Reviews by Bml93

At last. Finally are we back in Middle-Earth. After several years in development hell, Peter Jackson takes us back to one of the most beloved and magical worlds in cinematic and literature history. Jackson did justice to J.R.R Tokien's The Lord of the Rings roughly ten years ago and the expectations for The Hobbit couldn't be any higher. Jackson decided to split The Hobbit into three separate films, including some other stuff Tolkien wrote, as well as Jackson's own artistic choices. And what we have here is the first film, An Unexpected Journey. The first step on this magical journey. For fear not, this is not the Lord of the Rings fans The Phantom Menace. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a magical film. It's not necessarily as good as The Lord of the Rings, but it's exactly what I hoped it would be. It's a whole different journey and it's a good one.

Opening up with Ian Holm returning as old Bilbo Baggins, as he tells the tale of how the dwarfs lost their home, Erebor, to the dragon Smaug, which is quickly followed by Elijah Wood returning as Frodo, talking to Bilbo. It all takes right before the opening scene of The Fellowship of the Ring. And from there I'm mostly sold. The opening prologues might occasionally feel a bit strange and overlong, but it's impossible to deny the impact it immediately stroke me with. I was back in the universe instantly. It's a powerful way to open the film and it got the exact right amount of majesty to it. The nostalgia, seeing it's about ten years since I saw this world at cinema, kick right in as well. Giving me a huge grin on my face, one that lasted through the entire film.

"Bilbo Baggins, I'm looking for someone to share in an adventure."


The film then quickly goes back 60 years and we're greeted by Martin Freeman as a younger Bilbo. From there it doesn't take along time until Gandalf and the 13 dwarfs arrives. And then we're on another journey. It's a long journey, seeing as the film runs close to three hours, but Peter Jackson never makes it boring. He knows perfectly how to handle the pace of this film by creating one brilliant scene after the other. One thing is that he manages to make every, single scene look absolutely fantastic, but another thing is that he is capable of filling them with something meaningful. Not a single scene feels wasted. That's an achievement, considering how long it is. It also makes me more relaxed towards the decision of telling the story over three films. He creates a film that's filled with humor, camp, creativity, excitement, action and adventures joy. Everything from three silly trolls, a meeting at Rivendell, thousands of goblins and riddles in the dark keeps me at the edge of my seat.

When it comes to the plot, my only, slight complaint about it has to do with Azog. I haven't delved into the literature in many years, so I don't exactly remember how everything went out according to Tolkien, so I'm not going to bother comparing. I'm also under the impression that Jackson is allowed to take some artistic freedom. However, I'm not 100 % impressed by Azog. For one, he looks too fake. Which probably has something to do with him being the only white orc in Middle-Earth. Secondly, all his grunting and tough "drink their blood"! dialogue gets way to repetitive and silly. He's a dull villain, really. Better is however the Goblin King, who is delightfully campy.

"Home is now behind you. The world is ahead."


Casting Martin Freeman as Bilbo was a masterstroke. He is brilliant in his role, portraying it with loads of charisma and he works as a fine humorous counterpoint to the more serious and grooming Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, who also delivers a fine performance. Very much welcome is the return of Ian McKellen as Gandalf. He have always been tremendous as Gandalf, and if his performance in Fellowship of the Ring was Oscar-worthy, then surely this one is as well, no matter the unlikeness. His dry wit, warmth and wisdom makes his character one of the most likable characters in film history. We also have several other dwarfs here, some gets more time in front of the screen than others, but that's natural thing when there are 13 dwarfs. To give them all more time would double the length of the film. A Six hours long film would be stretching it and there are still two more films to come. Which would give everyone a chance to shine. Also returning are Elijah Wood and Ian Holm in short cameo at the beginning, like I said earlier. We also get to see Hugo Weaving returning as Lord Elrond, Cate Blanchett as Lady Galadriel and the great Christopher Lee as Saruman. Then there is Andy Serkis as Gollum. I'll just say that the scene with him is incredible. The return of all these characters makes the film feel even more connected to The Lord of the Rings, making the film just more enjoyable.

The Hobbit feels therefore exactly like it's an Lord of the Rings film, yet it manages to venture out on its own paths. It's campier and funnier this time, and the darkness doesn't get fully explored. But that doesn't matter. It's Middle-Earth! It's magical. It's wonderful. It brings me straight into the universe and keeps me there. The beautiful cinematography, the familiar sets and music. The sweeping landscapes and adventurous feel wins me straight over. Just to be back in this wonderful world is a glorious thing. To be able to be a part of another adventure. If you don't go in to this film expecting to be brought along on the same journey, there is no doubt that you'll have a fantastic time. It's a different journey, but its familiarity to Lord of the Rings makes it magical.



I saw it in HFR 3D (High frame-rate 3D), meaning that instead of the usual 24 fps (frames per second), I saw it in 48 fps. The Hobbit introduces a new way of technology for films in which we see twice as many images each second. How each person would react to this is going to be very individual as I've read about people getting sick of the transisition. But it can't be denied that it makes scene look completely breathtaking. Particularly the majestic scenes were the camera flows across the landscape. It's clear as crystal. I've never seen something look so good and the combination with 3D makes this the best looking film I've seen. This technology should be applied to more films in the future. I loved it.

This was a hard review to write and I apologize if it didn't make much sense or if you didn't get much out of it. I've just returned from the screening and I'm a very excited. I'm a person who has to write about films the moment after I've seen it, or else I can't get out a word. It's rather difficult to write about films that you already have established a connection with trough other things. Therefore, it's hard to write about The Hobbit when I love The Lord of the Rings so much. So, to make it easy. The Hobbit ain't better than The Lord of the Rings, but it's nearly equally good. Almost.

Christopher Nolan does the impossible. When no one thought it would ever be possible to create a superhero film that's better than The Dark Knight, Nolan dishes up The Dark Knight Rises. Which is actually better, and therefore the best film in what's definitively the greatest trilogy in the history of cinema. It's a more than worthy conclusion to Nolan's Batman films and it is exactly the conclusion that we dared to hope for. I pity the fool who attempt to reboot or continue these films. Because there is hardly anything that can compare to what Nolan managed to do over these three films. After Joel Schumacher's terrible films, Nolan did indeed resurrect this hero and have now raised the bar for superhero films. The Avengers tried to set a new standard earlier this year. In my opinion, it didn't come anywhere close, but if it did, then surely The Dark Knight Rises have exploded those again. This is the ultimate superhero film.

Nolan is easily one of the most ambitious filmmakers living today and The Dark Knight Rises might just be his most ambitious film so far, at least it is the largest. While being larger doesn't necessarily always mean it's better, that's easily the case here. It's slightly better than The Dark Knight because it is much larger. The spectacle in The Dark Knight Rises is tremendous, gorgeously filmed with amazing special effects (and not overusing CGI). Nolan shows us yet again a very different, but exciting way of showing action. The way he edits the convoluted story by showing different action in different scenes at the same time, and how he still manages to keep the action and suspense trough the entire running time is spectacular. The Dark Knight Rises doesn't just work as a brilliant comic book film, or as an excellent way to conclude a trilogy, it's a brilliant action film as well. I've seen several people complaining that Nolan doesn't manage to direct action very well, but I do think that's just ridiculous. Surely, he doesn't exactly produce the most glorified action sequences, but that's simply because he doesn't need that in his films. He directs action and fight scenes that feels and looks real. There is a fight scene in this film between Batman and Bane. Where Bane breaks Batman's back. It's just wonderful... This is a scene that is almost just simple boxing, but still it is easily one of the greatest fight scenes in cinema. Just because it feels real. It feels like they are actually beating each other!

"I won't bury you. I buried enough members of the Wayne family."


Even greater than the amazingly action and effects is the story. It's a complex and convoluted story that requires one's full attention. While The Dark Knight referenced the paranoia after 9/11, The Dark Knight Rises put's in some clever references to the stock market's and elitists fall with some clear parallels too the French revolution. The story is a result of a man with very high ambitions and we are therefore rewarded with the best comic book film ever likely to come out, and one of the greatest action crime-flicks ever. While the story can be easily summarized into few word, that doesn't really justify the complexity of the story. It's more to it than meets the eyes. While Nolan has been criticized for making films that makes dumb people feel smart, I hardly believe that they would be able to notice a lot of things that actually happens in Nolan's films. After all, dumb people only care about the action. Just because an intelligent person could figure out the plot and all of the references and parallels, it doesn't necessarily mean a dumb person could do it. Nolan is making films for everyone. The action is there, and it is a much smarter action film for those who require some brain fodder as well. Just because one is able to understand it, it doesn't necessarily mean it is stupid.

There is also the way that Nolan concludes his trilogy that makes The Dark Knight Rises shine as much as it does. By killing Batman (and possibly Bruce Wayne (a theory I have that Alfred is only imagining seeing Bruce and Selena Kyle at the end. Yes, it's a bit far-fetched, but I like it. It's like the Inception ending in a Batman-film. )), Nolan dares to go where no other superhero directors have gone. He explodes the boundaries of superhero films, and ends his trilogy in an emotional and effective way. Rarely have I been so emotionally caught up in a story before. The only thing I believe that can compare to it is the last Harry Potter-film, and I grew up with that wizard! That people criticize Nolan's films for being cold is insane! Nolan manages to get me to care for nearly every character, which is an incredible feat seeing as this film is crowded with characters. He does even manage to get me to sympathize with Bane for a second, despite him being a hardcore villain! (I'll get back to that later.) The core to Nolan's emotional aspect of The Dark Knight Rises lies in the relationship between Bruce and Alfred. One of the few redeeming features in Schumacher's Batman-films was the relationship between these two people. In Batman & Robin it was Bruce that tried to save Alfred from cancer, this time it is Alfred that gives his best shot in saving Bruce's life. It's the core in an emotional roller coaster that's completely devastating.

"When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die."


While Tom Hardy's Bane certainly ain't as unpredictable and insanely humorous as Heath Ledger's Joker, there is no denying that Bane is still a very worthy villain and Hardy's portrayal of him is brilliant. Bane is a totally different villain than The Joker. While The Joker was just pure chaos and anarchy, without any particular reasons (which was very effective, but it wouldn't work twice!), Bane is a much more fleshed out character. He has an agenda and a history. Which, despite what Nolan did on The Joker, also makes Bane just as terrifying as The Joker. Bane's high self esteem and self confidence, as well as his pure brutality, menacing voice and intelligence makes him the definitive Batman villain. There is also a certain thing that makes Bane so much more. Which is that he does actually have a soft side! He cries! It is stated that he is clearly in love with Talia al Ghul and his relationship with her, and Bane's background is enough to make me sympathize with him. Enough to make me nearly cry. It's a relationship that is beautifully brought on screen.

Into the mix Nolan also throws Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle aka Catwoman (even though she is never referred to by that name). She is wonderfully portrayed and brings in some very appreciated sexiness and humor to the film. Her playfulness and side-switching is very much appreciated in a film this dark. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is brilliant and that he is actually Robin, and the way he is introduced is nothing but the touch of a genius. Nolan clearly stated that he wouldn't include Robin in his films, but this is a masterful salute to the comics. Michael Caine is heartbreaking in his role, Gary Oldman is amazing, Marion Cotillard is great, while the twist on her actually being Talia al Ghul was guessed before the film came out, it is still done with great skill. Her relationship with Bane is excellent. And Morgan Freeman is as great as always. Christian Bale does deliver his best performance in the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman in this film.

"You're not Batman any more."


Nolan ends his trilogy in a masterful way. People can go on talking about The Lord of the Rings, Toy Story or the original Star Wars trilogy being the greatest trilogies, but I will be sure to bring up Nolan's three films about the Caped Crusader. The Dark Knight Rises is the craftsmanship of a master. Nolan's brilliant direction and his eye for details combined with Wally Pfister's beautiful photography and Hans Zimmer's thundering score as well as the brilliant script and acting is enough to make this the ultimate conclusion. A masterful conclusion.

You should approach these films with caution. You do never know what you're going to get. Low budget horror films doesn't really shout quality. Still, there are occasions where on might be positively surprised. That's not exactly what happened with Bundy: a Legacy of Evil. A low budget film about the infamous serial killer Ted Bundy. The charming monster who went on a killing spree during the 1970s and ended up killing around 30-40 (possibly more) people. Director Michael Feifer have previously done films about other serial killers like Ed Gein and the Boston Strangler. I've not seen those films and after witnessing his take on Ted Bundy, I'm not particularly interested in doing so either. This was just shameful.

I'm rather fascinated by serial killers. I'm interested in knowing why and how someone could do such gruesome things. This film is supposedly a portrait of Ted Bundy. I think it's intention is too give insight into what made Bundy tick. But it doesn't. Nothing in this film adds up to anything. There is nothing here. No suspense or tension. No insight into Bundy. What was the point? It's pointless. The only thing this film told me was that Bundy had a poor childhood, had trouble with women and that he liked to kill them. I already knew that. Why create a 90 minutes long film, if you're only going to tell me that?



It doesn't even try too explore or tell anything about significant events that happened. It just randomly go from one place and year to another without telling anything really important. It tries to cover a lot, but by resulting it into poor musical montages was terrible decision. Therefore, nothing in it is really significant.

Feifer is obviously trying to avoid the film too look like a standard straight-to-DVD film. But the result is worse than that. Bundy's early scenes with his girlfriend looks like something from a random commercial. The out-of-place courtroom drama looks like something from a totally different (and possibly worse) film. Luckily, Fefier decides to not show too much of the results of the actual actions. Instead we are left with just a lot of screaming. By showing too much blood, gore or other splatter-stuff, we could have ended up with a truly disrespectful film. Not that I'm against showing gore, but judging by the actual events, they should be handled with caution and skills. Feifer doesn't have the skill do that properly. Seeing as when he does decide to show gore, it does look gruesomely poor. Therefore we are left with a film that reminds me more of a serial killer exploitation flick with the look and feel feature-length R-rated America's Most Wanted re-enactment segments. If you have seen those things, you know how poor they are. At least those episodes provide proper insight into the chosen person.



Corin Nemec gives a surprisingly decent performance as Bundy. But there are certain times were he is obviously way too old. Particularly during his high school and college years. Still, his performance is decent. He knows how do go crazy. Sadly, that's basically the only side of Bundy's persona they've decided to portray. Bundy is known for being somewhat of a charmer, someone who you could never ever be able to guess as a serial killer. But director Michael Feifer doesn't address that curiosity. Instead we are left with a boring film that doesn't give any insight into one of the most notorious serial killers in American history.

"My God, we were so wrong..."


You can spend ages debating whether it is a prequel or not. The references to Alien is most certainly there. But it should still be able to stand alone as one film. Which it does, even if it does raise several unanswered questions. Questions that might be addressed in possible sequel. That is unfortunately one of Prometheus flaws. There are some things that doesn't make sense, and while it is sometimes fine keep some things in the dark, I feel a bit cheated eventually. Particularly the opening raises a lot of questions.

If I am to address some of Prometheus other flaws, I need to move slightly into spoiler territory. Because there are some plot holes or just lack of logic that annoys greatly. For instance, Michael Fassbender puts some alien-stuff into Logan Marshall-Green drink, for some reason. This is turning him into some alien, but before that he have sex with Noomi Rapace. She gets pregnant (despite that she says she is unable to get pregnant), and is somehow already three months on the way. She panics and performs an intense surgery to get it out. It's an alien infant with loads of tentacles. She just leaves it in the surgery room, and doesn't give it any more thought. No one does. No one seems to give any thought about it. She just operated out an alien! Then there is the thing that certain characters could use some more development, instead of just being alien food. But that is to be expected I guess.

"How far would you go to get your answers?"


Despite all this, Prometheus is an excellent blockbuster and is so far the best film of the year. To begin with, the visuals are so awesome that I'm on the edge of having an orgasm. It's a visual triumph. The photography is beautiful, particularly in the opening scene, where the camera floats above the landscape. It's superbly designed. Everything in it looks great. The design of the aliens, the suits, the ships, the landscapes and the small little details. Everything is carefully constructed into perfection. Ridley Scott proves again that he is a perfectionist when it comes to the technical aspects of filmmaking. Even the 3D looks phenomenal, and this is perhaps one of the best uses of the technology that I have witnessed.

Noomi Rapace is proving herself to be a very skilled actress and her role in Prometheus shows how wasted her talent was in Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. She does with great skill avoid to fell into trap of trying to recapture the same thing that Sigourney Weaver did in Alien. Instead she creates a whole different character, who's not as heroic as Weaver's Ripley. Instead she is much more fragile and there are scenes who shows her very high acting qualities. Like the mentioned surgery. Still, she is not the one who owns every scene she is in. That's Michael Fassbender as David the android-thingy. His screen presence is nothing but magnetic.

While it is not as tense or terrifying as Alien, Scott has still managed to create a suspenseful film. He does steadily allows the tension to build slowly and when he finally decides to unleash it, hell is definitely loose. Everything takes a turn for the chaotic and intense. The atmosphere is dazzling, the action is intense, the sound is brilliant, the score is majestic, it's a visual spectacle and despite it's flaws, it is always teasing my curiosity. I want to know more and I want to know it now. I'm hoping for a sequel, because this is one of the most interesting universes in film history.

"The only way to be happy is to love. Unless you love, your life will flash by."


Well. What can you say? After I saw this film I needed some time to let it sink in. You can't deny that this is a very ambitious film from Terrence Malick. He's gone crazy, and by doing so he has created a film about life, creation, destruction, mercy and by how you can keep faith even though everything is taken from you. He's gone mad. Malick gives everything from the beginning, and has created a film that is possibly a bit pretentious, but yet so magnificent and grand, that you really don't know what to say. This is not a film for everyone. Those who are into art films are probably going to fell in love with it right away, while your average filmgoer is more likely to suffer through the film. I'm a bit stuck in the middle. I don't suffer myself through it, but I can't embrace it either. My main problem with it is that Malick doesn't know how to stop. It's just too much.

Malick goes out in full speed from the very start. He never stops. It's beautiful, and gorgeously executed. Which it is during the entire film for the most part. Nearly every frame is beautiful. Yet, it never hits my with the force that Malick tries to do. It's beautiful, but I don't really care. It's too much of everything. It's too overwhelming, too magnificent, too spectacular, it's just too perfect for it's own good. It's gorgeous, but that's it. It's like looking at some kind of painting. It's beautiful, but it doesn't affect me. And when it doesn't affect me, it gets kind of boring eventually.

"Brother. Keep us. Guide us. To the end of time."


That Malick has a good eye for things that looks good on film, there is no doubt about. Even though I'm not a huge fan of The Thin Red Line or The New World, I can't deny that they look amazing. He is a master of visuals. The photography in his films are always beautiful. And in The Tree of Life he takes it to a whole new level. It's as spectacular as you can get it. It's gorgeous. Even though there are some sequences that is a bit too long, too perfect and too "epic", there are some sequences that makes you speechless. For instance, there is a sequence from when the wife gets pregnant til the child takes it first step. It's insanely touching and beautiful, and it is just magic.

And it is those "simple" scenes that are the best ones. When Malick pull a little bit back, and doesn't go completely crazy. Like the example I just mentioned, or scenes when the brothers are just fooling around with each other, or arguing. The emotion is strong in those scenes, and it is touching. It's completely believable, and the acting from the children are very strong. As a coming of age film it's very strong, even though the setting ain't too original, it's more heartfelt then most other films dealing with the same idea. It seems so natural.

"Grace doesn't try to please itself. Accepts being slighted, forgotten, disliked. Accepts insults and injuries."


Then it is a bit of a shame that it gets drowned in all the other stuff, it's a shame that Malick doesn't know his own limitations. He tries to put in everything. Even dinosaurs, and it is the dinosaurs that is perhaps the weakest part of the film. Not only because the dinosaurs are poorly placed within the gorgeous frame, but because it shows really good what is wrong with the film. That it is too big. Too naive, too romantic, too sentimental. Another weak link is Sean Penn. He doesn't really belong in the film, and I've read an interview with him saying that he didn't exactly know his place either. He doesn't really add anything.

The Tree of Life is a rare experience, there is no doubt about that. It's a film that it is hard to put the right words on. It's a gorgeous film that hits many of the right spots, but that still manages to be too spectacular, that it doesn't manage to engage as much as it has potential to do. Malick is ambitious, but this is too much for him to handle. And when it gets to much for him, then it is indeed too much for me as well.

"Only I can live... forever."


After seven books and eight films, the story of 'the boy who lived' is finally over. It took ten years to bring the writing of J.K Rowling out to the screens, resulting in eight wonderful films. While there certainly have been some of them that haven't been as good as others, they all carry the magical feeling they were supposed to deliver. But it is the last two installments that really managed to capture the books in a way that goes beyond magical. And "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" ends up being the absolute best Harry Potter-film, and it could not have ended better.

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" does naturally continue immediately after Part 1, and the focus is on the final confrontation between Harry Potter and the Dark Lord Voldemort. And when witnessing the last two films it is pretty clear that the split was necessary. I can't possibly see how they would have managed to conclude the story so perfectly as they have, if it were only one film. The first film did nicely capture the slow pace of the first half of the book, along with the sad atmosphere, and the desperate feeling of isolation and waiting that the book brought. Part 2 continues to carry the sad atmosphere and emotion, but does include the answers and the spectacular action that the book gave. So it is safe to say that the split was needed, and I would say that they should have split all the books into two films.

"I never wanted any of you to die for me."


If you are a huge Harry Potter fan, this will propably be an emotional nightmare for you. It certainly was for me. I'm a boy, but I'm not ashamed to admitt that I teared up several times. Those who have read the book, or seen the film can propably guess at which parts I cried. The film does so beautifully manage to capture all those sad moments from the book on to the screen, without losing the emotional impact that it gave when I read those specific sentences.

And the acting has never been better. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson delivers their absolutely best, and particularly Daniel Radcliffe does an amazing job. He does indeed show that he is able to capture the wide range om emotions that Harry goes through. But, while the golden trio does a perfect job, it is Alan Rickman's Severus Snape that really shines. Severus Snape has perhaps been the most interesting character in the whole franchise, and when we finally dwells deeper into him, Alan Rickman really get's to show us the brilliant job he has done with Snape. And you can't escape from the Dark Lord himself. Ralph Fienns whistling Voldemort is absolutely menacing, and goes on to be one of the best villains in the history of cinema.

One of the most impressive things with the Harry Potter films is the fact that they have managed to gather and keep an astonishing cast of the finest British actor and actresses alive. You have David Thewlis, Helena Bonham Carter, Jim Broadbent, Robbie Coltrane, Michael Gambon and so many more. All returning to give their character those few seconds of needed screentime. And it is good to see that, even though they have the main focus on the main characters, they take their time to include many of the minor characters. Even if it only is for like a second or two. And that really show of huge this franchise really is. It is good to see Emma Thompson pop up fully dressed as Professor Sybil Trelawney in Part 2, even if it is for just one second.

"Harry Potter, the boy who lived... come to die."


"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" is a visual feast, unlike anything I've seen recently. It is an epic. It's a spectacular blockbuster. The action is huge and massive, and there is no denying that David Yates have done an incredible job. To be able to portray 'the battle of Hogwarts' on the big screen, couldn't have been an easy job, seeing how big it actually is. But it certainly couldn't have been done any better. Then there is thing's that doesn't always get mentioned. It is beautifully photographed, the editing is superb, the set is massive, but gorgeous. The score from Alexandre Desplat is suting and amazing. But I did have a huge grin on my face when those well-known tones from John Williams legendary score came up from time to time.

Now, I feel like saying so much more. But, the truth is, I'm actually quite speechless. Yes, I know that I have said a lot now, but there is so much more I want to say. I want everyone to know what a masterpiece this is. What an emotional triumph it is. But I'm not sure if I have all the correct words for it, and I am a lousy reviewer. Anyway. This is one of my favourite films of all time, and is easily going to be on the top spot for my 2011 list. "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" is more than anyone could have dared to hope for. It is the ending the franchise deserves, it is a love letter to the fans and a perfect way to conclude ten years of Harry Potter films. I don't remember exactly who said it, or the exactly how the quote was, but 2001 - 2011 will in film history be counted as the 'Harry Potter years'.