"You give me a time and a place, I give you a five minute window. Anything happens in that five minutes and I'm yours. No matter what. Anything happens a minute either side of that and you're on your own."

Year: 2011

Director: Nicolas Winding Refn

Writers: Hossein Amini, James Sallis (book)

A man who works as a stuntman, a mechanic an a getaway driver, falls for his neighbour, who is married to a man in prison. When the husband gets out of prison, the driver tries to help him, but only finds himself in deep trouble.

I actually just started watching this movie without knowing anything of the story. It just seemed like a popular movie, and people have been saying great things about the soundtrack. And even though I am not a big fan of Ryan Gosling, I kind of wanted to see what kind of role he had this time. I've only seen him in one movie before, and that was The Fracture, where he played an attorney. Well, his role in Drive was definitely different to that.

And since people have said great things about the soundtrack, I decide to write about the music first. The music was sort of odd, and it had a fantastic effect on the movie. With another kind of music, this could've been closer to action than drama. I like the direction they went with the music, the soundtrack was very cool. My favourite songs from the soundtrack are Nightcall by Kavinsky, and A Real Hero by College & Electric Youth, both songs and the rest of them affected the movie a great deal, they were very well chosen. I've noticed that "odd soundtracks" are usually the best ones, because they are different from the really basic soundtracks that are nowadays hard to even notice.

The cinematography in this movie also was really good. Both composition and colours were very pleasing to the eye. The visual side of the movie, like the rest of it, seemed like they were very carefully planned.

And yes, usually everything in movie is carefully planned, unless the plan was not to carefully plan every little detail. But usually movies that have violent scenes don't make those scenes look like they were carefully planned. Usually violent (action) scenes seem a bit messy. In Driver even those scenes were clear, and it felt like every little movement was thought about before it was done. It had a sort of effect to the movie as well, everything seemed slower. (Still they didn't make the movie too long, now that's something some editors / directors should take a note of) But then again it made the violence bit too detailed, bit too clear. Usually I don't mind the violence, but this time I did. (Might be because of the movie, might be just my current state after current events, who knows.)

The plot and the story of Drive stand out somehow. It's not the most original story, but somehow it sticks out of all the basic shit Hollywood throws our way. It's not the best story, but it was surprisingly good, thrilling and entertaining. One thing that made the story stand out was the main character. The main character was mysterious, and didn't really talk too much. Neither had he an inner monologue. There was no way for the audience to get inside his head, which was actually very interesting. I had no idea what the main character was thinking, he wasn't even the narrator... It was marvellous. There was a sort of distance to the character, a distance that is so effective, but isn't used enough.

The main character actually made me think about the book. I haven't read it, but I am really curious about how it's written. If the main character doesn't have a name, if the main character is not the narrator... How? Or is the movie vastly different from the book? If someone knows the answer to these questions, let me know, as a writer I just need to know.

Drive was an excellent movie, a nice combination of entertainment and art. It may not become my favourite, but I definitely won't regret seeing this movie.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

"When was it you started thinking you were better than me?"

Year: 2001

Director: Frank Oz

Writers: Daniel E. Taylor, Kario Salem, Lem Dobbs, Scott Marshall Smith

An aging thief is hoping to retire, but he needs to do one more job to steal a valuable sceptre with a younger man.

This movie actually managed to be thrilling compared to that Quicksand, the last crime / action thriller I saw. Quicksand was mostly lame, but The Score was partially unbearably suspenseful, and it made me sit on the edge of my seat, excitingly waiting for whatever it was during each suspenseful scene.

Well, the story here is just mediocre. Especially the trope "a criminal is retiring / retired but one last job" blah blah blah, it's really overused. And this movie uses other almost cliché tropes, like the computer hacker Nick works with, like wow, it's basically the same exact character that is in every movie where they need a nerdy hacker. So clichés and tropes are definitely overused.

But I got to give it up for the casting of the film. Robert De Niro is alright, Marlon Brando is good, but I think Edward Norton was very impressive. He played a character who would play a mentally disabled guy, and that was extremely convincing. After you learn it's an act, it's easy to know, but it every then and again feels like completely different character. I don't know if it should go like that, when you play someone playing someone, but Norton is truly a magnificent actor.

The cinematography in this movie was very nice. Usually I don't point out cinematography unless it's really, really good (or bad), but somehow this movie was visually very nice compared to several movies from the same genres. It's still not mind-blowing or extremely beautiful, but it's very nice.

So let's go back to the suspense. What made the suspense in this movie? Well, partially it was the basic "everything is going wrong".. trope. The characters come up with a plot but they have to change it, because something is going differently. And of course there's  the thing when it's so close that the character is caught in action. Those kind of things really typical, but it still adds to the suspense. Other thing was, well, of course the situation, but the music affected. Mostly it wasn't the music, but a lack there of. There were moments when there was no music at all, and those scenes were unbearably suspenseful.

The Score is decent. It doesn't bring too much originality to the table, but it's very suspenseful, which I think is what we need in a crime thriller worth watching. So I do recommend The Score.

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6 / 10

Now I'm 89 % through with my challenge. Three more to go. 

"Why don't they ever a make a movie about what happens after they kiss?" "They do, it's called porn."

Year: 2011

Director: Will Gluck

Writers: Will Gluck, Keith Merryman, David A. Newman, Harley Peyton

Dylan and Jamie are both disappointed in their love lives, so they start an arrangement: they stay just friends, even though they'd have casual sex occasionally. They're not after a complicated relationship, but they might be getting just that.

I don't honestly know why I decided to watch this. I mean I've sort of started to watch romantic comedy every once in a while, mostly because then it's much easier to watch some heavy drama, and of course, they are fun, especially when watching for the first time. Most of the jokes get tired over time but hey, it goes like that with every kind of movie or TV show or whatever. If you keep watching that one Monty Python sketch over and over again, it becomes tiring. It still doesn't make humour in romantic comedies worse, even though the quality wouldn't otherwise be as good. 

So while I'm at it? Was Friends With Benefits fun? It was, definitely. I've seen a lot of movies that were funnier, but the funny parts in Friends With Benefits weren't disappointing at all. It was just what you could expect from a romantic comedy.

Most of the sex scenes were surprisingly realistic. They weren't made too deep or too sexy, it wasn't pornography. It showed how fun sex actually can be, and how you can actually talk during sex, even about the most common subjects you can think of. It was marvellous. I think movies usually try to glamorize sex way too much. Well, that's not the Friends With Benefits. Sex was portrayed as very casual, which was actually nice, and nobody was called by slurs because of it.

Also this movie had it's serious moments, which are almost an necessity for romantic comedies, there always has to be those more serious, sadder moments. But I loved how in this movie it wasn't only brought on by the stuff between the two main characters. Even though it wasn't too relevant to the plot, Dylan's dad's Alzheimer's disease was portrayed quite well. I don't know about the acting, but the way the people reacted to it, and how the disease affects the whole family and stuff. It was actually a good way to bring some seriousness there too, though it didn't quite get what it deserved. Still, it's great that there can be supporting characters with diseases like that, because when they are the main characters, usually the movie focuses on one thing only: the disease.

One thing that was quite unnecessary was Woody Harrelson's character. It wasn't the whole character that was necessary, it's just... whenever that character opened his mouth, they just had to mention - everytime - how gay he is? Like I don't think there was one scene where he didn't mention it. That was really unnecessary, like, give him something else too! He said good stuff, but it was all ruined because they had to just shove it into our faces, like when straight people talk, they don't have to point it out everytime. Well, yeah, they can be pretty pushy about that too, but still it was like... really? A gay character, and what do we focus on? Him being gay. Ugh. We need something more than that, not just a supporting gay character, put there as a joke. 

This movie used a lot of clichés, but I have a feeling it was sort of ironic. I mean the character pointed out clichés in a movie they were watching, and this movie felt like it was going to make fun of clichés, but it ended up using them. I can't decide if the movie was ironically playing with the clichés or if it fell into its own trap.

But, in short, Friends with Benefits was decent. Not the best movie out there, but it's alright. I could point out several better romantic movies: Easy A, which is also directed by Gluck and also has a serious and important message, Everyone Says I Love You and Keeping The Faith. Watch those, but Friends With Benefits offers something different to the table. So it's worth seeing, but those three I mentioned are way better.

☆☆☆☆☆

5 / 10

"I know you're good people. I know you mean well. But you just didn't think it through. There is only one path to peace... your extermination."

Year: 2015

Director: Joss Whedon

Writer: Joss Whedon, Stan Lee & Jack Kirby (Comic books / Creators)

I'm loving how the poster says May 1st, while here I am, 22nd of April, and I've just seen the film. Thankfully I don't live in the US. 

Tony Stark tries to make a program to preserve earth, but the program, Ultron, doesn't give in to Stark's plans. Ultron sees the only way to have peace is to destroy Avengers and the human race. 

I've mostly lost my hope to Marvel Studios, they haven't given me anything really good in a while. The only reason why I wanted to see this new movie was because of the Maximoff twins and James Spader as Ultron. I have a feeling I should've paid more attention to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, though. I haven't seen Captain America: The Winter Soldier, so I felt like I was completely unaware of past events, even though I basically have read everything there is to know, because Internet loves to tell everything about everything. 

What bothers me most in Joss Whedon's writing is the really cheesy jokes. They work on most of the audience, but mostly I find the quick jokes just cheap, and not that funny. Otherwise Whedon's writing is decent. It's not brilliant, but hey, you don't need to be the next Shakespeare to write decent sci-fi action? Of course I have other problems with Whedon, but let's not go there now. But the plot was basically very simple, and the structure was very similar to the first one, though I wasn't expecting some really complicated, mind-blowing plot. 

Like my friend pointed out, the fight scenes seemed much clearer in this movie than in the first Avengers. It was easier to keep track on what was going on, even though fight scenes are always messy, when there are more than one people fighting at the same time. I don't know what was different this time, even though we had a theory on that (depends on when Disney bought Lucas Films). It was easier to see things during the fights, and it didn't matter even if your thoughts were lost for a while, it was still easy to know what was going on and where and with / between who.

Ultron is a very interesting villain, but he wasn't as scary as I was kind of hoping to be. I wanted a villain that was somehow easy to hate, mostly because of what happened with Loki. Everyone loved him and excused his actions, it was really... boring, almost. That's why I wanted someone no one could find excuses for. I don't know if I got that. Ultron's motives were somehow easy to understand, but still I think he was made a bit too likeable. The character was almost funny and too humane. Still, I have a feeling people won't go too easy on this villain now. James Spader voice was magnificent, and really suits a scary character, well, would've suited to a scarier character too. 

One other really bothering thing is the changes in Wanda and Pietro Maximoff. Nobody mentions Magneto, they aren't mutants, hell, they weren't even born with their powers! I get it, Fox has the rights for X-men stuff, but still it's annoying. It's like they tried to just create new characters, with same names and powers, though Wanda's powers weren't even the same. They didn't even try to have anything from their original backstory. Think about it, children of Magneto, a holocaust survivor, working for Neo-Nazi organisation? In what universe does that make any kind of sense? Well, Quicksilver has now been in both X-men and Avengers universes. Which one is better? He's funnier in X-men, and he just works better in X-men. I really couldn't choose between Evan Peters and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, both are perfectly alright actors, and well, Aaron Taylor-Johnson probably worked with what he had. I don't know how can you impress with a small role like that? (Though Peters did impress even though it was a small role.)

I really don't know what to say about all the characters we already know. They are pretty much like they've always been. Everyone's angsty, someone tries to be funny, all that. This time, though, we got a bit more out of Natasha, which was great. Where is her movie?

There were some exciting moments, and funny moments, and completely surprising moments, that I definitely didn't see coming. There were some pseudo-deep moments, that didn't really seem too real, they just seemed like words, nothing more. I don't even think it was because of the actors, I think it might've just been the writing. I don't know, maybe all are somehow contributing to that. But even worse than the deep moments, the forced romance. Why? Why did they need to put that there, this movie would've worked fine without it. It just felt... clumsy. 

Avengers Age Of Ultron was decent. I wasn't expecting too much, so I didn't get disappointed, but I didn't find it that good either. I liked it somewhat, but I've seen better. This movie is still worth watching, because you probably can't otherwise keep up with the universe.

☆☆☆☆☆

5 / 10

If you want to know my opinion on something else, drop a comment and ask. I couldn't take notes in the theatre, so I wasn't really that prepared for this review.

"You're killing people?" "No. I'm killing boys."

Year: 2009

Director: Kadyn Kusama

Writer: Diablo Cody

A bookworm Needy Lesnicki loses her best friend Jennifer during an accident at a local pub. But when Jennifer comes back, something seems terribly wrong. Jennifer has become a succubus, who starts killing guys in her school, and the only one who seems to know the truth about her is Needy.

When I started watching this movie, the beginning of it was somehow unexpected. I was waiting something way more clichéd. The start actually was much more interesting than I thought, so at least I wanted to sit through the whole thing. I mean from the first glance at the cover Jennifer's Body looks like a total Class B Teen Horror Movie, which would only be a total disaster. However, this movie turned out to be surprisingly good. 

For a horror movie, this movie wasn't too scary. There were several jumpscares, which the viewer is able to expect, but jumpscares are always a sort of cheesy way to scare people. Of course I'm not sure if I'm anybody to talk about movies being scary, I mean I'm glad this wasn't scary, otherwise I would've stayed up all night, I think. But I'm sure there are many viewers out there who would want this movie to be scarier. 

I love the writing and dialogue in this movie. If you've seen Juno, you can somehow imagine the phrases the characters use. Diablo Cody is magnificent at writing dialogue, even though her dialogue isn't that realistic, but it's fun, which I think is also important. Dialogue has to be either realistic or fun to be good, and this movie rocks in the dialogue department.

What I loved most about this movie was maybe Needy Lesnicki's character development. She was realistically scared in the movie, and I'm glad she didn't just suddenly become brave without a reason. No, she became angry, which is much more realistic in a way. I mean people don't just become brave just like that, usually some other feeling just has to overcome fear, and in this case, it was anger. It's always nice to have angry lady characters, usually anger is just given to men, and women are either scared or sad. And I'm glad Needy was both scared and angry, it gave the character some depth, I think.

And closer to the ending this movie had some really amazing angry energy to it. It was marvellous, and the odd but really cool choice of music added to the energy, it was great. 

So in sort, this movie was weirdly fun, somehow predictable, energetic... It was a lot better than I would've expected. I've seen better, anyone has seen better, but this movie was definitely worth watching. I mean I can now finally cross it out from my list.

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6 / 10

Also I'm going to ask movie recommendations again. I'm slowly running out of movies to watch, and most movies I haven't watched are something I've been avoiding for a while, even though I want to see them. So, send me a comment, tell me at least three of your favourite movies, and I'll promise to try to watch them. Nothing is off-limits. 

"Do you think things like this happen to people?" "Some people, yes." "What people?" "Us."

Year: 2013

Director: Fredrik Bond

Writer: Matt Drake

Charlie Countryman travels to Bucharest after his mother dies. He falls in love with a beautiful woman, only to realise she might accidentally drag him into something that's hard to recover from.

I've wanted to watch this movie since I started liking Mads Mikkelsen. I think I've had this movie ever since I heard about it, but it took me a while to actually watch it, which is nothing new. It always happens to me when I find a movie that seems cool, but I don't have high expectations. If I have high expectations, it's easier to watch a movie, but also easier to disappoint.

The music during the opening credits seemed kind of strange, mostly because the opening didn't seem as calm and peaceful as the music was. Mostly through the movie the music (and sound mixing anyway) seemed kind of out of place, like it was from other kind of movie. But it really suited the movie so well. They also used a lot of electronic dream pop and indie, which was really cool, like M83 and The xx, both are bands I like very much. The music gave this movie something more, like usually people wouldn't have gone to that direction when thinking about how this movie had a lot of crime and thriller elements. Some people would've probably used something much more safe, something more classical and less dream pop. Electronic dream pop certainly gave this movie another feeling to it. I'm glad they went this way.

The cinematography was wonderful, very beautiful. Actually almost immediately I started thinking how this movie looked like most Swedish drama movies I've seen. As it turns out, Fredrik Bond is Swedish. If I understood correctly, he has directed some music videos, and if this is the case it's definitely visible. Usually music videos have a really nice look to them, of course depending on the music and the band, but if you think in general, they are amazing visually. And in The Necessary Death of Charlie Countryman you can see certain elements more common in music videos. This movie had parts that visually reminded me very much of some dark Nordic dramas, and some parts like music videos, almost like what poetry would look like visually. The cinematography both did and didn't work with music, which was actually very cool in a weird way. Still, astonishing visual experience.

So, the visual side works, the music works. What about the story? Well, it didn't seem like anything special. The plot was kind of basic, and partially clichéd. The woman Charlie fell in love with, Gabi, was definitely a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, which could've worked with the story going differently. Now she just seemed like something for guys to dream about, her story was basically based on the men of her life - her dad, Nigel and Charlie. That was definitely disappointing. And Charlie's crush on her was partially creepy, I mean at one point he just kept following her around. I think partially that had something to do with him being on drugs. The story wasn't in any way original, it's been done a million times before. Even though the story wasn't too original, The Necessary Death Of Charlie Countryman was still very thrilling. That might be because of the cinematography and not just writing, but they still managed to make me feel something. 

I actually like the fact that the writer used Bucharest. I mean usually in stories an US citizen comes to Europe, and what do they visit? Paris, London, all the over-romanticized, over-used cities. Bucharest was a nice change, definitely. 

The performances from the actors and actresses were good. Shia LaBeouf's performance is what made Charlie Countryman easy to identify with, the writing just made him sort of creepy, pathetic and helpless, but LaBeaouf gave some more feeling to the character. Evan Rachel Wood was convincing, it was hard to remember that she's not actually Romanian. Mads Mikkelsen was scary and handsome at the same time, and he definitely is one of the best European actors. He needs more "international" roles where he doesn't play the bad guy. He's wonderful in Danish drama movies, and even in this one Danish romantic comedy I've seen. Still, the foreign guy with the funny accent gets the role of the bad guy. 

If I only had to rate cinematography and music, I'd give this movie a 9 or a 10, but the story does affect the final score, I'm afraid. But this movie was still definitely good, and worth seeing. It was stunning visually, and it was thrilling, and the story wasn't bad, just unoriginal. I still wanted to see through the whole thing, and it didn't leave a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not regretting this experience. This is a nice change, the story is like from a Hollywood film, but otherwise it feels like European drama. Very good experience.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

"The sea keeps things in perspective, which is easy to lose."

Year: 2003

Director: John Mackenzie 

Writers: Desmond Lowden (book), Timothy Prager

The workaholic head of the compliance section of a New York bank flies to Monaco to investigate unusual deposits from an offshore bank and meets a down-on-his-luck international film star who has become embroiled in criminal activities.

- Anonymous

I mostly wanted to see this movie, because it was a thriller and because of Michael Keaton. 

I've only seen Keaton in two action movies (Batman, Batman Returns), a fantasy comedy (Beetlejuice) and a drama (Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)). Did this movie give something new from Keaton I didn't already know about? No. This definitely was just a mediocre performance from Michael Keaton. He can definitely do much better. I also very much like Michael Caine, but his character seemed sort of useless. I don't know why his name is mentioned second, he hardly did anything compared Judith Godréche, who did do a good job, though I haven't seen her in any other movie, so I don't exactly know what kind of performances she usually gives.

First thing I noticed, again, was the music. Considering this movie came out in 2003, the music seemed a bit odd. It was more like music in the thrillers of 1980s, 1990s. It vaguely reminded me of the music in Manhunter. The movie wasn't exactly distracting, but I would've gone to another direction with the film score.

The story of Quicksand wasn't extremely original. The fact that a man who has no history of any kind of crimes or action (though that was left kind of vague) is suddenly in the middle of a total chaos, and is framed for a murder, etcetera. That part is nothing new. But I don't know if I've ever seen a movie where the main character of an action movie would be a banker. Still, banker or not, the main character is a 30-50-year-old straight white man, so that is absolutely nothing new. In short, Quicksand isn't offering anything new, original or tremendously exciting to the audience.

Quicksand was too awfully graphic. The violence and blood wasn't exactly too graphic, except for few parts, but mostly I'm talking about a few rape scenes. You can't exactly see too much, but usually even remotely graphic rape scenes are extremely tasteless, and of course might be really horrifying to the most sensitive audience and rape survivors, which is why I'd recommend to avoid this movie, if you tend to get really uncomfortable and triggered by rape. But luckily this movie didn't have way too graphic rape scene that would've lasted like way too long. It was short, but it's enough to make you uncomfortable.

I really don't know what to say about this film. I don't know if I should even recommend it to anyone. I mean it's not really bad, but it brings nothing to the table. This movie sort of reminded me of why I've been avoiding thrillers, even though I sort of love them: thrillers are repeated, and there are very few thrillers that are original and actually very exciting. My honest opinion? If you want thriller, stick with Silence Of The Lambs, it never lets you down.

☆☆☆

3 / 10

"I hope life on Earth is everything you remember it to be."

Year: 2009

Director: Duncan Jones

Writers: Duncan Jones, Nathan Parker

Sam Bell has a three year work contract on the moon, where he sends resources to earth for the power problems. He spends his time alone, with the computer GERTY, until he gets into a crash. He doesn't remember anything, and when he finally gets outside, he discovers something that will make him re-evaluate everything he thinks he knows about his job and his past and himself.

I mostly decided to watch Moon, because of Sam Rockwell. I'm really starting to like him as an actor, ever since Choke and Seven Psychopaths. But I think his performance in Moon might be his best performance yet.

The first thing I actually thought about this movie was how amazing the theme music was. It was slightly eerie and chilling yet enchanting, which is why it was perfect for this film, which turned out to be both. And the music was astonishing in it's simplicity. Apparently the score to this movie is composed by none other than Clint Mansell. Clint Mansell must be one of the best composers, his work is amazing in The Fountain and Black Swan, but his work in this movie was hauntingly beautiful, but yet so simple. The score of Moon might be now my favourite score. 

The writer(s) kept the story going smoothly from the beginning to the end. There wasn't a moment during the movie, when I would've felt bored or dissatisfied with the movie. I kept watching all the way through without getting frustrated with bad or typical writing or too basic directing. No, Moon was definitely well written and well directed. 

The story of Moon kept me on the edge of my seat. It was suspenseful, but not too much - after all, Moon wasn't science fiction horror, it was a drama. So it didn't have any kind of jump scares, which is definitely a plus. Most importantly, this movie actually made me feel confused just the right way. Not confused, like "I have no idea what is going on, I'm going to quit this right now", but the way I had to see things unravel, bit by bit. And it was definitely worth it to sit through the whole thing and finally get clear answers. But when I finally got the answers, the story still developed, which was marvellous: the point of the movie wasn't just finding answers to all the questions you asked yourself while watching, but everything had to resolve too.  Moon was mysterious, suspenseful and touching. It was definitely an emotive movie.

So, emotions, check. What about thoughts? Was Moon thought provoking? Absolutely. This is how I think science fiction should be. It should not be just action and blasting with guns. Compared to Star Wars kind of science fiction Moon was almost delicate. Yes, it was about science, but it was about the questions we have to ask about science. Can we do this? Maybe we can, but should we? Is it morally right to do this? This is exactly what I want when I am watching or reading science fiction. I want something deep, ethical questions, anything.

I honest to god can't think of anything I don't like about Moon. Everything just clicked, the story, the cinematography, the music, the pace, the cast, which was mostly Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey as GERTY... But still, Moon was an amazing experience, and will definitely be one of my favourite movies. 

I recommend Moon to everyone who likes science fiction and thought provoking movies, and especially thought provoking science fiction. Absolutely beautiful movie.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 10

"What is this? A center for ants?"

Year: 2001

Director: Ben Stiller

Writers: Drake Sather, Ben Stiller, John Hamburg

A clueless fashion model Derek Zoolander loses the award of Male Model of the year to his rival Hansel. After Zoolander decides to retire, a controversial fashion designer Mugatu gives him an amazing deal - but Zoolander doesn't know he's being brainwashed to kill the Malaysian prime minister.

Zoolander is one of those movies that I watch so I can understand so many references I've seen online. Also because it seemed so absolutely ridiculous that I had to see it, just to make sure it's really bad.

And of course the movie was absolutely ridiculous, right from the start, and that's necessarily a bad thing. It would've been bad, if they would've tried to make some sort of deep and meaningful ending the viewers would learn something from. Those endings tend to ruin a perfectly and ridiculously hilarious movie. But no, Zoolander was hilarious all the way, and that was magnificent. 

Of course few things ruin the hilariousness a bit. I mean no matter how hilarious Zoolander was, it wasn't really original. Naturally some jokes were, but it used the clichés and stereotypes the fashion industry is full of. Dumb models, for example, haven't we be using them enough. Okay, in this case, maybe that cliché hasn't been used so much on male models, I don't know, but models in general it's been used way too much. But of course putting fashion industry behind political assassinations was hilarious and sort of original. But majority of jokes were typical and not at all surprising.

But I gotta tip my hat off to the brilliant cameos. I don't even care for the rest, but the one with David Bowie? Amazing.

I don't really have much to say about this movie, but it was definitely a wild ride. I recommend this to anyone who hasn't seen it, though I'm pretty sure most people have, and I'm just late. But I'm definitely glad I saw this. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6 / 10

"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie, preferably one with a really awesome musical number for no apparent reason. But no, no, John Hughes did not direct my life"

Year: 2010

Director: Will Gluck

Writer: Bert V. Royal

A small lie about how Olive spent her weekend spreads, and soon the whole school knows about it. When Olive promises to help a friend, pretending to have sex with him, makes everybody call her a slut.

Easy A is one of the very, very few teen movies, that actually make me laugh. And of course, Easy A isn't just fun and games: even though it's a comedy, it has some pretty heavy stuff. The movie seems like a really funny, easy movie, but it gets almost unbearably heavy towards the end, it's frustrating.

I love the story and the writing in this movie. The story is something that could at least partly tempt the audience of teenagers, and even some older and / or more mature viewers. It's a simple story, but still it has good themes, and of course the message it sends is very important. And the dialogue in this movie... It's seriously so amazing. It's funny and fresh, maybe not exactly realistic, but this movie has some of the best lines in these kind of movies. The dialogue is pure gold.

If there's anything that I wonder about this movie, it's how quickly the rumours spread. Mostly I'm surprised, because I don't think I've ever heard a rumour about someone's sexual life. I understood sort of , if someone was taking money for sex, that I could see spreading, but I don't know. Maybe it's just Finland, or maybe I'm just hanging around with the kind of people, who really don't care about other people's private lives. Could be the latter one.

And now to the message and purpose etcetera, the moral behind the story. I hate the people in this movie, I mean the other high school students, and some of the adults too. I mean, a girl "sleeps" with too people, and she is considered a slut, I mean really? Two people? Okay, to be honest, even if a girl would sleep with a hundred of guys, there still would be no reason to call her slut. I'm writing this, because some people still are struggling with this: someone's sex life is not anyone's business, and anyone should be able to have or not have sex as much as they want, if it's consensual, and you have consent. Another notable thing about this movie is how the guys who pretend to sleep with Olive aren't considered as "man-whores". There isn't even a proper "bad word" for a man who sleeps around. Even that tells you something about the double-standard. Anyway, the guys get praised and called studs while poor Olive gets called a skank and a slut and every bad word there is for a woman who sleeps with a lot of people.

This will bug me forever, and it should bug you too. If it doesn't, watch this movie. If you have seen the movie, and it still doesn't bug you, then I don't know, you really should think about why it doesn't bug you - you might have been influenced by institutionalised misogyny.

But I have to love Olive as a character. I mean she's a really hilarious girl, she's truly amazing. She's an example how someone can have to extremities in them. I mean Olive is strong, she's really strong, because she can handle what people are throwing at her. But that doesn't mean it doesn't get to her, or that she doesn't care. She is both strong and vulnerable, which shows how well written she is. I just had an argument about how it's hard for actors and actresses to play confident AND insecure characters, like as if they couldn't play both. Well, Emma Stone proves she can play both strong and vulnerable, confident and still insecure in the same role. I love both the character Olive and the actress Emma Stone very much. And Emma Stone can rock any kind of role, she's truly amazing actress.

Easy A is fun, but still holds an important message. It's both light-hearted and heavy, a perfect amount of both. I warmly recommend Easy A to anyone, because even if you'd only be into some really artsy movies, and couldn't even dare to look at Easy A, it's a good example of well-written comedy with a two-dimensional female leading character.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

"We're all pretty bizarre. Some of us are just better at hiding it, that's all."

Year: 1985

Director & Writer: John Hughes

Five high school students, all different stereotypes, meet in detention, where they pour their hearts out to each other, and discover how they have a lot more in common than they thought.

- A. Nonymous

When I sat down to watch this movie, I mostly had one question in mind: is The Breakfast Club overrated?

Mostly what this movie has been praised for is the story and the writing. Though some of the praise would make you more think, what writing? It's said of a lot of scene how they were ad-libbed. I am quite suspicious of many of those claims, I mean if they all were true, basically it would mean there'd be only very little on the script, and that the actors and actresses were just thrown into the situation. I believe some of the scenes were ad-libbed, but definitely not everything. 

Of course the very idea of the story is good, well, now it has become a classic. I mean members of different cliques or stereotypes thrown in together... And of course I like the idea. It's the kind of idea you can get gems out of. And, well, John Hughes did get gems out of the idea. Some of the scenes were very touching and real in the way that it doesn't just feel like scripted bullshit mumbled by only decent actors. They felt real, and that's what's important.

But  apart from few deep and touching and funny scenes, The Breakfast Club was sometimes incredibly boring. It was kind of disappointing. I'm not a big fan of 80s movies, apart from Heathers, which is amazing, but I was sort of hoping for The Breakfast Club to be more amazing than it was. I probably was expecting too much, or maybe I'm too old to get it. Well, too old compared to the characters I mean.

So all in all, I wouldn't say The Breakfast Club is overrated. It's written well, and it's somehow so very truthful in the dialogue and everything. Of course there is clichés, but I can definitely understand why people like it, even though I wouldn't be so thrilled.

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6 / 10

Brains. Beauty. Bravery. These girls got it all... They just don't know it yet.

The House Bunny

Year: 2008

Director: Fred Wolf

Writers: Karen McCullah, Kirsten Smith

Starring: Anna Faris, Emma Stone, Kat Dennings, Colin Hanks

I actually don't know how to review this without talking about plot twists, so this review contains spoilers, 

When Playboy bunny Shelley is kicked out of the playboy mansion, she finds a new home and a new purpose: she becomes a house mother for a sorority full of socially awkward girls. The sorority is about to lose their house if they don't get enough pledges, and Shelley decides to help them.

When I first stumbled onto this movie, I don't know what I thought specifically. I just looked at the poster and thought, well, Anna Faris is great, I maybe should watch it.

Of course this movie had a bunch of clichés and stereotypes in it. Shelley was a stereotype of  a dumb blonde, who has a heart of gold anyway, and the girls in that sorority were such stereotypes of awkward nerds. Stereotypes are always boring. Everyone gets sick of stereotypes, because usually they make there characters one-dimensional. But the characters in this movie weren't actually that one-dimensional, but more about that later. 

This movie also featured that stupid trope of how the awkward girls got popular when they all of a sudden became hot, with help of Shelley. At that point of the movie, I was feeling pissed. But later on, and this is the part were I will probably spoil the movie, the girls luckily realised they don't have to be pretty or popular, they can be themselves. Though they did get some influences from Shelley, and they kept it. I mean they were starting to become mean and judgemental, but Lilly, who hadn't said pretty much anything through the whole movie, luckily talked some sense into them.

And all in all I think The House Bunny had a nice message for girls, I mean eventually it was that you should be yourself, though if you change, it also is okay. But you shouldn't try to change for a guy. That's what I got from the movie, of course someone else may disagree. And of course there's always a chance that The House Bunny is just a comedy and doesn't have a deeper message, but I don't think so. 

The House Bunny was actually quite funny, funnier than I thought. But they made that one date rape joke that kind of ruined some of it, I mean that was obnoxious.

The House Bunny was an alright movie, and apart from the message I interpreted, I don't think it's anything special. It might be worth watching, but there sure as hell are a lot better movies out there.

☆☆☆☆☆

5 / 10