"Close your eyes, say with your mind what you're looking for as if you've already found it."

Ethan Wate is suffering from insomnia and dreams where he's trying to reach an unknown girl. When school starts, he meets a new student - a niece of infamous inhabitant of the town - Lena Duchannes. She seems just as much an outsider as Ethan feels, and he becomes very interested in Lena. With Lena he learns very much about Lena and her family, himself and their shared past and fate.

I actually own the novel. I just haven't read it jet. So once again I see the movie before the book. I don't know if this system is working out for me. Anyway, I mostly expected some sort of better version of Twilight. Well, partly Beautiful Creatures is like Twilight - main character meets someone who ain't exactly a mortal, and meets their family etcetera. But Beautiful Creatures had some sort of beauty in it, something that Twilight didn't have. 

Of course Beautiful Creatures seemed to be a bit problematic on how, well, "determined" Ethan seemed. I mean Lena asked him to go away at one point, but he firmly wanted to stay by her. I mean sure, we can see Lena didn't really want Ethan to go away, but still, that scene kinda promotes the idea how stalking and persisting is romantic. Well it isn't, it just seems creepy. But thank god it didn't seem to be like that all the time. I mean many times Ethan should've left, but most of the time it wasn't Lena who said so, but her family. I'm not saying their relationship was healthy, I don't know if it was. It seemed mostly really weird and complicated, but when would anything in fiction be very simple?

Visually Beautiful Creatures was astonishing. I don't know how to put it, and I don't even know what I liked the most. I mean the cinematography was amazing, and so were the special effects. But then again the milieu might have been too beautiful, I mean the town was described as boring and what else, but still it seemed like a very beautiful place. Sure, most of that is because it's close to nature and all that, but even the town centre seemed like a really nice place. Of course, yeah, the town being boring and annoying place was probably mostly because of the people, but movies have something books don't: you can show so much more. So why not play around a little bit and make the whole place seem really annoying and boring and whatever it would be. I mean it wouldn't make the film "less attractive", I mean movies don't always have to be "pretty", even if they are fantasy romance movies. The people and the story give it enough.

Also I'm bothered how white the cast was. Like there was one character of colour there who actually had importance. Oh wait, there was one more, but she was mostly annoying and a sort of sidekick for another character, who was white. This seems unrealistic. Or is that what things are like in South Carolina? I doubt it, I've seen more people of colour in our town and hell, we are white as fuck.

But I did like Beautiful Creatures. And I loved how Lena didn't turn out to be just a manic pixie dream girl. (In case that you are unfamiliar with the expression, read about it here. And apparently there's another version of that, but instead of female / male "arrangement" it's black / white. The name for that seems like a slur though so I won't repeat it here.) I mean in a way Lena was a manic pixie dream girl, but she was also her own person, and didn't just exist for Ethan. As I've heard or read somewhere, being manic pixie dream girl is okay if it's not simply for a male character. So I do warmly recommend the movie.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

"Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers."

Trainspotting is a trip through the underground drug-filled world of Edinburgh. The guide for the trip is Mark Renton, an on-off heroin addict. We also meet his friends, Sick Boy, Spud, Begbie, Tommy... 

Really, how can I explain the plot? Again, this is one of those stories you can't explain with few sentences. Well of course you can say "it's a movie about drug addicts", but that doesn't cover it. I can't help but admire writers, who write stories that can't be put in three or fewer sentences. (I mean if you can but the idea in few words, why write the story at all?) 

Anyway, I fucking finally made it and watched Trainspotting. And I wasn't sure what I was expecting. I mean I had read about 50 pages and then I returned the book for no apparent reason. So when I started watching the movie, I didn't know much of what was going to happen. I knew about that one scene in the toilet, but it wasn't exactly like in the book. But if I expected something, my expectations were mostly based on 'Filth' or 'The Bedroom Secrets Of Master Chefs', both novels by Irvine Welsh, though the latter is much more softer than he earlier work. But I need to read Trainspotting also, because otherwise I can't read 'Porno' or 'Skagboys', and were some of the characters from Trainspotting also in 'Glue'? I have no idea.

I'm going to have to compare Trainspotting with Filth. It's kinda funny that even though Filth and Trainspotting are directed by different people, there is something so similar in them. I don't know if it's on purpose, or some sort of style just goes well with Welsh's novels. And Trainspotting also had kind of similar structure. And by structure I mean the fact that the beginning is mostly hilarious, but the story gets much, much darker towards the end. However, then again Trainspotting partly wasn't as dark as Filth, which makes me really wonder how much the movie is different compared to the book. I mean it felt almost unreal that it wasn't as distressing as Filth, I mean Trainspotting feels like it should be more distressing. ... I really need to read the book...

But seriously, Trainspotting was very good. I mean of course my company wasn't the best possible one. I mean it's not awkward at all to sit on a sofa with my dad with sex scenes on. But seriously everyone else was asleep when we watched Trainspotting, and I was afraid that they would wake up because - at least in the beginning - we laughed so much and so loud. I mean it was so unbelievably and extravagantly ridiculous!

I remember about two years ago a friend (or, well, a friend of a friend?) compared Trainspotting and Fear And Loathing in Las Vegas, and I don't remember everything she said, but basically she said Trainspotting was lame and Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas was better, because you could see the effects of the drugs more. I disagree. In Fear And Loathing yes, you can see the fucking dinosaurs (was there dinosaurs????) the main characters hallucinate but seriously, it wasn't as funny as my friend (of a friend) made it seem. Mostly it was just distressing, and almost boring. Well, in Trainspotting the characters just lie around when they are on heroin, but that is more realistic. That is what heroin does, and that's what it looks like. And the effect was described with words, because you can't obviously show it, but still it was done very finely. And if there's one thing I like about Trainspotting over Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas, is that Trainspotting doesn't judge or moralise. I mean of course it shows everything bad about drugs, but the movie doesn't slap you in the face and scream how drugs are bad for you. It doesn't have to. it shows things as they are. But it also doesn't romanticise drug-abuse. I mean that kind of "neutrality" truly shows some skill.

I don't know who I should recommend Trainspotting. Even though in video rental place it was on 'classics' -shelf, it's more of a cult classic. Not everyone likes it, and it may be too harsh for some people. But I have a feeling people should watch Trainspotting, partly because of its reputation, partly because it truly is great. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

"Have you ever confused a dream with life? Or stolen something when you have the cash? Have you ever been blue? Or thought your train moving while sitting still?"

Girl, Interrupted is based on a story of Susanna Kaysen, and her 18 month stay in a mental hospital back in the 60's. 

First of all, I had seen the trailer of Girl, Interrupted what feels like million years ago, but I just didn't watch it then. I don't know if I was interested then, to be honest. I mean at that time I was about 13, and when I was 13 I didn't give a shit about drama. I don't remember what I watched, but not drama. And even though I was in a dark place when I was 13 (though not darker than now) I didn't want to watch Girl, Interrupted. Maybe it was because I felt like I was depressed, I really don't know. But last night I came home from our last show, and I wanted to watch something, because, well, last shows are last shows, which means it was full of tears and hugging. And I wanted to get my mind off it. But I didn't really have anything to watch, or at least it felt like that. So I decided I would finally watch Girl, Interrupted.

I have said before that I don't recognise directors, except for Tarantino and Kubrick, and it happened again during this movie. I've seen two movies from James Mangold before, but I don't recognise his style - does he have one? Then again the movies I've seen before have been a romantic comedy (Kate & Leopold) and super hero action movie (The Wolverine), which probably explains how I don't recognise anything characteristic from James Mangold. Anyway, Mangold did a good job, though it makes me wonder, how much better or different would the movie be, if it was directed by a woman. I mean most of the characters are female, at least all the important characters are. I mean a female director could've given the movie something James Mangold can't. Just a thought.

The name Girl, Interrupted first made me think about some kind of psychological horror or a thriller. If I had known it was based on true experiences, maybe I hadn't given much thought to the name. But yep, Girl, Interrupted wasn't a thriller or a drama. It was psychological in a way, though, but what else can be expected from a movie taking place in a mental institution? So maybe it wasn't "scary", which was my first thought. But it was very agonising and distressing most through the movie. I don't know what exactly gave the distress and agony to the movie. Maybe it was the story, the atmosphere, acting, cinematography... Maybe it was all of those things. But the outcome was amazingly distressing. I mean I wasn't feeling exactly good last night and the movie made me feel worse. But not bad worse, like shit, that was a bad movie. It was a good worse. At least it made me feel something, and tha'ts what movies are supposed to do to all of us. If a movie doesn't make you feel anything, the movie is bad, even though the story would be very good. And bored isn't a good feeling though. 

Acting in this movie was brilliant. Winona Ryder was amazing and convincing. Her performance was agonising to watch because she was so good. Angelina Jolie, who I adore so much, was amazing and terrifying at the same time. It's no wonder she got awards for her performance, she was truly amazing. But if I compare - I don't want to, but still - I liked Ryder's performance a bit more. Mostly because she was easy to relate to. This was also the first movie I saw Whoopi Goldberg in (unless you count the Muppet movie, and funnily enough I don't count it), and for some reason she reminded me a lot of Morgan Freeman. I mean there was something so peaceful about her that I always connect with Morgan Freeman. 

But I don't regret seeing Girl, Interrupted even though it made me feel worse than I already felt. It was a brilliant movie, and it's worth seeing second, third, tenth time, and you can bet I will watch it at least that third time. I recommend it to mostly everyone, but don't blame me if it makes you also feel a bit bad about... well... things.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 10

"You tried to kill me, and now you're protecting me?" "Strange world, isn't it?" "The strangest."

Earth is perfect with no wars, no hostility and no violence. But the mankind couldn't do all this on their own: an alien species is now habiting people's minds. There are few resisting, and when an important girl to the resistance is taken, she does her everything to fight back the alien, Wanderer, in her head. 

Well, first of all, The Host is based on a novel by Stephenie Meyer. She's probably one of the most hated authors in modern day, and well, we all know why. She wrote Twilight saga, which most people hate. Some because she made vampires sparkly, and some because the relationship between Bella and Edward is unhealthy and creepy. Anyway, I don't know what I thought about The Host. I mean Stephenie Meyer is a bad writer, that's for sure, or at least she romanticizes abusive relationship in her Twilight Saga, I'm not so sure about if she actually is a bad writer. I sort of thought The Host would be very similar to Twilight, and on the other hand I thought it would be much better.

It was much better. I mean the story of The Host was wonderful and even if it might not be the best science fiction movie, it still brings some sort of honour to its genre. It's not like The Hunger Games (Oops, who brought up The Hunger Games again) that seriously takes a look at society and all that. The Host took a look at human nature. It was sort of amazing. I mean human beings were sort of violent species, having wars and killing each other, but there was also love and caring. And the difference between Wanderer and Melanie was amazing. 

And what's best, there was no useless love triangle. On the contrary, Melanie and Jared were in love, but Wanderer fell in love with someone else who also fell in love with her. I mean that was more interesting than any love triangle will ever be, since Melanie and Wanderer were in the same body and all that.

But I'm not so sure if I'll change my mind about Stephenie Meyer yet. Maybe the movie is better than the book, who knows?

But I would want to write more but I just have to get to sleep. Maybe I'll edit this tomorrow. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

"Is this an interview or a hit?" "Whatever man. You got any more cookies?"

Violet and Daisy are teenage assassins, who are on their vacation, except new dresses from Barbie Sunday are going to be on sale soon, and they don't have enough money, which means they have to take another gig, which seems like an easy job until it isn't.

I don't even know what made me want to watch this movie. I mean sure, it has Saoirse Ronan in it, and I love her. But seriously, this movie seemed like such a B-movie considering the idea. Teenage assassins, come on. But I thought that maybe it would be better than that. I mean the whole idea seemed like it could be really good or really bad, and nothing in between.

Well, actually, the movie wasn't really bad, but it wasn't very good either. It was somewhere in the middle. I almost forgot how it seemed like a B-movie, because something in the filming style and story reminded me a lot of Quentin Tarantino. So basically Violet and Daisy was sort of like cheaper and a lot "tamer" Tarantino movie for teenagers, I don't know. But even though there was a lot of shooting and violence - not very graphic but still - there were also a lot of scenes where the characters only talked, and the story went on with mainly dialogue. This is something that Tarantino uses a lot, though Tarantino's dialogue is much better and much more everyday, common, humdrum, whatever is the right word. In Violet and Daisy the dialogue tried to be very meaningful and deep, which didn't impress me much.

This movie seemed to just go on forever. I thought I had watched about an hour, but no, I had watched only 30 minutes. It felt really frustrating, because the movie didn't seem to be going anywhere.

Also I hate how this movie had a perfect opportunity for a lesbian couple, but then... nothing. Disappointing.

I don't know if I should recommend this movie to anyone. Probably not. I mean it's not bad but it's not worth your time either. You could spend time much better than watching this.

☆☆☆☆

4 / 10

"Remember who the real enemy is."

Even after winning, The Hunger Games still haunt Katniss and Peeta. They have to go on a tour around the districts. Also President Snow gives Katniss a warning, that if Katniss' love for Peeta isn't convincing enough, he might just have to kill her family and friends. Also it's soon time for 75th The Hunger Games, and something really special is being planned for the quarter quell. 

When I first saw The Hunger Games and Mockingjay I fell in love with them at once. But Catching Fire actually took three times before I truly recognised how amazing it was. I can only guess why that is. I'd say it's because the director changed between The Hunger Games and Catching Fire, but Catching Fire and Mockingjay had the same director. So I'm going to have a wild guess that I wasn't used to Francis Lawrence in Catching Fire, but in Mockingjay I was already sort of used to his style. I have no idea. Also maybe Francis Lawrence's style was more "suitable" for Mockingjay than Catching Fire. I mean Catching Fire had so many similarities to The Hunger Games, because the Games still are there. Maybe the director could have more of his touch on Mockingjay, since they didn't have to follow Gary Ross' idea of the Games etc. I have no idea, but maybe this is so.

I wouldn't want to compare three books (or the movies) since Catching Fire and Mockingjay aren't sequels, but just the same story. But still I think I'm starting to like Catching Fire more than The Hunger Games. The rebellion is much stronger in this one than the first book / movie. I'm really starting to like the rebellion more than the arena stuff. Maybe it's because I'm growing more mature, and I now understand what The Hunger Games trilogy is truly about. 

They left out a lot of stuff from the book, and I understand why. You can't have every little detail there. But it almost bothers me how they kept all the kissing scenes. Katniss isn't in love with either Gale or Peeta. I mean I understand the kisses between Peeta and Katniss whenever there's a camera on them. But there were about three kisses between Katniss and Gale. I understand the first two. But the third one... I don't remember that from the book (which I'm currently reading, and though I'm not at that part yet I have a feeling that kiss is not in the book). Maybe it was there to make up for how they don't let the viewers know Katniss' thoughts. At one point Katniss thinks in the book: "Gale is mine. I am his. Everything else is unthinkable." But if I remember correctly that thought didn't really evolve much, it was only how Katniss thought her place was fighting for the rebellion side by side with Gale. That thought didn't make it to the movie. But a kiss doesn't really cover that. They made Katniss just look like she was is love with Gale. That's not how it is. And these kind of additions only make the media focus more on stupid questions like "Team Peeta or Team Gale?" This makes me sort of angry. Katniss is a fighter, she has no time for a love triangle, this is bullshit. 

Like I do understand that Gale loves Katniss and so does Peeta. I have nothing against that. But Katniss doesn't really love either one of them, not the way they would want to. Not the way the media likes to make it look.

But the best thing in Catching Fire is how they introduce more victors. I mean that is interesting. We know how the games and winning affected Katniss and Peeta, and maybe Haymitch. But now we have more faces to look at, though most stuff is told better in Mockingjay, especially for Finnick. If I have to choose a favourite character amongst the victor and not count Katniss, I'd go with Johanna Mason. Amazing character, and I'm looking forward to Mockingjay pt. 2, if we'll see more of her in that.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10