The Dark Knight Rises vs. The Avengers vs. The Amazing Spider-Man

The year of 2012 has brought us many highly anticipated movie events, from The Hunger Games to the upcoming Skyfall and Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, but has been particularly influenced by The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers and The Amazing Spiderman. All three are superhero films, all three with high hopes in box office and critical acclaim and all three coming out more or less in summer. But which one did come out on top? Which one made the most money and was the best?


Sadly, the answer to the last two questions are in most cases different. But let's take a look at the box office results first. Rises and Spiderman are still screening in some theatres, but will not probably any more significant changes. Spiderman grossed approximately 700 million dolars worldwide, with the aid of the more expensive 3-D tickets. Rises was not released in 3-D, only in IMAX, but it was alone enough to make somewhere around 951 million dolars. The Avengers on the other hand, got a lot of help from the 3-D tickets and grossed  more then a billion worldwide, making it the third most financially succesful movie of all-time, behind James Cameron's Titanic and Avatar. Rises would have probably claimed victorious, if they counted the number of tickets sold, but sadly, that just isn't the case.

Now to tackle the more difficult theme: which one is the best movie? I would say Rises. The Avengers comes second and Spiderman  last. Now before you start typing raging comments, I saw all three movies and enyoyed all of them a lot. Chris Nolan's Batman's trilogy just completely surpassed the superhero genre and turned its movies into serious thrillers, that you can talk and polemize about them for hours. The Avengers wasn't trying to be more then just a fun comic-book movie and it succeded at that. It was very fun, had awesome special effects, hilarious dialogues and was one of the best movies of the year, while Rises  is just a completely different story.

As for The Amazing Spider-Man, it was a certain middle point. It was darker then the Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies (and much less cheesier, which I enyoyed) and also funnier in a less cheesy way, but still not as dark as the Batman films. Which completely suited Spiderman and I liked that, but it was simply too similar to the 2002 Spiderman movie. We'll just have to wait and see, what happens, when the studio gives Marc Webb a bit more creative freedom. So this all is just my objective standard and I don't want it to be taken as a fanboy battle. I'm sure most of the critics and movie-fans would agree with me. Just for fun, I also asked myself, who would win if all the characters from each film would take on each other in a fight? Spiderman would come short again, as it only has Spiderman, The Lizard and a few cops, while it would have been a huge tie between the other two: Rises has Batman, a shitload of cops and Bane's army with Batman's arsenal, while The Avengers have... well, the Avengers, the army, cops, Loky's army...oh, and A HULK.


So what did you think of this year's clash of the superhero summer blockbusters? Did you predict the box office outcome? Which one do you think is the best (objectively)? Comment below, let me know!

Sam Clafflin cast as Finnick Odair, other 'Catching Fire' news

One of the most anticipated movies of the next year, the adaptation of the second book in the mega-popular Hunger Games trilogy, Catching Fire hasn't even started filming yet, but the buzz on it is enormous. A few days ago, I did not only shockingly realize that when the movie will come out, I will already be in high school, but also discovered that the casting for most of the important roles have been confirmed. As a big fan of the movies and the books, I am quite happy with the casting, as I think that Philip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarh Heavensbee will bring a bit of high-class into the franchise, I can totally imagine Jena Malone as Johanna and I also hope that the rumour of Tony Shalhoub (Monk) as Beetee will be confirmed. But there is something that tackles me and that is the casting of my favourite character of the trilogy: Finnick Odair.

Now I am a heterosexual male and I do not fantasize about Finnick as a sex symbol, but he is just such an awesome character and I do not think that the actor who was cast as him, Sam Clafflin is right. I've only seen him in Pirates of the Caribbean: On stranger tides and he wasn't anything special in there. When I read the book, I always somehow imagined Liam Hemsworth as Finnick, which was kinda weird, since Liam Hemsworth is already Gale, but whatever. I think Armie Hammer, Garett Hendlund or maybe even Joaquin Phoenix (if he was ten years younger) would have been perfect too.

Just imagine him with a trident.

What I am a bit worried too, is the director. I really enyoyed the shakycam in the first film, as it did not only avoid direct violence to keep the PG-13 rating, but also made the Games much more psychologically effective. I've only seen one movie by the new director Francis Lawrence, I am Legend and it was quite average, mostly because of the bad ending. On the other hand, I haven't seen any movies by Gary Ross before the Hunger Games either, so Francis Lawrence might be okay, too. I must say that I've particularly enyoyed the first, depressing half of I am Legend, which made being the 'last man on Earth' psychologically realistic, so maybe Francis Lawrence could still pull off those mind tricks in the Catching Fire arena part. I just hope he leaves a bit of that Gary-Ross-feel to it. 

So what do you think of the casting and the director? What do you think Catching Fire will bring us? Do you think it's going to be a 'worthy' adaptation, like the first one was? Comment below, let me know!

'Moonrise Kingdom' movie review

Now I wasn't exactly planning to see this movie, but I had an opportunity, so I said why not. Moonrise Kingdom is a comedy-drama, directed by Wes Anderson, set in the '60s, about two weird kids named Sam and Suzy, that start writing letters, fall in love and decide to run away into the wild together, as they are basically the only ones who understand each other. That causes a local search party to go looking for them, that includes Edward Norton as a scoutmaster, Bruce Willis as a policeman and Bill Murray and Francis McDormand as Suzy's parents. The movie also stars Harvey Keitel as an another scoutmaster and Tilda Swinton as 'social services'. And now we have our movie.

Just to clarify, Moonrise Kingdom is an indie and a bit artsy comedy. As much as I prefer Hollywood comedies, I don't mind an indie one from time to time. And this one sort of brought me what I expected: a bittersweet love story with typical, but sympathic and felicitious indie-comedy jokes. What I didn't expect was the oddity. The movie has a bit of a surreal feel to it and is very odd and strange. Not strange, that's not a good word...quirky. Yes, quirky is the best word to describe this movie. But what one of the rare good cartoons on TV nowadays, Adventure Time and Regular Show prove me every week, quirky doesn't neccesarily mean bad. And in the case of this movie, not bad at all.


What I've also heard about Moonrise Kingdom is that it's a typical Wes Anderson movie and that you'll love it, if you loved his previous work. I haven't watched or heard for any of his movies (or Wes Anderson for that matter) and after I've seen this, I won't be exactly illegaly downloading every one of his previous movies, but I have to say I enyoyed this. For some reason I kept rooting for the main characters to suceed, Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward as weird, troubled and emotionally disturbed 12-yr olds are downright brilliant, the A-star support cast is very good too, the jokes are typically indie, but pretty funny and all that is backed up with an unpredictable story, lots of interesting directing tricks and good music. Also, I'm quite sure it'll get an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay.


Total rating: 7.5 / 10

'Cloud Atlas' trailer review

A movie adaptation of the critically-acclaimed novel 'Cloud Atlas' by David Mitchell will hit the theatres in October and a 5-minute trailer was released online some time ago. I didn't really hear anything about Cloud Atlas until I just saw a title of some article saying: 'Will Cloud Atlas be the next Inception?'. Inception being my favourite movie, I had to go check out the trailer. And boy...was I in for a show tonight.

Now the trailer itself, it's just...undescribable. First, you see someone writing a journal on a ship in 19th century, then someone reading those half-finished journals some time later, then a woman reading old letters in the present, then that same guy reading the journals playing a piano piece with an older man in the back saying, he heard in a dream. Then we see the dream, which is a bit Charlie and the Chocholate factory-y, then we see the girl from the dream in an epic Tron-like future, then the guys from the present in different clothes and looks in a tropical, post-apocalyptic future...I could just go on and on. It looks like you're watching several different movies all cut together and even tough you don't understand anything, it makes you  want to go see the movie the same moment.

So I looked up 'Cloud Atlas' and saw, that the movie has a very good cast with Hollywood stars like Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant, Susan Sarandon, Slughorn and Mr.Smith. But what kinda bugs me are the directors. The movie is directed by The Wachowskis (The Matrix) and Tom Tykwer, the director of 'Run Lola Run'. Now to be honest, I've never seen any movies by these directors. I've heard all sorts about The Matrix and I will probably like it, once I finally watch it fully, not in just in confusing bits. But I haven't heard exactly good stuff about The Matrix 2, The Matrix 3 and Speed Racer. I've watched V for Vendetta (which was written by the Wachowskis) and it was good, but not great. As for Tom Tykwer...I heard he can do good and bad movies. So none of the directors are perfect. If only trailers could be so true.

Because the trailer is simply awesome and quite probably the best and most intriguing trailer I've ever seen. You do not understand a single thing going on the movie, you know it's something about everything being connected and six different stories together, but you want to go see the movie so bad. It has great music, from the peaceful 'Cloud Atlas sextet' piano piece at the beginning to the Two steps from hell-like music at the middle and the song 'Outro' by m83 at the end, all of the music in the trailer is amazing and perfectly-fitting. And in that grand finale of the trailer, with the music reaching its top, you see out-of-this-world stunning visual effects with the text going "Death, life, birth --- past, future, present --- love, hope, courage --- Everything is connected." And in that moment you know, that the trailer is amazing.

What I've also heard about Cloud Atlas is that it's supposed to be the first genuine arthouse blockbuster. That sounds logical, as The Wachowskis are more mainstream, while Tom Tykwer is more arthouse, but what is the movie going to be like? Will it be too arthouse or too blockbuster? Because that just worries me, since the trailer looks like such a perfect mix. The explosions in the Tron-like future and the super-slowmotion shots at the end reminds of the Matrix, while the text at the end at stuff like The Tree of Life. I can only hope the trailer can be so true of the movie, as I've said it's the best trailer I've ever seen that confuses you, yet makes you want to go see the film, makes you think, makes you guess, makes you theorize...And if a 5-minute trailer can do that...God knows, what the movie will.

So what do you think of the directors? What do you think the movie is going to be like? What do you think of the trailer? Check it out here, comment below, let me know!

Why is splitting 'Mockingjay' into two movies a bad idea

Sorry, Guardian for stealing your title, but I just had no better ideas. As you might have intelligently deduced from the title, the studios (I just call them all "the studios", because I have no idea which one they are) announced that the movie adaptation of the third and final book in the 'Hunger Games' trilogy, 'Mockingjay', will be split in two movies. Now anyone who has read all three books, knows that it's not really the best of ideas. I'll further explain why with a lot of major spoilers of course, so IF YOU HAVEN'T READ ALL THREE BOOKS YET, DO NOT READ THIS ARTICLE.

Now I haven't really liked Mockingjay . The first reason for that is because Finnick died. Now this is completely my opinion, as even tough I knew if there's going to be a final battle, he is one of those expendable characters, but he's just too awesome. Then because Prim died. She is definitely not an expendable character and reading about a little girl get blown up is just too much for a teenager's book. A lot of final books or movies have this kind of weird, spiritual, talking-to-myself part somewhere after the final battle and before the conclusion. In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, that is the 'King's Cross' chapter and it's actually enyoyable, because it explains some things, while the weird, spiritual, talking-to-myself part in Mockingjay is...well, weird and spiritual and confusing, so I actually skipped a few paragraphs.

There's another thing I didn't like about Mockingjay and that is something I don't know how to call otherwise then 'the rhythm of book.' I don't want to be comparing too much, but for an example the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows had a very exciting rhythm in the final battle that then slowed down in the 'King's Cross' chapter, then picked itself back up to lead into the epilogue. Mockingjay also has a fast rhythm with the battle, slows down, picks back up a bit and then starts slowing down continually to a total zero point and then just ends. Just not a way to finish a book or an epic series. And the final reason for me disliking the book - because she was with Peeta at the end. Now I am a heterosexual male and I hate that Twilight-y shit, but Gale is simply a more likeable character. I know that his bombs have maybe (!) killed her sister, I know that Gale will probably get any other girl out there, while Peeta knows that only Katniss exists and even, after thinking about it for some time and realising, that if I were the writer, I would probably done the same - after all that, I coudn't help myself from not liking the desicion.   Katniss is a fiery girl and she needs a fiery boy like Gale, not an unrealistically friendly guy like Peeta.

"Oh Katniss, you're the only thing that matters to me. But if i die, marry Gale with no pressure.

Or if I accidentally survive, I'll bake you two a wedding cake!"

So after reading the book I wasn't just sad because the series was over, but also because I didn't like the last  book, but I tought to myself that it's just my opinion.Then I browsed the Internet a bit and I saw that people weren't so kind towards it as well. Now I don't know if those reasons of mine that I found a bit childish and opinion-y were other people's reasons too or is it simply the fact that there were no Games in the third book. Now don't get me wrong, Mockingjay  wasn't THAT bad, It was enyoyable to read, I just didn't enyoy it as I did the first two. Altough I have to admit it has a lot of unexpected twists, but is still  unarguably the weakest book of the series. So why split it in two movies?

It was kinda logical with Deathly Hallows (I don't know about Twilight),  since it had the most story and was one of the best of the series, but this one doesn't really have the most story. Is it for money? A bit yes, but just for money is so greedy it's just unrealistic. Some said that they would easily get the PG-13 rating, if they literally cut all the violence in half, which sounds logical. Or maybe somebody proposed this because they wanted to improve the book and make the film better. I certainly hope that is the reason, even tough it sounds unlikely.

So what do you think of splitting Mockingjay? Did you like the book? If yes/no, why? Comment below, let me know! And if you're still in the mood for some Hunger Games, check out these hilarious Hunger Games characters Facebook status updates here.

Nolan's Batman's posters are plain AWESOME!

This isn't much of an article, as it is more a praise. A few days ago I was browsing through some movie posters and I discovered that a lot of the posters for the movies in Nolan's Batman trilogy are plain AWESOME! Really, there isn't a single one that i'd call bad or cliche. Here are my favourites:

The classic Batman Begins poster perfectly showcased the tone of the reboot and sort of gave you that really bad feeling those poor little bastards get in that split second when Batman is jumping on them. 

Emo Batman staring down at his feet? Not so cool. Emo Batman staring down at his feet, completely in shade with an epic-orange-sunset-y-themed-background? Very cool.

Many people praised that Dark Knight poster with the Joker behind the glass, but also seem to neglect this one for no reason, since it portrays that haunting feeling you get while watching Heath Ledger in the film just as much. This is also the only poster on this list I woudn't have hanged in my room, as it would simply scare the shit out of me.

Usually, the main poster for a film isn't anything special, as it is more basic and appealing to the general audience, while the teaser or character ones are good. This one is an exception. I mean, DUDE! It has the Batman simbol in fire, with  a text that says "Welcome to a world without rules" at the top! HOW CAN YOU NOT FIND THAT EPIC?!

Finally, we move on to the Dark Knight Rises with this teaser poster, comprising the Batman simbol out of buildings fall apart. What was my computer background for a quite a few months also hides an interesting detail, which sparked many rumours. Even tough those rumours turned out to be false, it's still unclear if it was an coincidence or an Easter egg:

The marvellous world of the interwebz also brought us a few interesting things, like these fan-made posters:

Now the only thing I didn't really like about Nolan's Batman trilogy is that there wasn't enough Scarecrow in it, beacuse he is just awesome. In this poster, he is in the front row, even tough he appears in the film for only a couple of minutes. Bonus points for that!

As we climb our way to the top, I bring you this...um...I'm kinda running out of positive adjectives...How about "awesome"? Is that enough? "Insanely epic?" Yeah, I'll go with that. I bring you this insanely epic, fan-made ultimate trilogy poster! If they ever release a DVD boxset with all three films (which they will), this should be the cover without question!

What do you think of these? Do you know any other good fan-made ones? Which are your favourite movie posters of all time? Comment below, let me know!

The Dark Knight Rises: What's the deal with Robin?

WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS FOR "THE DARK KNIGHT RISES" AHEAD


 Anyways, the topic of this sparkled many rumours, made many nerds (or non-nerds) bash their heads in, scratch'em, film YouTube discussions, blog, etc. The moment at the end, when officer John Blake revealed his real name - Robin, and inherited the Batcave.

A lot of people were automatically like "THERES GONNA BE ANOTHER MUVEE WITH ROBINHH!!!!11", but is that even possible, since it interchanges a bit with the plans of... well, everibody. Christian Bale said that he would return for a fourth movie, if Nolan approached him with a script and if there was no Robin in it. Chris Nolan announced that this will be the last Batman movie he will make and that it will end as a trilogy. That is understandable, since Nolan just isn't that typical Hollywood director that would just push for sequels to make money, since he wasn't even sure about filming a third one. And there are also the Warner Bros., which  announced that they will be rebooting Batman in a lighter form in 2015 (complete bullshit, if you ask me), so they can make a Justice League movie and make even more money, since they only produce about 3 blockbusters per month, so that's clearly not enough.

So what does this Robin thing mean? Is it just a so-called Easter Egg for fans or a hint for an another movie? Many people proclaimed that it doesn't mean he is Robin, since Robin's name wasn't really Robin. But another explanation could be, that they just said Robin, so everibody would understand the hint, since they said Robin, even my mom and sister understood the thing. I've done a little research and read many interesting theories, including one saying that actually was Robin from Nolan's wiew and it was just a nod to the character or that he will simply become - Batman. That makes sense, since the last shot in the film is Robin Blake rising upwards on a platform, surrounded by bats and then we see the title: "The Dark Knight Rises". But the possibilities are immense, so I have found two scenarios, which I call WHAT I WANT TO HAPPEN and WHAT I THINK WILL REALLY HAPPEN.

WHAT I WANT TO HAPPEN:

To be honest, I think we all agree on what we want to see. We want another movie, we want to see Joseph Gordon-Levitt become Robin the Nolan's way in another dark superhero epic. Just imagine for an example, Michael Fassbender as The Riddler or Philip Seymour Hoffman as The Penguin in a Nolan Batman movie, inspired by the Arkham City videogame. There are simply so many awesome ideas that would fit and would make another great film in the 'Nolanverse'. But on the other side we also feel like this should be the end of Nolan's Batman. The story has nicely concluded, why not let it be a trilogy and potentially ruin with sequels? I'm sure a possible Robin sequel woudn't be bad and woudn't exactly ruin the franchise, but it simply feels so much more noble and right to leave the Nolan's Batman trilogy an excellent trilogy.

WHAT I THINK WILL REALLY HAPPEN:

This was just a way to make people smile and sadly, there will be no Robin whatever movies, just the shitty (or maybe not, but I will automatically ignore and despise it) reboot in 2015. Maybe Robin John Blake will become Robin or Batman or whatever, but maybe that's simply what will happen to the character in his fictional universe, there just won't be any movie depicting it. What is slightly suspicious about this, is the way they covered it up. Just like Miranda Tate, we didn't know anything about John Blake except that he is an idealistic cop. So why would they hide him? In the end, whatever is going to happen, I think the Robin thing was great. Nolan really knows how to play with people's minds as he does in most movies. The Batman trilogy might be an exception, but he does play with our minds before and after the movies. Who will be the villain? Will Batman die? Will Bruce Wayne die, but not Batman? Is Catwoman the villain or the romantic interest? And even tough Nolan said this would be his last Batman film, he also said there won't be any Robins in his movies. So really, what the fuck will make out of this?

What do you think's going to happen? Was it just a joke, something bigger? Do you want to see another Nolan-Robin movie? Comment below, let me know!

The Dark Knight Rises: The Foreseeing Troll

WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS FOR "THE DARK KNIGHT RISES" AHEAD


In the second of my three spoiler-ish TDKR-related articles, we will talk about the mighty twist, that made us all stop breathing in the theatre for a couple of seconds. The mighty twist was that Miranda Tate backstabbed Batman (literally) and revealed herself as the child of Ra's Al Ghul and the real villain in this movie. Now I've seen some people complain that the twist ruined the film as it completely crushed the whole Bane thing of "a child, born and raised in hell on earth" and altought I have to admit that his death was far less epic then it should be, a twist was needed or else the movie would just feel like it's missing something. In most cases, twists are what makes a story good and with this twist, the Dark Knight Rises definitely has a good story.

I also have a pretty interesting story regarding this twist. Around six months ago, before we got any trailers showing more then Gordon coughing in a bed I clicked on some random Dark Knight Rises-related video on YouTube. There was this one comment with lots of negative votes, but curious ol' me still decided to click on the "show" button. And even tough I clicked on the "hide" button almost imediatelly, I still read a bit of the text that spelled: "Miranda Tate is the real villain".


Believe it or not, I actually overcame the spoiler. The problem with spoilers is that, even if you never think about it again and try to bury it deep down inside your mind, you will automatically get reminded of it, the moment you see anything regarding the spoiler (in this case, the movie). But I managed to convinced myself, that the spoiler was simply untrue, that there was no possible way for a random Internet troll to know something like that. When I watched the film, I was realistically surprised at the twist (again) but then remembered that guy who know it half a year ago. How was that possible?!

There are many explanations for this, but even the most logical ones are quite unbelieveable. Maybe the Internet troll was psychic. Maybe he was a crew member. Most likely, he was a hacker of some sort that leaked the info just for him. But what I don't understand that if any of these situations would be true, why would he just post something like that on a random YouTube video? If I got some info like that (and woudn't give a shit about the movie and planned to reveal it anyway) I would try to make some money with it or something. Who knows, maybe he just guessed and got lucky.


Anyway, what was amazing about the twist was also the way they covered it up. When Marion Cotillard was cast in the film, many people tought she would play Miranda Tate. Some people tought she could be the villain Talia Al Ghul, avenging the death and finishing the job of her father. But the studios and the media quickly denied all that and said only that Marion Cotillard will play Miranda Tate, Bruce Wayne's love interest and that Anne Hathaway will play Selina Kyle / Catwoman, the movie's villain. That's what they made us believe and then switch-a-roo-d the two roles around.


So what did you think of the twist? Do you think it ruined the film, made it better? And what you think, how the hell did that troll know it? Comment below, let me know!

The Dark Knight Rises: Ending Analysis

WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS FOR "THE DARK KNIGHT RISES" AND "INCEPTION" AHEAD


Now that the Dark Knight Rises has been in theatres for almost a month, we can talk about it all spoiler-ish without being crucified. It's a little late for a review, so I'll just say in short, what I think of the movie: awesome, great cast, lots of unexpected stuff happening, lots of things to bash our heads in, sense of finality, an unforgettable cinematographical experience. Just to clarify my appeal for it.

Now to refresh our minds: at the end of the Dark knight rises, Batman carried away the nuke with the Bat so far, that Gotham was out of its explosion range. Since the Bat didn't have the autopilot installed, Batman died and sacrificed himself in order to save the city. But some undetermined time later, Lucius Fox discovers that Bruce Wayne installed the autopilot on the Bat months ago. Later, we see Alfred seeing Bruce and Selina Kyle at a restaurant in Florence. No kids. 

Since Alfred told Bruce a story of how he goes to Florence every year and hopes and/or dreams (I don't really know) of seeing him, many people tought the ending was actually just Alfred imagining or dreaming or hoping or you get the idea. I do not agree, since Alfred never actually saw that Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle were "a thing", so it must have been reality and that it's not really an Inception-styled open ending. Some people proclaimed, that Alfred might still be imagining since he knew Selina and that Bruce was after her. No, he didn't! He was all "Miranda Tate is very lovely" and didn't know anything! Therefore, I find this argument unlogical and as much as I would want to find this an open edning where everibody is happy and anyone can make their own interpretation, it just doesn't seem so.


What did you think of the ending? Do you have any other interpretations? Was it a "worthy" ending? Comment below, let me know!