Tremors 5: Bloodlines - Okay

Today "Tremors 5: Bloodlines" was finally released across the board. It's been a little over a year since I first reported on the then rumours of a full Tremors reboot, which turned into news of an actual Tremors sequel just under a year ago. Fans have been mixed in their expecations, some being very excited, others being skeptical. But how exactly did "Tremors 5: Bloodlines" turn out?

There is a surprising amount of good material in "Tremors 5: Bloodlines". Going to Africa gives us new, but familiar, scenery in a franchise that's a quarter century old. We get new characters (Burt Gummer is the only remaining original character), new weapons, and kind of new graboids. Because this is Africa, and the local graboid life cycle turns out to have evolved slightly differently than its American cousin. The picture from the trailer that I speculated was a mixmaster creature? Turns out it's actually a plain old regular assblaster, just of the African variety. That alone fixed a lot of issues with the film for me. They went all out and made the monsters bigger and scarier, but still retained the core basics we've learned from the four previous films and 13 episodes of TV. 

But where there is only "some good", there is usually a lot of bad and meh. And "Tremors 5: Bloodlines" does have a lot of meh. Despite its short runtime of 100 minutes and being pretty packed with action sequences, I felt the urge to pick up my phone and see what happened on twitter and snapchat. It just doesn't grab on to you as well as I'd like. Jamie Kennedy's new character feels forced, and like a weird rip-off of "Tremors" TV's Tyler Reed. Who again in his time felt like a rip-off of "Tremors 3: Back to Perfection"'s Jack Sawyer, but Tyler got himself 13 episodes to redeem himself. Jamie's Travis gets 100 minutes. Despite some obvious "twists" and character revelations that the audience sees coming from a mile away he just ends up being an annoying sidekick that thinks he's a lot funnier than he actually is.

So all in all I am pleasantly surprised with this film, but I was also hugly skeptical. I'm pleasantly surprised because it isn't completely terrible. It feels like someone tried to make a Tremors film who just didn't know how, which is kind of exactly what it is. Stampede Entertainment was not involved, so the guys over at Universal 1440 has tried to recapture the magic unsuccesfully. Luckily Michael Gross knows Burt Gummer better than anyone and makes sure that what Burt does is what Burt would do. If you are a Tremors fan I would tell you to watch this film, otherwise there is no bother. It's the fifth best installment in a film franchise with five films.

Avengers: Age of Ultron - A Stepping Stone (English)

Ever since "The Avengers" was released three years back in 2012 we've been waiting for the sequel. Sure, there's been a lot of other MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) stuff released since then, a lot of better MCU stuff, but it's never been anything like what "The Avengers" was. Now, finally, we get to see what the guys have been up to.

"Age of Ultron" takes place roughly three years after the events of "The Avengers" from what I can gather, but quite a few things have changed. What was once the Tony Stark Tower is now the Avengers Tower, where the members of the Avengers group before and after their missions. Their missions from last time seem to be mostly rounding up stray Hydra bases, all in their bigger search for Loki's scepter. The film starts with one of the last of these missions, they have finally found the scepter. And I have to say, it was kind of weird. They had the full team of superheroes out to get this scepter. I get why it's important, but if they all have the time to team up for this I start to wonder why they didn't have time to team up during "Iron Man 3" or "Winter Soldier". I can still make excuses in my mind, like that they never had any time to warn or call one another, but it is one of the overbearing problems with this franchise. And it needs to be addressed. Why aren't they helping each other out in each other's films? Luckily this segment of the film ends soon enough for me not to think about it too much.

At that last Hydra base they raided on the mission to find the scepter, they discovered a powerful AI. Artificial Intelligence. Way more complex than what Stark's JARVIS has ever been. Stark and Banner start to rework this AI to build Ultron. A program they have long dreamed will be able to keep the world safe without the Avengers. A program that can control squadrons of Iron Man suits around the world, always on guard. This is what of course kickstarts the main plot of "Age of Ultron". So from here on out I'll avoid specific plot points.

The most interesting thing about this film is how funny it is. It's been a while since I last watched "Guardians of the Galaxy", but this just might be Marvel's funniest film so far. It's definitely funnier in a different way than "Guardians of the Galaxy". It's the kind of humour you have with your friends. Friendly banter and quips. They've managed to balance it very well, so you never forget that the film is in fact a fun entertainment piece, and not a huge dramatic epic. It keeps the film very efficiently grounded.

The most disappointing part of the film is perhaps the CG. There is a lot of very excellent CG, as always, and the most important parts are well produced. But often does a shot come along where you start to wonder how late it was added to the film. They look rushed, they look like they were a last minute idea, and they just don't have the same quality as the rest of the scenes. There was one very quick shot of Thor flying that almost looked like something from a low-budget television show.

But all in all this is a solid, and amazingly entertaining film. It is not Marvel's best, I can't say that. I still think that "Winter Solider" and "Guardians of the Galaxy" might be a few spots better, but this is so different that it's kind of hard to compare. "Winter Soldier" was a spy thriller, "Guardians of the Galaxy" a comedic space opera, and "Age of Ultron" is a real action blockbuster.  But it feels a bit like a stepping stone between "The Avengers" and the obvious huge event that will be "Avengers: Infinity War Part 1 & 2".

The Fast and the Furious - Ein mesterklasse i suksess

Eg såg den fyrste filmen ein gong for lenge sida. Det kan ikkje ha vore kjempelenge etter den kom ut. Eg forstod ikkje heilt appellen, og appellen ble enda mindre når eg så vidt såg noko av oppfølgjaren "2 Fast 2 Furious" ei stund etter. På grunn av det har eg til no blankt ignorert resten av filmane i serien. Til tross for kor svære og populære dei har blitt. Eg ville ikkje sjå dei, eg visste eg ikkje likte dei, eg visste dei var teite. Men herligheten så feil eg tok.

Markedsføringslaget bak filmen forten ein eller anna pris for det dei har gjort. Lenge har eg ikkje kunne gått på kino eller internett utan å sjå dei mest actionfullte scenane nokon sinne frå "Fast & Furious 7". Traileren starter med at dei hopp i fallskjerm i bilar. Når filmen då endeleg kom ut i Noreg lurte eg på om eg ikkje burde sjå resten av filmane, kanskje det var noko i dei sida dei var så populære, og såg så kule ut, men det var ikkje før hypen frå USA kom til lands at eg verkeleg forstod at eg måtte sjå filmen. I går, sundag, såg eg filmar nummer 1 til nummer 5. Rundt ti timar med bilar og action som eg trudde eg ikkje likte. Det var så vidt eg kom meg så langt, for "2 Fast 2 Furious" står enda ut som ein sår tommel, men når serien finn ut kva den verkeleg er. Det er då det starter.

Den nyaste filmen, den syvande, er kva eg ville kalt den tredje i ein soft reboot av serien. For i film nummer 5 ("Fast Five") byrjar dei å gå i ein heilt anna retning. Dei forstår at det er ekstrem action og tøffe karakterer me er ute etter. Familiedramet kan gå meir i bakgrunnen og funke som drivstoff for actionen me verkeleg vil ha. "Fast & Furious 7" tar heilt av i alle banar. Det er action frå byrjing til slutt med veldig få dødpunkt. Det er nesten den perfekte actionfilm, det er iallefall den perfekte actionfilm for vår tid. Me har helikopter, me har dronar, me har fallskjermbilar, me har kule gadgets, fine damer, muskelbuntar, morosame vitsar, nesten alt er på plass.

Ja, eg seiar at nesten alt er på plass, men det er ein veldig tynn nesten. For viss du ser på dette som eit dramatisk epos kor historia er i senter av alt så blir det kanskje litt vel tynt. Det meste av plot er gåing frå punkt til punkt. Når du kjem frå A til B så går du til C, så til D, og ein siste gong til E. Det er ikkje noko magisk, ingenting spesielt du ikkje har sett før, men den trenger ikkje å vera det. For med alt den har så er den ein av dei mest underhaldane filmane du kjem til å sjå i år, og vonar verkeleg at du ser den.

Home - Entertains If It Musts (engelsk)

It is time for one of my promised posts in English! I noticed that DreamWorks Animation's 31st film has yet to premiere in its home country of the USA, so if you want some opinions look no further. Except maybe if you want some good ones.

"Home" follows a boov named Oh and a human named Trip. The booves have invaded the Earth and relocated all humans to a massive city in Australia whilst trying to escape the evil gorgs. In the middle of this Trip was left behind due to a series of flukes and decides to not wait around for her mom anymore. It's time she finds her. Oh who as accidentally invited the gorgs to a housewarming party is being hunted by every other boov on the planet and decides to help Trip so that he may lay low for a while. It all sounds pretty fun and original for a film like this, but unfortunately it just doesn't deliver, even by DreamWorks' lower standards.

Being DreamWorks' only theatrical release in 2015 hasn't given "Home" any advantages to the films released in years where there have been multiple. Apart from the interesting opening segment showing the boov invading the Earth the film offers few goodies. The most insulting part is that it doesn't even look that good compared to what we've grown used to from even the indiest of CG animated films. Often the scenes are so poorly composited that it looks like a weird green screen shot, hair looks like something out of an advanced student film, and when they show water it runs into the problem of it being too realistic, not matching the style of the film otherwise. It's all over the place.

That said, the film does manage to pull on some emotional strings. You do develop limited connections with at least Oh. Jim Parsons' voice acting is a high light of the film, even though it's not amazing in itself it does help you empathise and understand Oh enough to cheer when he triumphs and sigh when he fails. All in all, this is a completely average CG animated film, and a subpar DreamWorks film. There is better, but it will entertain if it musts.

Insurgent - Overraskande

Den populære sjangeren post-apocalyptisk tenåringsdrama ser ikkje ut til å gå på tomgong heilt enda. Kvart år kjem det ny film i ein allereie populær serie og iallfall ein ny film som prøver på det same. Det dei alle har til felles er at dei er basert på populære bøker om unge mennesker som lever i onde verder. "Insurgent" er ein av dei som er oppfølgjer, og er heldig nok til å ha fleire av dei mest lovande og populære skodespelarene med seg på laget. Men koss er den samenlikna med "Divergent" som var hakket over berre grei?

Overraskande bra, må eg ærleg talt seia. Som sagt var den førre litt meir enn heilt grei, men ikkje med mykje. Den var god nok for meg til å ville sjå kva som hendte vidare, men eg kan vel ikkje seia at eg har tenkt på den eit sekund sida kvelden eg fyrst såg den for eit år sida. "Insurgent" byggjar bra på det som "Divergent" allereie har etablert, til det punktet at det nesten verkar som ein eigen film. For denne filmen er så annleis som det går an å bli frå "Divergent" mens den enda kan dele same sjanger, kjensla, og univers. Me har ikkje lenge sjenerte og uvante Tris, me har Tris som får fart på ting. Tris som veit kva som må bli gjort, og gjerne gjer det så fort som mogleg. Kjæresteforhaldet frå førre film tar ikkje berre andre rad, det havner langt bak mot bakerst i salen. Me får nok til å forstå at dei enda er kjærestar, men ikkje noko forbi det. Dette er ikkje ein kjærleikshistorie.

Det er vel det som er den største fordelen denne filmserien har over den største konkurrenten "The Hunger Games". Som ein som likar båe bøkane og filmane veldig godt, kan det der fort bli gamalt når me heile tida må følgje med på kven det er Katniss er glad i av Peeta og Gale, nett som med Bella, Edward, og Jacob. Dog klarer ikkje "Insurgent" å matche dramatikken i actionscenane på same måte som "Catching Fire" eller "Mockingjay Pt. 1", men den prøvar heller ikkje så veldig mykje på det. "Insurgent". Fokuset i filmen ligg åleine på Tris og koss skal kome seg dit ho treng å vera. Det skjer gjennom nokre få, kraftige, actionscenar, men for det meste lengre gjennom dramascenar.

Alt i alt er dette ein veldig lovandes film som byggjar opp mot enda større oppfølgjare, men den er ikkje heilt på nivået med "The Hunger Games" og "Harry Potter" som den klart blir samenlikna mot. Filmen er dog faktisk så underhaldande og spennande at eg ved filmens slutt trudde me så vidt var kome halvvegs. Ikkje fordi historia slutta brått, men fordi tida hadde gått så fort. Viss du allereie likar filmar som dei nevnde over, eller til og med "The Maze Runner", så kjem du til å like denne. Men ikkje forvent at det er noko du kjem til å snakke om i lange tidar framover.

Inherent Vice - Lang og dryg

"Inherent Vice" kjem frå regissør Paul Thomas Anderson som gjennom filmar som "Magnolia", "There Will Be Blood", og "The Master" har bygd seg eit ganske bra rykte i Hollywood. Han som tør, og får lov til, å lage litt lengre og drygare filmar enn normen. Med seg her har han óg Joaquin Phoenix som han tidlegere jobba med på "The Master".

Dette er ein av dei få filmane som eg visste om og ville sjå, men aldri leste meg opp på. Normalt sett så veit eg iallfall konseptet og sjangeren før eg går inn, eller ingenting i det heila tatt fordi eg berre bestemte meg for å sjå den. Men "Inherent Vice" har eg høyrt om sida før den premierte i USA i desember, eg har høyrt folk snakka om den, og eg har visst at eg ville sjå den, men eg har aldri lest meg opp på den. Eg trur eg kanskje såg ein kvart trailer i fjor haust, men ingenting som sa meg noko nevneverdig, eg ville gå inn blank.

For eg visste at dette uansett kom til å vera ein spesiell film, ein slik film som eg kanskje ikkje ville sett om eg hadde visst for mykje om den på forhand fordi eg ville overbevist meg sjølv om å heller sjå ein tryggare film som eg visste eg kom til å like. Og det var det absolutt. Filmen følgjer Doc, ein privatetterforskar som har havna midt i noko stort via fleire småjobbar og løftet om å redde eks-kjæresten frå ein skittstorm ho har rota seg inn i. Det er faktisk ein vaskekte film noir detektivhistorie, berre satt til 70-tallet med ein dopa privatetterforskar i hovudrolla.

Phoenix er heilt klart det beste med filmen, som alltid gir han ein fantastisk forestilling frå byrjing til slutt. Josh Brolin gjer óg ein knakanes jobb som politibetjent Bjornsen, men utanom dei to er det langt mellom godbitane. Det er scenane mellom Doc og Bjornsen som gjer at filmen blir toleleg i dei lange 148 minutta. For ja, filmen er for lang og for dryg for min del. Det blir for langt mellom godbitane, og eg tykkjar det blir veldig mykje gjentakning. Doc går til ein person, Doc finn ut av noko, Doc drar heim, Doc snakkar med Bjornsen, Doc går til ein person, Doc finn ut av noko, Doc drar heim. Eg forventa ikkje ein actionfilm på nokon måte, men det kunne blitt gjort litt meir spennende enn å sjå på ein fyr som snakkar med folk og tar dop.

Alt i alt så er dette ein film eg vil seia eg likar, men eg kjem neppe til å sjå den att. Gleden i filmen ligg i å finne ut av kven som er kven og som har gjort kva, og få aha-augeblikk saman med Doc. Pluss å sjå Phoenix og Brolin samspele i dei altfor få scenane dei har i samen, dei burde egenleg laga ein film berre om dei to. Då hadde me snakka bra film.

Amazonia - Fin fiksjonsdokumentar

Eg visste ingenting om denne filmen før eg såg traileren foran "The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water" førre veke. Sjølv då var eg ikkje sikker på kva det egenleg var, og det frista ikkje så veldig mykje å sjå den. Men når premieren kom i går så klarte eg av ein eller anna grunn ikkje å dy meg, eg måtte sjå kva dette var for noko.

"Amazonia" kan vera litt vanskeleg å forstå til å byrje med. Det er ingen tale (med unntak av tri-fire replikker på uteksta portugisisk) og kinematografien minner meir om fiksjonsfilm enn dokumentarfilm, og filmen er faktisk lista som dokumentar. Me byrjar med å følgje ein apekatt i fangenskap som blir satt i eit bur på eit fly for å tilsynelatande flytte til ein ny plass. Flyet styrter kort tid etter midt i Amazonas og piloten av det lille flyet forlater apekatten utan mykje tanke. Det er no filmen verkeleg starter.

For filmen har close-ups, then har establishing shots, then har totalbileter, den har alt som du ville forventa frå ein Disney-film som "Homeward Bound", men alle dyra verker så mykje meir ekte. Dyra ser ut til å reagere nett som eg ville forventa dei ville reagert, dog eg er på ingen måte ekspert på dyrereaksjoner. Det blir som ein dokumentar kor me følgjer ekte dyr som berre tilfeldigvis havner midt i ein typisk tri-akters heltehistorie. Og det er dette som óg er midt største problem med filmen. For når eg byrjar å tenke slik så tenker eg på at dette faktisk er ektre dyr i situasjoner som til dem verker ekte. Er det ville dyr? Er det fanga dyr? Uansett blir det då litt mykje for meg å sjå ein apekatt svømme nedover eit elvestryk og falle frå trær.

Til tross for alt dette så er det ein meget underhaldende og fin film, det var aldri keisamt i kinosalen. Det var alltid noko å sjå på, noko å forundre over. Og til tross for å vera essensielt ein stumfilm utan tekst så får du eit sterkt bånd til apekatten i senter av historia. Du må berre bestemme deg for om du kan takle å sjå ekte dyr på denne måten, for eg veit at det ikkje er noko for alle.

Chappie - Grei underhaldning

Eg ville veldig gjerne seia enten at "Chappie" var crappie, eller at den gjorde meg veldig happie, men verken eller er sant. Det er ein heilt midt-på-treet film som verken fortener slakten eller skryten den får. Hadde det ikkje vore for at regissøren etterkvart er blitt nisjekjendis blant vitsjonfans for "District 9" hadde den filmen blitt mottatt mykje meir lunkent.

"Chappie" er satt til Johannesburg og viser ein by så oppslukt av kriminalitet at robotar blir satt inn som politistyrke. Me følgjer nokre ansatte frå firmaet som lagar robotane pluss nokre småkriminelle med planar om større brekk. Chappie sjølv blir til når ingeniøren Deon installerer eit eksperimentelt AI-program (kunstig intelligens) på ein øydelagt politirobot, men Deon får ikkje behalde ham då dei småkriminelle har planar om å bruke ham til å foreta ran av pengebil.

Konseptet må eg seia er ganske kult, og relativt bra gjennomført der kor det teller mest. Å sjå Chappie lære seg kva det er å vera i live frå sør-afrikanske gangstere er smått fantastisk. Han lærer seg å gå som dei, snakke som dei, elske dei, men aldri heilt å vera som dei. Deon smett innom frå tid til tid når han kan, håpande på at han kan få Chappie til å bli eit vidunderbarn av dikt, maleri, og sang, men Chappie vil heller vera litt meir som dei kriminelle. Med unntak av faktisk kriminalitet.

Der filmen fall samen er på skodespel, manus, og effektar. Animatørane har gjort god jobb på Chappie (for det er faktisk animatørar, og ikkje motion capture-artistar som står bak) og Sharlto Copley får mykje fram med stemma si, men dei andre er langt frå så gode. Mykje er berre overdramatisert, til tidar verker det som om folka i filmen kan enten berre skrike eller hviske. Historien slik den spelar ut er heller ikkje fantastisk, og dialogen som følgjer er heller ikkje mykje å skryte av. Som eg sa, konseptet er kult, men dei kunne brukt meir tid på å faktisk få vist koss Chappie går frå punkt ein til punkt to. Det er relativt humpete slik det er, og av og til forandrer han seg litt vel mykje, litt vel kjapt.

Alt i alt så er dette ein fin film å sjå på Netflix ein kveld, men du treng ikkje å gå på kino for å sjå den. Sjølve roboten Chappie er den einaste som er verdt å sjå, men det kan vente på seg for det er ikkje noko banebrytande.

The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water - For fansen

Eg må ærleg talt seia at eg er ganske langt utanføre denne filmen sin målgruppe. Eg har aldri sett mykje av serien, når eg såg den for fyrste gong tykkja eg det var for barnsleg og har aldri egenleg gått tilbake att. Det har vore eit klipp her og der på YouTube eg har tykkja var morosamt, men det var ikkje før eg høyrte om denne filmen at eg byrja å sjå båe på serien og den fyrste kinofilmen basert på den valdsamt populære teikneserien.

Det eg har fått sett av TV-serien har eg likt nokså godt, og filmen var spesielt god. Ein av dei betre 2D-animerte kinofilmane dei siste åra. Men "Sponge Out of Water" fenga ikkje spesielt mykje. Den blir altfor opphugga etter min smak, noko eg kunne forstått ettersom ein typisk episode av serien er berre på ti minutt, men den fyrste filmen klarte kjempebra å forlenge konseptet til ein heilaftensspelefilm. Det verkar som om dei hadde mange mindre ideer som egenleg kunne funka bra som episoder, men så pusla dei i staden klippa samen til ein film slik at dei fekk større budsjett til å gjere dei nokså ambiøse ideane sine betre. For det er mykje stilig i denne filmen.

Ein av dei stiligere delane av filmen er det som dei har vist mest i trailerene, der kor SpongeBob og venane hans blir om til 3D-animerte figurar og går opp på land med live-action bakgrunn. Serien sjølve eksperimenterer med visuelle uttrykk, og filmen er ikkje noko unntak. Me får 2D-animasjon, 3D-animasjon, fotorealistisk CG, og til og med noko som minner meir om dukkespel enn noko anna. Det er kjekt og held deg på tåa sidan du aldri er heilt sikker på koss ting kjem til å sjå ut.
(P.S. filmen er faktisk hovudsakeleg 2D-animert i motsetning til kva trailarene seiar, så om det har vendt deg mot filmen så må du vite at det 3D-animerte aspektet ikkje er kjempestort.)

Alt i alt er dette ein heilt grei film. Men den passer klart betre for barna og den allereie fastsatte fanskaren enn eit nytt publikum. Det er dog heilt klart vits å sjå denne filmen om du har ein kjærleik for animasjon, det er nokså langt mellom 2D-animerte kinofilmar frå Hollywood i det siste, og eg fryktar det blir enda lengre til neste film. Det er alltid noko for animasjonsfans å sjå på her, sjølv om historia ikkje fenger.

Kingsman: The Secret Service - Bra britisk brillefilm

"Kingsman: The Secret Service" har for nokon flydd fine tri hundre fot under raderen, mens den for andre har vore ein av dei mest påventa filmane dette året. Sjølv visste eg lite om filmen før mot slutten av i fjor, når trailerene på fullt byrja spela på min lokale kino. Men med Matthew Vaughn bak roret og ein norsk skodespelar blant rollane så måtte det sjåast.

Fox Movies

"Kingmsan: The Secret Service" er basert på ein teikneserie nett som Matthew Vaughn sin andre storslagar, "X-Men: First Class". Men likheitane stoppar ikkje der. "Kingsman" handler óg om ein hemmeleg organisasjon av høgst talentfulle individer som jobbar på lag for å stoppe verdas største trusler, den har óg ein utruleg velført stil, og for å ikkje gløyme eit jetfly gøymt under plenen til eit heller fint herskapshus. Men til tross for alt som er likt, må eg få seia at dette er ein nær unik film, som mestrer sine sjangeres tropar veldig bra, og ikkje tullar rundt. Dette er ein av årets beste.

Eg føler meg nesten dum når eg igjen har ein film som skal bli årets beste, me er jo ikkje ferdige med februar ein gong! Men sånn er det no, eg tviler på at det kjem altfor mange andre filmar som kan ta att denne på favorittlista mi. "Kingsman" er inget mesterverk på same måte som ein kan seia "Citizen Kane", "Schindler's List", eller "Whiplash" er, men den er eit absolutt mesterverk i rein underhaldning.

"Kingsman" følgjer hovudsakleg ungdommen Eggsy, og hans mentor Harry (spelt av Colin Firth). Harry er medlem at Kingsman-organisasjonen, ein spionorganisasjon som handlar selvstendig utanføre nokon regjering, Harry meiner at Eggsy er den perfekte kandidat til å bli ein såkalla Kingsman etter at ein av hans kolleger blir drept i kamp. Me får då sjå Eggsy gå gjennom alle prøvane som må til for at ein skal kunne kalla seg sjølv ein Kingsman.

Strukturen på denne filmen er nokså spesiell i forhald til andre liknande filmar, og enda meir så i forhald til all anna samtidsfilm. Filmen byrjar nokså treigt og faktisk noko uinteressant før den så blir meir og meir spennande som den går. Den klassiske dramaturgi-grafen, som mange av oss har sett før, har båe oppturar og nedturar i spenningsaksen, men Kingsman sin går nesten rett opp som ein diagonal. Det kan vera vanskeleg å setta seg inn i til å byrja med, då det er annleis frå koss ein er vant med å sjå film, men når ein fyrst kjem inn i det er det fantastisk. Det er ikkje eit einaste augenblikk som ikkje er meir spennende enn det som var før det, frå start til slutt.

Det mest negative med denne filmen er dei visuelle effektane. For ein film med eit såpass stort budsjett forventar eg meir enn det eg ble levert. Ja, det er nokon shots, som med alle filmar, som er betre enn andre. Dei såkalle moneyshotsa, dei som det ble spart opp pengar til for å få ekstra fine, men det er så mange mindre effektshots i denne filmen som berre ikkje strekkar til. Dei ser ut som om dei er fleire år gamle, og det er ganske mykje når det kjem til denne bransjen. Fleire av dei beste actionsekvensane blir nesten øydelagt av det, eg ble konstant kasta ut av filmen når det plutseleg var eit nærbilete av ein avkappa finger som såg ut som den var blitt rotoskopa ut av, vel, meg sjølv. Det meste av dette er i byrjinga, som er den delen eg har mest problem med uansett pga. det lave spenningsnivået, men det er også liknande shots spredd utover mot slutten av filmen, kor det absolutt ikkje burde vore spart på pengane. Dei kan betre for 81 millionar dollar.

Men alt i alt så er dette heilt klart ein fantastisk film. Me får flotte skodespelarpresentasjonar frå heile spekteret av rollar, me får ein spennende historie med faktisk oppbyggjing, me får fantastiske mengder humor, me får kanskje tiårets beste filmreplikk, og me får kule spiondingsebomsar. Det einaste verkeleg kjipe, og eg meinar verkeleg kjipt, er at når me endeleg får ein nordmann med i ein så kul spionkomedie, som er så bra laga, så spelar han ein svenske. Det kunne dei spart seg for.

The Interview - Actually Funny

We have all heard about "The Interview" at this point, and if you haven't then I seriously question how you even stumbled upon this blog in the first place. Back in the summer of 2014 was when I first heard about this film. I thought it sounded like just another stupid Seth Rogen film, meaning that I would of course watch it, but maybe not really like it. He can go either way for me. Then the whole "Sony hack" debacle took place. Not I really wanted to watch it.

"The Interview" is about this TV host (James Franco) who ends up scoring an interview with Kim Jong-un simply because the dictator is a big fan of his show (which is looked at as garbage in the US). When the CIA finds about this, they urge the host and his producer (Seth Rogen) to assassinate Jong-un. The concept is extremely crazy, but it works.

The reason it actually works so well is the seriousness in which the story is told. I'm not saying it's a dramatic what-if, but it's not told like most comedies. It almost makes it seem like this is a real possibility, that this could happen, and that if it did it would happen like this. They make sure to have minimal involvement from the CIA on-screen, meaning you won't really have time to realise just how impossible this whole thing is. It also helps that the film is actually funny. Most of the time, at least.

Rogen films really can go either way when it comes to humour. Sometimes they are hilarious from start to finish, other times they're just filled with painful jokes that never lead anywhere. "The Interview" isn't hilarious from start to finish, but it is certainly funny enough for what it is. It's funny because of how bizarre it is, not because of how funny it is, which is a type of humour I quite like myself. It just builds and builds, and as the "reality" of the film sinks in it just gets so absurd that even the stupidest of jokes appear to be funny. They've managed to find a fine balance of when to tell jokes, and when not to.

In general this is a really entertaining film. Sure, there are parts where it really drags on, but the overall picture of it is solid. If you read the synopsis and you think it sounds interesting, you will probably like this film. It delivers on what it promises. Nothing more, a little bit less.

The Theory of Everything - A Too Breif History of Hawking

The first time I watched the trailer for "The Theory of Everything" I almost thought it was a joke. Some shitty pretentious biography the likes of "Jobs" with Ashton Kutcher. It just didn't look particularly good. It was almost like the kind of trailer you see for fake films in mediocre sitcoms. Needless to say I was floored when all the raving reviews came in, and even more so when the nominations started flowing. Today was finally mine turn to see what this was about.

It was far from as bad as I had imagined. In fact, it's quite enjoyable. But I can neither say that it's as good as everyone seems to think. The acting done by Eddie Redmayne is marvelous, yes, but the rest is really quite average for a film of this caliber. This is exactly the kind of film that the awards in the US tend to favour, a biopic about a struggling legend who manages to do what few others could. With that in mind, this isn't as good as I feel this genre expects. It is a very broken up story, trying to tell most of Hawking's adult life in two hours. It can be hard at times to keep track up what has been done and what is still to come.

The best parts of this entire thing are Redmayne's performance, and the music. Redmayne is so good as Hawking, that there are parts where I genuinely forget I am watching an actor. This could also owe its fair share to costume, make-up, and casting, but Redmayne could have easily screwed up and handed in a weak performance despite the physical similarities. The music also stands out as something fantastic. It never fails to convey the mood of the film, but is never too invasive, telling you what to think and what to feel at any given time. It just complements the feelings already there, as any good score ought to do.

Overall, this isn't really a film you have to watch, but I think you would enjoy it if you ever end up doing it. If nothing else it helps you sympathise with Hawking, and what it is exactly that he has had to go through to get where he is today.

Jupiter Ascending - YEAH!

It seems that every year there's some giant science fantasy type film that I just end up adoring a lot more than everyone else. "Green Lantern", "John Carter", "Cloud Atlas", "Snowpiercer", and now "Jupiter Ascending".

I am not going to lie. Even though it wouldn't surprise me even a little if this popped up on my top 10 of 2015 list in January, it's not a good-good film. There are a lot of things wrong with it, but it is insanely fun. There isn't a single dull moment in over two hours, which is an amazing accomplishment. I found myself actually thinking it was a bit rushed sometimes, but that could be just because I've gotten so used to films spending far too much time on so little recently. From start to finish this film is on its feet, running around showing you as much of its universe as it can. Which it does magnificently. You really get a sense of scale, even though they actually show you very little of the giant universe they talk about.

The visuals are stunning. They aren't great in the same way that the visuals of "Gravity" and "Interstellar" are great, but they have a feel to them. They add to the universe they are in, instead of just adhering to it. We get a handful of different types of aliens, some worlds, a lot of ships, and of course downtown Chicago.

The bad parts of this film are mostly due to the acting and dialogue. Sometimes it just gets too cheesy, even for a film about an alien wolfman who comes to save the human beequeen. The love subplot between Jupiter (Mila Kunis) and Caine (Channing Tatum) feels so forced that not even the characters themselves feel like it's right. It just pops up here and there and makes the characters behave wildly different from how they do otherwise in the film. Suddenly they talk only in riddles and metaphors, and Jupiter becomes totally uninterested in the amazing situation she has gotten herself into. Which leads me to the second thing that is a bit offputting in hindsight, but not so much when you're watching it. The sense of time. Looking back, it feels as if the entire film took place over just a few hours. Maybe a day. But it is very evident by the film that more time has taken place. They have made the story so efficient, cutting so many unnecessary things, that they've completely forgotten that often the unimportant things in films are there just to make time go. Both for the audience, and the characters.

All in all I truly adore this film. I love everything it's trying to be, and I love everything it actually is. But I am a huge sucker for science fantasy film, big space operas with a lot of aliens and interplanetary politics are just my cup of tea. I would have been surprised if I hadn't liked it. If you feel like what I've talked about is the kind of thing you would like, then this is something for you. If, on the other hand, you don't really care one way or the other, you will probably not like this. It's not for everyone, that is for sure.

Birdman - Calvin and Riggan

"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)" has been talked about a lot ever since it first premiered. People have been praising it up and down, raving about every little detail of it. Saying it's a masterpiece. Because of this I've been rather skeptical, rarely can I go into a film that is so hyped up without being at least a little bit disappointed. Today was not like that.

"Birdman" follows Riggan Thomson, a former big-shot actor who is credited by bringing life to the superhero as a film genre. He is setting up a play on Broadway which he is both writing, directing, and starring it. He's putting everything on the line to be viewed as something more than just a filmstar, more than just Birdman.

The entirety of this film is a perfect balancing act of crazy indie-picture, and mainstream Oscar-bait. It's about a filmstar and his view of the film business, which is something the Academy just loves. Time and time again we see these "meta" films about the business itself being nominated, not necessarily because they're the best, but because the voters identify with them more. At the same time we have an artsy and barrier-breaking film which manages to fool the audience into thinking that this is an extremely small film, almost student level. It all takes place at the theatre, never leaving unless they absolutely have to, and even then they go to limited sets. It's almost as if the film itself is a play.

The cinematography in this film is some of the best I've seen in years, and if it doesn't win that award at the Oscars something is wrong. It is clearly better than the rest of the nominees, and in a way that is easily accessible for everyone. Often cinematography can be hard to judge for the average filmgoer, it's just a frame you see things through. But the way the camera is used in this film can clearly be noticed. Almost the entire film is one "continuous" shot, all the cuts are hidden with either clever transitioning shots or VFX shots. This has limited the use of the camera, as you can't just cut to a closeup, then cut to a wideshot, then see something that happens on the other side of the world. You move with the camera throughout the film, it's almost like you are a character in it. Again, it's like a play.

The acting is also some of the best, and everyone in it who is nominated for Oscars have deserved it. They are all in on the game that this is a pseudo indie picture, they manage to act in a way that resembles amateurish that is in actuality great. It's like Calvin's drawings in "Calvin and Hobbes". Bill Watterson draws them in such a way that they look exactly like a child's drawings, but they are in fact amazing drawings that perfectly represents what they are supposed to. You can't simplify something to such a degree unless you really understand it to begin with, and it looks like everyone in this film understood what they were doing.

As a closing remark, this film is amazing. If it is still in theatres where ever you are right now, go watch it. Even if you already have. This won't be as magical and as special experienced through the glow of a laptop screen, or on your Nokia in your hand. Treat yourself to the real experience this time. It's worth it.

Unbroken - Not Very Jolly

"Unbroken" is one of the more silent and unkown Oscar nominees this year. It's actually up for three awards, one for cinematography, and for both sound mixing and sound editing. It doesn't really have any star power to it, except for the fact that Angelina Jolie directed it. But not too many people go into a film because Jolie directed it. Still, it's done okay enough at the boxoffice, and well enough with the critics. Now it's my turn to talk about it.

"Unbroken" follows Louis Zamperini, an Olympic runner who ends up fighting in the second world war against the Japanese. The first part of the film focuses on his childhood, him finding his dream and going to the Olympics in Nazi Germany before suddenly being thrown into the middle of a war. The main plot of the film starts after Louis' bomber crew crashes into the ocean on a rescue mission, they are stranded in the ocean until they're picked up by a Japanese ship and are then put into Japanese prisoner camps.

The film has gotten generally luke warm reviews, people say it's been done before, better. And I have to agree to an extent. We have seen all of the elements of this film before, but I can't say that I have seen them put together like this. Does it work? Not all the time. Sometimes it just drags on because they decide to spend too much time on one aspect of the film, while other times it goes to fast, you barely get to understand what's going on before it's over. The acting is nothing to write home about. It's just there, it gets the job done, but you won't be left with any lasting impressions of it. The biggest surprise there was how well Domhnall Gleeson pulled off an American accent.

All in all, this isn't something you need to spend two plus hours of your life on, unless you're really big on war films. You won't regret watching it, but you definitely won't remember it fondly even a week after. It will just be another thing that happened in your life, and you won't even remember it again until that one time you happen to zap by it on cable and spend a few moments trying to remember why it feels to familiar.

Nightcrawler - Not *That* Nightcrawler

No, it's another X-Men film that you somehow missed. Trust me, I checked. This "Nightcrawler" stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Louis Bloom. A jack of all trades who takes a sudden interest in filming news stories for the highest bidder.

"Nightcrawler" has been talked about and praised for quite some time now, but it wasn't until last weekend that it finally made its way to little Norway. It more or less only made it here in the first place because of all of its nominations and wins during the on-going awards season. And I am so very glad that it did. This is by far the film that will define Jake Gyllenhaal's career for years to come. He has been known for quite some time as "that gay cowboy" from "Brockback Mountain", sometimes even as distantly as just Maggie Gyllenhaal's brother, this may still hold true for the more casual moviegoers, but it definitely won't for the more avid film buffs.

"Nightcrawler" follows Louis Bloom and his associate Rick while they crawl the nights of Los Angeles looking for the best news stories to sell to the news stations. Lou gains a sudden advantage in the field by really not holding back. He gets closer than anyone, and subsequently is the one whose clips are sold the most. Gyllenhaal offer some of the best acting of 2014 in this film, some of the best of the decade so far. Showing a range of emotion and being seen far too rarely these days. Clocking in at just under two hours I was fearing that it might feel too long, but Gyllenhaal's presence really keeps you in the moment. Always wondering what is going to happen next, what will he do now? The two hours just flew by, and it ended at more or less the perfect time. Not dragging it too long, and not cutting it too soon.

Overall this is just an amazing film, definitely one of the bests of recent years. I would even go so far as to say that this is a film that will be remembered. Maybe not the so much the plot and meaning of it, but the character Louis Bloom and Gyllenhaal's portrayal of him. It will be one the films that my generation will curse the generations after them for not watching because of how outdated it is (which I do think the plot will become in not too long). I'm just saying, those darn kids better get off my lawn.

What We Do in the Shadows - Mock the Vamp

Once again I was lead into a cinema on nothing more than good word of mouth online and the idea that I maybe once saw a teaser for the film. It's surprising how often this results in a pleasant experience.

"What We Do in the Shadows" is a mockumentary following a group of vampires who all live in the same house. One of the pillars of being a vampire is not telling it to anyone, as it will only end up with fighting, and humans are just better off not knowing. The camera crew shooting an exposé excluded, of course.

The word I head of this film was that it would be one of the funniest of the year, but I was still taken aback at how funny this film actually was. They don't really do any jokes about vampires you haven't seen or heard before, but they do them in a refreshing and incredibly fun way. Having each vampire be from different points of time is one of those ways. It's often glanced over how old vampires are, and how much of an age difference there can be, but here it's all on the table. You have your present day vampires, and you have vampires dating back eight thousand years.

There has been a lot of mockumentary style comedy over the last decade or so, to the point where I myself often can be put off a bit just by the mention of it being used (even though I quite like a lot of mockumentaries). But this proves that the genre does indeed have merit. They use the mockumentary aspect more to their advantage than things like "Parks and Recreation" or "The Office" which might be the best known examples of this type of storytelling. This isn't just a comedy in the style of a documentary (i.e. shaky camera, talking to the camera), they incorporate a lot more into it. Making it feel like a proper documentary a lot of the time, making it all the more ridiculous and hilarious. If you only see one film about vampires this season, make it "What We Do in the Shadows".

Paddington - A Lovely Reunion

I can't say that Paddington Bear had the biggest influence on me growing up. But I do remember watching cartoons about him, and my parents getting excited when visiting Paddington station in London. The thought had never crossed my mind that he should get a live action film, but here we are.

This film tells the "origin story" of how Paddington (or Roaaawrgck as he's called in Bear) comes to London and gets to live with the Brown family. In just over ninety minutes we get to see everything from the jungles of dark Peru to the suburban telephone booths of outer London. This is the first film in a long while where I felt it was exactly the length it should be, not too long and neither too short. It never felt rushed, but there were no parts where it really dragged either. Far too rare these days. Although there are still some storytelling issues which can be mistaken for dragging, but it's more of an imbalance of tone. The film starts of with quite an absurd segment. We get to see talking bears who live in houses for one, but it's also generally filmed and told in very absurd and bizarre way. It's hilarious, and makes you feel right at home in the film. Unfortunately right after this segment ends we rarely get to see that kind of storytelling again. It pops up here and there, and times when you don't really expect it. It puts you off for a moment before you realise how fun it is, and then it's all over.

The film is just amazingly cosy. There's not really a better word for it. It gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling throughout the experience. I was actually left wishing I had seen it for the first time at Christmas times when there's that special hint of fuzzy already in the air. Paddington as a character is just delightful. There are times when he can feel a bit too naive, but you are supposed to feel that way, especially when you're my age and suddenly identify more with the dad of the story than the children. The villain of the film is one of the most efficient ones I've seen. From the get-go we know what she want, and she never appears unless it is to do something necessary. There's not much dillydaddling with exposition and gloating (though there's always some) and Nicole Kidman manages to make this extremely cartoonish character feel real and scary.

This film is just a treat. It's not the best of anything, don't get me wrong. There are better films, but there are few that are more delightful. There are few that I believe can be loved by so many members of a family. It's got a little something for everyone, and I absolutely recommend everyone watch it at some point.

American Sniper - Good but Forgettable

"American Sniper" surprised everyone when it went on to absolutely shatter previous January wide openings. It earned close to 90 million USD in its opening weekend, more than twice that of the previous record holder. It's currently tracking upwards of 300 million in the US alone, something only two films managed in 2014. Both of which ("Guardians of the Galaxy" and "Mokingjay Pt. 1") opened in the second half of the year. "American Sniper" is also nominated for Best picture at this year's Academy Awards. With all this success, how good is it?

It's above average, but that's the furthest I can stretch. It's not fantastic, but it's more than good. We follow Chris Kyle on his journey from a bachelor wannabe-cowboy in Texas to becoming the most lethal sniper in American history. We get to see several sides to the story, contrary to what many on the internet will lead you to believe. Kyle himself may be solid in his believes of what he did was for the best, for the overall good, but that isn't necessarily the film's message. We get to see the Kyle deal with having to kill so many, and we get to see Kyle deal with having so many of his friends killed. There are also detours set around his family, where we see how much it tears them too apart.

But I would still agree that they do lean a bit too much towards the "America best, foreigners evil" trope. I mean, I expected it, and I understand it. It's a film by Clint Eastwood called "American Sniper" after all. But it's still horrible to see how much every foreigner is treated as a terrorist until proven otherwise. However, that only adds to the story's emotional connection. I didn't just connect with Kyle and how he felt with what he had to do, I also connected with the Iraqis who live in an occupied country, caught in the middle of a war many of them want no part of.

Overall this film is more than decent. I doubt anyone will remember it in a few years' time, but even though it feels a little out-of-date it still strikes the right chords. The acting is the best part of the film, and I fully understand Bradley Cooper getting a nod for Best male lead. Whether he deserves to win it or not is something we can discuss when the Academy Awards ceremony is a bit closer.

Big Hero 6 - Disney Is King

"Big Hero 6" is Walt Disney Animation Studios' first dive into Marvel's superhero universe after their parent company, The Walt Disney Company, acquired Marvel Entertainment. Despite being based on a Marvel superhero comic, it has nothing to do with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This is a standalone picture, not even Marvel Animation's films have anything to do with this.

"Big Hero 6" mainly follows the 14 year old boy genius Hiro and his older brother's robot nurse Baymax. Hiro spends a lot of his time building bots that he uses to hustle big-time bot-fighters around the city. His brother, Tadashi, feels he is wasting his talent and tries to convince him to join San Fransokyo Institute of Technology where he himself is part of a team of tech developers. Hiro goes to present an invention of his own in hopes of being accepted into class, but a lot goes wrong. The rest of the film we follow Hiro trying to fix his mistakes, and Baymax aiding him however he is asked.

"Big Hero 6" has all what you have come to expect from Walt Disney Animation Studios over the last couple of years. If you enjoyed "Bolt", "Tangled", "Wreck-It Ralph", and "Frozen" chances are you will enjoy this as well. If you happen to also enjoy superhero films in general, you are in for a treat. This isn't just a good animation film, this is a good superhero film period. No, it doesn't have the same tones as most live-action superhero films these days, but that shouldn't matter. It has traded the more serious and intense drama for delightful and wonderful adventure. It reminds me of the best parts of both "Astroboy" (2009) and "The Incredibles", and is yet more proof that Walt Disney Animation Studios have reclaimed their throne from Pixar whose success has been their own slightlydownfall.

This is the first film in a while where I was left wanting more, not because I felt that there were things left untold, but because there was so much amazing happening that I just wanted to see more of it. It is packed full from start to end, never wasting too much time with exposition. Why does it appear that we are in a weird blend of Japan and the USA? We don't know, we just are, and we don't really care because that's the way it is. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this film gets mentioned again on this blog next January first.