OK, shoot me now - but you can tell when you are watching a film at the cinema and the audience start to get a bit restless. Well mine did with this overlong, and frankly rather dreary film. The opening few, somewhat dystopian, scenes reminded me of "Blade Runner" (1982) and we do hit the ground running. Amidst an hotly contested mayoral election, a chap in a gas mask ("The Riddler", we learn later) brutally takes out the sitting candidate enticing the "Batman" (Robert Pattinson) to come help his policeman pal "Gordon" (Jeffrey Wright) to investigate. Seems that the killer wanted that to happen because he leaves our caped crusader a card with a clue. Soon the great and the good of the city are dropping like flies and a web of corruption and deceit at the top echelons of government is emerging. Personally I found this all a bit dull. It flows terribly slowly, and after a while the relentless darkness and a really pretty soporific, moody, effort from Pattinson just started to bore me. There are loads of plot holes - not least just how the "Riddler" manages to pull off some pretty heavy duty crimes without having to scale any tall buildings, or sneak past the heavily guarded victims of his spree. The scenes with the completely unprotected DA (Peter Sarsgaard) in a dimly lit street are just plain daft. Colin Farrell is probably my highlight as the duplicitous "Oz", and Zoë Kravitz ("Cat Woman”) offers us some decent acrobatics but otherwise, this is an hugely over-rated affair that has a serious paucity of dialogue, is heavily scored and during it's almost three hours, not enough actually happens. Indeed, it is very reluctant to let us leave. I will admit that my first guess at the ending was a bit optimistic, but it could conclude at least another four times before we are finally allowed to stretch our legs. It might look better second time around, but for now it's nothing at all to write home about.

> Enormous mass that is per se a riddle. Forget screenplay, it's a comic storyboard; Do you remember Rorschach, from Moore's Watchmen, ruminating in the sewers?, ok, transpolate Batman and it works! No way, here I go-monologue and comic dialogues (effective and practical like instant soup, with 2 percent protein), comic narration, that is functional, utilitarian, Bentham would say, with the ellipses and any speech or reasoning that requires 2 minutes of reflection, at most!, ""this whole city´s gonna come apart" says a District Attorney, scenic cuts and messy complexity...-entertaining but messy-comic, etc, ...it is a comic turned into a movie by someone who - I'm speculating, any resemblance to reality is purely by chance - was advised or made, or made comics in his life, don't you believe me? Ellipsis of all ellipses: "Alfred, you're not my father "At 23 minutes of tape, all the conflict of identity and belonging, as well as the purpose of the hero, under the sieve of the most selfish and mean son of millionaires, but let's forget this, let's continue. A Batman beating Kurt's velvety drum Cobain, -didn't tell the subversive c revolutionary adence of Cobain, to think like that I would have to know that grunge swept hardrock -finally in the 90s- and buried Motley Crue, Guns and Roses and others, (yes, I mentioned him, Cobain, and not Nirvana that did not exist, that's why when we die we are left without this specific type of grunge, I already digressed, anyway) but yes, this Batman is doubly omniscient, an ego the size of Gotham City authorizes him (a) not only to -his first omniscience- speaking in the first person of himself when running the plot, that is to say in the events, "I am revenge" he says to the subway gang members, (scene that is not better than Todd Phillips' Koker subway, for give another example) that this happened -the first person- almost in all the other versions that precede it,it is also included here -its omniscience, obviously- dominating forensic or medical terms: "eschimia"? ask Batman of course!, but to (b), his second omniscience, being the narrator of his exploits in the first person, this again leads us to an Alan Moore influence but, with all due respect, as a clericot of Alan's genius Moore. When Batman wants to see the Penguin, he just has to be like the Penguin, appear in the doorway and announce himself, and please, for the fun of the plot, Batman almost spouts a sentence "please tell me you won't let me in to unfold my money in the form of weapons hidden in my suit, and get in anyway. That is to say, the theatricality and the shadows of the bat, remained in the Babyboomer Generation or Generation X when the entrance was an "appearance" through shadows, suspicion and myth. The film is a complex mass because it is as if The Batman, The Batman 2 and 3 had been compressed and I am not only talking about the exhausting time of almost 3 hours, but also because of the number of common threads in which it was woven into a single feature film. For example, the plot increases its complexity first with a Riddler who is an anti-hero, because he indirectly helps Batman and the supposed common good and because of the premises that justify his murders, unmasking the big shots of the underworld at high levels of government, but later, arrested as Edward Nashton, he unmasks himself, that is, he turns himself in, sitting in that cafeteria just when, then yes, we will understand his "fine" intentions, and he becomes a true public order villain because he incites the revenge to the uncritical masses and followers of the disorder who have suffered or have resentments for any type of discrimination or corruption that they have suffered in Gotham city, (no more and no less than similar to the end of Todd Phillips' Joker);another complexity is with the cat The cat, I will not say Catwoman, who has her own drama for Kyle and at some point Batman leans on her, to spy on the Prosecutor and at least 2 times saves her from murdering her father Carmine Falcone and the his father's henchman. On the other hand, there is the added density or complexity of transcending and publishing the videos that show that the mother of Bruce Wayne, the mother of Batman had psychiatric problems in Arkham and hospitals and comes from a family that descendants who also had these difficulties and Thomas Wayne , trying to silence the journalist, he used the biggest thug Falcone. In other words, there is a possibility that Falcone, Catwoman's stepfather, is the one who murdered the Waynes that night because Batman's father was about to pity or denounce the next day that he only wanted to silence the journalist and NOT murder him as Falcone did. . In short, it is entertaining but poorly planned for a single feature film due to the enormous amount of detail that is handled.

This film is so intricate, there's so many details, things you can obverse on multiple watches and not have noticed on your first. There's a lot of things that just aren't spoken that give this film so much substance. So many layers and nuanced story telling. Gotham City feels as it should, as it's own character and a visceral cesspool of corruption and just dirt. It feels dirty, unpolished... it's amazing.
There's so many shots in this film that are just simply breathtaking and intentionally dirty. It helps capture this visceral tone and fits substantially well with the universe of Batman.
Being a diehard fan of Batman for, like, pretty much all of my life- I have to say; Matt Reeves absolutely nailed it with a completely faithful adaptation of Batman. Not once in this movie did he do something I felt was completely out of character and Robert Pattinson solidified the performance of both Bruce Wayne and the Batman. I love Matt Reeves went to the extent to make sure this Batman doesn't kill, as other directors have seem to give less care to. Yes, even Nolan. It should have to go without saying that Batman does not kill, that's a no-brainer, but for decades this has been a problem in Batman films... and finally, it no longer is a problem. That's how you do it.
Bringing this review to a conclusion, this is easily my favourite Batman film. So many things about this film just feel like it's pulled straight out of a comic book. I mean, Riddler flooding the city itself is pulled straight from Zero Year and there's so many nods to comic moments and members of Batman's rouges gallery. Matt Reeves knew what he was doing, and he crafted this film for diehard Batman fans, succeeding immensely. Can't wait to see more of this universe.

I like how Batman is depicted with a naive and loser POV from his rich high tower, a rich trust fund baby called out by both sane (Catwoman) and insane (Riddler) people while he remains oblivious until the consequences are literally flooding the city. While he uses the idea of Batman as a mantle for him to process trauma, his obliviousness to his own celebrity status and image creates unintentional side effects from his parents' death hogging the spotlight away from the people that mattered to his own nebulous idea of "vengeance" being co-opted by the goons, a heel-turn realization that eventually changes the rack focus, ultimately leading to a wider perspective and a selfless act of cutting the cord and helping others. Hope is more important than his idea of justice, in the end, empathy being the missing piece throughout. Instead of being a voyeur like Riddler during his master plan (Riddler binoculars on the mayor, Batman binoculars on Catwoman), he switches to being on the ground to help, no longer from his high castle.
It's interesting how this arc plays out. At the beginning, it plays into this "badass" idea comic book fans love to gloat about Batman of striking fear into crime, but the way it's portrayed is frightening to everyone. It's a better criticism of Batman's fascism than BvS was going for, showcasing his fear to people who don't even deserve it, such as kids doing vandalism who probably believe the system is failing them, but to him at the beginning crime all looks the same.
Honestly this film goes harder than Phantasm on the tragedy that is Bruce Wayne. They're inseparable by choice, to the point that Bruce basically is Batman even when not in the costume, a social recluse who can barely function in real life, listening to emo music and having rings around his eyes, a night owl to the extreme. The struggle is there even as Batman, literally smashing his face on a truck.
There are some contradictions throughout thematically, however. It's weird how it goes between "it's the WHOLE system, all cops are pigs" to "it's just bad apples" simultaneously, displaying a somewhat cringe centrism. Catwoman by the end basically points it more to systemic (and Batman and Thomas Wayne's criticism of thinking they know better and actually makings things worse isn't undercut, which by itself is also institutional criticism), although it still feels like they could've done more. Maybe out of their hands by the studio or this as far as they could get away with vs. the producers (it almost felt like a struggle for Catwoman to outline her "eat the rich" mentality). Gotham itself is a mess of contradictions and it's OK to let the viewer lie between it all I guess.
Also the relationship between Catwoman and Batman is kinda slimy and male-centric. Catwoman, while great as a character, functionally falls to Batman's controlling force with a forced romance in the second act. Sure they're both suffering from trauma but Batman was literally using her despite it all, it at least understands the power gap more in the third act.
The end of the second act also spins its wheels a bit too much, the mystery pace kinda suffers a bit from focus and scenes get too drawn out (Riddler just disappears for a while). The movie could've been 20 minutes shorter. Doesn't stop it from having a terrific third act since most blockbusters have kinda sucked on that note
Although speaking of Riddler, master class. Probably my favorite villain in a Batman film.
The aesthetic was gorgeous. I love its color grading and architecture, still thinking of the Wayne tower and its metal grates, goth hallways, and insane attention to detail that gets blurred out intentionally in the frame for most of the movie by Bruce's obliviousness to the world. It also keeps a balance of evoking the black/white movies while still being colorful, more of flooded black and oranges. I think of that sequence with Penguin not mainly for the fight itself (which to me was a bit messy) but moreso the flooded orange of the fire being the only color creating a sorta gradient on the black car, and how the flare at the end matches that aesthetic, that one color illuminating Batman leading everybody else to exit the frame, like a light in the darkness. Lovely
The music.... Giacchino just beat out his Incredibles score for me, masterful work with motifs, percussion, and rhythm. His mastery of percussion and horns during the lights out Batman hallway fight and how the horns blast, how well edited the percussion beat subtly goes through the Penguin chase and other fight sequences, Batman doesn't quite have a dance like Hong Kong films but the music makes it come close. The timpani and strings are so well used!!! Great use of Ave Maria both as soundtrack and score. Catwoman's motif? Amazing.
The performances are great all around. Finally a film with Turturro that I don't hate him. He's well restrained and perfectly cast, his dickish attitude now a strong point making him very memorable with very little screen time, much like Farrell in the same film. Kravitz made me the closest to tearing up with how she visually handles conflicting emotions, I still think about that scene with the voicemail where her eyes are all over the place and has trouble keeping it all together. Dano as Riddler is terrific.
Yep, this is my fav Batman film now.

It's a cracker, no doubt about it!
Matt Reeves did a great job with 2022's 'The Batman'. It's difficult not to compare this to other Batman films, though that's DC/Warner Bros. fault for featuring him so much in recent times. I'll get this out the way early: I'd say 'Batman Begins'/'The Dark Knight' are superior, not by much, which is a similar case for the character performances too.
Robert Pattinson is a terrific Bruce Wayne, though Christian Bale still edges him out in my eyes. Zoë Kravitz is probably the best Catwoman I've seen, though the rest - from the Riddler to Penguin to Alfred - have been portrayed better; aside from Commissioner Gordon, with Jeffrey Wright being excellent. Paul Dano is the least enjoyable performer, for me, here, I found his showing to be a bit 'meh' - effective, but meh. Barry Keoghan makes a cameo, I won't say as who, but I don't hold high hopes for him in that role; though, apparently it won't be anything that happens anyway. For the best!
Anyway... the above sounds way too negative - as I did thoroughly and absolutely enjoy this film, hence the very positive rating. The pacing is very good, the cinematography is brilliant (Gotham looks fantastically bleak!), the story is engrossing and the dialogue is on point. The scenes with Pattinson/Kravitz and Pattinson/Wright are my favourite moments. It's a film that I'd consider as 'outstanding'.
It'll be cool to see what Reeves does with this trilogy (should it happen, of course).

_**"Our scars can destroy us, even after the physical wounds have healed. But if we survive them, they can transform us. They can give us the power to endure, and the strength to fight."**_
Ever since it was announced that Matt Reeves was going to direct The Batman after Ben Affleck stepped down for personal reasons, I had no doubt he was going to put on one hell of a masterpiece. This is the definitive live-action Batman. An epic 3-hour film noir that delves deep into comic lore of Gotham City.
Robert Pattinson perfectly embodies both Bruce Wayne and Batman. I love the character arc he goes through, realizing Gotham doesn't need vengeance to heal, but hope. Zoë Kravitz plays a phenomenal Selina Kyle, you actually feel her emotions throughout the movie. Another plus is that she actually feels integral to the plot (unlike The Dark Knight Rises). Paul Dano is a terrifyingly realistic interpretation of The Riddler, using the internet to gain a fan base for his sick games. Andy Serkis plays an excellent Alfred, being Bruce's emotional support during Dark times.
The soundtrack by Michael Giacchino is absolute God-Tier. Elevating every scene with emotion and sometimes dread. Finally a score to rival Danny Elfman's iconic score. Matt Reeves direction is impeccable as always, getting some nice shots while also making it feel nice and claustrophobic around Batman.
Overall, a God-Tier Batman movie that I can't wait for the Cinematic Universe that's being made around it as I type this.

Masterpiece. Best DC film yet

Paul Dano and Colin Farrell are extraordinary, but _The Batman_ is a three hour slog through Gotham that culminates with an over exaggerated riddle that isn’t worth solving. Having Batman and Jim Gordon both speak in raspy, whispery grunts feels excessive as does Gordon’s insistence on calling Batman, “Chief,” every time that they’re together. The film deserves credit for prominently shining the spotlight on the underbelly of crime in Gotham, but the storytelling in _The Batman_ is a lot like Bugs Bunny meaning to have taken that left turn at Albuquerque; a meandering foray down a dark rabbit hole that isn’t entirely necessary.
**Full review:** https://hubpages.com/entertainment/The-Batman-2022-Review-When-is-a-Bat-Not-Quite-a-Bat

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/the-batman-spoiler-free-review
"The Batman deserves all the hype it generated and then some. Matt Reeves delivers a distinctly darker, more intense, frighteningly realistic noir thriller than past adaptations, with an aggressively vengeful Bruce Wayne / Batman and a fear-inducing, mysterious, lunatic Riddler.
Greig Fraser's cinematography - bone-chilling "ins-and-outs" of Batman and stunning footage of Gotham - and Michael Giacchino's score - genuinely addictive, elevates the entire film - make this adaptation the best-looking and best-scored cinematic version of the Batman ever.
Even with the narrative focus on the detective work, the action sequences are exhilarating and beautifully shot. The entire cast is extraordinary, especially Paul Dano and Robert Pattinson - the latter destroys all skepticism around his talent.
Apart from a short period at the end of the second act, the three hours fly by. It's one of the best movies of the year and a fair contender in the debate of best comic book movie of all-time."
Rating: A

The reviews and hype for this movie were massive! Comparisons to The Dark Knight got my expectations high... probably a little too high. I was expecting to be blown away and was not but even with that being said The Batman is an exceptional film. The cinematography and visuals are stunning. Matt Reeves made some genius creative choices among which were the more reclusive rockstar grungy Bruce Wayne and the Riddler being heavily influenced by the Zodiac. The acting was fantastic as well with Zoe Kravitz and Paul Dano offering some standout performances. The Batman is driven with psychological and mystery focus as compared to the action comedy style of most superhero movies. My only complaint is that the mystery felt fairly predictable. I wasn't surprised by any of the twists and turns. Ultimately, this was a wonderful addition to the Batman franchise and I can't wait to see where it goes next.

“The Batman” Is A Very Engaging And Unforgettable Tale That Is One Of The Best Adaptations Of The Character Ever
In 1989 Michael Keaton was seen as a very controversial choice to wear the Cowl of Batman but soon proved his doubters wrong by turning “Batman” and its subsequent sequel “Batman Returns” into massive Box Office success before leaving the cape behind.
While four other actors have taken up the cinematic version of the character in the subsequent years, Keaton has remained for many the Gold Standard with Christian Bale likely being his biggest rival.
When Robert Pattinson was named as the new Batman, there was interest but concern as an actor who is largely known for playing Edward in the “Twilight” films seemed to be an odd choice. However, I would say that anyone who has seen some of his recent work including his performance in “The Lighthouse” would be playing him a disservice by saying he was not up to the part.
In “The Batman”, audiences are given a darker and more broken Bruce Wayne, an Emo recluse who is far from the Socialite he has been portrayed as for decades and a very sullen and withdrawn individual who does not exude charm or grace and even shows issues making eye-contact.
When the Mayor of Gotham is killed shortly before the election by a mysterious individual known as “The Riddler” (Paul Dano), the vigilante known as “The Batman” is called in to help the police by Lt. James Gordon (Jeffrey Wright). Gordon has been working with Batman for some time but it is clear that his association with him has not won him any favors with his fellow officers, many of which openly question his use and involvement in the crime scenes.
Further complicating matters are clues left at the various crime locales that are addressed to The Batman and cause many to believe that he may be working with the very killer they are attempting to stop.
As the investigation unfolds, the seedy side of Gotham City comes to light in the form of a missing girl who was photographed with the married Mayor and may well be the key to the investigation. Her disappearance leads her friend Selina Kyle (Zoe Kravitz), to take on her Catwoman persona and delve deep into an underworld that features deadly individuals ranging from Carmine Falcone (John Turturro), and The Penguin (Colin Farrell), amongst others as she and the Batman conduct their own investigations that at times overlap and further complicate matters.
As the body count rises and Batman races to find the true method behind the madness of The Riddler, the tone becomes darker and more sinister in a deadly race against time.
The film eschews the usual abundance of action sequences and glossy special effects which are common for Comic Book related films and instead gives audiences a slow-burning murder mystery that holds your attention from start to finish over its three-hour run time.
The dark and foreboding tone of the film is brought home by the haunting and sharp piano keys of the film’s theme that permeates the film and punches home that this is a film clearly aimed at a more adult audience.
Pattinson does a great job showing the deeply broken individual that is behind the mask and that Batman is the only form of escape or therapy that Bruce Wayne has due to his insistence on saving a city that many argue cannot be saved. He has strained his relationship at times with Alfred (Andy Serkis), caused damage to the financial stability and reputation of the family company in his quest for vengeance and justice, and has become a bitter and broken recluse in doing so. In many ways, it could be argued that his only socialization with others is as The Batman and his single-minded obsession is chilling to watch.
Pattinson also handles the action sequences well as the film spaces them out to put the emphasis more on the man than the gadgets as they are kept to a minimum even during a thrilling chase with the new version of The Batmobile.
The strong supporting cast works well with the film and Paul Dano gives a very compelling and disturbing version of his character which makes the film even darker and more engrossing.
Director Matt Reeves has crafted a dark and foreboding tone and visual style as a good portion of the film takes place in the darkness and his screenplay is not afraid to take chances by putting the emphasis on the characters and their flaws versus an abundance of action and effects.
I found this version of the character and interpretation more engrossing than prior versions of the film as the bold move to do a slow-burning and dark murder mystery versus an effect-laden action film reminded me of some of the better Batman stories such as Batman: The Killing Joke or Batman: The Long Halloween.
The film is not going to be for everyone, especially younger viewers and some may take issue with the casting choices, but their performances shine and as such, “The Batman” was a very engaging and unforgettable tale that for me serves as one of the best adaptations of the character ever.
4 stars out of 5

I am afraid that as a Scotsman, I had way more problem with the factual elements of this than perhaps I ought to have had. We have this history drummed into us as bairns, and so when a grand-scale depiction like this comes along, I excitedly expected more. It doesn't matter a jot that the eponymous Mel Gibson isn't a Scot - that is the acting equivalent of a red herring. What matters is that the story is largely a work of fiction. Gory, beautiful, authentic looking, certainly - but fiction nonetheless. Taken on that basis, then, it is still an entertaining mediaeval drama depicting the struggle of the king-less Scots against the oppression of England's King Edward I (Patrick McGoohan). Using a panoply of familiar faces, it gradually demonstrates the brutality of the English over these vassals, and introduces us to "William Wallace" (Gibson) who is one of the few who wishes to fight back. The killing of his wife at the hands of his local magistrate (Malcolm Tierney) is the last straw, and soon he is working with his kinsman Argyle (Brian Cox) to formulate a plan. What now ensues is a well produced, stylishly filmed drama offering us plenty of scheming and plotting and some seriously gory battle scenes before it all culminates in the unavoidable denouement. It takes it's time to get underway, but once it is up and running it is well paced, there is a minimum of romance, plenty of swordplay and lots of unadulterated freedom-fighter jingoism. Why not? It is a film about a man who fought for the freedom of his people against the tyranny of an interloper, and is effective at that. The historical timelines are a bit all over the place, as are many of the characterisations, but again that's another matter of fact that we have had to ditch at the opening titles. "Braveheart" is exciting, fast-moving and bloody - just what it is meant to be, and for that Gibson ought to be commended. Just a shame it couldn't be just bit more rooted in fact.

When i saw this I was 15 and it was one of the greatest movies I had ever seen. Fast forward to today, I'm 41, and degrees and history and... the battle of Sterling Bridge is like fingernails on a chalkboard whenever I see it.
I watched it with my wife and, "no, she was like 3 and living in France."
So I don't know. It was dramatic and moody and stylistically beautiful. It was a typical Gibson gore fest and that is always fun. It was well acted, the score added to the drama, and it spawned a movement in Scotland that they are still dealing with today...
... so it is still a really good film.
It just, well... where the heck is the bridge?

Historical flaws aside, Braveheart is a rousing spectacle.
So it comes to pass in the year of 1995 (not a year of our lord I think) that Mel Gibson would craft the award winning epic that is Braveheart, a film that is historically bent in the extreme, that is directed by a man who would go on to have a less than favourable character reputation, and a film that has a heavy handed approach at times. It's also as choppy as a boat ride during a tidal wave, so yes, Braveheart is far from flawless folks. Yet the structure, the epic emotional swirls and sheer spectacle of it all marks it out as a rousing treat.
It's a lavish gargantuan epic that somehow seems out of place for the year it was made, perhaps the secret of the films' success is because the 90s were crying out for an epic to get us hankering back to those halcyon days of Spartacus et al. Or just maybe the film punched the buttons of the public psyche because it is a great and grand thing to see the little people rise up and kick some ass? The oppressed and the bullied strike back as it were, surely that theme works for the normal human being? It's a sweeping tale that involves love, loyalty, honour, dishonour, treachery, death & heroes and villains. In short it ticks all the boxes for the genre it sits in (clinical bloody battles superbly full on). Gibson is William Wallace, and although he may struggle to nail the Scottish accent to fully convince at times, he more than makes up for it with his verve and vigour when delivering his lines - with the Sons Of Scotland speech at Stirling a particular iconic highlight.
Patrick McGoohan is pure egotistical villainy as Longshanks, King Edward I, and the supporting cast also do sterling work (or should that be Stirling?). Brendan Gleeson, Tommy Flanagan, Catherine McCormack, Angus Macfadyen, and the wonderful James Cosmo all add flavour to the delightful scotch broth on the screen. The score by James Horner is appropriately tight to the themes at work in the piece, and the cinematography by John Toll was rightly awarded at Oscar time since he captured the essence of the film. Be it the lush rolling hills or the blood stained field in the aftermath of battle, Toll's work is critically in sync with the unfolding mood of the picture.
So yes, damn straight, flaws and all, pic has the ability to lift and inspire many a discerning viewer. It does kick you at times, but as it does so, it also emotionally engages you from start to finish - to which the film deserves every accolade and award that it won. Because the grandiose epic had seemed long gone, but Gibson and his army brought it back to the modern era and made a genre piece fit to hold it's head up high with the greats of years gone by. 10/10

Being Scottish, this movie really does a good job at showing off the scenery in and around Scotland. The story line of this movie keeps you on the edge of your seat all the way through the movie. Mel Gibson does a really good job with the accent and plays a great role as William Wallace in the movie.
I cant help by want to stand up and shout FREEDOM! once the movie is finished. Could watched this movie another 1000 times and not get board of watching it. It's a must watch for any one who has not see it yet.

**X2 takes the X-Men far beyond the scope of the first movie with exciting new characters, manipulative villains, and bigger effects and stories.**
X2 forever stands as one of my favorite sequels of all time. It deepens its characters' backstories, expands the universe, increases the stakes, and creates new conflicts lasting beyond this franchise entry, promising more to come. The opening scene blew my mind when I first saw it and really showcased the power a single mutant could possess. The struggle between light and dark, both in humanity and mutants, was a theme throughout and highlighted in a multitude of ways. Exploring Wolverine's mysterious past and tying it into the overall conflict of the X-Men was a wise choice rather than having Logan search for answers alone. In addition, the women of the X-Men, Jean Grey and Storm, along with Mystique, saw more significant roles and character development. X2 was the Empire Strikes Back of the original X-Men trilogy- better in every way, with exciting new characters, threats, stories, and effects. X2 deserves a place as one of the greatest comic book movies and sequels of all time.

I think this is better than the first film though I still find Patrick Stewart's "Picard"-in-a-chair character really irritating. Anyway, this time we have a good baddie in Scotsman Brian Cox ("Stryker"). He is a determined military man who manages to get the US President to give him carte blanche to take on and eliminate the mutants after a failed attempt to assassinate him in the White House. "Magneto" (Ian McKellen), meantime, is still locked up in his plastic prison but his shape-shifting blue protegé "Mystique" (Rebecca Romijn) concocts a cunning pan to free him; and just in time too! "Stryker" has discovered the existence of "Cerebro" and determined to control it, attacks the "Xavier" school neutralising many of the students and leaving only "Logan" (Hugh Jackman)," Scott" (James Marsden) and "Rogue" (Anna Paquin) to lead what's left of their team to extricate the now captured professor. Needs must, as they say, and an unlikely alliance forms with "Magneto", but will it hold and as we build to quite an exciting denouement, we realise that there is still plenty of scheming and plotting going on. Cox is not really a very versatile actor, but here he provides a solid fulcrum for a story that has plenty of action. There is much less emphasis on the moralising, hormonal, frat-style storyline of the 2000 version; the characters are older and better developed and can control, therefore use, their powers to more dramatic effect for those watching. The story is still a bit thinly predictable, but the visual effects team pull out all the stops keeping this 2¼ marathon moving along surprisingly effortlessly. I'm now very much in team "Magneto" - bring on X3!

Strong sequel.
I didn't quite enjoy 'X2' as much as 'X-Men', though not by much in truth. This follow-up film is still something I'd class as entertaining. Hugh Jackman (Wolverine) again impresses, though those behind him are - though all good - a little meh in my opinion; especially newcomer Brian Cox (Stryker), who underwhelmed me.
All in all, it's a film that is totally worth watching and is a sequel that is worth its salt.
/copied directly from my Letterboxd review\

Good watch, might watch again, and can recommend.
Again, horrible "comic book movie", good stand alone movie.
Wolverine was the most interesting thing about the last movie, and this is a surprising instance of a studio realizing audience feedback and basically just made the first Wolverine origin movie, because that's what this is.
Comic continuity aside, and Wolverine aside, the war of the Brotherhood of Mutants is fairly compelling angle to take, and it is refreshing they did it from the human's side, but if you look at it closer, then we're just looking at another race war. It sort of takes the fuel out of the fire when you realize how "real" your super power problem story is.
While this has a slightly better premise, and good plot skeleton, there is a lot of "(mostly Wolverine does) something cool here" stuff, but there are at least 2 large exceptions with multiple mutants working together that end up being a "lot of cool stuff", but also add some significance to the story and heavily progress the plot.
I'd honestly recommend anyone watch this over the original.

X2: X-Men United is an improvement over its predecessor in just about every way. Better story, better effects, better action, and more interesting mutants. It's the best of the original X-Men films and a high point for early 2000s comic book moviemaking. Worth watching for the Wolverine vs Lady Deathstrike fight alone.

Troy (2004), directed by Wolfgang Petersen, is a grand cinematic portrayal of the legendary Trojan War, inspired by Homer's Iliad. The film delves into profound themes such as the pursuit of power versus envy, the clash between greed and pride, and the tension between intelligence and blind faith. It also thoughtfully examines the role of divine belief, encapsulated in the poignant line: "The gods envy us because we're mortal. Everything is more beautiful because we're doomed."
The movie boasts a stellar ensemble cast, with Brad Pitt delivering a compelling performance as Achilles, Eric Bana as the noble Hector, Orlando Bloom as the naive Paris, and Brian Cox as the ambitious Agamemnon. Each actor brought depth to their roles, making their characters memorable, even if some lacked extensive development due to the sheer scale of the story.
Yes, there are deviations from the source material, but these are inevitable in a cinematic adaptation. A director's artistic vision often necessitates changes to fit the medium of film, and Troy is no exception. While the absence of Greek gods and the condensed timeline might disappoint purists, the movie compensates with its human-focused narrative and emotional gravitas.
Critics have pointed out that Achilles' character development feels somewhat lacking, but given the packed storyline, there simply wasn't enough time to explore every nuance. Similarly, the pacing and action sequences, though well-executed, missed a certain "kick" that could have amplified the film's appeal to action enthusiasts. However, the script shines in its quieter, more reflective moments. The scene between Hector and Paris, where Hector dismantles romanticized notions of war and love, stands out as one of the most powerful and enduring dialogues in cinematic history.
Troy is not just a film about war but a study of human ambition, mortality, and the pursuit of legacy. Despite its flaws, the movie continues to resonate with audiences, offering unforgettable quotes and themes that remain relevant and praised to this day. Its combination of strong performances, thematic depth, and stunning production values makes Troy a cinematic experience worth revisiting.

Now then, where do we start? On the plus side, this is one of the more intelligent applications of CGI in an historical drama setting. The film delivers lots of epic grandeur; the at sea-scenes/battles are classily produced and the attention to detail across the costume and prop departments is outstanding. Sadly, though, the acting isn't at all joined up. At bit like the Dutch football team of the 1980s, we have lots of individual stars but relatively little cohesion between them. Peter O'Toole brings some gravitas as Priam, bit otherwise it's a loose collection of A-lister performances that try their best with a staccato script and some fairly clunky direction. As an end-to-end adventure film, it isn't as bad as it has been accused of being, but it definitely could have done with a deal more emphasis on the characterisation - Brian Cox is dreadful as Agamemnon; Brad Pitt (Achilles), and particularly Eric Bana (Hector) are shockingly wooden; Orlando Bloom (Paris) & Garrett Hedlund (Patroclus) appear there merely as eye-candy and Diane Kruger as the one who launched the thousand ships sounded more like Celine Dion every time she spoke. This is undoubtedly a story that could have made Cecil B De Mille proud, instead I suspect he's have nodded off...

It took a while, but Brad Pitt finally did some great films.
This and Fury stick out on Pitt's resume as his masterpieces thus far.
Here, we have the most "credible" and "least Hollywood" look at the Iliad and the Trojan War.
The characters are very likely as they were, if they really existed, with motivations explained quite well, save for one motivation.
It is hard to see Achilles as someone who tells a kid that living dangerously will make you famous a thousand years into the future. Even if Achilles is that introspective, it's hard to see that point of view being something someone would believe in, especially in an ancient world where few names are remembered after death, and certainly not for thousands of years.
Aside from that, we get very credible explanations for all the recorded events, without the brown nosing of Homer, although the brown nosing of Odysseus still exists even in this story.
This is quite easily, and I say undeniably, the most exciting, the most credible, and the best depiction of the Trojan War and the Iliad ever out of a major studio.

A long watch, but just about a worthwhile one.
I enjoyed 'Troy', in short. A film, interestingly given his recent exploits, written by a certain David Benioff. It definitely has more than a few pacing issues, but they only affect the enjoyment factor minorly - at least to me. The score is a little lacklustre, mind.
The casting is outstanding, even if I don't think all the performances are anything to truly shout about. I found Brad Pitt and Eric Bana, although entertaining, a bit wooden in parts.
Elsewhere, Orlando Bloom and Sean Bean are arguably underused from an acting viewpoint - though their characters play huge parts, of course. You also have a load of other familiar faces, from Peter O'Toole to Brendan Gleeson to Rose Byrne to Diane Kruger. The definition of an ensemble.
The action helps keep things moving, the battle sequences are very nicely done. The film takes an age to reach the event that everyone knows about, but when it finally does it's excellent.
The cast and the action are my big takeaways from this. I couldn't comment on its accuracy on the original work. As a film, for me, it's very good.

It's yours, take it.
Trojan prince Paris is not only having an affair with Spartan Menelaus' woman, Helen. He also lures her away to live with him in Troy. Thus giving the global domination obsessed King Agamenon the launch pad to war with Troy. Which in turn brings into conflict Spartan hero Achilles and Hector of Troy, two of the greatest warriors that ever lived.
Troy, budgeted at $175 million, and given to director Wolfgang Petersen with orders to craft a swordplay epic based on Homer's Illiad, is not the truly great picture it really should have been. It is, however, a spectacle of sorts, that by way of the extended directors cut, becomes a fine enough addition to the genre it so clearly wanted to crown.
The problems are evident from the off. The casting of Brad Pitt as Achilles always looked to have been based purely on looks. Nicely toned body and brooding close ups do not a warrior make, and thus, as good an actor as Pitt definitely is, this is a role (and genre) too far. Diane Kruger as Helen is under written, which since at the time was a poor actress yet to bloom turns out to be a bonus here, and Orlando Bloom playing the wimp like Lothario Paris the way he should do - still gets out acted and swamped by all around him. The other main problem is how uneven the story telling is. Petersen looks confused as how to condense the Trojan war in the running time, whilst also juggling the emphasis of the two great warriors at its core. That Eric Bana's excellent portrayal of Hector comes through the jumble is a testament to Bana's ability and nothing else.
The good is, well, rather good though. Agamemnon, courtesy of a nasty turn from Brian Cox, is well formed. It gives the picture a reason for being outside of it being a war about some bloke stealing a woman from another bloke. Imperial cravings and a genuine thirst for blood helps lift Troy out of the rocky waters it had found itself in. Peter O'Toole, Brendan Gleeson and Sean Bean do fine work with what little they have got, and the production values on offer are hugely impressive. The fight sequences impact and are full of gusto. The fight off between Hector and Achilles is superbly choreographed (fought out to a score that James Horner has lifted from the one Danny Elfman used for Planet Of The Apes three years earlier) and the battle between the armies outside the walls of troy sits with the best in the genre. CGI is often called the bane of cinema, but when used so well as it is here (see the ships approaching Troy for instance) it proves to be an effective and entertaining tool.
Troy has problems, of that there is no doubt. But come the end one knows that it has been entertained, one knows that this was a time of heroes. So with that, and the knowledge that the film made a profit of just over £320 million worldwide, Petersen can smugly sit in his chair musing it was job done. 7/10

***"Where does it end?" -- "It never ends."***
If Homer's mythical epic "The Iliad" is based on a factual story, that story is magnificently depicted in Wolfgang Petersen's 2004 epic "Troy." In other words, don't expect any goofy 'gods' or 'goddesses' like Athena popping out of thin air because "Troy" is a realistic portrayal of the Trojan war.
More than that, "Troy" is arguably the best sword & sandal epic ever put to film. You name the picture -- "Samson and Delilah," "Spartacus," "Ben-Hur," "Ulysses," "The Viking Queen," “Conan the Barbarian,” "Braveheart," "Attila," "The Odyssey," "Gladiator," etc. -- "Troy" is superior. At the very least it’s as good as some of the better flicks just noted, like "Ben-Hur," and far edges out "Spartacus" and "Samson and Delilah." As for more recent sword & sandal epics, like the overrated "Braveheart" or "Gladiator," "Troy" blows 'em out of the water.
Roger Ebert is a great writer and critic, but his mediocre review of "Troy" is all wrong. Ebert's major criticisms, believe it or not, are the main reasons I have such high respect for this film: He complains that Petersen omitted the many Greek 'gods' & 'goddesses' and gripes that the actors perform their roles as believable people and not larger-than-life caricatures. This can, of course, be respectably done, as in the 1955 film "Ulysses," but this is not what Petersen was shooting for in "Troy." His goal, as already noted, was to depict the actual Trojan War on which Homer's myth is based. (Even if it never really took place, wars LIKE IT did).
Regarding Brad Pitt's heavily criticized performance as Achilles, I couldn’t care less about Pitt until seeing this movie as he does an outstanding job portraying Greece's greatest warrior. No, he's not the bulkiest warrior to ever grace the earth, but he's fast as lightning, confident, expertly skilled and deadly accurate. Even his voice completely fits the role. Eric Bana (from "Hulk") is also great as Hector, Achilles' Trojan counterpart, who's sick of war and just wants to live a life of peace with his family. These two have a showdown in the film and it is without a doubt the greatest mano-a-mano sword & sandal duel ever filmed.
What's interesting about the picture is that you never really end up rooting for one side or the other. When Achilles and Hector have their powerful face-off, my wife and I couldn't decide for whom to root. Maybe that's the point. Don't get me wrong, Agamemnon could be viewed as the villain in this picture, and I wasn't rooting for Menelaus when he fights Paris (Orlando Bloom, who seduces Helen, Menelaus' wife), but neither the Greeks nor the Trojans are painted as the 'good guys' or 'bad guys.' They're just people at war, and in war there's no real glory, as Hector points out... and it never ends, as Achilles states. An additional point is that living in a state of war is a JOYLESS existence. And both Bana and Pitt get this across well.
As for beautiful women, there are only a couple mentionable: Diane Kruger plays Helen, "the face that launched a thousand ships." Some have complained that she's too plain for the role, but I disagree. I’m not a fan of hers or anything, but she looks pretty dang sharp to me (not to mention has an impressive behind shot). Besides, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. If Paris deems her worthy of starting a war, who are we to disagree? Also on hand is cutie Rose Byrne who plays Briseis, the virgin priestess whom Achilles converts to the pleasures of the flesh.
I should point out that "Troy" was one of the most expensive pictures ever made at the time and it definitely SHOWS on the screen. Make no mistake, "Troy" is breath-taking just to WATCH -- the colossal armies, ships and battles are awe-inspiring to behold, not to mention the Maltan and Mexican locations. And the CGI effects are outstanding for the time, not fake-looking like the Rome & Coliseum scenes in "Gladiator."
Another complaint by Ebert is that the dialogue is lousy; nothing could be further from the truth. There are great pieces of dialogue interspersed throughout, including Achilles' comment that the 'gods' envy people because we're mortal and "Everything's beautiful because we're doomed." Thankfully, there's not one goofy one-liner anywhere to be found.
James Horner's score should also be mentioned. If you enjoyed the soundtrack of "The Passion of the Christ" you'll love this one because it's just as good/serious/reverent/powerful. For instance, the intense percussion during Achilles and Hector's showdown is magnificent.
Interestingly, Brad Pitt, who plays Achilles, injured his Achilles tendon during shooting. Fitting, no?
FINAL WORD: If you're in the mood for a sword & sandal epic, "Troy" more than fills the bill. The story captivates from the get-to and never lets up the entire 2.5 hour runtime (technically 2 hours, 42 minutes, with credits). It extravagantly visualizes the Trojan War for you, something I never did until seeing this mind-blowing, outstanding piece of cinema.
GRADE: A+

Black Widow ist der Beweis, dass auch weiblicher Regisseur nicht unbedingt mit starken Frauenfiguren umzugehen weiß. Der Beweis, dass auch mit einer interessanten MCU-Figur ein uninteressanter Film entstehen kann. Der Film zeigt auch, dass das MCU immer und immer wieder mit schwachen Antagonisten zu kämpfen hat, was bei einem Film, der weniger von seiner coolen Action, als vielmehr von seiner Story lebt einfach noch mehr ins Gewicht fällt. Ja, die Actionszenen des Films sind gut. Florence Pugh fügt sich als Schwester von Black Widow gut in das Universum ein und es ist auch schön mehr über die Vorgeschichte von Black Widow zu erfahren. Am Ende muss man allerdings auch sagen, dass Black Widow kein guter Film ist. Dafür überwiegen leider die genannten Schwächen zu sehr und Marvel hat zuletzt mit seinen starken Serien bewiesen, dass sie auch storylastigere Geschichten packend erzählen können. [Sneakfilm.de]

There wasn't much about black widows history and background. So I really liked this movie. See how the character became her.

This is a self-contained origin story of Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson). No knowledge of the Avengers is required to watch this film, although, in a Marvel context, it happens after the civil war breaks up the Avengers of which Natasha was a part of. Effects and tension are amazing to watch and edge of seat but there's a payoff with plot. A familiar action film formula – _get and protect the MacGuffin while getting to the evil megalomaniac before he takes over the world_. The formula acts as a vehicle for pretty much non-stop action. If that’s enough for you then this is might be your perfect film. The familial relationships and confronting her dark past promised in the advert don’t really deliver (although Natasha’s sister, Yelena is essential to this film) but if two hours of Scarlett Johansson kicking high-octane butt is your thing then you’re in for a treat. Too heavy on the action but fun to watch. 6/10

**Black Widow is a decent MCU film with excellent entertaining characters but an average to disappointing story.**
Black Widow faced steep expectations as Marvel's first female-led film focused on a cherished MCU favorite. Black Widow's past was always shrouded in mystery and pain, but she was finally receiving the attention the hero deserved to dive into her past and celebrate Scarlett Johansson's super spy. With hopes high and fans wanting a Captain America: The Winter Soldier-type superhero espionage film, Black Widow, unfortunately, fell short. Nothing was particularly disappointing about the film. I had just hoped for so much more for the character and Scarlett Johansson at this point in the MCU's journey. The effects and action were decent. The villain was forgettable. The big defining Budapest incident was passed by with hardly any impact or emotional weight. Black Widow gets lost in all of the chaos of the film. The best part of the movie by far was the new characters played by Florence Pugh and David Harbor. They were highly entertaining, funny, and endearing. I hope to see Florence Pugh's Yelena Belova in many more Marvel films. Black Widow really was a decent entry in the Marvel universe and one of the better Phase 4 movies. Still, it didn't do Natasha Romanoff the justice she deserved leaving the character's best moments in other Marvel films that focused on other heroes.