Reviews

Being a huge Fan of the Christopher Nolan Trilogy starring Christian Bale I could hardly imagine that The Batman could come even close. Not being a Fan of Robert Pattinson at all doesn´t really help this but I wanted to still watch it with an open mind. I liked however the Ben Affleck Batman too quite a lot and feel a bit Sorry that he didn´t get more screen time as Batman. So I went to see The Batman with quite low expectations.

At first this Instalment is way darker then any previous Instalment of the Batman Franchise and also it is the longest with almost reaching the three hours mark.

Colin Farrells transformation is as amazing as his performance as The Penguin though he could have had more screen time. Paul Dano as the The Riddler is still a terrifying and a very disturbing villain, he fitted the cast brilliantly. Zoe Kravits performances as Catwoman was amazing though she is not as cool as Anne Hathaways Catwoman, but her gesture and look is as wild as Michelle Pfeiffers, and the Catwoman fighting sequence is definitely a win for Zoe. Finally we got Robert Pattinson as The Batman/ Bruce Wayne. Well, for me the on screen chemistry of Pattinson and Kravitz did not match the chemistry and presence of Christian Bale and Anne Hathaway, but still Robert Pattinson surprised me. He played his role very well and maybe people will start thinking of him as The Batman and not as the horrible looking guy in Twilight. The Movie was not as Action packed as the Christopher Nolan ones. The Batmobile is a 60´s muscle car look a like with no real cool features as the Tumbler. Also when it comes to Gadgets that Batman is using there is way less in here. Batman in The Batman is more a Detective with partial Anger Management issues than the cool guy, but then again, this is a very dark version. In the end The Batman is still a hell of a good movie, it is still amazing and it's still incredible, and it is still Batman. I was impressed by the most of the thing that happened, i was excited, i was hyped, i was stunt by all the amazing thing that they have done. Still the movie feels long, but I don´t know where I would have cut it shorter.

In 2012 Jack Reacher has positively surprised me and well entertained over long distances, which I had described as a successful crime film with many strengths, but storyline weaknesses. Now Tom Cruise comes back in the same role a few years later, this time with director Edward Zwick, who with Blood Diamonds ten years ago delivered a smashing actiondrama. So the signs are good that the second part could be good enough.

Many elements and moments, which already worked in Jack Reacher, and as well in many other great action films, also shine over here. On the one hand, it is Cruise in his role of the quiet, effective investigator which is very believable, on the other hand, there are some surprise moments and well choreographed action scenes. They do not superimpose the film, however, so that Cruise does not have to fight every five minutes and is running around the whole flick, but they are well-dosed and then brilliantly calculated. Even Cobie Smulders has the same effect, absolutely up to par with Cruise, and wherever she goes, no grass grows any longer.

As well in Jack Reacher : Never Go Back not everything is as it is suspected or imagined from a higher point, and it becomes clear that both have to assert themselves against one or more opponents. Already in the first part the counterpart remained for us a bit pale and this shortcoming also shows itself in the continuation. Although Patrick Heusinger as a hunter is a really good figure, the expected back men, however, really get into the background, so it is up to him to maintain the threat scenario for a long time. He does this by means of words and effective action – and when teenagers are threatened, then you suspect right that someone here can be brutally brutal.

Fans of the first part will be happy that next to action the humor comes not too short, even if Part 1 has brought something more with it. The handwriting of Zwick is also more classical, so Jack Reacher : Never Go Back appears less like a criminal-themed puzzle, which is to be solved and where Cruise and Rosamund Pike once investigate together, it acts more like a usual action movie. This is justified, but precisely this sense of a Jack Reacher and his questions that pointed to solve the case was that in my opinion in part 1 has positively distinguished the movie from typical action films. Even now, he continues to combine attentively, but the offside surprise effect and the joy "to puzzle" remains rather on the line.

Conclusion: For me, Jack Reacher compared to Jack Reacher : Never Go Back is the slightly better version, even if the action is now with 118 minutes a little more streamlined. Still, I give the same amount of movie stars, because all in all, Edward Zwick has delivered a good action film that keeps the viewer entertained. Cobie Smulders, 18-year-old Danika Yarosh and Patrick Heusinger are also performing well and will be remembered in addition to Cruise. And who wants to know how the story of the silent Lone Wolf goes on, should watch Part 2.

What will you do to make yourself on the top of the game?? For Mike Regan (Pierce Brosnan), he has reached it with the help of the top of the line technology. doing everything for him making him one of the best in his game, but that all has changed when he met Ed Porter, an I.T. consultant for his own company.

In a world where technology runs freely, a private man cannot hide himself even if he wants to. In sake of saving his life,his family & everything he owns, he needs to play the game in all of he can to remove the psychotic I.T. consultant he himself first wrongly welcomed.

The movie has a very mono chromatic story, quite predictive, and poorly executed. It is like a short story dragged long to become a movie.

Even for Pierce Brosnan, who is known for being good into action & mystery movies, and has a long span of success, has poorly executed this movie, or most of the people expect much for him and so also for this movie. But hey, if you're a Pierce Brosnan fan, this will be a tick for your movie list.

"Paddington" by Paul King is just right for the festive season. The fluffy main character you just have to love. The animations are lovingly detailed and of irresistible cuteness. The humor is wonderful quirky and endearing. It was a welcome change to laugh many times about a film that is essentially free of blood and death.

Nicole Kidman is wonderfully funny and nasty as Museum Director whose vocation is the stuffing of animals. The Brown family with the great Sally Hawkins as mother and a sympathetic stuffy Hugh Bonneville as a father is full of hilarious absurdity.

The Movie is one you can really watch and enjoy with the whole family and there will be no doubt that everybody will love it.

We had seen the movie as a preview of another movie we had watched, and the trailer looked quite good and it was partially shot in Dubai as well.

Sadly the movie is a total disaster.

Director Jay Sun should be prohibited to make any other movies. The story is incomplete told, scenes and locations are changing permanently without being explained properly.

The dubbing of the original Chinese movie to English was so bad that i felt after 10 minutes already the will to leave the cinema. A lot of other people did that. It was somehow like a Mission Impossible in bad, despite having fancy gadgets in the movie and a lot of Nokia phones and Audi cars (sorry you should have chosen another movie for your product placement) the movie never really went good. Even the end is not logic and not explained well.

I do honestly not understand how a scrappy movie like this got released at all. The CGI effects specially when the car is hanging on a helicopter and thrown into the Atlantis the Palm Hotel it looks just horrible.

Resume: Don't waste 2 hours of your life with this movie. It is 100% not worth it and the Reel Cinemas should take the movie of the list and refund the money to the people who went to see it.