Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Directed by: Chris Columbus 

Written by: J.K. Rowling (novel) & Steve Kloves (screenplay)

It's time for Harry Potter to start his second year at the Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardry, but he gets a warning from the house-elf Dobby that he should not return. It's soon clear that many students of the school are in danger, when it seems the chamber of secrets have been opened, and someone is after the muggle-born students.

---

Compared to the first one, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is still very much meant for children. It's Chris Columbus' effect for the film. But still, this time the story is scarier and much darker. You can see the slight change in the atmosphere. But it's still not too dark or scary for the kids. This definitely reaches a larger target audience than just families. 

If you've seen the Harry Potter movies and read the books, the stories don't seem that great after a while. You are so used to them. But when I just finished watching this movie I understood how amazing this movie is when thinking about the fantasy elements. There's a great wizard (Salazar Slytherin) who's heir is after those whose blood is not as pure as Slytherin would want it. That't has elements of epic and also a great narrative about the treatment of minorities. If only any of those characters petrified by the monster would actually be a minority, instead of being just metaphors for minorities.

The Chamber of Secret feels like a much better adaptation compared to the first movie. Of course I haven't read the book for a while, but as much as I do remember, they didn't use the lines exactly the same way they were in the book. Most important scenes were preserved and this time the film didn't seem too quick - though this one was longer than the first movie. This was almost close to perfect: they chose just the right scenes to include. Of course there are few things that now weren't mentioned or shown, but people who read the books will know them, and people who don't read the books probably won't need them.

There are many visual choices I wouldn't agree with. Like when Harry realises who opened the chamber of secret this time, the flashbacks to that person were... lousy. They used weird effects where the shot was distorted and it just didn't seem to suit the scene anyway. Sure, the technology wasn't as good as what I'm used to seeing, but there had to be better way. Also there were annoyingly many fast, dramatic zooms which just seemed too humorous for the scenes they were used during.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)

Directed by: Chris Columbus
Written by: J.K. Rowling (novel) & Steve Kloves (screenplay)

A young boy living with his abusive aunt and uncle finds out he's a wizard and gets to go to a school meant for people like him. He also finds out he's famous in the wizard world because a powerful dark wizard didn't manage to kill him when he was a baby. He is told he is certainly destined for great things.

---

I've decided to watch all of the Harry Potter movies during my sister's autumn holiday, because I wanted to watch something I've watched since I was a kid. Yeah, you can tell my quest for watching all the Twilight Saga movies isn't going so well. But the thing is they aren't just nostalgic for me. I also don't like them as much anymore, which gives me kind of like a different look on them. I've seen them a million times (or read, I have seen the last ones like... once), so what can I tell about them now? It's always hard for me to talk about movies I've seen so many times, so it's great practice.

While I'm not big on fantasy, I can't deny the effect Harry Potter has had on the genre - and on my generation. It' the first fantasy series I ever watched or read, and so many people connect through Harry Potter. It's astonishing, no matter what I feel towards the series.

Watching the first movie makes me feel really bad about how horrible Harry's childhood was living with his aunt and uncle who clearly didn't care for him at all. It's gotten even more horrible now that I have grown up and I've realised how abusive they really were. Seriously, why on earth would Dumbledore give this kid to people who hate wizards? Did he honestly think that writing them a letter would make this all go well? Of course this is not the last time which makes us question Dumbledore's decisions.

Chris Columbus has mostly directed movies for the whole family. His imprint is clear. The first Harry Potter movie is clearly a very childlike fantasy. It's mostly aimed for children, and no one's trying to hide it. Sure, people of all ages can watch it, and the book isn't just meant for kids, but the movie is just so clearly meant for children, which can make it slightly annoying. But it's fascinating to see how that changes when the series goes on. The movies change a lot considering their target audience was growing up the whole time, and they eventually look like a dark young adult fantasy instead of this colourful fantasy for children..

This first movie adaptation annoys me so much. They've followed the book closely, some lines are straight from the book. Yet so much is missing. So many important details are gone. Of course not everything can make it to the film but still it bothers many viewers who have read the books. Also even if the movie is long it seems to happen so fast. 

It's an entertaining movie but after so any years they lose some of their magic. It's sad, of course, but it's mostly the fault of the audience (in this case, me) and not the movies.

6 / 10

The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

Directed by: Chris Weitz

Written by: Melissa Rosenberg & Stephenie Meyer 

After a disastrous birthday part Edward Cullen dumps Bella Swan, who gets depressed and finally finds joy in her friend Jacob. But Jacob also has a secret very alike to Edward's...

---

I know what you are thinking, and believe me, I feel it too. Why would I ever watch anything like this ever again? Those three months I spent obsessing over Twilight when I was 12 years old were enough. But you know what? I've only seen the first movie and this one, and this one once year ago. I realised these disasters are all on Netflix. I thought, what the hell, I'm going to watch them all for no reason at all!

Twilight movies are painful to watch. Not because of the dramatic and heart-breaking love stories, but because everyone is expressionless. Everyone always complains about Kristen Stewart, but everyone is just as bad as she is - except none of these actors are bad. I've seen Kristen Stewart in other movies, and she's an excellent actress. Same goes for almost everyone, yet everyone is so horrible in these movies. What also makes these movies painful is how everything is stupidly cheesy and dramatic, and every scene is unnecessary long. You could've easily made this an 1,5 hour film instead of two hours - just cut every useless part out. Thank you.

The story is annoying. Edward breaks up with Bella to protect her and she gets depressed. But her depression is so severe I honestly cannot believe that is a result of a healthy relationship ending. If you delete the supernatural element and change the beginning, it honestly feels like Bella just got out of an abusive relationship and is therefore a little broken and all that. Yeah, Bella is not an extremely three-dimensional character, but I almost want to protect her from Edward. 

I hate Edward Cullen. Sure, there aren't many likeable characters in these movie, but Edward is the worst. He's manipulative and controlling. It's like you start dating someone, but after a while you realise they tell you what to do and you don't dare to defy them. That's the kind of character Edward is. 

Special effects are so stupid. Nothing looks real. All vampires' eyes are so fake, like no one in real life could look a Cullen in the eyes and be like "yep, those are very normal eyes". The wolves were even faker. They looked like they came from a children's animation, and while that's understandable, they looked so incredibly unrealistic it ruined every scene with the wolves in it. 

One thing makes this movie better than the first one: there is less of Edward and more of Jacob. Or is that two things? I still dislike them both, but before we know what Jacob is he's so lovely. Everyone else is just so grim and blah.

Yet I'm still going to watch all of these. 

☆☆☆

3 / 10

September - Short Reviews

4.9.  Hitch (2005) - 10 / 10

Still my favourite romantic comedy. Also Will Smith is so freaking cute I can't handle this.

8.9. 21 Jump Street (2012) - 7 / 10

Wasn't as funny as the first time but still pretty good.

11.9. 22 Jump Street (2014) - 8 / 10

Now that I didn't watch the both movies the same night it's easier to see that 22 Jump Street is actually funnier.

19.9. Rush Hour 3 (2007) - 7 / 10

Rush Hour 3 isn't any worse or better than the first two, but I won't give it the same score as the first two. While the quality isn't any worse, this is getting tiring. Not the plot, not the thrilling action and astonishing fight scenes, but the humour. It's not as funny as it used to be and that's a shame.

The story is way better than in the second, considering it's heavily tied to the first movie. There are interesting new characters played by interesting actors, like Hiroyuki Sanada and Yvan Attal.

If you've written quite long reviews of the first two it's really hard trying to write something new about the third one. Everything that was good or bad is good or bad in this one as well - with the difference that some jokes are beginning to feel really tiring.

First one is the best out of the three. Rush Hour 3 has better story than the second one though, since after seeing the third one, Rush Hour 2 feels distant considering few characters that are in the first and third but not in the second. First one feels most original, even if it is just a simple, entertaining action comedy.

How to Lose Friends and Alienate People (2008)

Directed by: Robert B. Weide

Written by: Peter Straughan & Toby Young (book)

British Simon Young has been writing for a humorous gossip magazine, but he gets an offer to join a high profile magazine in New York. The ride is bumpier than he'd expect.

---

I don't remember why I originally added this on my list on Netflix. I'm pretty sure I did not read to plot description. I mostly looked at the name and went with it. The name of the movie is strong and weak at the same time. It attracts attention, it certainly gives you a certain feel to the movie before you watch it. But eventually, is it accurate? And is it too long for people to remember, therefore making it harder for people to talk about it? "Hey, have you seen How to Lose Friends And Alienate People" just doesn't come so naturally to people. Thank god we can discuss it mostly online or in text messages.

The plot is intriguing because of two things: the beginning and Simon as a character. 

The beginning is a scene closer to the end - the "You're probably wondering how I got into this situation" kind of beginning. And when the movie actually starts, the contrast is amazing. You know where the main character Simon Young is going to be, but the how of the trip is intriguing considering the beginning doesn't seem to go so smoothly for him.

Somehow the beginning while interesting also made me sigh in frustration. Someone moves to New York? That certainly has never been done before! The story can be different, but the setting is getting tired. Is New York really that great? And people living in New York, don't come after me after I wrote that remark, you hear? 

Simon Young as a character is interesting. What are fictional journalists usually like? They always want to write serious stuff, win prizes and make a difference. That's always the way it goes, right? But Simon Young is into all the gossip articles. His priorities (he wants to have humorous, ironic look on different celebrities) are different from the people in other movies, and all the characters around him. Again, wonderful contrast. Now, is Simon Young likeable? He's a bit sympathetic, but some details about him annoy the audience. But what makes you mostly root for him is the way his opponent is even more annoying. There's nothing likeable in that guy, so you root for Simon. And eventually, you really like him, and you want to see him shine. 

Those are the two reasons that make you want to watch the entire movie. You want to know how Simon Young got to the place shown in the beginning, and you want him to be better than the more annoying character. Of course the movie is also enjoyable and fun, but those two are way more effective. If a movie is fun, but there's nothing else interesting going on, audience might not be as motivated reach the end.

It was weird listening to this movie. Almost every song on the soundtrack is on some playlist of mine. There's a chance it gets annoying if a movie is filled with recognisable, popular songs after another. In How to Lose Friends and Alienate People it works. Songs go well with the scenes, and they don't feel as forced as songs that are there just to trick you into enjoying a scene.

There are many typical details to How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, but it's also extremely refreshing. It's fun, even if a bit annoyingly vulgar at times, but at the end extremely enjoyable. It feels like this movie could be analysed way more - there's so much going on under the surface.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

Austin Powers movie series (1997-2002)

Lately I've been watching a lot of movies and shows I used to love years ago - Men in Black, Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Ginga Nagareboshi Gin... It is time for a movie series I first watched when I was eleven. 

Usually if movies are unnecessarily dirty it's slightly annoying to me, but in Austin Powers movies that doesn't matter. Why? Because that's what they mostly are - dirty spy comedies. Yes, it feels a bit corny now, but that's mostly because I watched them at the age where all that was incredible funny. Now it feels mostly nostalgic and sometimes slightly cringe-worthy. Best part of the dirty humour are the names of certain female characters. And apart from all the dirty humour, these movies are still pretty funny - like all the clever ways of covering up people's private parts.

I'll always prefer agent movies as a comedy instead of that grim dark angst, very serious agent movies á la James Bond. Yes, being a spy is a serious business, I will always prefer stuff like Austin Powers, Archer, Johnny English and Get Smart over James Bond and whatever else spy movies there are. On the top of my head I can't even name anything else than James Bond, I just automatically dislike all the serious spy movies, unless they really, really stand out.

Casts are always unbelievable, even though closer to the end it feels like the cast is 50 % Mike Myers. Still, every movie has at least that one actor or actress who is just so incredible - like Beyoncé Knowles Michael Caine in the third one.

It's hard to say if the stories are interesting when I've seen all the movies at least five times and they are extremely familiar already. Still they are enjoyable to watch.

My score for all these movies is

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6 / 10