Thor: Love And Thunder (3½ Stars)

This is the 29th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). I gave it a lukewarm review when I watched it in the cinema last year. Now that I can finally watch it on Blu-ray I wanted to like it, I made a real effort to appreciate it more than last year, but the best I could do was increase the rating by half a star. The film's biggest problem is the main character, Thor himself. He's portrayed as being arrogant and a fool. I can put up with the arrogance. That's something we see at times in the comics. But foolish? Never! He was always a noble God, with or without his arrogance. I can see what Taika Watiti wanted to do as director and co-writer. He wanted to pull Thor down to our level, so we can relate to him better. That's a mistake. He's a God, so there should be a distance between him and the viewer.

But there are also questions about his godhood which remain unanswered in the film. In the comics we read that he's the God of Thunder. That's it. No explanations. He's a God, the same God that the people in northern Europe used to pray to. When Thor was introduced into the MCU the studios were nervous about insulting people, so it was expressly stated (in words spoken by Phil Coulson) that Thor isn't really a God, he's an alien. I'm not happy with that, but in "Love and Thunder" we meet a character called Gorr who claims to be a God killer. So Gorr disagrees with Phil Coulson and says that Thor is a God after all?

It's all a matter of definition. What is a God? Can we make a definition which isn't specific to just one religion? Is a God the person who created the universe? That would exclude Thor. Is a God someone that people pray to? That would include Thor. Is it someone who's immortal? That's a tricky one, because it's conceivable that human medicine can one day promise immortality. Is a God someone who lays down teachings to live by? Maybe, but some religions would call that person a prophet. I don't have an answer. Gorr could evidently tell the difference. For Gorr anyone is a God if he says he's a God and has followers who agree he's a God. That's a very simplistic definition, with obvious problems, but it works for Gorr in the film.

Let's say, for example, that I stood in the street and told people I'm a God (with an article). The first reaction would be that people say I'm mad. But let's get past that. Let's say that people who disagree want to discuss it with me. In order to convince me that I'm not a God, they first have to know what a God is. Many cults begin with a person claiming to be a God and others believing him.

In "Love and Thunder" Jane Foster carries Mjolnir and possesses the power of Thor. She even calls herself Mighty Thor (without an article). Does this make her a God? Maybe not, because the hammer is also killing her. That's one of the things that doesn't make sense in the film. In a book of Norse legends Jane reads that Mjolnir promises health. She's suffering from terminal cancer, so she travels to Tonsberg (New Asgard) in Norway to take the hammer. It gives her the power of Thor on a temporary basis, but it's actually sucking the strength from her body, speeding up her death. Mjolnir should do better. The problem lies with Marvel Studios, in particular Kevin Feige. He wanted to be modern and present a female Thor, but he wasn't brave enough to do it permanently, so he had to kill her off.

There's a passionate kiss between Thor and Mighty Thor. How passionate is the kiss? Are they using tongues? It looks like they aren't. Maybe Gods don't use their tongues. Or maybe Natalie Portman agrees with Kristin Kreuk that it's not professional.

Here's a small feature that was introduced in the previous Thor film, "Ragnarok". There's a play about the events of previous films. In this case Melissa McCarthy is playing Hela. She looks good, but I still prefer Cate Blanchett. Melissa is only pretending to be the God of Death.

How the mighty have fallen! In the comics Thanos claimed to be God (without an article), although he doesn't say this in the films. Nevertheless, he was all powerful. A few years have passed, and now an imitation of his Infinity Gauntlet adorns an ice cream parlour. I wonder if it tastes good. I'll have to try it the next time I'm in Tonsberg.

Success Rate:  + 1.0

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Thor: Love and Thunder (3 Stars)

I'm writing this review with a very heavy heart. I'm a Marvel fan. I always have been. I started reading Marvel comics when I was six and bought the comics regularly until I left university. (After that I moved to Germany, and the comics were less easily available at that time). The Marvel films made in the 1980's and 1990's were disappointing, but in the 2000's high quality, big budget films based on the comics were finally made. "X-Men" was the turning point in 2000, and the films have kept up momentum ever since.

But what's happened now? The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is producing flop after flop. They should have quit while they were ahead. "Avengers Endgame" should have been the last Marvel film, but corporate greed caused Marvel to take more and more risks.

The first three Thor films were good. They weren't perfect, but they were highly enjoyable action romps. So what went wrong with the fourth film, which I saw in the cinema this evening? Too much CGI. Too much humour. Too many characters. Too much humour. Or did I mention the humour already?

I like comedies. Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows that already. But Marvel isn't about comedy. Maybe there can be occasional jokes, but the repeated humour in "Love and Thunder" just got on my nerves. The cinema was packed, and the audience was laughing at the silly little monsters in the early scenes. Most of the audience, that is. I was groaning.

I can't say too much without giving away spoilers. All I'll say for now is that the film is a failure. It's tempted me to never watch another Marvel film.

Thor: Dark World (5 Stars)

This is the eighth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in November 2013. I had my doubts about the film at first, but after repeated viewing it's grown on me, and I now consider it to be one of the best MCU films.

The Stan Lee cameo scene lasts for 56 seconds, but we only see him for the last eight seconds. Dr. Erik Selvig was arrested for running through the Stonehenge stones naked. I'm not certain that a person would really be arrested for that. There are a lot of hippies who congregate at Stonehenge, especially on the summer solstice, so I expect that nudity is common at Stonehenge. Dr. Selvig is being held by the police for psychological evaluation. In this scene we see him holding a lecture on the upcoming convergence of the nine worlds to the other inmates.

Dr. Selvig uses two shoes to demonstrate how the convergence will take place. The light coloured shoe was borrowed from one of his listeners: Stan Lee. In the cameo Stan asks if he can have his shoe back.

Other reviewers have written in more detail about the notes written on the blackboard, because they're an interesting mix of scientific theories and Marvel mythology. I'll just point out three small details:

In the centre we have the tree Yggdrasil, which connects the nine realms (of which only eight are shown).

Above the tree we see the label "616 Universe", referring to Marvel's current habit of calling the main Marvel Universe Earth-616. I wonder how Dr. Selvig came up with this magic number.

In the bottom right there's a sketch of the Nexus of All Reality. This is the cosmic portal guarded by the Man-Thing. There was a film about the Man-Thing made in 2005, but it didn't include any references to the Nexus. It would be good to have a second film about the Man-Thing set within the MCU.

This is the company that Stan Lee is keeping. I wonder why he was arrested. Maybe it's because he's been accused of impersonating Larry King and Hugh Hefner.

There's some smart product placement in the film. Here's Darcy Lewis with an empty Vimto can. It's well known in the UK, but how many people from other parts of the world have tasted Vimto? It's delicious.

Here are more typical British products: Shreddies and McVities Digestive Biscuits. Dr. Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) is more interested in Kat Dennings' chest. That's understandable. I'd stare at any girl with a 34DD chest, and since she's only 5'3" her breasts look even bigger.

I mentioned in my review of "Thor" that the hammer Mjolnir isn't extremely heavy. It can't be picked up because of a magic spell, but it's still light enough to be hung in a coat rack.

Once more, Tom Hiddleston's performance as Loki is overwhelming. However evil he might be, he's a tortured soul, and we can't help feeling sympathetic when his words are emphasised by his sorrowful face.

When Loki laughs mischievously we laugh with him instead of worrying what he's laughing about.

Kat Dennings has a beautiful smile as well, although I suspect it's her real smile, not something she put on for the film. It's beautiful enough to tear my eyes away from her chest. Briefly.

I love the pictures shown at the end, during the final credits. They're the sort of pictures I'd like to frame and put on my wall. It's a shame that most of the pictures are covered with text.

When the film was released I read comments in a newspaper saying that it wasn't like a normal superhero film. Whoever wrote that is ignorant of Thor's origins in the comic created by Stan Lee. All of his other heroes were new creations. Thor was an adaptation of existing legends. His modernisation of the old Norse myths is one of his greatest successes. This gave the Thor comics a slightly different style to the other comics, resulting in a different type of film, but all of Stan Lee's comics were original. I'm still waiting for a big screen adaptation of Daimon Hellstrom, the Son of Satan. That will be a very different type of superhero film.

Success Rate:  + 1.8

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Thor (4½ Stars)

This is the fourth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in May 2011. Stan Lee's cameo is amusing. The scene lasts for 20 seconds, but we only see his face for two seconds. He's a man trying to tug Thor's hammer with his truck, and he doesn't even notice when his truck's rear bumper breaks off under the strain.

I have a question for fans of Thor as portrayed in Marvel comics: is this scene accurate? Thor's hammer can't be lifted because of a spell placed on it by Odin, not because it's heavy. No person can lift it, but a truck should be able to pull it. Am I correct?

This is Thor's hammer as described in "Norse Mythology for Dummies". You can click on the picture to enlarge it if you want to read more.

I have to praise the Marvel Studios for their casting choices. I can't think of anyone who would have been more suitable than Chris Hemsworth to play the part of Thor. He's muscular and tough, but not overly macho.

The addition of Stellan Skarsgard to the regular characters was another good choice. We need a modern day Norseman to link the Marvel films to the ancient mythology. He's not a character from the comics, but he's an ideal addition to the film.

Not all the casting was correct. Idris Elba was cast as Asgard's gatekeeper Heimdall. That's an unforgivable blunder. Didn't they notice that he has the wrong skin colour to play a Norse God? I doubt the Vikings even knew that dark skinned people existed.

Is Natalie Portman the right actress to play Thor's love interest Jane Foster? That depends on which Jane Foster you're talking about. In the comics she was a nurse, but in the film she's an astrophysicist. Okay, I get it. It's the 21st Century and Marvel wants to show that women can be just as intelligent as men. That's true, but is it really necessary to change the story? A nurse might not have a PhD title, but she's just as valuable to society as an astrophysicist, and probably even more hard working. Natalie Portman wouldn't be a good nurse, but she's right for the role of an astrophysicist.

Kat Dennings is ideal to play Jane Foster's intern Darcy Lewis. I think she would have been better suited to play Jane Foster. It's just a shame she doesn't wear a yellow and red costume.

Clark Gregg returns as Phil Coulson in his biggest role so far. He's responsible for protecting the hammer when Thor tries to retrieve it. He's truly Mr. Cool, or as Thor calls him, Son of Cool.

The MCU's slow, steady progression from film to film is excellent, something never previously done in film history. There's never been a franchise like it. DC can only look on and grind their teeth in jealousy.

Success Rate:  + 1.0

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (3 Stars)

This evening I felt in the mood for a teenage romcom, preferably an American high school romcom. The majority of my DVDs still haven't been unpacked after my move to Germany last year, so I decided to check out what Netflix had to offer. This film, whose title I'll shorten to "Nick and Norah", caught my attention. Michael Cera and Kat Dennings in the title roles sound like a suitable pairing.

At school Norah is teased by another girl, Triss, about not having a boyfriend. Later that night they meet in a club, and the teasing continues, so Norah decides to kiss a random boy to make it look like she has someone. Unknown to her, the boy that she kisses is Triss's ex-boyfriend Nick. It's been months since they broke up, but Nick is still obsessed with Triss. This kiss changes Triss's attitude. She enjoyed having Nick crying over her, and she wants to keep him in that state, so she dumps her boyfriend for the evening and offers herself to Nick again. Norah develops an interest in Nick, especially when she discovers that they have identical music tastes, but she's not willing to compete with Triss for his attention.

An added complication is that Norah has gone out with her friend Caroline, who has become totally drunk and needs to be driven home safely. Nick has a car and offers to drive Norah and Caroline home. But Nick is the bass guitarist in a band called the Jerk-Offs, and his fellow band members see him with Norah and think she's right for him, so they take Caroline off his hands.

The other band members are all gay, so they give Nick relationship advice. They claim to know better than straight men what girls really want. Is that true, or just a gay stereotype? I hope it's not true, because if it really is true it's tragic.

I have mixed feelings about the film. The awkward romance between Nick and Norah is touching. What bothers me is the drunk girlfriend. If she had just been a minor subplot I could have accepted it, but she's a major character in the film and we see a lot of her. Girls are really ugly when they stagger around the streets throwing up and acting stupid. This ruined the film for me.

As you can guess, the girl gets the boy in the end, as in all romcoms. Unfortunately, however much I smiled at the happy ending I wasn't satisfied with the meandering path the film took to get there.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Thor: Dark World (5 Stars)

This has become one of the films that I watch the most, second only to "The Life of Pi". For that reason I don't have anything to say about it today, except that I've increased its rating to five stars. In the past my main reason for deducting half a star was that I found Dr. Selvig's madness annoying. After repeated viewing I've learnt to put up with it.

Oops. Are my screenshots from the film in this post spoilers?

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Thor: Dark World (4½ Stars)

This film has an incredible blend of styles. It starts off as a fantasy epic, looking suspiciously like a clone of "Lord of the Rings". It turns into a fast flying "Star Wars" imitation. It finally settles into a typical super-hero film. Which is it supposed to be? All of them!

Anyone who has left comments on my blog in the last week has noticed a change. For the last six years I have automatically accepted comments. This is what I consider to be the best way to handle comments, because it's frustrating to write a comment and not see it immediately appear on the web site. However, I've been forced to change my policy due to a large amount of spam I've been receiving over the last few weeks. The spam has all come from one single person who has been posting between 10 and 30 ads to my comments every single day. I've had to remove each comment individually. To avoid this I've now added comment moderation, so that his comments never arrive on my blog. It's much better that way. Don't worry, I guarantee that I'll approve all genuine comments within a day.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

P. S. Why is the film called "Thor: The Dark Kingdom" in Germany? Crazy Germans!

Thor (4½ Stars)

I was recently asked by well-meaning family members why I don't try to get money for my blog. For years I've been putting effort into my writing, an hour or more every day, and all I've received for my troubles is a few pennies commission from people who click on my Amazon links. Hint hint!

In recent years there have been stories of bloggers making millions. Uninformed people might think that it's easy money. As an insider I see the truth.

First of all, the bloggers who make money are in almost all cases video bloggers. I prefer to write. There are a few reasons for this. Mostly it's because I enjoy writing. For me writing is an art (or at least it should be), whether it's a 1000-page novel or a 20-line product description. I make sure that my spelling and my grammar are first class, whatever the subject matter of my reviews. I plan what I write in advance. I'm not a person who would talk spontaneously into a camera. In theory I could write a text and read it aloud, as some video bloggers do, but it looks artificial. Then there's my intention that my blog isn't just something transitory, it's meant to be something that will remain online for decades after my death, maybe longer. The amount of online material is growing exponentially from year to year. A limit will come to what can be archived, and more importantly a limit will come to what people want to remember. Videos will be the first to disappear, because they're the most data intensive. Then sound clips will go. Then pictures. Text will be the last to fall.

Then you have to remember that the bloggers who make money are paid by the companies they endorse, whether it's fashion or cosmetics companies. Am I the only person who sees the problem in that? They're the prostitutes of blogging. They pretend to be impartial, but they're accepting money to say that something is good. In my eyes that's totally immoral. If I dislike a film, no amount of money would make me lie and say it's good. I would be betraying my readers.

There's also the possibility of making money by adding advertisements to pages. Google offers its own variety of paid advertising, Google Adsense. When I first started blogging in 2010 I used Google Adsense. My fellow bloggers will know that when you start a new blog with Google's blogger software Adsense is strongly recommended as a great way of making money. I tried it out. Why not? It's money for nothing. After a few weeks I checked my blog on a slow computer, a laptop belonging to my daughter. I was horrified to see how slow the pages loaded. There were delays while external addresses were decoded. It was awful. I deleted the Google Adsense links immediately. I want my readers to enjoy reading my blog, not be annoyed by slow pages and flashing images.

The only method of making money that I've retained is Amazon links, for Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.de. I can add these links statically without slowing down page load times, and the links aren't intrusive. The first picture of each post, like this one, is a link to Amazon, where the film can be bought on DVD or Blu-ray. In my recent reviews I include a box at the end of my posts with further links. I also have links in the sidebar. I don't earn anything if a person simply clicks the link. I only earn a commission if he buys something. Note that I said something, not necessarily the article advertised. You can click the link, then go to Amazon's search box and pick something else. I'll earn commission on any product you buy after entering Amazon via my link.

I said my Amazon links aren't intrusive; in fact they aren't intrusive enough. I have a few friends who frequently order items from Amazon. I've asked them to use my links instead of the Amazon homepage, but they don't. Maybe they think there's a catch. There isn't. You'll pay exactly the same price and I'll earn money.

Now, before I forget that this post is supposed to be about "Thor", let me just make a few remarks about Idris Elba. I've already said in the past that he was miscast. He's a Norse God, so his skin colour should be white. Asgard is a world of fair-skinned Gods, so casting a black man is pure idiocy.

Having said that, I have to give Idris Elba for the way he plays the role. He's a magnificent actor, and he proves it by giving Heimdall a sense of power and dignity that few other actors could have achieved. He shouldn't have been given the role, and nothing will convince me to say otherwise, but he makes the best of what he's been given.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Thor: Dark World (4½ Stars)

Can I have my shoe back?

Thor (4½ Stars)

This film should have been called "Loki". Tom Hiddleston steals the show as Thor's adopted brother. On that subject, I have to apologise for a mistake I made in a previous post. I said that Loki wasn't adopted in the comics, he was Thor's real brother. When I researched the subject I found out that Loki's origins as a frost giant were indeed described in the comics, but not until the 1990's. Until then he had seemed to be Odin's real son. Okay, since I don't usually consider anything after 1990 to be canon I shrugged it off. A late invention.

But then I found out something else today. The Norse myths are very clear that Loki was adopted. Ah ha. That's something I need to take seriously. The silver age Thor comics of the 1960's never state that Loki is adopted, but they never explicitly say that he's the birth son of Odin either. It was just an assumption that I made. Admittedly, it was a logical assumption, but I was wrong. If I'd been better acquainted with Norse mythology I would have known better.

Incidentally, I bought this film on Ebay for only £4.20 including postage... the Blu-ray version! That's only $7.10. I don't use Ebay very often, but I'm glad I checked the site last week.

Thor: Dark World (4½ Stars)

For me, the mark of a good film is that it's worth watching at least three times. This is the second time I watched "Thor: The Dark World". There will be a third time, I have no doubt of it. It's a perfect blend of mythology and science.

Thor: Dark World (4½ Stars)

The film continues where "The Avengers" left off. Thor is fighting battles in the nine worlds to make peace. His brother Loki is still imprisoned. Jane Foster is attempting to move on with her life, since she hasn't seen Thor since the first film ended. This film centres around the return of a dark elf, Malekith, who plans to use a long hidden weapon to destroy all nine worlds, plunging them into darkness. Jane unwittingly becomes a pawn in the battle, and Thor has to fight to protect her. I was happy to see that the final battle took place in London. Why should New York, in particular Manhattan, always be smashed up in big action films? London deserves to be destroyed as well.

The film has incredible action scenes, balanced with a good dose of humour. It's definitely worth seeing in the cinema. I saw it in 3D, but in my opinion the 3D is unnecessary and doesn't add anything to the film. I'll probably go to see the film again on Sunday.

Here's an important spoiler for people intending to see the film in the cinema. There are two additional scenes. The first is in the middle of the credits, and it has some importance as introducing a character for the "Guardians of the Galaxy" film. The second is at the end of the film, and even though it's not essential to the plot it's worth watching. Please don't run out of the film too fast.

I left the cinema at 2am and decided to walk home. I walked past the homeless people who sleep in front of the Birmingham Bullring. There were quite a lot of them, about 20 huddled up under their blankets. What shocked me most was seeing a mother with her two children, who looked about five or six years old. She was calling them to lie down. In my opinion it's totally wrong that small children have to sleep outdoors. That sort of thing makes me feel ashamed to be British.

Thor (4½ Stars)

This is another first for me. "Thor" is the first film that I ever saw on DVD first, then went to see it in the cinema at a later date. There's a logical reason for it. It was shown today as part of a double bill with "Thor: Dark World". I thought it would be a good idea to catch up, since I missed "Thor" in the cinema when it was first released in 2011. I'm glad that I saw it on the big screen today. It's a visually spectacular film that can't be fully appreciated at home.

The casting of Idris Elba as Heimdall is disappointing. He bears little resemblance to the character from the comic books, as the above photos make clear. His choice was criticised by fans when the film was first made, and those who agreed with his choice called the other side racists. That's incorrect. I want a white actor to play Heimdall for the simple reason that he's white in the comics. The population of Asgard isn't like Earth. On Earth we have different races and different skin colours, but Asgard is an all-white world. The only way to explain that one person is black in an otherwise 100% white world is to attribute it to a birth defect. Those who fling the racist slur around need to be aware that it was actually racial reasons that led to Idris being chosen. Today films need a black character to make them attractive to black viewers. In the superhero films one of the supporting characters has to be made black. It can't be the main character, because that would alienate the white audience. The maximum is two black characters, a man and a woman, but there should never be more than one of either.

Thor (4½ Stars)

This film was already reviewed by my guest writer Kay here. She didn't like it, I do.

I had a strange conversation yesterday. Someone said that she didn't like "Planet of the Apes", she thought it was bad. I contradicted her and said it was a great film. She seemed insulted by what I said, or maybe the way I said it. Let's get this straight: no film is objectively "good" or "bad". It's all a matter of opinion. A film might have poor quality special effects, but a great plot. Another film might have breathtaking special effects, but an illogical storyline. Which of the two is better? That's up to you to decide. An even more extreme example: a film might have been shot on a low budget with amateur actors and seem bad, but a viewer might like it because it was filmed in his town and he can say "Look, that's the house my Aunt Maude lives in". Then there are the Troma films which have have unrealistic acting deliberately for the sake of "art".

It's all about opinions. I often call a film "awful" or "fantastic", but I don't claim I'm right. If I'm contradicting your opinion, please don't think I'm saying that I'm right and you're wrong. Not even if I use strong words to put across my point. If I have an opinion I express it strongly, and not just about films, though that's a different matter. If you like something that I don't, tell me why. I doubt you'll change my mind, but we can have an enjoyable discussion.

But that's enough rambling on. Let's get back to "Thor". If I were comparing it with the original comics I'd have to give it a fail. So much of the Marvel canon has been rewritten, it's ridiculous. I have to judge the film on its own merits. Though I do regret one thing: I wish that Thor and the other characters would speak old English with "thee" and "thou" like in the comics. That would have given the film more of a Shakespearian style. Hmmm, yes, and I wish that Thor would periodically transform into the lame Donald Blake. That would add a poignancy that the film misses. And I wish that Jane Foster were a mere nurse rather than a scientist. In fact, the more I think about it, everything in the comics was better. But as a film in its own rights it stands up for itself. The God of Thunder, Thor, is exiled to Earth by his father Odin because of his arrogance and belligerence. His evil half brother Loki takes advantage of this to take over Asgard. Oops, I forgot, in the film Loki isn't Thor's half brother, he's adopted. Too many changes!

For me the film's real star is Tom Hiddleston, who plays Loki. I hadn't seen him before, it looks like this is his breakthrough film. He perfectly carries off the role of an evil but likeable character. I'm curious to see how he will look in other films.

Click here to view the trailer.

Thor (2011) [Guest Writer] (3 Stars)

The warrior Thor (Hemsworth) is cast out of the fantastic realm of Asgard by his father Odin (Hopkins) for his arrogance and sent to Earth to live among humans. Falling in love with scientist Jane Foster (Portman) teaches Thor much-needed lessons, and his new-found strength comes into play as a villain from his homeland sends dark forces toward Earth.

Okay so this is a quickie because honestly I don't know what to really say about this movie besides what I'm about to tell you next. Besides the action scenes (you know I love a good ass-kicking scene) this movie fell flat for me in all the ways that count. I was pretty disappointed in the acting and while the premise of the story is interesting it just seemed rushed and almost as if they put this movie together with some band-aids and sticky tape. That's not to say that the movie was bad quality in terms of cinematography but other than that it was just bland all around when it came to the character interaction and relationships. I think I would term this as one of those throw-away action films that you watch just to kill the time but not something I wanted to pay $12 dollars for in the theaters. I've seen some mix reviews of this and I think it's really just a matter of taste and if I saw this on DVD I'd probably just end up skipping through any scenes that required them to speak more than 5 minutes.