May - Short Reviews

I'm publishing this early, because I'm going out of town at least until 1st of June, and even if I watch movies during that time I can't write a review, so here's the quick reviews from May.

 01.05: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) - 2 / 10

I accidentally rented the remake and I was so pissed. This film some how makes no sense, I feel like you need to see the original to get this or the original is just as vague. Anyway this version was of course thrilling but it also was very boring, I was honestly playing solitaire through the film.

04.05: The Wolverine (2013) - 6 / 10

The Wolverine shows how much the writing has evolved from the early X-Men movies, when the studios didn't seem to care about quality stories. Of course Wolverine is getting boring, even if he is an interesting character. The movie is decent, but I would've been more interested in the Darren Aronofsky's more violent 'R' rated draft.

11.05: Aziz Ansari: Buried Alive (2013) - 7 / 10

12.05: Aziz Ansari Live in Madison Square Garden (2015) - 6 / 10

13.05: Aziz Ansari: Dangerously Delicious (2012) - 7 / 10

The more stand up I watch from Aziz Ansari, I realise how many episodes of Master of None got their basic plots from his jokes.

The Family (2013)

Directed by: Luc Besson

Written by: Luc Besson & Michael Caleo (screenplay), Tonino Benacquista (based on a book by)

A notorious mafia family is relocated to Normandy under witness protection program, which proves to be a real challenge to everyone - the family and those trying to keep them safe.

---

I vaguely remember when this movie was in the cinemas. I didn't go see it and I didn't even see a trailer, but I remember seeing the poster on the wall at the theatre. Once it was up on Netflix, I wanted to see it.

I was expecting some kind of weird mixture between crime drama and a "unusual family" comedy like the Addams Family and We're The Millers. Not the best examples but they are the first ones I can think of. The Family wasn't exactly close to my expectation. The Family is way more refreshing the way it is. Still, it's hard to say what is the main type of this film. It's partially a comedy, it's hilarious and clever and all that. But then again it seems like a deep drama, because it's about a family who is trying to adjust to the new situation, and everyone is facing their own challenges. But of course it's also a crime thriller.

While it's hard to say which one of these mostly defines the movie, the thing is, the elements of all those types are used so wonderfully, that as the story goes on, it doesn't matter. The story and the characters are intriguing and it's exciting to see what is going to happen. That shows what an excellent writer Tonino Benacquista is. While I don't know the differences between his book and the screenplay by Besson and Caleo, but I'm guessing his Benacquista's writing involved a lot of the stuff I loved about this movie.

The Family is intriguing, thrilling and fun. It has excellent casting and excellent writing. While this movie doesn't really stand out, it's not astounding in anyway, it's still a good film and definitely worth seeing.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

Walking Tall (2004)

Directed by: Kevin Bray

Written by: Mort Briskin (earlier screenplay), David Klass, Channing Gibson, David Levien & Brian Koppelman (screenplay)

Chris Vaughn returns to his hometown only to found out it's filled with corruption and criminals. He decides to clean the town up

---

I just chose a random movie from Netflix. Well, not that random, I just wanted something with The Rock. 

'

When you haven't read a summary, it's hard to follow a movie. Like I still don't know what part of this movie was the main point in the plot. When Chris Vaughn went against the people in the casino? When he became sheriff? 

The story is pretty typical, not good but not bad either. You watch the movie, hoping Chris Vaughn will get the bad guys, but otherwise are you invested in him? Or in anyone? Like most characters bring something to the story, but no one is really that interesting. Well, there was a moment when I started thinking about the main character's past, because it was never really revealed to us, but his actions seemed to reveal a little something. Yet nothing was truly said out loud, so that was only a little moment.

When watching Walking Tall I kept thinking that the movie is basically bad decisions after another. Sure, Chris Vaughn has his heart in the right place and all that, but mostly I had to shake my head. Why, Chris? Why the hell would you do that? Also how he became sheriff, fired everyone and only hired his friend? No way, that would never work. The worst idea ever!

Apart from few interesting details this movie is extremely boring to watch. It's simple though, it's satisfying but it doesn't stand out, it doesn't really feel like anything. Kind of a waste of time because of how average it is.

☆☆☆☆

4 / 10

X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

Directed by: Bryan Singer

Written by: Simon Kinberg (screenplay) & Bryan Singer, Simon Kinberg, Michael Dougherty & Dan Harris (story)

The world's first mutant En Sabah Nur (Oscar Isaac) awakens, and wants to cleanse the world by destroying it first and letting the strong survive. The X-Men must stand united against En Sabah Nur and his four horsemen of apocalypse - who include some very familiar faces.  

---

X-Men: Apocalypse was what I hoped it to be! While I haven't read what the (professional) critics have written about the film (and to be fair, I don't care) opinions and reviews from the fans have been extremely positive. There's been a lot of implying that Jean Grey's scene at the end is better than the whole Avengers franchise, or that Logan's cameo is better than the whole Avengers franchise. I can't help but agree!

X-Men: Apocalypse is taken to some pretty epic levels, yet it seems effortless. The X-Men franchise is full of amazing, intriguing stories, and I don't think the writers have to dig too deep to find a story hey can make as epic as Apocalypse. Think about Days Of Future Past. X-Men manages  to make these kind of stories while Avengers franchise seems to be slowly building to some kind of really epic movie, and that process is infuriatingly slow. Pick up the pace, Marvel!

The writing is as good as it tends to be in superhero movies. There are few moments where the thrill is built up so well it takes your breath away. For example, when Scott Summers' abilities activate. You know exactly what's going to happen but you really feel how intense the scene is. It's just fabulous. The plot itself is decent. The greatest thing is the villain, because he seems impossible to beat, which gives it even more thrill. 

Of course typical plot devices are used, like the antagonist team gets one from the good side and is about to use him in their diabolical plot, just like in X2, but even though that is extremely familiar trope to those who have been following X-Men since the beginning, all of us worry so much for the character - unless you are heartless and don't understand why hurting him or using him is horrible.

Is there something I don't like about this movie? The dialogue was sometimes extremely clumsy, especially when Charles Xavier first mentioned Moira. That kind of clumsy "schoolboy with a crush" dialogue would not suit sir Patrick Stewart, which makes it sound a little tacky. Also bringing back Moira was amazing, but it seems like the writers tried to make it seem like "yup, professor X is straight and nothing's going on between him and Erik". Whoops. that didn't work: their chemistry is too good. But I have to say my biggest annoyance in the film is this: there are a few characters that I thought seemed cool: they are new, and they have a lot of potential. But nope, they were killed to make another character develop again. I don't think creating new characters only to kill them is a good way to go. Even I can think of other ways. What if he had lived alone, humans realised who he was the same way, and tried to capture him, being more brutal, so he'd see that oh yeah, humans are still that bad. I just didn't see the need to introduce us to new characters and have them killed five minutes later.

Usually it's annoying when X-Men franchise brings in new mutants and it's hard to keep a track of them. That has happened in, like, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and in the future of Days Of Future Past. Apocalypse gives us new mutants, except they aren't new. Scott Summers is back, so is Jean Grey, Kurt Wagner, Angel and Storm. Now we haven't seen all the new characters in movies before, but they are still familiar from comics, like Jubilee and Psylocke. 

Tye Sheridan, Sophie Turner Kodi Smit-McPhee and Alexandra Shipp are phenomenal in their roles, some of them are better than the original adult actors, and I look forward seeing them in the possible next X-Men movies. Most of the old actors and actresses are just as good as they've always been. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender can't really compete with Stewart and McKellen, but they are extremely talented and good choices. Evan Peters makes this movie so much more delightful as Quicksilver. Avengers couldn't compete with their Quicksilver, Evan Peters is charming and so is his character. Oscar Isaac was fearsome and amazing as En Sabah Nur, but he has the problem many people in CGI filled superhero movies have: their face is covered up with all that technology. I like seeing the faces of actors and actresses, that tells a lot about their skills, but CGI is slowly killing this.

True, I don't really like CGI much anyway, but I think this film is 80 % CGI. They couldn't do most of that stuff without it, so I don't think I can complain.

X-Men: Apocalypse pulled me back to the fiery pits of X-Men hell. This movie has everything I love about X-Men movies, apart from ethical questions. In X-Men Apocalypse you can't choose sides, because who would be on the side of a guy who wants to destroy the world? The X-Men movies tend to have several categories for villains, but at least this time the villain wasn't a human being who hated mutants, like Stryker in X2 and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Apocalypse is closer to Sebastian Shaw: a mutant whose goal seems to be to genocide but let the strong individuals live. 

X-Men: Apocalypse is intense in the perfect way, epic because of the story and the villain, and simply amazing. While there were less than perfect moments worth a good eye-rolling, as a whole this movie was astonishing. This film is the reason why I will always prefer X-Men over any other superhero franchise. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

To be fair I think the score might be different if I had my notebook with me. It would've been easier to say what wasn't too good about this film, but without the details I only remember the big picture, and I loved that.

Jennifer's Body (2009)

Directed by: Karyn Kusama

Written by: Diablo Cody

After small town's only bar burns down, an incident which kills several people, something seems off about Needy Lesnicki's best friend Jennifer, who appears to be killing and eating her male classmates.

---

I've seen Jennifer's Body before, and I really, really liked it. But lately I've been thinking about how great this movie actually is, and I really wanted to see it again. 

Like I said about a year ago, the story of Jennifer's Body is way more interesting than you'd think when you read the summary. The very beginning of the film feels not as clichéd as you'd expect this movie to be. The writing is excellent in this movie. The movie keeps you in its hook. The best part about the writing is the dialogue in this film. All those remarkable lines are simply delicious. Sure, the realism of the dialogue doesn't really make you dizzy, but it sounds good and stands out from typical dialogue. Diablo Cody's dialogue has always been impressive. While I wasn't fascinated by Juno, a film written by her, it was mostly because of the themes and plot of that film: I still liked Cody's dialogue.

Jennifer's Body isn't actually a scary film, yet the makers of this film have used the horror themes excellently. There are a few jump scares that scare you for a little while, but don't actually leave you scarred, and they are pretty easy to predict. There are a few disgusting bits, few brutal and bloody bits, and supernatural horror with demons and all that jazz. All those elements work well together, like they usually do.

The thing about this film is that it should be a total B-movie but it isn't. Jennifer's Body is excellent instead of "so bad it's kind of good". Yes, many people don't like this movie, or actually hate it, but I'm not exactly what the reason for that is? "It's ridiculous?" Every movie has it's ridiculous moments, otherwise they are so serious they are boring. I can't think of any reasons. 

The cast is so wonderful in this film. Megan Fox is such a skilled actress and she's absolutely fantastic as Jennifer. Amanda Seyfried's charm as Needy seems to be the complete opposite of Fox's charm, and together their chemistry just makes you dizzy. Wow.

Jennifer's Body is one of my favourite movies. It has amazing female characters, intriguing plot and amazing dialogue. It has everything I need in a film, yet I'm not giving it the full score because of several clichés and how it's not exactly a very original movie. It's still great and definitely worth watching.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Stoker (2013)

Directed by: Park Chan-wook

Written by: Wentworth Miller

The death of India Stoker's father means her uncle Charlie, of whom she had never heard of, makes a visit. Charlie moves in to keep company to India's emotionally unstable mother, But India starts to question the motives for Charlie's presence. 

---

Stoker has been on my watchlist for so long I don't even remember what made me interested in it in the first place. I'd say it's because of Park Chan-wook but I'm not so sure if that was the original reason for that. However, now that I haven't really written about movies for a while I thought I'd watch something and decided to go with Stoker.

The story is astonishing, and so is the structure. The whole film is somewhat creepy from the beginning, but it's not so straight-forward with it. The film begins as "muted creepy". While the audience sees that something is clearly up with Charlie, the audience doesn't necessarily know what it is. He seems normal, but we've all seen movies, we know he isn't. It's just hard to realise before it's shoved into our faces and we know. Also that really disturbing atmosphere is enhanced by weirdly intense scenes. They don't necessarily need to be that intense, but they are, and that helps create the ambiance of the film. 

Also while parts of the "plot twist" were easy to predict, some of them came as a total surprise. They definitely were disturbing twists, just like in Oldboy, but still at least partly delightfully unpredictable. 

Somewhere during the film I forgot that it was Wentworth Miller who wrote this. Either the story is similar to what I'm used to from Park Chan-wook or his directing just made it look so clearly like his movie, but I kept forgetting who actually wrote Stoker. 

Visually this movie is just as enchanting as Oldboy or Sympathy for Lady Vengeance. It's marvellous. It's unconventional, yet every shot seems to be beautiful, even if they are extremely gruesome. Chung Chung-hoon is an excellent cinematographer. 

Stoker goes to same category with other Park Chan-wook movies I've seen. It is gruesome, disturbing yet extremely fascinating. If you like films like that, Stoker and Park Chan-wook's movies in general are the right films for you. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

Also I know have a letterboxd account. Most of the stuff I but there is the same as in here or in IMDb, but sometimes my shorter reviews are there quicker than in here, considering I post those at the end of each month. 

Sympathy for Lady Vengeance (2005)

Directed by: Park Chan-wook

Written by: Seo-Gyeong Jeong & Park Chan-wook

Geum-Ja has been thirteen years in prison for kidnapping and killing a young boy. When she gets out, she seeks vengeance to the man actually responsible with the help of fellow inmates.

---

When I had seen Oldboy, my friend asked me if I had seen Sympathy for Mr Vengeance or Sympathy for Lady Vengeance. I hadn't, but when I ran across this film in the video store, I trusted my friend's judgment. 

In the beginning this film is somewhat hard to follow. There are so many characters who suddenly are narrating or at least talking about the main character Geum-Ja. The main feature in the plot seems to be how everything isn't told the audience at once. While it's always at least a bit alienating, the plot of Sympathy for Lady Vengeance is still so intriguing it keeps the viewer with the film all through. The only problem with that is that the pace of the movie is somewhat slow, and the two hours it lasts seem extremely long, but still the story is amazing.

This film has the same vibes as the end of Kill Bill volume 2. All that revenge, mother-daughter stuff. It's amazing and while Sympathy for Lady Vengeance is a brutal movie, the ending makes the audience - or at least me - feel extremely purified, and that's a wonderful way to end a story that's mostly about revenge

Sympathy for Lady Vengeance is an excellent movie about vengeance. It's not just violence and then the main character's done and nothing she did affected her in anyway. No, just like in Kill Bill we can see how she feels after she is done. That shows how excellent the writing is in this movie: Geum-Ja isn't just her goal, she's a human being.

This film is just fascinating. While it's slow and somewhat hard to keep a track on, it's still excellently written and intriguing. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

47 Ronin (2013)

Directed by: Carl Rinsch

Written by: Chris Morgan & Hossein Amini (screenplay), Chris Morgan & Walter Hamada (screen story by)

When their master is framed and made commit suicide to restore honour on his house, his band of samurai set out to avenge his death with the help of a half-breed they had rejected before.

---

First thing I have to say is I'm not too familiar with Japanese culture. I know the basics that are always there when you're watching a movie that takes place in Japan or something like that. I have no idea if 47 Ronin butchered Japanese culture or if it's slightly accurate or whatever. I'm not the right person to address this, but I hope I'll see some discussion about this.

And that brings us to another issue, one thing that will probably bother some if not most of the viewers: English. The characters are speaking English most through the movie. It isn't a miracle considering 47 Ronin is an American movie, and it took most of its time in the same place. That's why it doesn't matter that much. If the Japanese characters would meet a lot of foreigners it would be more annoying, if they spoke English with each other and with foreigners. Anyway, if the story is intriguing enough the language isn't that big of a deal. Of course I'd rather see an actual Japanese film version of a story like this, and luckily there seem to be many, but this is what I rented.

The story of 47 Ronin is classic. It's about revenge. What's more classic than that? But the revenge in this kind of movie is different from how it is in Hollywood. In 47 the revenge is more about honour. The samurais failed their lord and they must restore their honour. It gives something new to the "they hurt me or someone I loved, now they must pay" type of revenge, even though that is enjoyable as it is.

Historical fantasy is usually boring, because it's always the same. Mostly because writers are too afraid, so they just coddle with whatever Tolkien brought us with his medieval fantasy settings. When that fantasy is mixed with Japan's history it gives something new to this fantasy genre, even if fantasy didn't play that huge part in the movie. But at least it was a some kind of change to all the knights and orcs and whatever western medieval fantasy is filled with.

I enjoyed watching this film. It's not the best one out there, but I could consider watching it again. There are a lot better movies out there, and Japanese movies are of course way better than this one, but 47 Ronin is alright too.

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6 / 10

TOP 5 FAVOURITE MOVIES and rest in alphabetical order

I feel like I haven't done a list of favourites for a while. I mean here, I actually do have a list which I update whenever I have new favourite movies.

1. PULP FICTION

I feel typical film enthusiast saying Pulp Fiction is my favourite movie, but it is. Sometimes I feel like Pulp Fiction is overrated, but every time I see it again I remember why so many people like it. Pulp Fiction is so excellently written, and it looks amazing, and the soundtrack is absolutely perfect, the cast is extremely well chosen. What more could you need from a movie?

10 / 10

2. FIGHT CLUB

Another film that might be cliché. Fight Club might be the most misunderstood movie out there. You see all these guys walking around thinking "man, Tyler Durden sure was cool, I'm gonna start a fight club too!!" while they seem to be forgetting the entire point of the movie. The original novel by Chuck Palahniuk is of course better than the film, but this is one of the best book-to-movie adaptations I've seen. There aren't too many changes and a lot is left for the viewer to interpret. 

10 / 10

3. KILL BILL

My absolute favourite action movie. It's brutal both literally and emotionally. It is exploring so many themes, and it's just an epic film. Kill Bill is one of those films that get better and better every time I see it. I love Uma Thurman and all the other actors and actresses of this film.

10 / 10

4. SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS

Seven Psychopaths is an excellently written film that's absolutely hilarious. This movie has so many remarkable lines that I love to quote, no matter how annoying that might be to the people listening to me. Seven Psychopaths is also about writing films, which gives it layers, considering the main character talks about what kind of scenes he wants in his film. 

10 / 10

5. SUSHI GIRL

Sushi Girl was hailed as "100 % Tarantino Style" and I fell for it. I rented this movie and started really liking this film. While it's heavily influenced by Quentin Tarantino, it isn't a cheap copy. The film-makers have embraced the elements they've taken from Tarantino, and they've come up with a story of their own. 

10 / 10

The rest of my favourite films are in alphabetical order, because I can't say which one is better than the other:

• 21 Jump Street
• American Ultra
• Battle Royale
• Death Proof
• Drive
• Filth 
• Four Rooms
• From Dusk Till Dawn
• Gone Girl
• Heathers
• Hostel, part II
• Hot Fuzz
• Jennifer's Body
• Leaves of Grass
• Mr Right
• Oldboy
• Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
• Reservoir Dogs
• Shaun of the Dead
• The Necessary Death of Charlie Countryman
• The Silence of the Lambs
• Trainspotting
• Whip it

I Know Who Killed Me (2007)

Directed by: Chris Sivertson

Written by: Jeffrey Hammond

A young girl disappears, and everyone's thinking a serial killer is on the lose. But then the girl reappears, except she seems to be a completely different person.

---

I think this is the first time I actually paid attention to some visual detail that felt like symbolism. Usually I just ignore it, if I'm not in the mood to actually analyse the film properly. When I started watching I Know Who Killed Me, I first thought how weird the use of colour blue was sometimes. It was effective, but sometimes slightly annoying and weird. But since the colour was used so lot, alongside with the colour red, it was clear that there was some kind of meaning to that colour. Those are some strong colours, which affect the visual side of the movie a lot. They look extremely beautiful, but because of the ominousness of the film it was clear they weren't just colours this time.

When I read the quick summary on Netflix, I actually thought the roles would be reversed: that the girl who disappeared would wake up in an identical body but have a completely different life. That version would be also interesting, since this way seems typical. It makes it seems that the girl who disappeared, Aubrey, had two personalities, or she's suffering from amnesia. I don't know if the approach the film makers took was original, since they built it in the way it became predictable. 

This movie is mostly easy to follow, apart from a certain flashback. It feels like the movie just took another turn without any warning, and it doesn't even make any sense. Well, once the flashback is over it's easy to understand what had just happened. Still, it was quite a long flashback without any kind of warning - or did I just miss it? That's possible too.

While I enjoyed the visual side of this movie, and Lindsay Lohan as an actress, the story just doesn't do it for me. It has a lot to offer, but that just seems to go down the drain. It's intriguing, but something is missing. It's thrilling, but not enough. The characters are interesting only on the surface, it doesn't feel like there's a lot under their skin. This film has serious Twin Peaks (and David Lynch in general) vibes, but they don't feel as true as whatever Lynch does. 

I feel like it's good to see this film once if you're interested in it, but it definitely isn't a movie everyone should see. You can live your life happily never seeing this film. I doubt I will watch this again.

☆☆☆☆

4 / 10

Seven Psychopaths (2012)

Directed and written by: Martin McDonagh

A screenwriter struggling with his new movie, Seven Psychopaths, gets into a whole lot of trouble when his friend kidnaps a gangster's beloved Shih Tzu. 

---

This movie has so many strengths it seems unreal. The writing (meaning all three: the story, the characters and the dialogue), the cast, the music... Everything in this film seems to be excellent. This film is such a pleasure to watch each time.

Firstly, that beginning. The dialogue is amazing, and it's extremely catching. The dialogue chosen has its risks: it might alienate the audience, but that doesn't happen. The audience watches with anticipation. The only "bad" thing about the beginning is these two fellows are never heard from again, so it might be deceiving the audience, but still, it's a very cool start for a film. The dialogue has some amazing qualities, some of which are tiny and basically have no meaning, but they still make the dialogue stand out. One of those little details is how whenever Sam Rockwell's character Billy repeats something he or someone else says he says it exactly the same. Yeah, that detail is tiny, but the thing is, if you have to repeat yourself, you don't always say it exactly the same, you change a few words and leave out those you don't need. I'm not so sure why but this fascinates me every time I see this film.

The characters of this film are a strength, because every single character is interesting in their way: not just the main characters and the, what, antagonists: even those who aren't real and are actually just in Marty's movie. I want to know more about everyone, but the beautiful thing about this movie is I don't get to know anymore. I don't need that information, and all of that which isn't told is left for our imaginations. Any kind of sequel or prequel would kind of ruin that. And what makes the characters even better is that the cast is so perfect. Everyone is absolutely perfect for their roles, and no one could do that role any better. Rockwell shines as Billy, being a somewhat quirky geek with a killer intent. Farrell is absolutely perfect as Marty, and no one could do the "scary" gangster with a precious Shih Tzu better than Woody Harrelson!

Also one of the best things about this film is how Marty is writing the film at the same time. We don't get to see Marty's film, we have no idea what kind of movie that ends up to be, apart from those few scenes given us, like the serial killer killings and the Vietnamese priest. Is the movie in this movie exactly the same? Is the film we just saw the film Marty made, or was it different? Also all the little notes on making films were amazing. I've glanced at the script of this film, and my favourite part might be when Billy reads his scene out loud and we can see that scene. In the script it was even better, considering the stuff Billy said was said twice. Also it never ceases to amaze me how when Marty says the movie's going to be violent revenge flick, but then all of a sudden it becomes just people talking, and that's what actually happens in the movie - until the final shoot down which Billy is so excited about.

The most touching scene in this film that isn't actually that touching is when Hans comes up with what happens to the Vietnamese guy. It's incredible touching while it's completely separated from everything else. It's not real, not even in the sense Marty and Billy are real, that scene just is there. It's astonishing.

This movie is definitely in my top 5 favourite films, alongside there with treasures such as Kill Bill, Fight Club and Pulp Fiction. Seven Psychopaths is a simple story, but it has several layers, it has "real life" and film. Everything about this film just seems to click. I wouldn't call it perfect - is any movie actually perfect? - but it is excellent, and if you haven't seen this one already, do yourself a favour and watch it! If you have seen it, however, watch it again, especially if it has been a while.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 10

In Bruges (2008)

Directed & written by: Martin McDonagh

Two hitmen, Ken and Ray, the latter suffering terrible guilt from a job gone wrong, are in Bruges awaiting orders from their boss.

---

I've seen one other movie from Martin McDonagh: Seven Psychopaths. That one happens to be in one of my top 5 favourite movies, so I thought I'd see something else from Martin McDonagh, since the guy seems to know what he's doing. He's an excellent writer, and it can be seen in In Bruges as well. McDonagh is phenomenal at writing dialogue. It's natural yet colourful, and while it might not be the most politically correct, it works, and no one is trying to convince that the characters of this movie would be extremely good people. 

Still the moral code of the characters is interesting. They are hitmen, criminals, yet killing an innocent little boy is clearly wrong, and all of them seem to agree on that. The view of some of them might just be harder than others'.

The music affects this movie a lot. In the beginning the dialogue sounds more like a comedy, but the music makes the whole thing feel like a weird European drama. The copy I rented just had the genre "comedy" listed in the back, nothing else, and the beginning gave me a lot of mixed feelings about that, since the beginning seems rather serious - apart from the dialogue. Other than that, the music mostly amplified the feeling of the movie at every point, the beginning just stands out if you're not prepared.

But is this film really a comedy? Well, if it is, it certainly isn't the typical simple joke kind of funny. It's extremely dark funny. I was actually surprised at what kind of stuff I found myself chuckling at. this shows how wide the comedy genre actually is, since it includes typical comedies such as 21 Jump Street, not too funny but cheerful movies like The Grand Budapest Hotel and then really dark comedies like In Bruges and Death to Smoochy.

In Bruged wasn't what I expected, considering the quite crappy description behind the DVD cover. Still I enjoyed it, however it was quite slow sometimes. Still, the story is intriguing and so are the characters. Definitely worth seeing!

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Natural Born Killers (1994)

'

Directed by: Oliver Stone

Written by: Quentin Tarantino (story), David Veloz, Richard Rutowski & Oliver Stone (screenplay)

Mickey and Mallory, traumatized by their abusive childhoods, fall in love. They kill Mallory's parents together, and start driving around, killing almost everyone they meet, leaving always one person alive to tell their story. Their love story is irresponsibly glorified by the media.

---

I rented the director's cut and I'm trying to figure out what's the difference between the cuts, apart from being four minutes longer. Anyway, since I have only seen this cut, so I'll just have to go with this one. I was mostly interested in this film because of the original script written by Tarantino. Apparently the original however was heavily edited by Veloz, Rutowski and Stone, so I don't know what parts of Tarantino are actually left. I'd really like to read the original script, but I don't know if that's even possible.

My dad actually gave me a warning of this film. He said it was extremely heavy and distressing. It definitely is, and during some parts of the film it's done marvellously. The beginning of the film is a good example. The dialogue in that is pretty regular, it could be the beginning of any movie. The dialogue is something we could hear everyday, that's not what makes it distressing. That's done with the music. I've never liked Leonard Cohen's music, but it definitely spices up movies by making scenes extra creepy. I've had the soundtrack of this movie for a while, and most of the songs sounded extremely good, but when I saw the actual film I was slightly disappointed. Apart from few, like Leonard Cohen in the beginning, many of the tracks are easy to ignore, as they give nothing to the actual story. They just are playing in the background. If Tarantino had got to direct the movie his way, the soundtrack would've been so much better.

Also the cinematography makes the film unnerving. Fast shots, camera is tilted, some shots are in black and white... Let alone all the small symbolic things in between what's actually happening. The writing could be almost anything, cinematography like that does everything else. I've seen the same kind of visual side in Slipstream (2007). That movie was complicated anyway, so the symbolic fast shots of something random suited the film. The plot of Natural Born Killers isn't complicated. All that symbolism gets lost when the film isn't watched by someone who actually knows about symbols. Everyday watchers won't have time to analyse what a snake here and there means. If Oliver Stone didn't mean this movie to be watched by someone who doesn't want to analyse every little detail as an important symbol, he's pretentious. 

The way this film was shot is good: tilted shots, fast shots, black and white shots, the colours... Those work. But like getting random shots of something isn't always that necessary. It's kind of like Stone wanted this film to be way more artistic than this plot could be. The story is artistic in the way how it can be analysed, but that's it. There's no need to make it an art film. 

I wanted to like this movie, but it's hard. While it had everything I usually like in films, it felt too pretentious and overtly complicated. I was expecting something so much simpler and therefore so much better. And that's the reason why I'd want to see what Tarantino originally had. He's an excellent writer, and I feel like his original story was made into something needlessly weird. 

When you think about it, Natural Born Killers is a good movie, if you judge it like critics do and all that. In technical sense it's excellent and all that, but it's annoying to watch. Natural Born Killers isn't something you can just throw into the DVD-player and watch it when you have nothing better to do, you have to really, really watch it, and that might ruin a film a little. If it's on TV, you can't just start in the middle if you missed the beginning and so on. While I appreciate what this film is, I can't say I actually like it. 

☆☆☆☆

4 / 10

Barely Lethal (2015)

Directed by: Kyle Newman

Written by: John D'Arco

A teenage girl has been trained to become an assassin her whole life, but she's more interested in the world of normal teenagers. After studying their world by watching high school movies she takes her opportunity and tries to live a normal life for a change - but her training never prepared her for the problems brought by a high school life.

---

An action comedy with mostly female cast and Sam Jackson? Sign me the hell up!

Ok, the thing about Barely Lethal is that it's extremely predictable. But for some reason it does not lose its charm because of that. I watched this movie with a friend and mostly it was fun to guess who's going to do what and who's something secretly and all that. Sure, when you're watching the movie alone, it might not be that fun, but for this time it worked. If I'd watch it a second time, maybe that quality would be annoying - or would I even care, if I've already seen the film once and I know what's going to happen?

I love the twist that there's a teenage assassin who loves high school movies. How many high school teens are there, who love all the spy / assassin stuff? A lot! This is definitely an interesting way to spin it.

The writing of this movie wasn't the best. I only had Finnish subtitles so I might've missed a few puns because the translations were different of course. But like the plot? It has its strengths and it's easy and fun to watch but I've definitely seen better and worse movies. The writing in this film is barely decent, but Barely Lethal is still fun to watch when you know the tropes to both action and high school movies - and you know the main character has great knowledge of those high school movies. 

Barely Lethal is fun and has some interesting twists, but I wouldn't call it a good film. In my book it's above average, but mostly because of the humour and mostly female cast. It's worth watching, if you're into action comedies and high school movies, because if you hate either with a burning passion, you wouldn't enjoy this movie even a minute.

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6 / 10

X2 (2003)

Directed by: Bryan Singer

Written by: Zak Penn, David Hayter & Bryan Singer (story), Michael Dougherty, Dan Harris & David Hayter (screenplay)

The X-Men are trying to find a mutant that tried to assassinate the president, while the school is attacked by military forces led by William Stryker, who seems to recognise Logan, who is still suffering from his amnesia. The X-Men need to team up with their nemesis Magneto to stop the mutant-hating Stryker from using Professor X's telepathic powers to kill all the mutants.

---

I remember the times when I was so into X-Men and I basically followed everyone else's opinion on the movies. People said (because of the comic books) X2 is one of the best movies because it built the Phoenix Saga and all that, and X-Men: The Last Stand was horrible and so on. But I have to admit, I'd rather watch The Last Stand. Mostly because that movie simply looks better, and also because I want to watch a movie and not just judge it based on the comics I haven't even read.

The dialogue in X2 is annoyingly clumsy, and the writing isn't too special in other ways neither. I get that superhero movies aren't usually very original, but the plot structure of X2 is so basic it's annoying.

The most intriguing thing about this film is the metaphor of mutants and the moral dilemmas, but compared to the first X-men movie or The Last Stand there's really no way to choose a side in this film. Superhero movies are usually extremely black-and-white: you know who the good guys are, you know who the bad guys are. Magneto sometimes brings the moral grey areas into the mix, but because he isn't the main antagonist of X2, the movie doesn't offer that anymore. Everyone watching X2 knows Stryker is horrible, it's not even up to debate.

X2 is an alright superhero action movie, but doesn't offer anything interesting to the viewer, but were you expecting anything other than the usual stuff superhero movies throw our ways?

☆☆☆☆

4 / 10

21 Jump Street (2012) & 22 Jump Street (2014)

Directed by: Phil Lord & Christopher Miller

Written by: Michael Bacall (screenplay), Michael Bacall & Jonah Hill (story), Patrick Hasburgh & Stephen J. Cannell (television series)

Schmidt and Jenko were together in the same high school, but in different circles: Schmidt was a nerd and Jenko was a cool jock. Now they are both (underachieving) policemen and best friends. They are sent to a local high school undercover, where they realise their old roles are in reverse: Schmidt is hanging out with the cool kids, while Jenko becomes friends with the nerds.

---

22 Jump Street is on Netflix, but this one wasn't, so I rented this one. 

To be fair I didn't expect to enjoy this movie as much as I did. 21 Jump Street is hilarious. Of course many of the jokes are typical and disgusting and annoying, but a lot of times the jokes and the absurdity of the situation just becomes absolutely hilarious. A good example is when they have to take the drug in front of the guy selling them, and then the rest of their day goes so wrong in ridiculous way. 

Probably the best joke is when Deputy Chief Hardy says "We're reviving a canceled undercover police program from the '80s and revamping it for modern times. You see the guys in charge of this stuff lack creativity and are completely out of ideas, so all they do now is recycle shit from the past and expect us all not to notice." Great irony.

I haven't actually seen the original show, but from what I know there's no point in comparing them like which one is better, since the stories are different and all that. But 21 Jump Street is absolutely hilarious, and just so much better than what I expected.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

---

Directed by: Phil Lord and Christopher Miller

Written by: Michael Bacall, Oren Uziel & Rodney Rothman (screenplay), Michael Bacall & Jonah Hill (story),  Patrick Hasburgh & Stephen J. Cannell (television series)

After (the second time in) high school, Schmidt and Jenko hold on to their aliases and go to college looking for a drug suppliers and dealers.

---

I though this one would be mostly copying the first one, but I was wrong. Of course 22 Jump Street has a similar structure to the previous film, but still 22 Jump Street manages to be original and not just repeating the first one. While the situations and some characters are familiar, 22 Jump Street is still enjoyable and worth seeing. That's a lot more than I would've expected.

22 Jump street is still as hilarious as the first film. This time a good example of the quality humour in this film was the good trip / bad trip when Schmidt and Jenko are on drugs. I also thought that I had seen the funniest bit - how the relationship between Schmidt and Maya became extremely awkward. But even if I knew how that was going to go, it still was so ridiculous and hilarious, oh my god. 22 Jump Street also had amazing fourth wall breaks, mostly about the budget. Same could go with how much older Schmidt and Jenko look compared to the other students. It's like when you're watching a tv show and all the high schoolers are played by fully grown people.

This film is hilarious and so much fun. I thought I'd rate it lower than the first one, but I guess I was wrong about this one - just like the first one. But still, if I'd have to choose one, I'd go with the first one. Something about it just makes it so much more interesting. It's not necessarily funnier or more thrilling, but it's like the first time you see a film and it's so much better than the second time. I guess that applies to this case as well.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10