleman wants to sell Hank Pym's mobile, shrinkable lab for a billion dollars (with a cut to him) now – to which the answer would be "that sounds like a great offer, give us a week to think about it while daddy extracts my mom from the quantum realm". But as the heroes are so unclear about why they only need a couple of hours more without interference, they need to contend with an awful lot of avoidable hassle.

Overall impression: Plotting isn't this film's strong point. There are many contrivances and plot holes. But like its predecessor Ant-Man this is a fun film with charming and likeable characters. If you discount the bleak mid-credit scene (which seemed a bit unnecessary – couldn't they have worked it into Endgame somehow?) it's the ideal light-hearted pick-me-up after the, er, intensity of Infinity War.

Captain Marvel

So, I can't help noticing that this film takes place in the Nineties. Before Infinity War. There is a guest appearance from a former Marvel villain, but not Loki – rather Ronan from the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie.

So, does he have any character development in this film? Nah, he's only there to have his cute blue butt kicked at the end.

Ah, well... Any other villains of note? In a movie containing shape-shifters and a heroine with amnesia, it's not always easy to know who the villains are... Or else it's really easy. What can I say? I knew of one of the film's twists beforehand, and from that it wasn't hard to unravel the rest. I don't want to give away too much, but overall the threats that Vers, aka Carol Danvers (it's not made entirely clear why she ends up with the moniker Captain Marvel) face are a little on the underwhelming side.

Overall impression: The problem with Captain Marvel is Captain Marvel herself. She is given little by way of personality, and what she has isn't very appealing; she comes accross as conceited and humourless. Things aren't helped by Brie Larson's curiously wooden performance. She doesn't really have any chemistry with any of the other characters, not even Nick Fury, whom she is supposed to care about (in a best-buddy kind of way, I'm almost sure). There are some very clunky "go feminism" scenes, which make me (as a woman) cringe. In one, a biker condescendingly tells Vers/Carol that she should try smiling. A minute later, she's stolen his bike. That's him told. I could see his point, though: I got really tired of Larson's mulish I'm-not-going-to-be-ingratiating look.

For all that, the film's not terrible. I enjoyed the Skrulls and their shape-shifting shenanigans, it's nice to see a younger, more mellow Nick Fury, and the kid who plays Carol's best friend's daughter is great. Also, in terms of preachiness, it doesn't hold a candle to the phase four TV series The Falcon and The Winter Soldier. They do try to "show, not tell" in Captain Marvel, they're just not very good at it. And it's a bit galling that Captain Marvel is so ridiculously over-powered that she can supposedly take down any of the other MCU heroes and heroines – the ones we actually like.

Avengers: Endgame

I guess Loki isn't in this, as he's really dead this time... Actually, he does make a couple of brief appearances as his former, unreformed self –  there's time travel involved, you see.

Ah, that's something I guess. And Thanos is back, which is... good? It has to be said, he's not a patch on Infinity War Thanos. The Avengers end up being pitched against a Thanos from the past, who somewhere along the way realises that half of the universe will never thank him if he rids them of the other half, even if it does mean more natural resources and stuff. But the plan he comes up with instead is so obviously mad and wrong, even compared to the old one, that the complexity is lost.

So, are you saying they didn't stick the landing? No, they did stick the landing. But I have to admit this film belongs to the heroes rather than the villains. It is overlong, and I have no clue how the time travel actually works in this film. Apparently you can't change the past, but Steve kind of does it anyway at the end? And how can fighting and killing people from the past not have any impact on the timeline? I was thoroughly confused. Nevertheless, there are thrilling action scenes, sweet character moments and a moving, satisfying finale, even though sacrifices are made on the way. Even Captain Marvel becomes more bearable.

But do I really have to see all these movies just to understand what's going on in Loki the series? Honestly? No. If you watch the Thor movies and the first Avengers film you will probably be able to follow it fine, though the exact circumstances of Loki's death and why this earlier version of him has fallen foul of a sort of time police will be a bit of a mystery. However, if you appreciate the nerdiness of Loki the series, you will probably quite like the Marvel movies as well. Give it a go. But if you say to yourself after the first Avengers movie "what a load of rubbish", then you'll know it's not for you.          

A not-quite-as-ignorant-anymore villain-lover's guide to Marvel - Phase Three A (Civil War to Black Panther)

Yeah, I'm sorry I can't do all of phase three in one go – but it's nine films! Including some pretty important ones I might want to go further into. So I'll save the two big ones, Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame (along with a couple of others) until next time. 

Captain America: Civil War

So I'm catching on by now... A Captain America movie means no Loki, right? Right. Though this is only nominally a Captain America movie. It's essentially an Avengers movie minus Thor and the Hulk who are off having adventures elsewhere.

OK, so what do we have on the villain front? Maybe I was charmed by the fact that we finally had a villain who could speak flawless German, but I did have some time for Daniel Brühl's understated Zemo. He is bright and good at coming up with complicated schemes. The problem is his motive. It's a great motive for hating someone – he lost his family when Ultron was raging around in the fictional, much-tried country of Sokovia – just not the Avengers. They were trying to save as many Sokovian civilians as possible, as well as the rest of the world, and if they didn't manage to rescue everyone it's hardly their fault but the evil robot's. That Zemo doesn't realise this, but is trying to split up the elite team who was fighting the Big Bad who killed his family, is what prevents him from being a great villain.

Overall impression: The problem with the villain's motive is the problem with the whole film. The premise which leads the heroes to fall out in the first place – should they or should they not submit to scrutiny by an independent body such as the UN (not perhaps overly famous for its efficiency) – feels forced. The idealisation of vigilantism is one of my problems with the superhero genre, yet I can't really fault the Avengers here: they only tend to deal with oversized threats that are plainly too much for the police or military, such as power-hungry Asgardians, AI beings bent on destruction etc. We don't see them being reckless with civilian lives, either: Civil War shows the first clear case of an Avenger "killing the patient" i.e. straight up causing civilian casualties, and it shakes her. Yet Tony Stark feels guilty when a grieving mother – much like Zemo – blames him for her boy's death in Sokovia. Stop feeling guilty about Sokovia already!

Apart from the shaky premise, this is good action fun with some dark undertones. Though I imagine fanboys who at some point have set their hero action figures against each other will enjoy it most of all.

Doctor Strange

Magic, huh? You know who else can do magic? Like illusions and stuff? What, are you hoping for a Once Upon A Time crossover now?

Chance would be a fine thing... No, I mean Loki! You're not that obsessed with Loki. Isn't this framing device getting old? Anyway, he's not in this movie.

So who are the villains, then? Any good? Good news: the main antagonist is Mads Mikkelsen as Kaecilius (yes, I checked IMDB). Bad news: once again, someone forgot to write an actual part for him. All right, it's not quite as bad as in Casino Royale. His wish for eternal life is easy to understand, though allying himself with a powerful being from the Dark Dimension (yes, it's actually called that) in order to bring it about isn't the smartest move. Once again we see misguided idealism at work: Kaecilius and his followers truly believe that everything will be great if the Earth surrenders itself to the tender mercies of Dark Dimension overlord Dormammu. Which is not the case, no.

Overall impression: I was looking forward to this one, and it's always nice to see Benedict Cumberbatch, though hearing him speak in an American accent is... strange. But I have to admit, this movie felt a bit formulaic storywise. We've already had the arrogant protagonist who has to learn humility the hard way and finally uses his talents for the Greater Good. In many ways, Doctor Strange is just wizard Iron Man, only not as funny. Also, adding magic to all the other crazy stuff going on in the Marvel world is a bit of a strain. But the acting is good and there are some cool CGI effects.

Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2

It's in space, but I've stopped hoping... Be patient – Loki will be in the next film on the list.

So, any memorable villains? Common wisdom dictates that Marvel didn't offer much in the way of villains – excepting Loki – until now, when it starts to get good. And I have to admit that common wisdom is right. The setup for the film is that Peter Quill is united with his long-lost, unknown father, who turns out to be an ultrapowerful celestial called Ego, played by a Kurt Russell shining with bonhomie. The whole Guardian gang is invited back to Ego's home, and Peter and Ego settle down for some serious father-son bonding. I don't think it's a spoiler to say that Ego is the villain: the question is more what he has in mind, and what it will take to turn a besotted Peter (who has already lost a parent) against him.

Overall impression: I have a soft spot for the zany sci-fi feel of the Guardians films. The Guardians should be annoying but somehow aren't. The depressing beginning of the first Guardians film really pays off in my case: I'm constantly rooting for Peter Quill and get a little upset when shade is thrown at him (which happens quite a lot). With a charismatic villain present, this movie – in my view – is even more enjoyable than the first one. I chuckle whenever I think of "I know it sounds bad..."

Thor: Ragnarok

Finally! Yes, there is plenty of Loki in this film, and as in Thor: The Dark World, the main villain is to be found elsewhere whereas he is the "wild card".

So any other good villains? Hela, Thor's and Loki's sister (though not by blood in the latter case), is a splendid villainess played with great panache by Cate Blanchett. There's also the Grandmaster, the hedonistic ruler of a faraway planet where Thor is forced to become a gladiator, but he is more of a side antagonist than a villain. 

What, Hela, Loki's sister? You mean Hel, Loki's daughter, surely? Nope. I already told you, Marvel plays fast and loose with Viking mythology. The only thing reminiscent of the myth is that the Fenris wolf (so cute) is present. Also, I don't recall the original Ragnarök having anything to do with a demonic-looking creature called Surtur.

Overall impression: This movie is a full-blown comedy, in spite of the ominous title. Hela is fun. The Grandmaster is fun. Thor and Loki squabbling and occasionally bonding is a joy to watch. I can understand why some find the tone shift from the first Thor movie, which was quite serious, jarring. But this is my kind of light entertainment.

Black Panther

OK, obviously not a Loki film... So what else do we have? You said things were getting good villain-wise? Yes, indeed. The villains in this movie are undoubtedly strong, though not exactly something for someone like me to swoon over. The lesser villain, who gets defeated about half-way through the film, Ulysses Klaue, is played by Andy Serkis in his usual energetic, way-out-there villain style. Think Serkis as Rigaud in Little Dorrit, but possibly even crazier. The main villain, nicknamed Killmonger, is something completely different: he is quite complex and has a compelling private motive for resenting the hero T'Challa, aka the Black Panther, and his family. When T'Challa has an otherworldly chat with his dead father I thought it a bit unnecessary and Lion King-ish, but it sets the stage for a powerful scene where Killmonger communes with his dead dad, not in some misty panther-strewn savannah form of the ancestral plane but in their old shabby apartment back in the US.

Aw, a leader of the pack villain... You love those. So what's the problem? Killmonger doesn't only have a personal motive, but a political one as well.

Ah, politics. Yep – it's not spelled out in so many words, but I know what he means we he talks about arming "the oppressed" against "the oppressors". I found it a pity to mix politics into Killmonger's motivation, what with the personal reasons being quite enough, but it does raise the stakes, and forms a contrast against T'Challa's wish (as voiced in front of the UN in the mid-credit scene) to unite the world's people in "one tribe". (Twenty years ago or so I would have scoffed at such talk and called it well-meaning waffle, but nowadays I'm quite grateful for a bit of one-tribe-speechmaking.)

Overall impression: This movie was a smash hit at the box office, so it's clearly many people's cup of tea. For my part, I have to admit I found it a bit slow; I don't think it's a film I'll revisit in a hurry. T'Challa is underwritten as a character – it's as if the scriptwriters were afraid of giving him any flaws – but the late Chadwick Boseman gives him quiet likeability, and his scenes with Letitia Wright as T'Challa's tech-savvy, scene-stealing little sister Shuri are really funny and sweet. So the hero's all right, but his love interest is a boring goody-two-shoes (it would have been more fun to see someone so nice and idealistic as T'Challa teamed up with a bad girl). The premise of a technologically super-advanced African country which has to decide whether to reveal its secrets to the world is quite interesting, but would they really decide on who becomes their leader with trial by combat? And what exactly is CIA agent Ross's role? There's no need to include Martin Freeman just to keep us whiteys happy. Just don't call me an oppressor, and I'm good.