"I'm handling the Aaron Stampler case." "Hmm, The Butcher Boy." "Yes, thank you, I forgot his real name."

A "hotshot" lawyer takes a case, where an altar boy is accused of murdering an archbishop. The boy was found covered in blood, but he claims to have blacked out. 

I remember that I just wrote a review of The Fracture, and I said I don't usually watch lawyer-crime-case-court-whatever movies, and yeah, they usually do have the same principle, and they go the same way. Yeah. Well, why did I want to see Primal Fear? Well it was Edward Norton's film debut. I mean I usually don't want to see my favourites' debuts because, hey, it's usually a small part, understandably. But Norton was nominated for the academy award for this role, so of course I had to see it.

And now, I'm not denying that Primal Fear would be different from all the other... this kind of justice system movies. I mean the structure was similar to everything I've seen - which means The Fracture and 2,5 seasons of Boston Legal. Primal Fear wasn't even darker than The Fracture, and to be honest, The Fracture was more intelligent, since even though it would look like an obvious case, but then there is no evindence. Well in Primal Fear, there's no motive and, well, not really evidence, but the case seems like a sure thing. I would like to explain more what happens, because if the case is like a sure thing all through the movie, then what is the point? Well, what indeed.

I didn't like most of the characters. I mean everyone seemed to be annoying in their way. Okay, Aaron (the boy accused of murder) was probably the only one I liked, but that was mostly because he seemed adorable and charming. And that doesn't really give depth to a character. Something else does, though, but um... 

God, I wish I could spoil the movie. I mean from the start it was boring but then it got really interesting and man, the movie fucked me up. Seriously, I don't remember the last time this has happened, maybe it hasn't. This movie will fool you once, twice... who knows. I don't even know what to say about it. I feel like I should write much more and go to depths but I can't I'm still a bit "Woah", I mean oh my god. 

Did I like this movie? Hmm, maybe not. But at this point, it's not even about liking something or not, it's about the emotions the movie makes you feel - if any. And feeling really fucked up and cofused is an excellent feeling for a movie to make you feel so, yes, absolutely this is a very good movie and worth watching. I don't know if it will be that amazing for the second time watching it but at least for the first time it's astonishing. And, the best part, the movie doesn't hurry. It's not throwing all the twist into your face as quickly as possible. All the plot twist creep up on you and that way they really, really startle you. 

I mean I could give this movie a full 10. It's probably worth it. But then again I didn't actually like it that much, but this is the least I can give it:

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

"I'll be in my office, the big one with a view!" "They all have views, you dumb shit!" "Not looking this way, cupcake!"

A beloves kids show host Rainbow Randolph is fired, and he is then replaced by Smoochy the Rhino. Randolph starts planning his revenge, while Sheldon Mopes, the creator of Smoochy, is annoying many kind of people with being so upright. 

I saw the cover of the movie when searching for other movies and I almost couldn't believe my eyes. The movie seemed absolutely ridiculous - the story, the costume, everything in it seemed like a fucking joke.

I thought though, that this was the first movie I saw that was directed by Danny DeVito. Well, apparently he has also directed Throw Momma from the Train. (And well Matilda, but I have never seen the whole thing, even though I should (from obvious reasons)) And to be honest that explains a lot. I was very young when I saw that movie, and well I was kinda drawn to its dark humour, the same humor that is present in Death to Smoochy. Of course I don't remember much from that movie.. But the humour in Death to Smoochy was really, really dark. But I liked it, mostly. 

Best thing about the whole movie was how it had two sides: firstly there's the kids show part. Like everything is colourful and they are singing silly, meaningful songs (My favourite being My stepdad is not mean (He's just adjusting)), And then again there's the almost gangster movie -like side to it, where everything is dark and everything is straight from all those crime thriller movies. And it's amazing how well it actually goes with the kids show vibe. It's weird, yes, but it's still amazing.

There's something weird about Sheldon Mopes' character. I mean he's something most movie watchers would find terribly annoying, being all non-drinking, non-swearing, all for healthy food and against selling out and all that. He's a character that we could find very annoying, but it's the way he's written and portrayed - almost mockingly. We know nobody is like that. But then again you got to admire the poor lad, though, I mean trying to be all that pure is probably hard in a corrupted world like that. But of course he was very much... human, he wasn't just all goody goody kids show host, but lost his temper at few points and all that. So he had his flaws, but maybe the part that would annoy most viewers is how good he tried to be. Then again that should be admirable, but in movies it might be just plain annoying (says someone who adores Charles Xavier because how good he's trying to be so.)

Of course the actors were well chosen, I can't say anything bad about anybody. And I have to confess, this is the first movie I've seen Robin Williams in. Yeah, it's weird, and I don't even know why I haven't watched any of his works before. I mean if I should've watched anything it's Dead Poets Society for millions of reasons. But I haven't, but I will. Danny DeVito of course was absolutely weird choice for his role, but he was so good in it. And Edward Norton rocked guy-liner and pink clothes.

So was this movie absolutely ridiculous? Oh yes it absolutely was ridiculous. That's why I liked it, I mean partly I was thinking "Oh god what am I even watching", but it was definitely worth it. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

"May those who love us, love us. And those who don't love us - may God turn their hearts. And if He cannot turn their hearts, may he turn their ankles, so that we may know them by their limping."

Brian and Jake, a catholic priest and a rabbi, have been friends since their childhood, Their life gets a new twist, when their childhood friend Anna decides to visit New York. Both Brian and Jake fall in love with Anna, but how can a rabbi ever date someone who is not a Jew, and how can a catholic priest date, well, anybody?

Actually there would be no way for me to watch a movie like this. Like romantic comedy is almost too bad as itself, but mix it with religion? Pardon my French, but fuck no. However, how could I turn down a movie that's actually directed by Edward Norton? Like I've seen Edward Norton act, and the man is amazing. So of course I wanted to see if he's any good at directing. I mean I've watched a movie directed by Josh Radnor and another one directed by Sir Anthony Hopkins because of the same reasons. I love it when actors start to direct things, I mean they surely have experience and so on. But then again Josh Radnor and sir Anthony Hopkins had also written their movies, so there's that, their movies are so fully their movies. Keeping the Faith was written by Stuart Blumberg.

Well first of all Keeping the Faith is almost so purely a romantic comedy. I mean, the romance was not quite romantic, until it was basically over very tragically and then there was this big romantic gesture and the happily ever after. And of course the comedy part came mostly from one goofy, clumsy character, but to be honest even though it was much fiddling, I actually laughed out loud at many parts. And usually when a comedy consists of a lot of fiddling (Really, I have no idea if that's the right phrase, can I trust dictionaries anymore?) it's mostly embarrassing, Good examples are Fawlty Towers (Very embarrassing) and Starter for 10 (Too embarrassing, never watch Starter for 10). I guess there has to be just the perfect amount of fiddling for it to be funny. Even though religion played a big part in the story, it was also very well blended in. It didn't really stand out any more than, well, any different job the characters could have. And by stand out it didn't seem more annoying like "ugh this is a religious movie about religious people". Of course it did stand out in a way, because if you are a priest or a rabbi, then religion is a big part of your life, I'm not denying that. I'm not sure how to put it into words but yeah. 

I never would've thought that religion would actually give an extra spice to a romantic comedy. But it really gave the story something a lot different. Of course there probably has been a movie about a rabbi falling in love with a non-Jew woman, and a movie about catholic priest falling in love with someone. But it's actually weirdly nice to see the two  combined. Of course I hate love triangles as much as anyone. I was actually hoping for some sort of polyamory. And even though the ending probably didn't hint about polyamory, I can always pretend that's exactly what happened. 

I wouldn't exactly call Keeping the Faith best of its genre or anything. It was good movie, and it made me feel good, but then again it wasn't anything truly special - especially when it didn't have that polyamorous relationship. Still it's worth watching. And I really kinda hope I would've written more but then again I already wrote quite a lot, and I don't know what else to write about. So anyway..

☆☆☆☆☆

5 / 10

"What did he say?" "He said the train is lost." "How can a train be lost? It's on rails."

Three brothers decide to go to a spiritual journey more or less eagerly, a year after they last met at their father's funeral. 

Wes Anderson did it again, or actually he had done it before but still. The Darjeeling Limited may not be as close to visual perfection as The Grand Budapest Hotel or Moonrise Kingdom, but the use of colours and the cinematography and almost everything in The Darjeeling Limited is very pleasing to the eye, and extremely beautiful. "Aesthetic" seems to be kind of a meme or a joke on some parts of the internet at the moment, but I still can't figure out a better word for the visual side of The Darjeeling Limited.

How about the story, then? I sort of wanted to see this movie because of the story - even when I had no idea of who Wes Anderson was. I saw a commercial on TV million times, because it was a movie of the week once, so I saw the commercial about ten times that week, maybe more. I mean of course the idea is very simple: it's sort of a road trip of three brothers through India. Of course India is a place that is probably used million times in movies like this, but it's no surprise. I mean India is culturally very rich country, and the spiritual side there seems to be very strong. (Of course politically etc. India has many problems, but let's not go there.) I myself have wanted to go to India, ever since I saw The Real McCoy (A Finnish documentary on Andy McCoy), and a lot of time of the movie was spent in India. Anyway, I really liked the story. I think I have to watch it a second time at least, to truly get everything.

That being said this post here had some interesting takes on the symbolism of The Darjeeling Limited. I've never gone so deep into symbolism* especially if I haven't seen the movie more than once or twice. Then again there's no point in reading the symbolism thing, if you haven't seen The Darjeeling Limited, it would mostly just spoil something and not let you figure stuff out yourself. (Good for me to say since I didn't even try before I saw that post and then read it like, 'Yes, yes, I agree'.)

Music is also very well used in Wes Anderson's movies. I guess I haven't really talked about it the music in Moonrise Kingdom or The Grand Budapest Hotel, but music in those movies was a lot different compared to The Darjeeling Limited, even though the music in the two was pretty similar. Anyway, the music was wonderful in The Darjeeling Limited. It was a nice mixture of Indian music and "popular music". Even though not all the songs played were to my taste, they suited the movie very well, and that's the most important part. And some of those songs took a while - I had to think if this song really suited this scene, but then it just sort of did. Amazing.

If for one thing, I'm starting to like Wes Anderson more and more. He seems to be becoming one of my favourite directors. (Who are the others, I have no idea, apart from Tarantino, maybe). His movies, especially this one, seems to be proving how movies are not (only) for entertainment but also art. And as an art from, I think movies are my favourite. I mean they have all: the visual art, the music and the story. Amazing.

Do watch The Darjeeling Limited. Even if you wouldn't like it, it's something I think everyone should see. Then again everyone should see at least one movie directed by Wes Anderson.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

* Unless we think about my 21 page analysis on Filth, however I never got any confirmation to my interpretations, but then again I could never ask something like that from him, I mean a simple "This is very good work" was enough for me. But it would be amazing to start analysing movies more precisely here, but that would require much more work and I guess I'm not ready for something like that just yet. Maybe one day.

"I love you, but you don't know what you're talking about."

A young boy escapes the camp of khaki scouts to run away to an adventure with his crush.

That's maybe the shortest plot summary I've ever written.

I wanted the watch Moonrise Kingdom mostly because it's directed by Wes Anderson. I've only seen one movie from Anderson before, but that's one of my favourite movies. Which makes me want to tell you, if you haven't seen Grand Budapest Hotel, go watch it, immediately. I saw Grand Budapest Hotel few months from now, if I recall correctly but the day before yesterday I watched it again with my mother, and that's why I decided to watch Moonrise Kingdom.

First of all the best thing about these two movies by Wes Anderson is the fairytale -like aesthetic atmosphere, that is created by the wonderful use of colours. I've never seen anyone use colours so well before, even though colours are also close to perfection in many works of Bryan Fuller (especially TV shows Hannibal and Pushing Daisies). But colours in Wes Anderson's movies aren't close to perfection, they are perfection. Especially light and pastel colours are amazing, like the light pink colour of the Grand Budapest and also the greens and blues in Moonrise Kingdom.

Then the story of Moonrise Kingdom... Even though love story of two about from 10 to 13-year-olds (I'm really bad at figuring someone's age so I have no idea how old the characters were) is not actually very... Well I'd sort of be afraid that the writer would get it somehow wrong. And Moonrise Kingdom was written by Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola, and both are old men, far from the age of the characters Sam and Suzy. I mean grown-ups writing a story like this, they could make the kids too innocent or not innocent enough. However, I think Moonrise Kingdom was quite successful on that part. The characters were kids and nothing more or nothing less. Of course few parts made them seem wiser than most adults in the story, but how is that bad? And it was wonderful how the romance between the two wasn't at all belittled. I mean it could be too easy to give the idea that "Well the characters are kids, what to they know, they might fall out of love with each other, because they are kids and they don't yet know everything life has to offer", etcetera. I admit, I usually am guilty of such cynicism, but I'm glad this movie didn't try to ruin the wonders of Sam and Suzy's romance. And also it wasn't made too sexual, only how kids would actually do that. 

The casting was again amazing. I mean all the children were chosen very well and Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward were perfect for their part. And I love how some more famous actors were also chosen there, like Bruce Willis and Edward Norton. (Also how come it's always Wes Anderson's movies that remind me how much I like Edward Norton? I mean he was wonderful in Grand Budapest Hotel and here his character was probably my favourite.)

Maybe Moonrise Kingdom wasn't as good as Grand Budapest Hotel, But then again Grand Budapest Hotel was the sort of masterpiece I wasn't expecting Moonrise Kingdom to be as good. But it's still worth of seeing at least once.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

"Even a broken clock is right twice a day."

Ted Crawford shot his wife, so the case seems like a really easy one for Willy Beachum, an attorney who is about to get a promotion. But even when the whole situation should be clear and simple, there is no evidence, and everything seems to go wrong for Beachum, but well for Crawford.

I just accidentally started watching this movie last night. It was on TV and I just sort of stayed on the sofa and watched through it. Well yes, I was tired when I watched it, but I think my opinion is still valid. Not that anyone said otherwise, it's just that usually I should write the review immediately when the movie is still fresh on my mind, but last night I had already switched off my computer, so I went straight to bed after the movie. Anyway, I think I have something, even though this review might be surprisingly short.

Even though I wouldn't call Fracture the best or even one of the best of thrillers, it was very good. It kept you on your seat (Well I was too tired to move but anyway) when you started understanding what was going on. It was really thrilling, and the whole murder case was really... well I've watched a lot of Boston Legal (which is a comedy and probably not the best thing to compare to Fracture, but I'm usually not watching anything with law stuff, I don't know the correct term) but I had never seen a case like this one anywhere. I mean in the murder... We all know he did it. It was shown to the audience, there was no question of if he did it or not. The question is how the fuck did he get rid of evidence. And to be honest, I sometimes had to even question if Crawford had actually done it. Pretty weird feeling to get, when you've seen it, but you still have to doubt it.

I've never seen Ryan Gosling in a movie. I mean I knew he is a liked actor, and I can see why. He is charming and good at what he does, and of course his good looks are a plus. I've mostly been listening to his music, so he's one of those people who is good looking and good at many things, which is sometimes really annoying. I think I might like Ryan Gosling. I don't know. And of course sir Anthony Hopkins was just as brilliant as he always has been. And I loved the two working together - the characters had great chemistry. And of course sir Anthony Hopkins is always amazing as dangerously intelligent murderer, no matter if the character kills ones or many times.

I recommend Fracture. It's thrilling, but not the kind of thrilling that makes you stay awake the night. And I loved how open the ending was, even though we all know what's going to happen. Not the best movie I've seen, and probably not going to be my favourite, but still good. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

"I'll tell you how to get four people into a mini. Two in the back, two in the front and your Dad in the ashtray!"

After being bullied at school, Shaun comes across a gang of skinheads on the way from school to home. He becomes a friend with them, and they are almost like a family to him. Though things change when an old friend of the skinheads shows up and turns things around. The story is based on experiences of the director Shane Meadows.

Firstly I was confused if This Is England was a tv show or movie or both. Well, turns out both. Movie came first, then some mini series. So, well, yeah I started with the movie.

This Is England was mostly really distressing and depressing. Even for the scenes that weren't, I had the feeling that something bad is about to happen. And no, that's not the same feeling as in a thriller or an action or a horror. No, the bad thing about to happen is maybe not going to happen right away, but you just know things aren't going to stay the way they were. Mostly the music amplified that feeling. I mean there was a scene that felt actually nice in a way that yes, something good is happening to Shaun (who I didn't actually like at all, and I have no idea why I didn't), but the music made me feel like yeah this isn't going to last very long. And every depressing or distressing thing was even more so, because Shaun was there. I mean hell, the kid was 12, and well when I was 12, I couldn't have handled that kind of shit. He probably didn't handle it very well either. But when that skinhead Combo started to give his speech to everyone, it was horrible to see that Shaun was buying everything he said. I mean of course he bought that, he was 12, he had lost his dad and Combo was charismatic and used Shaun's grief to his own advantage. But it felt really horrible.

One other thing, This Is England didn't moralise racism or skinheads. I found that kind of weird. But then I realised that they didn't need to. If everyone watches This Is England and agrees with the skinheads, must already be a racist in a way. But what was weird that even though Woody and the others that Shaun befriended in the beginning didn't seem like skinheads. They never actually talked about anything that you would assume skinheads would talk about. And they didn't seem as racist as Combo. I mean they had Milky, who was originally Jamaican apparently, in their gang. Obviously all this was on purpose, but... why? Did they try to make Woody and his people look better compared to the other skinheads? Or did they try to make the point that skinheads are people also? I don't know, either way it was sort of weird.

But maybe the TV show may tell more about that side. I mean Woody was hardly in the movie towards the end. He was played by Joe Gilgun and that's kind of the reason why I got interested in the first place. Anyway I think I could watch at least the first mini series. But if it is as distressing and / or weird with some skinheads then I don't know if I will carry on to the next one. 

☆☆☆☆☆

5 / 10

"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