"This girl has no concept of reality." "A girl... the plot thickens."

American Psycho 2... My dad bought it because it was a "paperback" movie and cheap. I don't know if "paperback" movie is a thing, but it means the cover is made of cardboard, and it isn't bigger than a CD cover, so yeah. It was cheap, my dad bought it at the same time as American Psycho. I never thought I'd watch it, but I did.

American Psycho 2 is about Rachael Newman, a student who has it all figured out - she wants to be an assistant for the college's professor, because that seems to be the ticket to Quantico, which is her goal. Problem is, there are other people interested in that job as well, so... what should she do about it?

Anyway, I like the movie. I like the story, I like how it's done. It's exactly what you want from a movie with no serious plot, but you just want to see someone kill a lot of people. Okay, it's good, I like the character and all. What I don't like, for starters, is Mila Kunis and her little girl voice. I don't know why, but I just can't stand her. But the biggest pet peeve for me is...

Why the fuck would you make this movie and call it a sequel for American Psycho? I read on IMDb that they didn't even try to make a sequel at first, but an independent film, you know. They should've stuck with that. American Psycho is great, at least the book is, so why ruin it? And besides, the connections were so fucking little it was stupid. Rachael was interested in serial killers, because he witnessed Patrick Bateman kill her babysitter. And then she stabbed him. And that's it, Patrick Bateman is only mentioned few times during the movie - that's it! They could've come up with someone else, and the movie would be okay. But making a useless sequel to something that's based on something as great as a novel by Bret Easton Ellis... that's not okay. That's the complete opposite of okay.

But otherwise the movie was fun to watch. I mean Rachael's inner monologue made it sound like a stupid teen comedy, if we don't pay attention to the people she killed and to the things her inner monologue said. Also, the music was completely amazing. And it was exactly what I said, it's almost a fun movie about murder. It's what I like, usually. Now it would've been great if it hadn't been for... you know, the last whole paragraph I just wrote.

If it wasn't a sequel, I would give it a higher rating, but now I have no other choice than...

☆☆☆☆

4 / 10

"You can't wig out." "I know." "I mean it." "I won't."

Panic Room is a movie that my dad has tried to make me watch for as long as I can remember. ... Okay, I guess as long as I've been old enough to watch it. And now I did, mostly because I love Jodie Foster so very very much. I've loved her since I saw Silence Of The Lambs, a bit longer than I've loved Julianne Moore.

The story is, Meg and her daughter move into a new house, because Meg and her husband are going through a divorce. It's their first night in the house, and stuff starts to happen - three men break in, and their goal is the money hidden in the panic room. Well, the problem is, Meg and Sarah try to hide there. So, the men want them out of there, they want the men out of the house. So who's going to get what they want?

First of all, I love thrillers. I prefer thrillers over horror movies, because the terror comes from different sources. In horror it's usually something supernatural. In thrillers, it's caused by people. Which is why I love them, because basically everyone is equal. It's not mortal human being versus immortal old spirit or anything. Its human beings versus other human beings. Anyway, Panic Room is very, very, VERY terrifying the way it is. I don't think I would want to change anything, there's no way to make it more terrifying. I think the story is great in the way, where the men breaking in are after money. It would be completely ruined if their goal was to kill Meg or Sarah. Because no, the money is important, and they are ready to do anything to get their hands on the money. Well, at least some of them are ready.

Every actor in this movie did their job right. Jodie Foster was amazing as always. Jared Leto was great, Forest Whitaker was brilliant... But what I mostly want to talk about is Kristen Stewart. People give her a lot of shit because of Twilight movies, and how expressionless she is. But I think that being "expressionless" has also to do with people's attitude towards her. They see her expressionless in one movie, and then they assume she's always like that. But to be honest, she is very expressive when she needs to be. (And to be honest, why give actors shit when the movie and the original script are the problem?) Here she was a bit expressionless, but that kind of suited her character. Jodie Foster is also sometimes very expressionless, and in Panic Room, the expressions they both gave were mostly distressed and all that. But it suits the movie. So I don't know.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

"You exist to continue your existence. What's the point?" "What's the point of your existence?" "To feel."

Equilibrium takes place in fascist future, where there are no wars. Wars are prevented by basically not letting people feel anything by a certain drug. No anger, no hate, no rage, no wars. Also, no happiness, no love, but that's the price you got to pay. Clerics are in charge of trying to find the sense offenders, but what happens when a cleric accidentally breaks his medicine container, and isn't able to replace the medicine with another one? Of course, he starts to feel again.

Equilibrium was excellent science fiction movie, and Christian Bale did marvellous job. He is truly excellent actor. He's great while portraying a man with no emotions at all, he's great while portraying a man getting his emotions back, he's great at portraying those emotions when the character gets at least a bit used to them. Also, Bale is very easy on the eyes, without being too extremely gorgeous. He's a good looking guy, but in the way that it doesn't distract you too much - if you swing his way.

Equilibrium is also kind of the embodiment of the reason I love science fiction. There can be very much action, violence and blood, but also the plot can make you think about different kind of ethical questions. Like, you really have to think about the whole feelings thing while watching Equilibrium. Which one would you sacrifice? Would you sacrifice your feelings for the possibility of never having a war or any kind of killing ever again? Or would you want to have all the positive emotions, like love, but in return you'd have all the negative feelings. Human race could still start a war - but if there isn't war, does the peace feel like anything? Hmm? There are lot of important questions the human race needs to ask itself. Equilibrium kind of asks those questions without being too pushy, without pushing the questions to your face, like "huh, huh, what do you think?" 

I said, "you have to think about this while watching", well, that's not quite true. If you like to ponder stuff like that, then you have to think about it. If you can watch anything without thinking about ethical problems, then I guess you can watch this without thinking about anything either. But then again, what would be the point of watching movies, if you just watch it for the watching, and don't really ponder and think about stuff presented in it. I mean movies are art - at least some of them are. Art makes us think, art makes us feel. Which is why in this movie, all the art is not allowed. So let's enjoy art now that we can.

Am I being too... off topic here? I hope not, I just want to ponder about the stuff I was pondering while I watched the movie, that's all.

There was one fighting scene I really enjoyed. It was kind of a different gun fight. Too people with guns, but not shooting aimlessly like people usually do. It was kind of a mixture between a gun fight and a sword fight, they were trying to aim and prevent the other from aiming. It was really nice, it was really different. I don't see that in every movie. And usually I get annoyed if during a fight scene the characters talk, like they stop for a few seconds to say something. But here, too characters were basically practising and not really fighting, and almost like chitchatting while doing that. Since it was mostly practice, the talk made it seem like a real fight. Nothing was really said, nothing like "I know what you've done", but the kind of stuff that almost says the same. "You're thinking about if they know who did it." It's really passive aggressive fight scene. I like it.

Apparently there was a one giant plot hole, but it also was explained on IMDb. I was kind of hoping I'd read it and understand, but I'm seriously too tired. And I didn't even notice it before someone mentioned it. I don't know.

But I really liked Equilibrium. I recommend it to anyone who likes science fiction, who likes action and... maybe to people who like to ponder ethical stuff while watching science fiction and action.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

"If two members of staff have to fall in love and decide to get married, there's nothing one can say. But what I do find a major irritation are those persons who are simply going from post to post looking for romance."

I almost didn't do a review, but when I said so, Elli said I had to. She wasn't serious but... here  I am.

Remains Of The Day is about a butler, Mr Stevens, who has dedicated his life to his job, and I don't really know how to explain the story. It... Uh... it's about people and all that. I don't know, it's a drama. It's very British with, you know, with lords and butlers and mansions and all that, everyone speaking that typical British English and so on. I don't usually go for this type. Usually I avoid, but I watched this for two reasons: firstly, my mum said it was great. Secondly, I was longing for something calm and almost boring after seeing Slipstream. It's like Slipstream is LSD, Remains of the day is nice camomile tea to calm you down.

First of all, yes, it was very calm and really boring, really long, and it felt like absolutely nothing happened. But, you know, sometimes you can enjoy that kind of stuff. However, I didn't. It would've been great right after Slipstream but I waited a long while so yeah. 

Also, I don't go for romance. But yeah, luckily the romance in this movie was... very... subtle. There basically wasn't any, not between the characters that this is about. But that kind of romance makes me want to start throwing stuff. Especially when you sit there like, "now he's going to tell her about his feelings", but no he doesn't. And I just loved how prevented and stiff Mr Stevens was.

Also, Abigail Hopkins - you know, sir Anthony's daughter - was in this movie. I didn't realise. I don't know if I want to see the whole movie just because of that.

☆☆☆

3 / 10

"Now you have no continuity. Nothing makes sense anymore."

Well, I guess I don't have to explain why I wanted to see this. Written and directed by the same guy who stars in it and has composed music. Sometimes I feel like I want to punch this man, he's too brilliant.

First of all - I really liked the special effects. They could probably give someone a headache, and maybe the movie should even have epilepsy warning on it. But, I didn't have problem with either headache or epilepsy, so I did just fine. The special effects were great and just strengthens the dream-like effect the movie itself had. And that was there even at the beginning - just quick shots. And it left the question, what are these? Flashbacks? Flashforwards? What? 

And well, of course I have to say something about the music. The music, the score, was very... subtle. I mean it didn't stand out very much. I don't know if that's a bad thing - actually it's kind of better than music that makes you pay as much attention to the music as to what's actually happening in the movie. It was nice, but then again I would've hoped more. I've been listening to And The Waltz Goes On, also composed by Hopkins, and it's brilliant, but of course the music in this movie is completely different compared to that.

 They were filming a movie within the movie, which was weird since somebody also mentioned "Dream within a dream" by Poe, and a scene they were shooting reminded me a bit of Pulp Fiction. But yeah, during that scene I didn't even know they were shooting a scene of a movie. But whenever they were shooting the movie, it was completely chaotic. Somehow I started to wonder if that's how it goes, but I guess not, since it was later told how impossible the situation was, how it was completely out of control. 

Also, I completely lost my track of time, even though I have a clock, but I still had no idea how long had passed. Like tat one scene that reminded me of Pulp Fiction, I was like "But what is  this, the movie is ending soon, isn't it?" And then I check and I had watched the movie for half an hour. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Because basically I enjoy long movies, but I hate how... long they take. I mean like, it's great to watch three hour film, but it takes so long. Slipstream was only 97 minutes, if I remember correctly, but it felt longer. I don't know. What if I was a little bored during the movie? I don't think so. I was eagerly waiting for it to end, though, but I that's mostly because I wanted some kind of explanation to the horrifying flashbacks / flashforwards, I wanted to know what happened. So that's kind of why I wanted it to end, I wanted an explanation.

But I truly loved the writing. The whole story was basically written well, and the dialogue! The dialogue affected me really weirdly. I mean At parts the dialogue was repeated, like one word, and so on. After I had a pause, I'm pretty sure my family was talking like that. Huh. But I have to appreciate Hopkins' self-irony. Some producer guy was talking on phone (BUT the cord was broken, I don't know how he was talking to anyone) and he said: "You're filming Hannibal 4: The Blue Dragon, with Hopkins? He asks for more money? Fuck him." At that point I had to pause the movie just so I could enjoy that line a bit more. Also, same character was mocking Hopkins' character's Welsh accent. You know, Hopkins is Welsh. 

But uh, I wish I could explain what the movie was about. I didn't get it at first. It was like different layers, different stories layered towards. Sometimes it felt like different realities colliding. It was nice, but also confusing. I don't mind confusion, some other might. And that kind of weird building made me feel very surreal. My parents were ordering a pizza, and a minute after that I had to think - did that really happen? Was that some other layer thingy in the movie? Of course then I had to realise how it wasn't happening in the movie, so yeah, it was real. I don't mind having to really think what happened really in the movie and what was just something inside someone's head.  But the plot was really, really complicated, and in the end you really realise what is real. Well, not really what is real, more like "Oh", and then you can judge easier what could be real, what is probably not real.

Also, I loved the part where  they talked about the main character - I guess he is the main character, it's hard to tell - how he's dangerous, and kills off characters especially when he's tired. You see, the character is a writer. As someone who writes, I can really relate to that part. 

I tried  to look at IMDb at something, but most comments I saw on message boards were very negative. I really liked the movie, but I can see why something as experimental as Slipstream can be too annoying to some. But luckily I don't rate movies by how most people would like the movie. I have my taste, and I like experimental stuff. So hell yeah. Anthony Hopkins can act, write, direct and compose. Fuck this guy.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 10

"Why can't I connect with people? Oh, right, it's because I'm dead."

IMDb mentioned "horror" as a genre. I'm not entirely sure if I agree, but I'm still going to tag it as one anyway.

I've been meaning to watching Warm Bodies for a while. Finally I did so. Warm Bodies takes place after / during zombie apocalypse, and the main character, R, is a zombie like any other - at least until he meets Julie. As soon as he sees her, something about him changes, and he puts his zombie instincts away, trying to keep her alive. And slowly, that same feeling, that same thing starts to change other zombies as well.

I actually liked the idea. One of my friend was really critical towards the concept, accusing the movie of necrophilia and such. But it's not like that, at all. And I liked the idea that zombies could start... basically curing themselves. And even though I usually hate the idea of "love conquering everything", I think it was nice in a movie like this. It was nice, because while it's being science fiction, something more human takes the place of science and medicines. It's nice. I also loved the concept of "good zombies" and "bad zombies". Good zombies being zombies like R, zombies who are changing. Bad zombies being more like brain eating skeletons. There's no hope for them anymore, which makes them... not like "good zombies".

Nicholas Hoult was amazing. I've seen him before in at least two movies, can't really remember them right now. But he did marvellous job portraying zombie, but also making that zombie just the right amount of human when it was necessary - slowly turning more human.

I thought that the music was amazing, and of course it was. Music was composed my Marco Beltrami, who is one of my favourites alongside with Hans Zimmer and so on. Marco Beltrami has also composed music in The Wolverine, Repomen and Carrie. He's brilliant.

One of my favourite things about this movie, though, was R's inner monologue. It was nice, because even though he was a zombie, his thoughts were kinda sarcastic, and just something a person of R's age could be thinking about in that kind of situation. And it was somehow natural, not like the writer would've tried too much to make R's inner monologue too funny. It wasn't funny, it was more like... tragically comic, you know, knowing his situation. It was self ironic and everything. It was something I'd hope that would be going in my head if I was a zombie. Hell, I hope I could have that kind of inner monologue even though I'm alive. That kind of thinking would produce many good tweets and better movie reviews.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

I wanted to say everything I have to say about these films.

Yes, I know I've written about these movies not so long ago. I watched Red Dragon and The Silence Of The Lambs in December and Hannibal last month. I've seen Red Dragon four times, The Silence of the Lambs three times and Hannibal two times, apart I'm considering watching it again tomorrow.

But these are not all the movies. There's Manhunter, and there's Hannibal Rising. Hell, there's even the TV show. But for me these three are the most important ones, partly because they feel more original, even though Manhunter was the first one, and even though Hannibal Rising is still based on a book. But these three feel more real than anything else. And I need to write about them, so I don't talk about them too much to people who couldn't care less what I think about Dr Hannibal Lecter.

Red Dragon was the first one I saw, I started them in the wrong order since The Silence Of The Lambs is the first one to be published. But the things I remember best are the start and the end. At the start, Dr Lecter is at a concert, but fliches every time a musician plays very badly. After that, members at the orchestra are dining at Dr Lecter's place. One person mentions how a musician has gone missing, he was relieved a bit, since the man couldn't play so well. A woman asks "what is this marvellous looking amuse-bouche?" To which Dr Lecter answers: "If I tell you, I'm afraid you won't even taste it." I had seen only Mads Mikkelsen play Dr Lecter before, so I was sort of nervous. How easily could I accept Anthony Hopkins? That's a stupid question. That one question sealed the deal, even I liked him before he said anything - his flinching was so in character. After reading the book I noticed how many extra scenes they gave Hopkins, but who minds? Who wouldn't want to see more of him on the screen? I wasn't very comfortable with thrillers when watching Red Dragon, but it wasn't that scary, and I could sleep well that night, which is a bonus.

And oh, the love of my life, The Silence Of The Lambs. It is something so brilliant, something so amazing. The longest review I've ever written was for the Silence Of The Lambs, and it was the first one to deserve a full ten stars from me. (And still, there is only two, this and The Hunt.) And I told how strong my reaction to the movie was. I was so excited I had to throw up. I'm still proud of myself for watching this movie, since for all my life I've been sort of scared of this movie. Mostly because it was sitting on my dad's shelf, on the place with other "really scary movie", but this was somehow the scariest, and I don't even know why. I guess it's just the reputation it has. But I watched this, and there's nothing more brilliant than this one. Jodie Foster is marvellous as Clarice Starling, and Clarice Starling is one of the best female characters, if not the best. She's brilliantly written - in books and in movies. But what I wish is that I could watch the movies again, without knowing anything about them, and start with this one. Because the scene were Clarice first meets Dr Lecter is very... I don't have a word for it. But the way Dr Lecter is just standing at there, looking straight at Clarice, looking straight at us. And that's one thing I love about the movie. We are Clarice. We see people with Clarice's eyes, she never looks straight at the camera (apart from one scene if I'm correct), but everyone looks straight at Clarice. 

That is why about two hours ago I thought, I don't need to watch this movie with subtitles any more. Because I don't pay attention to them anyway. What I pay attention are those captivating eyes of Anthony Hopkins. Because when he looks at Clarice, I'm pretty sure Clarice can't look away because we can't look away. It's partly Dr Lecter, partly Anthony Hopkins. But that's why I turned the subtitles off, even sometimes I really need them, because the dialogue goes so fast. But now, the subtitles went fast, I wasn't looking at them, I was staring straight at Dr Lecter. And I love that.

What's scary with Red Dragon is that near it's ending Dr Lecter is writing a letter for Will Graham. But then he looks up. In Silence Of The Lambs characters look at Clarice. But in Red Dragon, there was no one there, apart from possible Dr Chilton, who later was standing in a different place, and who wouldn't get that stare from Dr Lecter. So... who was Dr Lecter looking at, if not us? That's the all-knowing vibe Lecter has, or has had ever since The Silence Of The Lambs.

And then there is Hannibal. Where The Silence Of The Lambs is the most terrifying with the scene in Jame Gumb's house being really agonising, Hannibal is more... Gruesome. It has a lot more violence in it, and we see it. In Silence Of The Lambs Lecter kills few guards - and we're looking at their eyes when Dr Lecter bites their face or attacks them with a baton. That's terrifying. But in Hannibal, we're not seeing as the victim. We are standing there, on our own, just seeing what happens. I don't know which one is better. I guess having the characters looking at you while you're looking at them has more effect, but the way in Hannibal is not bad either. Some people don't like the violence and blood bursting out of people - okay that didn't happen that much. But I like it, since now we see what Dr Lecter really does. In Silence Of The Lambs, we saw him kill too people, and we know he killed a few more. He had 16 minutes screentime. Here, he's closer to us, he's more like a true main character and antagonist. We get more familiar with his... "work". We see what he does to Pazzi, we see what he does to Paul Krendler, we see what he did to Mason Verger. And it's good that it's not sugarcoated violence. We already know who Dr Lecter is, we don't have to be protected from seeing it, because we know what we are watching. 

The only thing that makes me feel bad about Hannibal is the ending. The ending is great, I love it, but... that's not how the book goes. Book continues for a while from where the movie ends. Or at least that's what I think - I haven't finished yet. But it's not that I don't appreciate that ending. That's a nice ending, that's more... friendly. To certain characters. Not so much drugging and manipulation and stuff. 

Now, phew, I've gone through films. But... I'm not done. I want to talk about the chemistry between Dr Lecter and Clarice Starling. That chemistry is there in the books, it's there between Hopkins and Foster, it's there between Hopkins and Julianne Moore. I know it's wrong and really weird to like them as "a couple", but I like them as a couple. I feel weirdly guilty about it. But my heart always skips a beat during those few scenes. When Clarice goes to see Dr Lecter for the last times, says that she came because she wanted to, and Dr Lecter says: "People will say we're in love". When Clarice reaches for the case file and Dr Lecter gently caresses her finger while saying goodbye. And especially, their last scene together. But yes, there are so many things wrong with their relationship. I'm not even going to mention everything in the book and ruining people's "surprises", but even the age difference. In Hannibal, Dr Lecter is about 60 years old, Clarice Starling is about 30. And of course, the obvious thing: she being an FBI agent, he being a cannibalistic serial killer.

I think the main reasons I like these movies is that whole last paragraph and then, well, my favourite Dr Lecter. My list goes Hopkins, Gaspard Ulliel, Mads Mikkelsen, Brian Cox. Sir Anthony Hopkins is a truly brilliant actor - and he's an interesting person. He is very majestic in every role. He's almost adorable in the interviews. He comes up with great improvisations. He acts while having slipped disk. He makes me want to become an actor - he makes me question myself and why do I think 70-year-old man is extremely sexy. But what I love most about him is that... he took the most evil, the worst villain ever, and he made him... human. I mean there's Ulliel in Hannibal Rising, he's like the devil himself. And it's the same with Mads Mikkelsen. Brian Cox had three scenes, I don't know anything about his Lecter. And then there's Hopkins' Lecter, the most human Lecter I've ever seen. And I don't know how he did that - because it's not really visible. Maybe you need to see the movies as many times as I've seen them (I haven't seen them so many times but still) to notice it. It's weird, but it's there.

But I figured something out. If you watch these, and start with Silence Of The Lambs and end with Red Dragon, you see the great brilliance that might have been an accident. The first line in Silence Of The Lambs is "Starling". In Red Dragon (which takes place before The Silence Of The Lambs), the last scene is Dr Chilton telling Dr Lecter, that there's an FBI agent there to see him, ask a few questions, but "she's far too pretty if you ask him". He tells Dr Lecter not to worry, he'll tell her he said no. Dr Lecter looks up and the last words of that movie are: "What is her name?"

Red Dragon:

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

The Silence Of The Lambs:

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 10

Hannibal:

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

"Be careful Michael, choosing not to believe in the devil doesn't protect you from him."

The Rite is a story about Michael Kovak, who is studying to become a priest, but he wants to leave his studies, since he doesn't really believe in anything, or at least doesn't think he believes in anything. But his teacher sees potential in him, and sends him to Vatican, to take an exorcist course. He's also told to go help Father Lucas, who practices exorcism. And then, shit goes down, and Michael has to really consider what he believes in.

I don't usually go for anything religious, but I thought it could work in horror. Well, I don't usually go for horror either. Oh, who am I kidding, we all know why I watched The Rite. 

My first thought was I really liked the cinematography. It was very beautiful - when it wasn't people, you know, possessed and convulsing. But when it was scenery, it was very beautiful. Especially the shades of blue at the beginning and well, any time the scenery was blue.

Right when the movie started it said "Inspired by true events." That is something you don't want to see in a horror movie. I mean "based on true events" is something that makes the watched go "yeah right", but "inspired" has a different sound in it. So you have to ask yourself, what has happened, what is exaggerated, what is left out. But I don't want to think about exorcism, mostly because I don't believe in any kind of god, let alone demons, and since the movie was mostly about Michael not believing in that stuff, it's kind of devious to... you know, realise you could be in his place. Not literally, but anyway, you know what I mean. But it's funny how usually anything religious is repulsive to me, but this wasn't. I could watch it as complete fiction and not think that it was trying to convert me to Christianity. 

I think converting people wasn't point of the movie, it was the horror, the feeling of terror. Maybe that's not what they tried to do - if it's "inspired by true events" - but as an atheist or whatever I am, it was just a horror movie. But a very good horror movie. And that's a lot said by someone who hates horror movies as much as I hate any religion or atheism or any belief of anyone. ... Oh my god how horrible that sounds. (It's not the beliefs on their own, it's more like people who think that their way of believing is the only way. So this counts religious people and atheists. I just had to say this.)

But I really loved the movie. It wasn't as repulsive as I thought, since my first idea was all the horrible stuff in Exorcist and all the things people have said about that. But now, it wasn't repulsive, it wasn't the way you start feeling sick. It was simply horrifying and in the good way. At last I can have mini heart attacks without having to spend the night without any sleep. I counted five jump-scares - or whatever they are really called - and none of them were really that bad. It got blood pumping and heart racing, but the movie had so much more than just those heart attack moments. 

And mostly the scariness  it was due to brilliant acting of anyone being possessed - which means mostly Marta Gastini and other actor whose name I can't say without, you know, telling too much about what's going to happen. But Gastini was brilliant - I have never seen her in a movie ever, but she was absolutely brilliant. She was a weak, scared 16-year-old while also being an ancient demon. And for the other actor - absolutely brilliant, and so different compared to Gastini's character's possession. At least I think that's how demons would be - they get something from the person they are currently possessing, and possession would work differently on different people.

But I recommend The Rite to people who like horror movies. And okay, I think I can recommend it to those who don't like horror that much, since I don't, and I could watch the movie without getting any horrible nightmares, and I slept just fine last night! (Okay I had weird dreams, like I was watching a movie half awake and Anthony Hopkins was in it, and I thought 'Oh this movie is good', so I don't know.)

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6 / 10

(NOTE: this rating was updated on 21. 2. 2015. due to another view (which was not on 21st of February but still))

"Do you know how to use that thing?" "Yes. The pointy end goes into the other man." "This is going to take a lot of work."

First of all I must confess - I missed like 5 minutes of this movie, due to DVD not working properly. So I missed the duel between Alejandro and Elena. 

I feel kinda bad, since - at least in Finland - people know Zorro, but I don't think many people really know Zorro. I mean, how many people of my age have watched any movies? I don't know. I watched the TV show when I was about 10, because it was on TV when I came home from school, so I watched. I was kind of hooked and then I just stopped watching it. But it was incredible sexy show, and I don't know if that was sometimes too sexy for a 10-year-old, but I really liked it, and I think Diego De La Vega was one of my first crushes on TV.

But in The Mask Of Zorro, Don Diego De La Vega, the man who is mostly known as Zorro, is in prison, but he escapes. He wants to revenge Don Rafal Montero, who killed his wife and took his daughter. Diego De La Vega starts to train Alejandro Murrieta, to took his place as Zorro, and stuff like that. I mean the plot is kind of excessive, so it's hard to explain every important bit without it taking most of this review.

Well, if I have something bad to say, it's that I kinda wanted this movie to be more violent. What can I say, I love violence and blood in movies. And also, there's the thing that when people fight with the swords, and they stop for a moment - using cheesy / funny one-liners, and you just see, that the other one could finish the other one, since he just stopped to mock or something. During one or two scene I wanted to yell at the characters, "You could've killed them right there, but no." And sometimes, one-liners during fight are just annoying. Sometimes they make the fight easier to follow - I mostly remember dialogue from the movies, not the action scenes, because they don't install to my brain the same way. But mostly, this movie didn't have stupid one-liners in the wrong place. The one-liners were very nicely put there.

One other thing - I love how most of the characters were ... racially (?) correct. Not too many white boys. Okay, well, a few, but usually white actors were in the roles that could've easily been white people. Well, the exception of Diego De La Vega, I thought he'd be a Latino.

Unfortunately for you, I could go on and on about how extremely sexy I found Diego De La Vega's character - especially the parts when he used the whip to blow out the candles and then blew the smoke of the cigar and all that. But, I think I won't talk about that too much. But the crush I had on him when I was 10 still exists - maybe it's just stronger now that one of my current celebrity crushes plays him.

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6 / 10

"She has no more place here than a goat does at a banquet!"

Thor: The Dark World was mostly really boring. I mean people said it was good, or at least that's what I figured from the stuff they said, so maybe I expected more. But seriously, even though lots of stuff was happening, it felt like absolutely nothing.

I mostly watched this movie for Sif and Odin, the only two characters that are... well, not as annoying. Well my love for Odin might also be mostly defensive, since most of those people who think everything that comes out of Loki's ass is pure gold is being really unfair to Odin. I mean mostly that's claiming he's a bad father to Loki,  but then again, what would they do in his place. People can think what they want about Odin, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't defend him. He's not perfect, in this movie he was pretty reckless, but still. And Sif wasn't in the movie as much as I wished she was.

The plot was, that Jane Foster, you know, Thor's love interest, accidentally consumes Aether, a weapon of the Dark Elves. The Dark elves were the villains in this movie, and I was excited to see Christopher Eccleston, but his role was so tiny, and we couldn't even see his face properly, which is a shame. He's a fantastic actor, and most of his acting can be seen in his face, but now that's ruined. Also, his voice was almost impossible to catch under all those sound effects. Furthermore, the Dark Elves seemed quite... well, I guess useless is the right word. I was expecting so much more of them, but their plans to "destroy the world" or whatever seemed really juvenile intention. Even though Odin told us a tale about Dark Elves they seemed like... we didn't know enough about them at any part of the movie. And the movie was like The Dark Elves weren't the main thing, like the plot wasn't the plot.

First I was interested in Jane Foster consuming the Aether. When anybody touched her when she didn't want them to, Ather created some sort of small explosion. So, I was excited, maybe Foster would play a crucial role - maybe she'd learn how to use that power. I love female character with enormous powers that they can control, but then again can't - like Jean Grey. But Foster didn't do much with Aether, and that was a shame. But what she did was she used science against Dark Elves and stuff. That's great too. But yeah, I hoped more.

And other thing that bothers me about this movie is that while it's taking place on "fantasy world", and it's based on Norse mythology, Marvel makes it too Science Fiction. The Dark Elves have really clichéd looking spaceships, and I'm pretty sure there were laser beams and stuff there. I mean yes, it takes place in space and all, but why make it too spacey? I like Science Fiction, but why ruin mythology with it?

☆☆☆
3 / 10