BoxOfficeKid

It is hard to review The Batman (2022), without addressing MCU's two-decade-long dominance over the superhero genre. Where the formulaic MCU succeeds, The Batman soares in defying it: no origin story, no grand supervillain-introduction (actually no supervillain at all), no smart-ass quips, no main fight-sequence, no archetypal overcoming-insurmountable-odds-victory storyline etc. One could ask: what kind of a superhero movie are we left with? Well, perhaps we have forgotten what motion pictures are about; sincere story-telling. The Batman starts out as a minor detective's story growing into a major crime saga. We are unceremoniously, but organically introduced to multiple characters of many motives and tragedies, but also hopes and ambitions - all of them breathes life into the depths of what Gotham City is and can be.

Before MCU however, we had multiple stand-alone Batman movies. The director Matt Reeves captures the essence of Batman in ways past silver screen iterations never could. What all his predecessors did (Burton, Schumacher, Nolan, Snyder), were adapting the source material for the big screen - in the blockbuster tradition typically with spectacles, fanfares, catchphrases, PG13 etc. Reeves however, adapted the source material in favor of a sincere Batman story. Don't get me wrong I love Nolan and consider TDK one of my all-time favorites, but it is essential to the Batman lore as it is to the blockbuster pantheon in which I find contradictory. Let me explain myself: Batman is not the typical superhero or blockbuster material. He is in essence a lone vigilante and is not flashy, he operates behind-the-scenes, solving cases out of plain sight and in the dark, infiltrating every layer of the city (not excluding legislation, politics, poverty, inequality, depression) - this do not spell money-making for the Hollywood execs. But by taking the risk on telling a sincere story of smaller scope in terms of action and spectacle, we gain a bigger ambition in terms of characterisation and drama. Never have we come as close to Batman as we have now!

An original musical about two people falling in love, while in pursuing their dreams in Hollywood...

The movie sounds pretty generic on paper, but then again, La La Land manages to evoke magic on-screen not possible to write on a piece of paper. The chemistry between the leads is undeniable. A great contemporary epic through only the daily life, scenery and songs. The feeling of listening to a great classical score for the first time... Damien Chazelle has somehow made two back-to-back utterly unique movies, coincidentally revolving around jazz. While Whiplash was an intense psychological thriller-like drama, La La Land is genuinely a funny and heartwarming romantic musical.

This movie breaks the mold in the Best Picture category this year: You will not find the typical Oscar baits, such as; cathartic moments in the story-line, melodramatic tragedies, powerhouse acting vehicle, period pieces, biopics or controversial themes. Yet, the movie is pretty overwhelming in only its pacing, comedic timing and music. It really balances well between comedic and serious moments, never taking the easy route to drama-land! Its La La Land, remember? It's about joy, hope, dreams and love!

Highly recommended!

BvS is action-packed, with multiple dramatic scenes and battles. The soundtrack is so loud one almost is forced to take this movie as a great epic. But where is the heart of the movie? What themes does the movie deal with? It is essentially the responsibilities that comes with the power of God. We have to question if ultimate power is good or bad for mankind and if it can serve altruistic values. Yet, its theme falls in the shadow of simple motives towards the inevitable.

The inevitable? As the title states, the battle between the dark knight and man of steel. It is not the premise of the fight that is disappointing, it is the storytelling and incentives leading up to the battle that is flawed. The reason and motive behind the fight seems petty. Luthor's motives are half baked and Wonder Woman's presence in the movie is not fully fleshed out.

Basically the movie have 3 main story arcs: public outcry of Superman's actions, the fight between God and man and Domsday at the end (not a spoiler since it is shown clearly in the trailers). There is also an incomplete overarching story arc: the build up to Justice League. The movie's plot line is very aware of that it will become a part of a major franchise with unnecessary scenes of Justice League members that have no relevance to this movie. Hence the name: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, which are two completely different and unrelated plot lines.

Zack Snyder's career has been consistent at one thing: he is more obsessed about celebrating visual effects and cool CGI rather than telling a story. One example: he chooses to CGI a piece of cloth rather than just use a real piece of cloth! He replaces true storytelling with cool phrases and one liners which felt out of place in the coherency of the scene, it actually felt like it was meant for a trailer and not the movie. It is not all bad, BvS responds well the mayhem and aftermath in Man of Steel and introduces different characters in a decent manner. But overall it lacked coherency between the 3-4 main story arcs and a satisfying conclusion.

As one of the main characters concludes that they all should assemble and fight as one unit in the end, the answer to why this is so is simply explained as a gut feeling. Well, my gut feeling is that this movie will not stand the test of time.

The holy trinity of Gordon, Dent and Batman sets out to rid Gotham of organized crime once and for all. This is only spoiled by the criminal mastermind, simply known as the Joker, as he pushes Batman's values to the limit with his games of moral dilemmas, endangering the very essence of Batman.

Nolan has managed to breathe life and bring suspense into stories that has been told many, many times the past 50-60 years. This is no simple feat, to bring life and suspense into one of the most established comic book heroes of our time. He is also known for his genius editing and sharp narratives, such as Following, Memento and the origin story in Begins. Here he tells a sharp linear story without any of his non-linear trickery. Only true storytelling is at display here, and he only utilizes his editing-trademark at the very end in the conclusion masterfully!!!!!

He reinterprets and reinvent villains and characters in ways so refreshing it actually feels canon to Batman mythos. An example would be such as the alternate meaning of Two-Face or the ambiguous non-existing origins of Joker. The choice of grounding Batman in the real world, is in my opinion both a genius stroke and suicide mission. I believe only non-Batman fan and great storyteller could do things like these, as many of the changes actually are sacrilegious! He took so bold liberties, finishing this movie almost 8 years ago, I felt both great sorrow and joy. I believed back then and I still do, that Nolan had/have created the ultimate Batman story. I question if Batman could exist after the conclusion of The Dark Knight?

Batman was just a vigilante taking out one mob after another before the Joker. The Joker made him something more than just man in a costume. He became the virtue of righteousness, the true caped crusader, a legend of true altruism who will sacrifice himself for the greater good of Gotham. A Dark Knight! Ah I gotta stop! This movie still haunts me as a Batman fan to this day and it will to the end of my days. It is that good.

The natural landscape and some of the scenes are overwhelming and spectacular! The camera-work is so immersive, you believe are a part of Hugh Glass' journey through the wilderness and back to civilization. Also with great performances not only by DiCaprio, but also Hardy, as the unsympathetic fellow fur trapper leaving Glass behind.

Story-wise, it is a bit thin for a 156 min picture. Glass' quest for vengeance is sometimes lost as he utters few words about his drive and is being more or less, chased himself. The story arc of the Indians quest for their daughter felt a bit out of place and strange. We also get to see the fur trappers p.o.v. that left Glass behind and the Captain way ahead of them. Which in my opinion takes a little bit of the magic of Glass' total perilous journey.

All my stars goes to the beauty, production value and performances alone! Regardless, this is one of those overlong movies one like, but would not sit out for another viewing!

Sebastian is finally released from jail and is persuaded to live with Kamilla and her sister Sofie in the village which has branded him a thief. Sebastian has to earn back his reputation and start putting his life together in a community that initially do not want to deal with a thief. This sequel deals with inevitable and essential questions, such as how will Sebastian fit in a society he is unwanted by? Where do life start after serving time? Once a thief, always a thief? Can the inhabitants look past their prejudice? Do we forgive when a man seeks forgiveness?

Kamilla og Tyven II satisfies in terms of a sequel as it ties all loose ends. It even has a love story arc in it to be even more pleasant. Meanwhile the original had the edge of not having to produce a happy ending, this one has to... It is after all, a children's movie. That is why I hold part I in a bit higher regard than this one. But all in all, a great movie!

Kamilla is an orphaned girl with no sense of belonging. On her way to live with her sister, Kamilla gets lost. Sebastian is a hardworking and honest man when faced with difficulties he steals some money to make ends meet, losing his way in the process. When about to skip town, he runs into Kamilla, and the two of them form an unlikely friendship, in the process they save each other leading both on the right path of redemption.

Yes it is a simple children's story, a simple tale on the countryside in Norway, but with its great original soundtrack and camera-work one gets a sense of it being a great epic. There are complexities of the world being conveyed in Kamilla og Tyven, which I believe convey accurately how the world is: it is not black or white, there is no total evil nor is there total good in Sebastian's actions as he is in a gray area. Growing up, one remember their parents say, stealing is bad! But no thieves wants to be a thief, they become it because of the circumstances they are in.

Dennis Storhøi is brilliant as Sebastian, conveying every emotion possible. Veronika Flåt as Kamilla was a major miscast in my opinion! She ruined it a bit with her lack of both acting and singing skills. An example is a pivotal scene in the end that is remembered by her cringe worthy acting, rather than its emotional significance.

Nonetheless, the movie is so subtle on mature themes such as despair and salvation, one easily forget that is also a Christian propaganda movie. Notice how the bible, naturally blends into the storyline.

What are the odds of being charged with two separate crimes that you are supposed to be innocent of in your life time? Steven Avery stands accused in this documentary. Yes he is flawed and many may say a hard-boiled redneck, but should not justice always prevail independently from ones creed, background and history? Here we see the Avery's being viewed upon as abominations on earth by its own community. Outcasts in a community who would rather see them dead than alive.

The narrative is told through news footage, court footage, interrogations, images of suspects, victims etc, taped phone calls, interviews and minimal graphics for showing time lines and hierarchy of people involved. What you see, is actually a very comprehensive and complete real life film-making spanning almost 30 years. The directors have also avoided the god-awful re-enactments usually applied to crime-related documentaries.

Although I am no lawyer, the presentation of criminal law and the process of American justice system seems to be conveyed at great lengths and in an easy-to-follow manner. It also show forensic and detective work and how it interplays with the justice system.

Netflix boast of being able to release entire seasons at the same time. What is the benefit of this? No time wasted on recaps, rehash or summary of earlier episodes. What you get is a clear narrative, better editing and more material for your money! For the people growing up in the 90s, we know the pain of watching Forensic Detectives on Discovery, with countless commercials, followed up with rehash of what happened before the break. Making a Murderer is a fully fledged documentary exploiting the benefits of the contemporary Netflix format! And it is to be celebrated on par with the groundbreaking House of Cards, changing how we watch television...... or rather the computer screen instead of television!

The movie in a nutshell: It has a promising start, but is without a main part and with just one quarter of an ending. With all its flaws, it is actually not as bad as what the critics says, heck, I'll say a movie without a main part is better than the Fantastic Four from 2005.

The movie gave me the same feeling as when I suffered a mean case of food poisoning during the screening of Terminator Salvation and had to run to the toilet, missing out on some important sections of the movie. I felt the same way here (without the food poisoning),like somebody took out major parts of the movie and I just got to see a too long intro, a very short Victor von Doom arc and a very abrupt and quick conclusion the last 15 minutes of the movie.

Actually I found the prolonged intro very intriguing. The character and story build-up was actually interesting. The post-accident and ensuing hardships was... kinda interesting, although not thoroughly fleshed out, still interesting. Trask did something bold here (other than making the Human Torch black), it did not have the formula Marvel feel over it. Fantastic Four felt somewhat invested in telling something new. When Doom appears on screen and retaliates, it is actually menacing, although only for a short moment. I am not defending Trank, but there was something there.

All in all, somebody tampered with the movie, whether it was Trank's fault in not following through with the movie, studio intervention or revisions far too late, it is hard to tell. But somebody sabotaged this movie beyond saving.

Age of Ultron is many things: Enjoyable, okay, average but mainly, boring. A movie should tell one story, this one felt as it was establishing 3rd phase of the MCU expansion with Civil War, Infinity Wars etc. etc. The movie did not feel invested into telling a strong story, but more as building onto a franchise.

When I first heard about The Avengers (2012), I was very skeptical. multitudes of movies was made to create enough superheroes to assemble. Superheroes had become a mass production to fit into the release date of The Avengers. My gut feeling was wrong. It had memorable interactions, funny meetings and pzaz. It had one important thing AoU did not have: element of surprise.

How do these superheroes interact when met upon each other? How do they deal with each other? Yeah I was totally blown away by how much fun a doomsday superhero movie could be. The movie was big, but based in the very familiar setting of New York and witty interactions between the characters. AoU is in a random Eastern European setting without the wit. It has the burden of not having that element of surprise as the relationship between characters are established and familiar. Between battles, the nature of their relationship seem to be them seen loafing around in an awkward after-party. Which is the essence of this movie, it is just an intermission between greater movies.

With a sequel to a franchise, Whedon has the burden of making a movie that picks up from all the story lines left off after stand alone sequels between The Avengers and this movie. AoU must also be bigger and better than its predecessor and also fit into the future plans of phase 3 of MCU expansion. Then, what can a storyteller do in that setting? What freedom do a storyline have, being a part of this sequel major franchise machinery? With AoU, nothing it seems, as the movie paved way for bigger questions, rather than focusing on concluding AoU... Which makes this movie weak, as it is handled as an in-between movie to greater stories further down the road.

Now we have to be honest, if you bought a franchise for 4 billion dollars: would you be bold and risk the longevity of the story for one good motion picture, or would you stick to what works and lay the foundation of an everlasting franchise?

This is what the movie feels like: predetermined, characters must live as they lay the foundation of episode VIII and IX. There can not be any profound story twists that make it harder for future sequels. Everything is also very familiar, revisiting old plot lines. New characters are likable, but they feel like watered down versions of the original characters with the same story arcs. With less screen time and character development.

There is also a strong presence of nostalgia, introducing the same artwork and design from the original trilogy. Also the introduction of SW veterans Luke, Leia and Han. Yet here their presence is poor and basically have no memorable scenes. I would go to the certain extent and say the screenwriters even took the liberty of being bold in such a bad manner with these characters. In many ways I feel they were just in it to secure the passing of the torch to the new generation.

I am from the generation that actually watched prequel trilogy before watching the original one and by any means is not a SW fan. I did not experience the same SW hysteria when original was made. But I see a great divide here on IMDb, most people either hate it or love it. I think it has a great production value and had it been any other stand-alone science fiction, I would have given it an 8. I have a principle of trying to not judge a film by comparing it to others but rather on the basis of its genre. The movie is actually great fun and a well-crafted adventure. But it is built on an existing legacy. Star Wars exist and I can not ignore the fact that a lot of this movie is a blue print on the original trilogy. Good storytellers say they have drawn inspiration from other movies and created something original (ex. The Dark Knight is modeled after Heat, weird huh?). This movie pretends to do so, although here in SW Universe there is a direct link between the movies.

Now, to my initial question: If I bought something for 4 billion dollars, heck I would not even dare touch it with a kilometer long stick. This is the mentality of this production and the current trajectory of mainstream movie-making. Hollywood rely on major franchises and peddle mostly on nostalgia, true originality is hard to come by these days. TFA is no exception.

The first act of the movie is the run-of-the-mill wife gone missing, the husband accused of killing her plot. This is clearly established in the theatrical trailer and may have thrown off some potential viewers. To the people who are familiar with David Fincher's work, this is not the case with Gone Girl.

Yes, the first act is very ordinary, but the second act uproots whatever ever considered dull about the movie as it takes a rapid turn into thriller stardom, resembling something taken out of a Hitchcock movie. Only a handful directors can completely enhance the movie's narrative through editing, and Fincher is one of them. I know there is a lot of praise around Rosamund Pike's performance, which makes it easy to overlook Ben Affleck. He plays the tired, oblivious and boyish really well. This may be the very reason why he is completely overlooked.

And in a time of sequels, prequels, remakes and biopics, finally a contemporary piece of work! Stellar!