Reviews

I had no interest in another King Kong movie. Peter Jackson's 2005 remake was a boring rehash. When I first heard there was coming another I was like well they have to drag the franchise out for another try. Several big actors were to be in it but I had never heard of the director. But then the trailer and marketing for it started coming and it looked quite interesting and also and maybe especially it looked different. So eventually I actually went to the cinema to see Kong: Skull Island. Luckily that I did because this is really a movie which should be seen in the cinema.

Kong: Skull Island is the definition of a popcorn movie. Where the 2005 movie was drawn out and almost pretentious this movie wastes no time to get to the action and adventure. The action is outstanding in entertainment. Obviously there is a lot of cgi. However I'm not against computer made effects just for no reason. Some things are hard to do in other ways and as long as it doesn't feel like it's used for laziness sake it's fine. And in this movie it works fine. The action in this movie was among the most exciting I saw last year. Some complained about the characters being thin and while that criticism does have a point I don't think it matters much here. This is a fun action adventure that doesn't need deeply developed characters. They are not what's important. They are just enough for this type of movie. And the performances are good. Samuel L Jackson is the bad*** that he always is and does so well, Tom Hiddleston gives us a glimpse that he could definitely play James Bond, Brie Larson works well with what she's got even if it's not a lot. The best is John C. Reilly, his character is the most interesting and performance the most entertaining. Simple they may be but they do all have some distinct personality. Minor complaints are that many of the quotes that are meant as jokes don't land but for me it wasn't a big issue, the movie is funnier in other ways. Like previously stated I knew nothing about the director who it turns out had only directed one other movie but he totally nailed this one. He gets great performances even if the script probably didn't give much to work with. I love the look of the movie, the style it's done in. The shots of helicopters flying over the island and Kong silhouette against the sun. It could have taken this grim and gloomy look which I'm so glad it didn't. Another thing is the music, while there is tunes that are written for it the movie uses a lot of songs from the era when it is set which works perfectly. Having a lot of well known songs can work greatly in the right kind of movie but not all.

Kong: Skull Island was one of the most surprisingly good movies in 2017. A movie that knows what it is and embraces it. It's campy and over the top and I like it. No one would claim it to be any amazing piece of work but I believe the filmmakers totally know it and all for the better. I have seen a lot of 2017 movies and Kong: Skull Island was while definitely not the best but one of the most thoroughly entertaining. See Kong: Skull Island if you haven't already. I have several times.

Die Hard in all but name. The Last Boy Scout is one underrated and unfairly overlooked gem. It is actually one of my favourite Bruce Willis movies. In many ways it might seem like the standard action movie that he has done so many times but there is much more to this movie. It has many similarities in the feel of it to the Die Hard series and Willis character Joe Hallenbeck is pretty much John McClane. So far that this movie could easily have been transformed into a Die Hard movie with minor rewrites. The Last Boy Scout is a far worthier sequel than the fourth and fifth movie, that pretty much goes without saying but it might actually be better than the second one as well.

The Last Boy Scout was written by Shane Black and it has all his trademarks, humour, interesting story and great characters . The plot is really surprisingly well written much more complicated than one would be expecting. Action movies seldom focus much on the story because it´s not the selling point. The Last Boy Scout has a great plot that takes many surprising twists and requires your attention all the way through. The first time I saw it I didn´t grasp how it all hung together. Then there's the dialogue which is just excellent. So many memorable and hilarious quotes perfectly delivered and most of them by Bruce Willis. Brilliant dialogue is just obvious if you know Shane Black and have seen Kiss Kiss Bang Bang or more recently The Nice Guys. Bruce Willis and Damon Wayans are perfect in the leads as two unmatched buddies that are forced together. Allegedly they did not get along but maybe it was to the movies advantage. Taylor Negron is likewise great as the menacing villain. The action is thrilling and very brutal. What´s great however is that it´s well thought out and not overdone like that it goes on for too long and just becomes cartoonishly over the top like often happens. The action is sporadic but totally intense and thrilling when it comes. Of course it´s not realistic but more thought out than many. Great directing from Tony Scott.

The Last Boy Scout is a top-notch comedy action thriller unfairly forgotten that hopefully is being or should be rediscovered.

Blade Runner is one of the best movies I have ever seen. It may be my favourite ever actually. So, when after years of rumours it was confirmed that a sequel was too be made I was mostly sceptical. Long overdue sequels fail more often. For every Mad Max: fury road there are a lot more Indiana Jones 4 or ones that fall somewhere in between like Prometheus. When it was announced that Ridley Scott would not return as director some fans probably reacted disappointed, but I was actually positive. If he had really wanted to make a sequel he would have made it earlier. Denis Villeneuve was an excellent choice to take the reins. Prisoners and Sicario were great and I mostly enjoyed Enemy. Then the release of Arrival just made me more confident. I happy to say that Blade Runner 2049 managed to more than live up to the amazing original.

What is so great about this new movie is that it does the first one justice while it dares to be more than just a repeat. The story, characters and even the look of the film differs quite a bit from the original. A new filmmaker doing a sequel to a classic might feel pressure to just try and imitate the original creators. But having seen other movies by Villeneuve one sees clearly that he has made the movie like he wanted and not tried to make a Ridley Scott film. I think that even if one did not know you could see that the two movies are made by different filmmakers. The plot is excellent and has the same types of themes as the first one, such as questions of humanity. But the actual story is of a different type than the original. It takes quite a number of twists and it turned out not at all like I had thought it would be. Compared to the first movie this one actually has more plot. The movie has many big actors and they all do great some even with kind of limited screen time. Ryan Gosling is great in the lead. You really feel for his character. Also he is not simply Deckard version 2. Ana de Armas performance deserves mentioning. Everyone knows Harrison Ford is in the movie it's no spoiler. His performance is great and especially it doesn't feel like he's just in the movie for fan pleasing. He seems to put more effort in this role than he has in a long time. The last couple of movies he has felt like he would rather retire. He also doesn't just play Deckard like before but he plays Deckard thirty years later. Things have happened since we saw him last. Enough cannot be said about cinematographer Roger Deakins and his role in the creation of the experience that is this movie. It looks amazing and also amazing in that it's a continuation of the world we saw in the first but still not the same thing again. They have put great detail and thought into the technology in the world. They have really focused on the continuity that the world really feels like the world we saw in the original but thirty years later. I'm so relived that the movie also does not get bogged down in references and call-backs to the original. This movie creates memorable moments of its own not simply by reminding you of all that was great in the first one. I heard there was some problem regarding the composing of the music but none of it shows in the finished movie. Hans Zimmer has created a brilliant score that has the same feel and style as Vangelis but without just reusing his melodies. Some have complained about the length of the movie but that was never an issue for me. There are parts that slow down but I can't see how they could have cut it down without losing stuff and making stuff feel rushed. But some modern audience not familiar with the first one might very likely be bored. This movie is made by people who liked the first one for people who loved the first one. I have already seen it more than once and like the first one it really benefits from more viewings. There is so much more in this movie than meets the eye.

OK so finally which movie is the best? Like I've repeatedly stated the movie separated itself form the original enough to be judged just on its own. But if I must choose then the original is still the best. Blade Runner 2049 is one of the best sequels I have seen. It lives up to the original Blade Runner while somehow managing the feet of feeling like an amazing movie just on its own.

St. Vincent is a great movie. It's funny comedy but also has a surprising emotional depth. I've always liked Bill Murray and also here. To be fair he plays the same character he usually does, but he does it so well. He's the bitter sarcastic jerk but who deep down is a good person. St. Vincent has many funny moments and dare I say all of them come from Murray, close to all. But this movie I would describe as kind of a dark comedy or maybe even little tragic comedy. Because the drama is actually most gripping. There is much more depth in the story than I was expecting. In the end the movie is of the feel good genre and so there are some cheesy moments. But it's not a problem as the movie is still not too predictable or overly sentimental. Newcomer Jaeden Lieberher does great. The character we the viewer should feel most sympathy for and one does. Usually I'm not a huge fan of Melissa McCarthy but here she fits her character perfect. Nothing of her slapstick overacting which is what I associate her with. Mostly her character is serious and sad in a emotional way. Her funny moments come when she's playing of Bill Murray's grumpy old man with her own sarcasm. Of the main characters its Naomi Watts who brings the shortest straw. Her performance is alright even if I can't stop noticing the accent. It's just that her character is the least interesting and also feels like the least important.

St. Vincent is a very good heartwarming movie. It has humour, a well written story, good actors and characters.

Inception is Christopher Nolan's sci-fi/ heist thriller. Matrix for a new generation? I've heard some making comparisons between Inception and The Matrix though in my opinion Inception is not groundbreaking on that level I do see similarities. Christopher Nolan is a great director and I like all of his movies. Inception got some big praise when first released and rightly so it is a great movie. Is it his best? Not quite for me but close. A lot hold it up as this so called smart science fiction and the story is indeed quite complex so it did take more than one and two viewings before I pretty much think I understand most of what was going on. The plot is clever and very creative. It's not totally watertight I'm not sure if all makes total sense at the end. Some of the rules of this whole dream world aren't entirely clear all the time. But after the movie is over I feel it doesn't really matter. I'm not demanding or expecting award winning writing. The concept is interesting, different and creative. Inception is an awesome movie blockbuster experience. Which brings me to another point. Inception looks absolutely stunning. The action is awesome and the tension is intense all the way through. And even if the action is very exciting in not overdone. They manage the impressively balance between the thrills, story and characters. The movie is long but doesn't feel so. I'm at full attention at all times. The actors are great. I like Leonardo DiCaprio and he does really great in this. Also Inception is kind of different movie than he usually does, he's not usually in blockbuster action movies usually more dramas. The character drama involving his character is really engrossing. I was actually more taken by the character's experience that the plot. The sci-fi elements are exciting but I was positively surprised at the character development. Well DiCaprio's character anyway. While there are many big names in this it is him that is the clear focus of the story. Nolan has a few his regulars and some new ones and they all do a fine job. But their roles are supporting and well admittedly none of them that deep. One thing I would like to point out is the music and sound effects. The music is very good the same kind like Nolan's Batman movies which is obvious because it's the same composer, many directors have their regular collaborators. But I wanted to mention the sound because I feel it is used more than usual here. Not just as music in the background to set the tone but there are these loud sounds when some things happen and it works great. The sound effects, music and especially explosions are really loud when held in comparison to the dialogue. Clearly intentional and someone could feel annoyed I think works definitely to this movies advantage. Inception is a awesome movie going experience. It really succeeds in pretty much all, a clever creative plot, spectacular tense action and characters and even the music must be praised. It's not a masterpiece or breaking new ground in action. The plot is creative but it's not perfect. Not much of a flaw in the end. Inception is one of the best action movies in years.

Michael Mann has made some really great movies. Heat and Collateral are amazing. But he has made some weaker ones as well. Unfortunately Public Enemies belongs to his weaker. I had high hopes for this when it was upcoming. The poster of Johnny Depp clad in a trench coat and fedora hat and holding a Tommy Gun looked so cool. I imagined this as being like Heat but set in the 1930s. In several ways the setup is kind of similar. Johnny Depp and Christian Bale two actors at top of their game felt perfect as the leads. The criminal vs. detective thriller with both being the main character. Unfortunately it fails in all the things that Heat did so brilliantly. I've seen Public Enemies again after my first disappointed reaction but even when I tried to ignore my expectations on the director being Michael Mann and not to compare it to Heat Public Enemies is still a dull movie. The movie looks stunning I feel they have totally succeeded in recreating the 1930s Depression-era USA. But while the outside looks great it is on the inside that it is lacking. The story that is based on reality is actually a good one but the movie somehow still makes it feel uninteresting and completely devoid of any real substance . A major problem for the story is that we never feel anything for the characters. The actors do well overall but the writing is the problem also here. Johnny Depp fits well as John Dillinger. He looks the part and I can't say anything bad about his acting. It's just that his character lacks any real personality. I feel it's not really clear how the viewer should relate to Dillinger should we root for or against him. And this can be said about all characters in the movie there is no substance or development for any of them. I could not care less relation between Dillinger and Marion Cotillard's character. Christian Bale does well with what he's got but his character is less the focus of the story than Depp's. However I do feel that his attempts at an accent is very inconsistent. Unfortunate is that the action is just as bland as the rest of the movie. Michael Mann can or could direct tense edge of your seat action scenes. But the gun fights here are short and stale. It's just men shooting at each other but there is nothing creative about the action scenes. I'm not expecting these massive action set pieces and I know it's based on true events which seldom are as exciting as we like to see on screen. That doesn't matter. I think of Mann's Collateral which no is not based on reality but my point is that a skilled director can create thrill and suspense without that much spectacular action happening. Public Enemies is a well made movie only technically but lacking creatively. What should have been thrilling is boring. Actors struggling due to lack of characterisation. In the end this is not really a bad movie but it's not good either. Disappointing and forgettable I am sad to conclude.

A buddy-cop action comedy written and directed by Shane Black. It's what he does but he does it so well. Really well The Nice Guys is a great movie. It does have many of his trademarks but still I don't think he's just rehashing himself, not at all. All filmmakers have their own thing and of course some more than others but I won't complain. All of Black's movies do have many similarities, even Iron Man 3 had elements of the buddy movie that he most often or always uses. I have had high hopes for The Nice Guys ever since I first heard of it quite some time before it was released. I'm happy to say that it delivers. Shane Black is a great writer and The Nice Guys does have a better plot than one usually expects in the action genre. It takes a number of unexpected twists and honestly after my first viewing I was not totally sure how it all hung together. But I've seen it again more than once and it pretty much makes sense now. This movie gets better on a second viewing. One seldom expects or demands that an action movie should have an award winning script and I wouldn't claim that The Nice Guys does either but still it's great to see an action movie where you aren't completely sure were the plot is heading all the time. A buddy-cop, crime mystery, thriller, action, drama comedy would be to completely describe it. It has a little of all actually. And a surprising amount of depth actually. It is a detective thriller. The character drama and plot are I feel just as important as the action, maybe even more so. The characters and acting is just great. Gosling and Crow have great chemistry and fit their characters perfectly. But the real standout like many others have stated is Angourie Rice as Goslings daughter. She turns out to be pretty much one of the main characters. At first one might get the expression that she's obnoxious and irritating but this soon changes. There is of course some comedic relief here and there in the movie, most of the jokes come from the interactions between the three main characters and some slapstick also but it's never overdone. Not every single joke lands but by far most of them. While there is humor this is actually kind of a serious story and with sad characters. The main characters are not really heroes but rather deeply flawed and struggling. Tragic comedy in a way. It feels more plausible so you can more related and care for them. The action is well made and also feels like down to earth but in a good way. It feels tense and thrilling without being this massive spectacle that goes on for too long. Not as much action as some might expect but in my opinion it's just the right amount, I feel the detective and thriller moments are just as exciting. Probably the idea is that it should feel kind of like it not just takes place forty years ago but that it's made then as well. I have no experience of 1970s USA so I can't tell if it's a totally realistic presentation but I think so, it feels so. The Nice Guys is one of the best movies of 2016. Great characters, clever plot, action, humor. See it!

I have read the novel this is based on. I really liked it and while I did not think it was brilliant as Gone Girl it was still a thrilling page-turner. Many people compared the novel to Gone Girl. However unlike Gone Girl which was adapted into a worthy movie The Girl on the Train is not. And even if I just forgot about the book and judged it as a movie on its own it doesn't change anything. The Girl on the Train is a bad movie.

The movie is totally boring. Kind of strange because the plot is on the whole good, might not be award winning material in my opinion but it's a good and cruel mystery thriller which this movie somehow fails to make the least thrilling. The movie has this grey, bleak look which should be fitting to the tone of the story but it does not completely work anyway. The movie looks dull and unimaginative. Still I do have some slight positive things to point out. Sometimes when books are adapted into movies viewers that aren't familiar with the story before have a hard time following it. Here however I think that most will at the end have a reasonable grip of what was going on. So the writing for the movie seemed OK but somehow they did not manage to translate it to the screen. Some words about the acting which is the best thing in the movie. At first I was sceptical about Emily Blunt as the main character Rachel. She is a good actress but I did not think she would fit the character. But it turns out she actually does. Both her appearance and her performance really embodies this messed up individual that Rachel is, one will feel sympathy for her. The other actresses are very good as well. But Haley Bennett and Rebecca Ferguson look so similar in this. I know the characters are supposed to but in some scenes I was not right away sure if I was looking at Meagan or Anna. The main male actors do fine even if neither is very memorable. Now unfortunately on to the thing in the movie that annoyed me among the most. The exposition all the clunky exposition. And closely connected to this is the narration and also the flashbacks. I felt there was quite a lot of narration in this movie. Exposition is necessary I know, and I know it's easier to deliver in a novel. Still a skillful filmmaker can weave it into the narrative so it feels like it comes naturally. Not so here unfortunately, there is some really clumsy exposition. Scenes where characters are like just talking facts in a way that no one would do in reality. But they need to give us viewers the background information somehow. And so the narration, narration can be a great addition in some cases but sometimes I feel it is just used in lazy ways or because the director does not know how to show the feelings of the characters in the acting and dialogue. Unfortunately this is the latter. Often show don't tell is the preferable. Some narration it feels like a slap in your face. The filmmakers screaming: here is what is happening and this is how she is feeling. There are also several flashbacks in this, there is even flashbacks inside of flashbacks. I feel the flashbacks come without any clear way of telling you. So at times I was not aware of where in the story we were. Tate Taylor has directed good movies but not this time.

To rap this up The Girl on the Train is a thriller that is not thrilling. Emily Blunt does her best and there is a good plot here but they have totally not succeeded in translating it to the screen. A mystery without suspense.

I grew up with this TV-series. Perhaps I was like 5-6 when I saw it the first time. Totally loved it. I had most of the episodes recorded on VHS and saw them until the cassettes hardly were working anymore. To this day Captain Scarlet remains one of my favourite TV-series of all time, no actually scratch that, it is my favourite of all time. Even now as a grown up I can still see it from time to time. Just as entertaining as it always has been. I have seen several of Gerry Anderson's works like Stingray and Thunderbirds of course. But Captain Scarlet has always been his definitive highpoint for me.

So about the actual series. Captain Scarlet must be one of the most brutal programs aimed at children. There is a lot of violence in it but also the story and themes are dark and serious. Characters die and a lot of them. Sure it's puppets but still very dark atmosphere over it all. There is blood and innocent people getting killed, in cruel ways. The action scenes are thrilling a brilliantly done. Like we knew from his previous shows Gerry Anderson likes to make explosions and Captain Scarlet is no exception. At least one explosion in every episode and sometimes things just blow up for no reason or unrealistically easy. So entertaining. Why are explosions so fun to watch? Compared to Thunderbirds that came before it the episodes in Captain Scarlet were shorter but I don't find that to be any major flaw. The plots are complicated enough and I feel that there is actually real depth in the characters. Far more than one would expect. I actually feel more for these characters than any of Anderson's others or even many other characters I've seen. Very impressive to achieve that in just 32 episodes of 25 minutes. Another proof of the greatness of Anderson. Could it have been even better if the episodes had been at Thunderbirds length, I don't know. The characters are great and so is the voice acting. All voices fit perfectly, which yes is partly because the puppets were modelled after the actors. But also the performance of the voice actors is probably the best in any of Andersons series. Captain Scarlet was the coolest action hero I knew. They changed the look of the puppets to more realistic proportions compared to Thunderbirds and Stingray. Some have pointed out that they don't move as much and more slowly. That is true but it's no problem. They use creative ways to get around these restrictions. In a way this style, not just the appearance of the puppets but also the slower staler movements fit the feel of the show. Having aliens as the villains in a puppet series could have turned out goofy and silly. Could have looked like the aquatic aliens in Stingray. I don't mean that Stingray is sillier in a bad way, not at all it totally fits for that series. Camp can work fine if that is the type of show. It's all a consideration for the filmmakers. Captain Scarlet like I said is of a different more serious type. Making the Mysterons this mostly unseen force and often just an intimidating voice was a masterstroke by Anderson. Less is more is a trick that I've often found to work for the better. Not always showing and explaining everything can make the viewer even more hooked. Just like all of Andersons shows the music is also genius and plays an essential role for the atmosphere and feel. Composer Barry Gray was an absolute master in the field. I can't explain just what a defining role the music scores and sound effects play in all Gerry Andersons productions. So I wrote earlier that the plots are just enough for the show. Still I can admit that now that I'm older one does recognise that a lot don't make sense and many of the episodes have more than one plot hole and a lot of events and actions by characters defy logic. But in some way this just doesn't matter. Too bad that there are just 32 episodes. All of Gerry Andersons shows are short in number of episodes. It seems like he got an idea and worked with it for a while, like a year and then began on something new. Instead of sticking with one like many would he made ten puppet shows. In a way it makes sense to do like that, try different things. Still I which there were more many more. If you have seen the series, you will understand.

Could some of my love for this series be due to nostalgia? Sure I guess. But still I will say that this is an amazing show. Gerry Anderson was a genius. Captain Scarlet is a show that has it all: likable characters, intimidating villains, tense plot and cool action.

First let me state that I have not read the book and I knew nothing about it or this film before seeing it. This is one of the most disturbing films I've seen in a while, not in a scary kind of way but it is so sad and gloomy and absolutely thought-provoking. It is a film that in a way wants to deliver an experience as much as tell a story. Since one doesn't get much of a background it is often left to the viewer to make your own assumptions of several parts of the film. In some movies this might feel frustrating and thin writing. Not so here it is totally to the advantage. There are some glimpses of the background which intrigues one even more. They have really succeeded in using a visual spectacle to create the post-apocalyptic atmosphere unlike much I have seen before. The plot might be pretty straight forward but like I indicated here earlier it's not the point of the film. The acting is phenomenal. Viggo Mortensen is great, his performance and character is just like the overall feel of the film. The direction is also just great, perfectly balancing all aspects to create such a strong experience. Heavy, strong, depressing and sad. This is one that you really should watch, it's so well done I will actually claim that it has a message to give. Amazing movie. Just as good as it is disturbing. And that is very.

James Cameron's long awaited return to cinema! His first feature film since Titanic. Cameron has always been a filmmaker who brings something new, so of course the hype was really high for his next film. And information of what Avatar was going to be just kept increasing everyone's anticipation for it. This looked like something different. Cameron has long been a favourite filmmaker for me. Terminator 1 & 2 are definitely on my list of best movies ever. So did it live up? Well Avatar is a great movie. It is not an amazing one. The expression style over substance has been used many times and by me before but Avatar is exactly that. Cameron ones again takes the special effects to new heights and also reintroduced 3D to cinema. Technically the visuals are a masterpiece one could say. Also the design and creativity of the world and creatures is great. Not on Star Wars like levels but Avatar looks pretty much flawless. The whole movie has this very epic theme to it. The action is also great as should be expected. It's not as mind-blowing as his Terminator movies or as intense as Aliens or as ridiculously (in an entertaining way) as in True Lies. But Avatar is better than most released at the same time. However, it is underneath this brilliant surface that the flaws are. The story is Avatars weakest part. It totally lacks in originality. It borrows heavily from many different sources. I feel that even if one has not seen a lot of movies Avatar is unfortunately very predictable. You can early sense where the story is going. It is a story that entertains rather than surprises. It is the writing that lacks. Cameron's earlier movies had great dialogue and memorable quotes. Avatar honestly doesn't have those. And then we have the actors. Unfortunately, if I shall be honest Sam Worthington is not a charismatic actor. But it's not all his fault. Cameron can create amazing characters but here they feel thin. None of the actors here are bad but their characters are weakly written. The characters have this predictable feel too them in the same way as the plot. Not bad in any way just nothing more than pretty standard. All this said sounds so negative, the problem is just that I guess my demands on James Cameron are so high. Avatar is a very good and greatly entertaining movie. Technically amazing but when you see past the brilliant effects this is not the masterpiece some were expecting and some are claiming. 8/10.

Growing up I was a huge Sonic fan. Played the games but also saw Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog and Sonic SatAM. I also checked up Sonic X even if I had stopped playing video games by that time. When I heard about a new, fifth Sonic TV series I wasn't that interested. My favorite of the old ones was Sonic SatAM and the description of this new series did not sound that hopeful in my opinion. Luckily it turns out I was wrong.

Sonic Boom is really entertaining, even as a grown up. Unlike Sonic X this show has shorter and mostly self standing episodes. My fear was that this would mean that the show would be like AoSth, just slapstick lacking any real plot. But it turns out so much better. The plot is not the thing that makes this show. It is a comedy and really is it funny. The humor is actually not much of the slapstick kind, more it is the dialogue, characters and interactions. The writing is very impressive many of the jokes are clever, not all of them land of course but it is way better than I would have expected. Some of the stuff seems aimed at older viewers, jokes that will pass younger viewers by. There are a lot of pop culture references, meta humour and self irony. Having the episodes stand-alone is for the better. The long complex story arcs of Sonic X required much attention. You had to be following it for several episodes to have a grip of what was going on. Sonic works better like this. Some references between episodes do appear and some minor supporting characters drop in and out from time to time. But you can watch any episode on its own. The humor is the central part of the show but the stories are more than good enough. The cgi animation is really good looking and fits just right. The Sonic game series been infamous in later years for becoming overstuffed with characters, that no one cares about. Sonic Boom has a fraction of the amount of characters that Sonic X has. For the better. Even if the episodes are 11 minutes long they manage to give substance to both heroes and villains. Voice actors are mostly the same as the video games and they fit great, not any irritating voices in my opinion. The personalities of the characters are like the use to be. Maybe in some ways exaggerated at times but it works. So some words about the redesigns. At first I thought it looked silly and overly trying to be cool. But I've kind of gotten used to it now. It fits the show. Actually Knuckles is the only one that is radically different. From what I understand the designs won't apply to all games in the series. The Boom universe will be it's own thing in the Sonic franchise. So I may not love the new versions as much as the old ones but I can very well accept it.

Best Sonic the Hedgehog TV series. Funny both for newer and older fans.

It's good, it isn't great but it's good. Mendes had a tough challenge following up Skyfall and while he can't reach its heights Spectre is still a entertaining movie.

So about it. Right from the start this feels more like a pre Casino Royale Bond movie than any of the previous Craig reboot movies. Many of the Bond films follow kind of the same structure and this definitely has more of the classic set up. It also has more humor than Craig's other ones too. Most of it works but some jokes fall flat. It's fine because it never gets silly and while this is Craig's most lighthearted movie it still is more serious than most of the older ones (not License to kill). The movie opens brilliantly, I will say this pre credit sequence is among the best in the entire series. Wonderfully shot and tense action. In the context of the movie I didn't mind Sam Smith's theme song. However after that the movie soon slows down. The story soon starts to feel less and less interesting after the stellar opening. Wouldn't call it weak just no more than average and some themes feel a bit to similar to previous movies. Always entertaining but never surprising. Exactly the same can be said about the action. The action scenes are well done but nothing special and I feel many of them are too short. Apart from the opening it lacks any wow action moment. I say that the movie starts better than it ends, yes unfortunately it actually gets weaker as it goes on. On to the acting. Daniel Craig is as outstanding as we know he would be. Against the odds he has made the role his own. Ralph Fiennes and Ben Whishaw have settled into their roles well. Naomie Harris is quite a different Moneypenny than the previous ones but maybe that's the point and I must just get used. Léa Seydoux is beautiful though her character is undeveloped. Seydoux and Craig have some good chemistry but nothing will ever bet the him with Eva Green. Seydoux as a Bond girl feels pretty standard, nothing bad about her but nothing out of the ordinary either. Monica Bellucci is a great actress but totally wasted. To bad all the hype about a different take on Bond girls did not come true. Christoph Waltz is alright as the villain even if he can't live up to his predecessor Javier Bardem or Mads Mikkelsen. He does well but the character introduction is unfortunately so rushed. Neither his character nor his scheme are much fleshed out. Disappointing is also Dave Bautista's Mr Hinx who I had hoped would become one of the more memorable henchmen but while he looks big and intimidating he becomes nothing more than that. This movie is also overlong. A movie can be long if there is a big and good story to tell. Spectre divides it's running time wrong, as some scenes are drawn out while other stuff is so rushed.

On the whole Spectre is a entertaining but flawed and sad to say unspectacular flick. It's easier to criticize that to praise. So this review sounds more negative than I meant it to. Third best of Daniel Craig's 007 movies. And I really hope he does one more.

And so it has arrived, Ridley Scott's maybe/maybe not prequel to his classic ALIEN. Well does it deliver? Maybe/maybe not. I've seen this has been high on many lists of most anticipated movies in 2012. But what was seen of it in trailers and alike leading up to the release didn't wow me. It looked really great visually but what one could make out of the plot seemed strikingly similar to the original ALIEN. Two writers with doubtful records made that not unexpected. The crews all talk of how this shouldn't be seen as a prequel in the normal sense makes me wonder if they really wanted to say: Don't get your hopes up. Why would one not what to do a prequel to one of the most liked sci-fi movies ever? Feeling unable to live up to it is one big reason. So what about the results? Well the resemblances to ALIEN turns out in many parts to be true. So far that one could somewhat view Prometheus as a re-imagining of the original. The ties to the original are there but they are very loose so it feels pretty much like just fan pleasing which is disappointing for us who wanted a real backstory. The visuals are stunning as is expected. The 3D in my opinion was fine in that it was there without being forced, necessary? no but not annoying either. The acting is also good Noomi Rapace did well and while not standing up to Sigourney Weaver's Ellen Ripley still managed a good performance. However the far best performance is Michael Fassbender as the android David. He continues the prove himself as one of the big names in acting at time of writing this. The others also do well in their performances. But still the entire cast never manage to reach the reality and substance of the original and also as a stand alone movie it is not very deep stuff. There are few that touch or grip you. Still I think that the kind of emotionless characters are to blame on the script not the cast. The acting is mostly solid but the characters not so. While the effects are stunning the film is really lacking in the suspense. There are some jump moments but they are few and short. The style of the suspense one would expect to be like the original but it fails at most. When you also don't care much for the characters you don't feel appalled or sad when someone drops off. The plot apart from being similarly to the original in the structure it also on its own is far predictable. Even if you have no experience of the series or so you can pretty much guess where it is going and the lack of suspense does not help. And as many more have pointed out the story asks many questions but provides few answers. The links to the ALIEN saga are weak so I'm not referring to those questions but ones that the film itself asks. The film on it's own has several strange and hard to interpret moments. It was written by the writers of Lost and sequels are likely to come but still it makes one frustrated.

To sum up Prometheus is a alright but flawed movie. Most surprisingly weak is the thrills and suspense. All the technical aspects are stunning but the characters and story are seriously lacking. If you expect background to Scott's original you will be disappointed and also in it's own this is a story the asks more than it answers. Ending this with a quote from another reviewer: Not as frightening as ALIEN or as thrilling as ALIENS but still alright. Ridley Scott's return to the Science fiction genre. Leaving the cinema I can't help but feeling: Was that it?

More than seldom I can feel that award shows tend to praise the kind of special, small production and unknown films. When one first got news of The Artist when it started winning all these prises one could definitely get the feeling that it was that kind of critically praised film that the generally movie audience would pretty much ignore. I mean a black and white silent film today doesn't sound like the kind that would make many hundred millions on the international arena. But when it after winning those academy awards and getting a cinema release where I live I decided I would give it a chance and it also felt like quite different from anything else I have seen in cinema. Turns out I was more pleasantly surprised than I have been by a movie in years. The film is absolutely brilliant with many successful factors. First and for most the acting is outstanding. Jean Dujardin really deserved that Oscar and the supporting actors are also great. As a silent film it would be essential that the acting is great. Even if there is some subtitles at times it is not very often for most the film relies on the actors managing to make the viewers understand what is going on and what the characters are feeling. They do it brilliantly. There is however background music all the way through the film. It would feel pretty blank if it would be totally soundless for 100 minutes. The music also is used to tell the feeling and tone of what is going on. Like when Valentin is expressing shock the music is high and dramatic. The story is both a homage to the silent era and a great tale. It's a very emotional story that really grips hold of you. But there is quite a lot of humour as well. Still it is greatly considered to not go so far as being silly and taking away focus from the plot. Hearing the description of the film as a silent, black and white, comedy-drama I could easily fear that it would feel slow and overdrawn. It may just be my preconception that unique dramas are like that but I was pleasantly surprised that it was not so in any way. The running length at less than two hours is perfect. Over all the film fits perfectly in the middle, not overdrawn and not rushed. The Artist is a brilliant movie. The opening is kind of slow for a while but one soon gets into it and after it never let's go. While I would not quite praise it as a masterpiece The Artist is a close to perfect movie 9/10.

In my opinion the original Scream was great. It brought something new to the horror movie genre with its combination of horror, humour, parody, self-awareness and clever plot twists. The first sequel was also good fun and while not as good as the original Scream 2 was still a well worthy follow-up. But then came the pretty much rubbish Scream 3. The rule of number three in series hit once again, just like with Spider-man 3, X-men: the last stand and Terminator 3. After that let down one would think that the crew would be tempted to just have let the franchise die with that. Maybe they actually had considering that it has been eleven years since number three. But then Scream 4 has happened and I am glad it did because it takes the series back to its feet, a satisfying series ender and even more it is actually the best since the first. Well in my opinion at least. One thing that they have succeeded so surprisingly with is the characters. In many long ongoing series the big main actors tend to pass on to other projects but Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette are all back for the fourth time which is great as it maintains a continuity which is a big strength for the series and us viewers wanting to come back to follow what happens to them. It is no spoiler to say that several are killed throughout the films and so new once must be introduced. Even if Scream 2 was good the characters never managed to live up to the cast of the first one. And those in Scream 3 are just so thin they could be transparent. Scream 4 has great new characters and thanks to both the script but also the actors, one can actually remember who is who this time. Emma Roberts and Hayden Panettiere are good in managing to create characters that you get some connection to and interest to follow not just being background material to the recurring ones. Something else that works great with this film is the plot. The mystery is interesting all the way both in the build up and the resolution. From the clever and even more funny opening to the mind f*** ending. The story has some great twists that I no way saw coming. I think the whole motive makes the most sense since the first. It might seem strange to state that the motive for killings make sense but it's not in that way I mean. What I meant is that the whole reveal of the villain is less far-fetched. I could not entirely buy the deus ex machina ending of Scream 2 and the less said about the absurd, predecessor ruining twists of Scream 3 the better. But then this is a horror movie, so what about the scary moments? Well that is where the film does not succeed completely. The film is very bloody as expected but this time well considered by Wes Craver to not go too much over the top. However the murders go very fast and the music while good at making the right feel not necessarily scary. There are some jump moments but on the whole the film is more fun than scary. The first is still scariest and this and the second are about equal. Still while not terrifying it works well enough.

Scream 4 is great. This could work well as an ending to the series. For now I'm at least satisfied that it makes up for the rubbish conclusion that was Scream 3 which can now be just ignored. A great thrill ride with its clever plot and surprisingly well done characters.

I loved Hot Fuzz and also really liked Shaun of the dead. Still when I found out about Paul while it still was in development I could not quite get that excited. Paul is not directed by Edgar Wright who made Shaun and Fuzz so in that way one should not see it as a successor to them but still it stars and is also written by Nick Frost and Simon Pegg so one can't help but draw a little comparison.

So did I like this movie or not? The answer is I did, when it ended I felt liked I've had a great time. It is also a great film to watch with a bunch of pals which is the kind of company I was in when I saw it. However the film didn't start out that well. At first it felt like it was going at like way to fast. So some films are fast paced and usually comedies like this kind but it is not that way, this felt rather rushed and forced. Same goes for the humour for like the first twenty minutes or so. The supposed to be funny scenes are forced upon you and over the top even for this kind of movie. But thankfully after a while stuff starts to happen in the plot more than just Pegg and Frost's characters running around being silly. The story might not be great stuff but rather basic having been done before stuff but that's exactly what this film is a hail to the science-fiction genre. A lot of the jokes are parodies on classic movie moments in the genre and for me it worked great. Of course one needs to have a bit of knowledge about the kind of movies but come on this is made for the sci-fi fans. There is also other kinds of jokes in this and once I get into the style of the film it is good fun even if it doesn't quite hit the perfect spot as their previous films and some stuff fall flat. The parody stuff is the main theme of the movie. Like I said the plot is not more than very well. It does what is needed but not more and the stories in Shaun and Fuzz were more than the average comedy stuff and actually brought something new and also managed to both surprise and entertain. Paul doesn't do that you know pretty soon what will happen because it is just forward familiar stuff. Never surprises' but always entertains, well most of the time at least. And so what about the effects one must ask when there is sci-fi in the title. There is a alien in the movie. Come on that's no spoiler as you can see it on like every poster. It looks good enough but of course it's not Gollum quality even if I've read that is was filmed in that kind of way. More than sometimes I get the feeling that he is not really there and it can look kind of 2D. Still this is a comedy and so should be judged by the fun and not the effects. The title character is voiced by Seth Rogen. That works good, sure you right away know it is him and even if you don't know his name you can picture him from just seeing a couple of movies with him. I think he fits the role fine with the perfect voice to get the right feel for the character and fitting to the tone of the film. Just his voice feels funny here and he hits the lines perfectly. There are some jokes making fun with religion which I have seen several point out. But I don't think one should be offended by it; I mean we can joke about all other things so why should religion be different. But that's just my opinion.

To sum up: I liked Paul. It is clearly weaker than Pegg and Frost's Shaun of the dead and Hot Fuzz but that doesn't mean it's weak on its own. Neither was I disappointed when the movie ended but had had a fun time. So bring some friends over and see it cause it's that kind of movie.

I was greatly impressed by this new Planet of the apes film. Since the successful reboot of Batman reboots have become way popular in Hollywood maybe too so. But after Tim Burton's Planet of the apes remake I think reboot was the only way to go with the series. And whats more this is not just starting the same story over again. Insteed they have managed to create something fresh. This film focuses very much on the drama and it really works. There will be action but the emotional themes work great. So much that it never starts to drag, go over the top or just feeling out of place. The story has clear themes of moral values which at least for me made an impression and actually were the main thing making this film so worth following, not just the action. Not saying that there is no action because the is and is is really well done. Through the movie there is quite some talking about science but it nothing that you need to follow closely and it is of course most made up fictional but is is successfully used to ask questions of moral, animal rights and science gone to far. The effects used to create the apes are absolutely brilliant. Made in the same way I guess as Gollum in Lord of the rings and also starring Andy Serkis. Without these effects the emotional substance that the film manages would have been lost even though for the story's sentimental themes. James Franco might not look entirely believable as a scientist as he still looks quite young but it doesn't matter for the movie and he makes it up with a great performance in bringing the right emotional feeling for the relation to the other characters. Fun to see Tom Felton in his big first post Harry Potter film. He plays the same kind of bastard as in those movies.

This is the most different Planet of the apes movie. Focusing on emotional substance instead of the dystopian themes of the previous movies. I really liked Rise of the planets of the apes and would rank it as second best in the series after the first one.

This is one really gloomy movie, but in a good way it has a message and makes you think. Still I wasn't as taken by it as some of the others I saw it with and not as positive as I've heard from several critics. The story has themes of moral dilemmas but it is no shocking stuff because at least for me they were thoughts that have been brought up before. I have not read the book which this movie is based on but I can imagine that this would work better as a book. Not just in the way that the book is usually better than the movie adaptations but the kind of heavy questions that is put forth here would work more as being told in the first person view. They have tried to achieve that in the movie by having several parts of voice-over by the lead character. But according to me it doesn't really succeed. And that brings me to one of the weaknesses of the movie which are the characters, one simply doesn't get that of a strong relation to them. Carey Mulligan is great as so often and her performance is pretty much flawless so I suppose the script is to blame for the somewhat lack of lack of substance. Andrew Garfield is also great and even if this isn't his most memorable role he is a star in the making. But Keira Knightley, I don't know if I just simply don't like her but she is by far the biggest weakness in the film. It's not just that her character is not likable but her acting just isn't believable. The story changes somewhat as the movie goes on. It starts better with an kind of mysterious tone and I sit feeling what twists will this take. But then it slows down and any surprises never come. At the end the story has gone from any real plot to just this gloomy moral question asking dilemma. The production values are brilliant they have really created the right feel and appearance. Still I can't help that this simply didn't get to me really. It's a good work but not more than good. It asks questions that are important but doesn't manage to create really interest and the plot doesn't go very far.

Yes! like my title of this review states this is the best movie in the Mission Impossible series so far. So far because by the success of this I can imagine the producers are eager to make a fifth one. And the success this has been at the box office is well deserved. I can't really say I was a big fan of Mission Impossible until recently, I have never seen the TV show and the first movie has a more classic reputation than it actually deserves. Still the first one was an interesting somewhat different kind of thriller. The first two sequels were far weaker, MI2 was complete crap with almost no story and ridiculously over the top action, number three was a step forward and a pretty entertaining mindless action movie. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is Brad Birds first live action movie and it almost but not quite lives up to his great animated ones. One thing that this movie managed better than any of the previous ones is the story. The plot of the first one has become known for being complicated while the second has a plot so stupid a retard would be insulted, finally the third film had a clearly flawed but worked acceptable for a mindless popcorn flick. With MI4 they have found the right balance, the plot is understandable without going so far as becoming so simple it's silly, it is serious and interesting without going to the incomprehensible. The story is not Oscar worthy material but it's perfectly considered for this kind of film. The actor's performances are great. I might actually go so far as claiming this has the best of the series. It was great that they expanded Simon Pegg's role. According to me he is better that series recurring Ving Rhames. He supplies some humour without just being a simple comical relief. Tom Cruise is at his best here. He might be a weird guy in real life but as an action actor he is great. Ethan Hunt has grown to this hero one actually cares and wants to follow, his own character not just a James Bond wannabe. Jeremy Renner is a rising star and good here as well. Still his role was smaller than I had thought, it is important but doesn't take any focus away from Hunt. OK the character development might not be chokingly deep for an action movie, definitely not but more than necessary. Mikael Nyqvist as the villain is great. Having seen him in many Swedish movies it fun to see him going international. With this villain I feel they went for the more is less approach and it works brilliant. You don't see a lot of him and when you do short clips. Makes him feel mysterious unlike the over the top Dougray Scott in MI2. I enjoyed the bad guy in the third movie but I must say MI4 had the most memorable in a not easily achieved way. But this is an action flick and that is also where MI4 really succeeds and more than one might have expected. Of course you knew the effects would be top notch but they blow you away not just in that way. Not only are they great visually but it is also very well thought out. There are several scenes that are really clever. Again I must praise the director making this the most well made film in the Mission Impossible series. When I saw the trailer featuring Eminem I got somewhat uneasy. But not to worry this always feels like the MI movie that it is. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is the best in the MI series in as good as every way plot, character and action. An outstanding action blockbuster!

I have not read any of Jan Guillou's Hamilton novels. I have thought about it but as of yet haven't gotten round to it. But from what I've heard about this movie it is very loosely based on the books. Most of the Hamilton books were written from the middle of the 1980s to the middle of 1990s. One could compare it to the movie Casino Royale in the way that it has been modernised to the post 9/11 world. So what I mean is this movie is completely self standing, you won't have to read the books or see any of the previous Hamilton movies.

So what did I think of this movie? The short answer: it is no more than an average action flick.

The look of the movie is outstanding for a Swedish one. I don't mean that in a bad way but it visually has taken a big step towards international standards. Sweden makes good movies but the action ones hasn't been their strongest. The technical aspects of this movie are just so impressive. Both the execution of the action scenes and the overall look of the film makes me think of the Bourne movies. And yes there is some shaky cam in the action. Still it's not a problem, it works fine most of the time helping to create this brutal feel that the movie has. And talking of brutal that is something the movie really is. A lot of graphic killing scenes and the characters take down guys with little hesitation. Is it unnecessary much? No I don't think so but don't expect the lean back action blockbuster type of film. Music fits well for the tone of the film but nothing memorable.

Those were the strong parts of Hamilton - I nationens intresse. Now on to the weak ones. The by far biggest weakness in it is the complete lack of a interesting story. It is something about private military companies and false flag operations. But half ways in to it one has pretty much lost track of what is really going on but it doesn't matter because the action is the only really entertainment you will find here. When I after the movie were talking to other about what story really was one realises that it is just the usual conspiracy stuff that you neither want nor need to follow. The only part where I saw the tiny glimmer of interest was Carl Hamilton as a character, so maybe I should go and read the books. But all this falls completely on the acting, oh the acting. It's a long time since I've seen performances as wooden as these. I mean one knows how Mikael Persbrandt acts and it is no difference here. He looks cool and has really trained his body up for the part but he shows less emotion than the Terminator. But I must partly blame the director here because it is not just him. The entire cast are more stiff than statues. And there are many actors here that I know can act, having seen them in many other movies. There is absolutely no life beneath the good looking surface. Neither in the story or the characters.

To sum up my short review of Hamilton - I nationens intresse. The production is great, looks stylish and the action is among the best I have seen in a Swedish film. But the dull plot and some of the worst acting I have seen in a long time makes this fail almost entirely as a whole.

The Hangover with women instead? The answer is both yes and no. I seem to be one of few who were kind of cool towards the Hangover, sure it was good entertainment but nothing special and there are much better recent comedies out there. Or maybe it is because comedy is no longer any of my favourite movie types.

But now for the somewhat surprise after this gray introduction: I really liked Bridesmaids. It was great fun all the way through and to my positive surprise it isn't just a bunch of jokes strung together by a simple plot that serves no other purpose. Bridesmaids also has a story that feels worth following. I would categorise Bridesmaids as a drama comedy. That is I think one of the main reasons I liked it. There are both parts of laughter and wanting to see what happens next. OK so the story is good but it's not great. At the time of writing this review the movie has been nominated for best original screenplay. According to me it is not that good but I don't know all the competition. At the start I stated that it still is somewhat like The Hangover and that would be the funny parts. The humor feel the same kind with awkward situations and serious acting in pretty absurd happenings. Works mostly great. And so the acting? It is most of the time good. It is the kind of forced dialogue and over the top behavior. But I don't mean it in a bad way it is how it should be for this kind of comedy. Kristen Wiig fits well in the lead and manages well to create the character the viewers care for even if you don't entirely sympathize with. Rose Byrne is just as good as the rival. But the performance that stands out enough to take the spotlight ever time she appears on screen is Melissa McCarthy. The audience laughed at every thing she said, well almost. Her character and her acting was perfectly humorous. Still does she deserve a best supporting actress nomination? I'm not sure but it is true that funny movies seldom get the attention of the big ceremonies like the academy awards so maybe it just feels strange. I don't think I have that much more to say about Bridesmaids.

It is a very good comedy, not great but it might be the funniest I saw the previous year. The fun stuff is great and it still doesn't get stuck and start going on routine. Thankfully the movie also has some emotional substance coming from a well written story. Bridesmaids is a movie that absolutely deserves to be seen and then one will want to see it again. My grade 7/10.

There are many films about addicts but this one however is of a different kind. And it really succeeds in delivering a both shocking and interesting experience unlike any I have seen previously. A film like this wouldn't succeed without a great actor. One might know how terrible an addiction can be but if it weren't for the person representing it the real shock and message wouldn't have reached the point. Michael Fassbender once again shows that he is a star on the rise. There are many great things about this movie but it is really he who carries this to such greatness. He is absolutely brilliant in creating this seemingly secure, handsome, successful guy that somehow appears kind of uncomfortable cause deep underneath he has major problems. One really feels for him in the scenes were he often without much word but with emotions expresses his pain. In my opinion he deserves more that the praise he has already received, he should have got an academy award nomination. Carey Mulligan is also very good as the fragile, care seeking sister. Director Steve McQueen has done a brilliant job in crafting this amazingly gripping experience. I have not yet seen his previous movie but I sure will now. At first when I saw the running time I felt like that seems pretty lazy but it's not. It is perfectly considered because even gripping stories can get overdrawn. The scenes were more graphical than I had expected but unlike some I don't think it's too much but rather necessary to really make you get what this is about. The sometimes long scenes focusing on maybe just one thing for some time and choice of music create the exactly right feel for this. Someone might feel that the movie doesn't go into the character development a lot which is true because this is not what this is about. Shame focuses on a problem, portraying the life of a sex addict. It doesn't tell a plot in the common way but gives an experience that it's somewhat left to the viewer to interpret. And it works, not often do I want to see a movie of this kind again. Movies like this you usually see one time, a gripping movie but not twice.

Shame is a brilliant movie. Shocking and touching, disturbing and interesting. Delivered by great directing and a standout performance by Michael Fassbender.

The first Mission: Impossible was pretty enjoyable in my opinion, not great I thought but good entertaining action thriller worth more than one screening. I've never seen the TV-show so the plot was very different. I liked the first movie my but my reaction to John Woo's sequel was not quite so well. Number two was so crappy in every way apart for the entertaining action. There was almost no plot just a slap in the face of everyone who thought the first one had an interesting story. Action movies seldom have amazing stories and MI2 was to stupid even for an action movie. It is interesting how with Mission: Impossible 3 they managed to take a bit from both previous movies and make the best one yet. The plot in the first movie was pretty complex, maybe a bit too much and the plot in number two was to simple. This manages to place itself in the middle. No award winning writing but perfectly enough for this kind of movie. Tom Cruise is great and his character has some depth and development in this. Ethan Hunt feels more like a human than a superhero this time. This film contains quite a few characters of importance to the plot. There are several big names in this. Fishburne and Pegg are great additions. Michelle Monaghan actually has a character unlike the female in the second movie who seemed to be there only to be eye candy. The villain this time Philip Seymour Hoffman is a major improvement and by far the best bad guy in the series. It's not his scheme but the performance that makes his character intimidating. With his cool voice and serious appearance unlike the ridiculous villain in the previous movie. The action scenes have been toned down in this but in no way making them less entertaining quite the opposite actually. John Woo does cool action but this is much more satisfying. MI3 does feel like a step towards 007 kind of spy movie. No problem in that for me at least.

Final summary Mission: Impossible 3 is a greatly entertaining but mindless action pleasure. Style over substance definitely but a good one of those.

When people arrived at the cinema for this movie I imagine the film crew stood at the entrance saying something like "Welcome in for this screening of MI2 but please leave your brain outside". Well symbolically speaking but that really describes this movie. I heard several saying that the plot of the first movie is so hard to understand and I can agree somewhat. It took me a few viewings to follow it completely but it's really not that sophisticated one then realises. Well anyway seeing the sequel one wonders if the producers said something like "So people thought the plot of the first was complicated so lets just disregard any story for the sequel". I'm not against mindless action movies, sometimes it's really comfortable to just lean back and not think a lot but just enjoy. However if find myself not being able to suspend my disbelief here because MI2 is not simple but rather completely stupid, treating it's viewers as retards. According to the trivia on IMDb the screenwriter claims he wrote the story around action scenes that John Woo had thought out. It must be true! Many of the action scenes come out of nowhere whatsoever. I go like what the hell is going on with the story? Not in a way that I don't understand but that you understand to well that is makes less sense than a Donald Duck cartoon. It goes so far as one scene Ving Rhames close to turns to the audience and clearly explains what is happening now, why they have to do this thing. Who does the filmmaker think the viewers are? Even underaged would see this as ridiculously easy. The actors play the typical stereotype one expects form this kind of mindless action movie, the hero is so cool and the villain is evil in every way. I'm no hater of Tom Cruise because I can distinguish between his work and him in private which I mostly try to ignore, he seems to be quite a weird guy. Dougray Scott is well enough as the villain and it feels somewhat too bad his career never took off. Thandie Newton has no other purpose than looking hot. The style of the movie is just like you expect from John Woo but actually even more extreme of every of his trademarks. You won't get action more over the top than this. It's looks good but the first film wasn't even near this type so this doesn't quite feel like a sequel, had they just changed the names one wouldn't even know. So the action is good but it's just too much. Not even James Bond would get away with this, don't get me wrong I love the 007 movies. Add so much cheesy dialogue and dramatic music and I'm somehow embarrassed when I once watched this with someone that knew nothing about Mission: Impossible. The action is great but Mission: Impossible 2 goes from simple to insultingly dumb. Sorry I can't take this movie, it barely passes for the acceptable grad which on my scale is 5/10.