2017 in Movies

2017 is ending, so like the previous year, I'm going to this year in films.

I've seen 125 different movies this year, and here's all the movies I saw this year for the first time and rated 8/10 or higher: 

JANUARY

Zootopia (2016) - 8 / 10

FEBRUARY:

The Usual Suspects (1995) - 8 / 10

The Lego Batman Movie (2017) - 10 / 10

Tom of Finland (2017) - 10 / 10

T2 Trainspotting (2017) - 10 / 10

MARCH

Logan (2017) - 8 / 10

Ecstasy (2011) - 8 / 10

28 Days Later (2002) - 9 / 10

About Time (2013) - 9 / 10

The Nice Guys (2016) - 8 / 10

28 Weeks Later (2007) - 9 / 10

Dope (2015) - 10 / 10

Slumdog Millionaire (2008) - 8 / 10

Cooties (2014) - 8 / 10

APRIL

She's Funny That Way (2014) - 9 / 10

The Crow (1994) - 10 / 10

The Legend of Barney Thomson (2015) - 9 / 10

Shallow Grave (1994) - 8 / 10

MAY

California Solo (2012) - 10 / 10

Get Out (2017) - 10 / 10

Ant-Man (2015) - 8 / 10

JUNE

Hancock (2008) - 8 / 10

JULY

Moonlight (2016) - 9 / 10

Kill Your Friends (2015) - 8 / 10

Spy (2015) - 8 / 10

AUGUST

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) - 10 / 10

Win It All (2017) - 8 / 10

Wonder Woman (2017) - 8 / 10

SEPTEMBER

Hamlet Goes Business (1987) - 9 / 10

Black Ice (2007) - 8 / 10

OCTOBER

-

NOVEMBER

Seven Samurai (1954) - 10 / 10

DECEMBER

-

The Babysitter (2017)

Directed by: McG

Written by: Brian Duffield

The events of one evening take an unexpected turn for the worst for a young boy trying to spy on his babysitter.

---

The Babysitter has been on my list on Netflix ever since it came out. It seemed like a fun splatter film to watch. I was right. The Babysitter is an excellent, kind of B-movie horror comedy. It's so over the top it's fun, yet it's actually really thrilling to watch. 

Especially horror comedies can sometimes be way too cheesy when they're going for the certain B-movie look. In The Babysitter they often used text over the film, which is sometimes a nice touch, but sometimes it did feel a bit useless. You don't necessarily need that, so why use it? But it was a minor detail, however, and it wasn't over used. 

Another little annoyance in horror movies can be the jump scares. In the worst case you can see them coming miles away and then it hits you. If they aren't done well they are just tacky and even though they give you a fright you just get more annoyed than actually thrilled. But jump scares or the wait for the jump scare where used well. 

The Babysitter is a fun, quirky yet thrilling horror comedy, and definitely worth seeing, if you're looking for this kind of a movie. If you want something serious or something actually terrifying, then no.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

Urbaani Timo - BTS

It's been about four months since school began, and I haven't really been updating anything, so I think it's about time. A little over a week ago we finished the biggest project we've done during these four month. While half the people were working on a music video, we were making documentaries.

Coming up with a subject was hard since I didn't have like a burning passion towards something I'd love to make a documentary about. Luckily Allu and I came up with a fun idea for a mockumentary: we'd make a nature documentary about someone. At first we actually kind of thought that our teacher would just straight up tell us we had to choose some other subject, but the more we talked about our plans with him, he seemed to accept our plans. He also pointed out that our work would be an "urban nature documentary".

Also there were more surprises down the road since a classmate Emmi also wanted to join the project. 

Finally we asked a classmate Timo if he wanted to star in the documentary.

And thus our project had a name:

URBAANI TIMO,

(meaning, of course, Urban Timo.)

Directed and written by: All three of us

In our documentary we followed Timo around for a day, from waking up to going to sleep. We followed Timo through school and through his own documentary about glasses of water, and his after school activies. We also had three experts we interviewed, about Timos in general, about food and then about Timo's documentary. 

We actually filmed a whole lot during the very first day, and the next couple of days we just did interviews and filmed some scenery from Tampere. The whole shoot was almost painless apart from the first day feeling excruciatingly long.

One of the weirdest things that happened was when we were filming in a park. There was a scene were another Timo hit Timo with a plastic bottle. While we filmed another bit, we noticed an older man looking at us. We assumed he's just interested in what we're doing but then he just picked up our bottle and left. It was lucky we didn't need it anymore. 

After that Allu edited a rough draft of the short film, and then we recorded the narration. Of course a nature documentary needs a narrator. Many of our shots would've just been weird without any kind of narration over it. 

Editing went quite smoothly apart us having weird problems with the colours. First time the documentary looked just weird after we got it through Drive. Then it was edited again, and this time it looked alright on mobile phones but not on TV. We actually meant to ask another teacher (who we also interviewed, he told us how Timo is doing a great job unlike us) to help us, but on the school's monitor everything looked fine, and I hadn't brought my laptop, so what happened will forever remain a mystery, I guess.

We're watching the documentaries on 19th, and I'm excited to see what the serious people have done, but also see what kind of reaction our little mockumentary gets. 

The whole project was interesting and fun to make and our group was amazing, and I'm not just saying this because I promised to link them this post after I've published it.

A Christmas Prince (2017)

Directed by: Alex Zamm

Written by: Karen Schaler & Nathan Atkins

When a reporter goes undercover as a tutor to get the inside scoop on a playboy prince, she gets tangled in some royal intrigue and ends up finding love - but will she be able to keep up her lie?

---

This might feel like a radical change considering just last night I was watching a horror movie about torture, and now I'm watching a Holiday romance movie featuring a prince, I mean... That's just sappy and almost disgustingly sweet compared to what I watched last night... But it wasn't like "I have to see something cute now", it was more like, I have no school today and I'm bored, let's clear my list in Netflix.

I hate these kind of movies. I hate everything about them. The structure of the story is always similar, and you can see how the story is going to go from a mile away. It's an easy movie to watch, I guess there's nothing more to it. And yes, I admit, at one point I was almost excited to see how this was going to go, but that feeling lasted for two minutes, and that was that.

The only thing I liked in this movie is the actress Rose McIver, yet her performance wasn't as great as I had hoped. The only one giving this movie a little charm was Honor Kneafsey as princess Emily. Everyone else was just plain bland and awful.

So yeah, if you want an easy movie to watch over the holidays, this is perfect for that, but honestly... Nothing special about this movie. absolutely nothing. It's boring, bland, and I feel like I've seen it million times before. And I have no idea why Christmas even is a theme here, it could've been done without that.

☆☆☆

3 / 10

Skeleton Crew (2009)

Directed by: Tommi Lepola & Tero Molin

Written by: Tero Molin &  Teemu Molin

An asylum is being used by a film crew trying to film the movie "Silent Creek" based on murders that occurred in the 70's. The institution was shut down after Doctor Andersson "The Auteur" was caught making snuff films of himself torturing patients to death. It was believed that all the films were confiscated, yet the location where they were developed and screened was never found. While doing recordings, the crew find a hidden room. It contains the Doctor's undiscovered recordings, although the crew is disgusted by the snuff films, they decide not to call the police. The director of Silent Creek, becomes obsessed with Anderssons' films. He begins to act deranged, claiming their film is "not real enough".

---

I actually wanted to see this movie so bad I straight up bought it. Didn't cost much, I bought it used, but still... I haven't really bought movies without seeing them in ages, except if they have my favourite actor in them and I can't find them in the rental store - that's what happened with The Legend of Barney Thomson, and other movies featuring Robert Carlyle.

This time, did I want to see this movie because of an actor? Well, if like 4 second role counts, yes, but mostly I just have been going through the IMDbs of my teachers to find anything interesting, and Skeleton Crew seemed like the most interesting movie there is to find. One of my teachers was a gaffer and a co-producer for this movie, and the plot seemed so awful it had to be at least entertaining, so I wanted to see this. And it feels weird saying this here since in July I did give the address to this blog to said teacher but I'm sure he only checked it out once, if even that, so I think I'm safe and he doesn't have to know one of the reasons I got this movie was to see his magnificent performance as a "snuff victim 3". By the way, it's weird seeing your teacher get murdered on screen. Anyway...

Skeleton Crew is definitely a weird movie. And I guess it's because I kept telling myself (and my friend) that this is going to be so bad, that I'm almost positively surprised. It was bad, but like with so many movies like this, it's kind of the point. If a movie like this would be made completely seriously and well, it wouldn't have any kind of charm, would just make you wonder if the writers are okay. When it's done with a tongue-in-cheek attitude, it's usually more entertaining.

Skeleton Crew plays with horror movie tropes in a fun, fourth wall breaking way, while being brutally violent and just... fucked up. It's been hours since I saw the movie, and I'm still confused about... well, everything.

It's a bad movie, but I definitely had fun when watching it. So if you do watch it, make sure you watch it friends, because this is one of those movies where it's just sad when you watch it alone and can't really laugh about it at the same time.

(Lighting was on spot, by the way, if my teacher does read this.)

☆☆☆☆

4 / 10 

Nurse 3-D (2013)

Directed by: Douglas Aarniokoski

Written by: Douglas Aarniokoski & David Loughery

By day, Abby Russell is a dedicated nurse, but by night, she lures cheating men to their brutal deaths and exposes them for who they really are.

---

After a night of hard drinking it's good to relax with a movie full of blood, gore, sex and deranged nurses, right? A friend promised to borrow me this movie, so since she stayed over we decided to watch it and eat some pizza.

Since I saw the trailer it was clear that this movie is kind of a B-movie. Not so much when you look at the quality of cinematography, editing, stuff like that, but mostly because of the plot, the writing and the acting, which was weirdly porn-y and just uncomfortable, especially when it comes to Paz de la Huerta, who played the nurse Abby Russell.

The plot actually made me think about American Psycho 2, and how I've often said that movie would be way better if you just took away all the American Psycho references. Nurse is incredibly similar to American Psycho 2, but it's hard to say if it's a good thing. On the other hand there's blood and gore, more than in American Psycho 2, but the story doesn't seem as rich.

The movie was surprisingly colourful and looked really nice. Only problem is we didn't see it in 3D, which I guess is somewhat the point, so sometimes some effects look really tacky. Are they less or more tacky with 3D?

Nurse is an alright horror movie. There are so many things I'd like to change about it to make it even better, though. It has potential, but doesn't reach it. Still, fun to watch at least once.

☆☆☆☆☆

5 / 10

Seven Samurai (1954)

Directed by: Akira Kurosawa 

Written by: Akira Kurosawa, Shinobu Hashimoto & Hideo Oguni

A poor village hears a bandit clan is planning an attack, so they hire samurais to defend them.

---

Let’s be honest here: this movie is excellent, but it was a wrong movie.

And by the wrong movie I mean our teacher made a mistake thinking it’s a good idea to make a class watch a movie that takes 3,5 hours. That’s way too long for us to sit on uncomfortable chairs, no matter how great the movie is. And it took us about 23 hours to finish that movie, since we had few breaks and a long lunch break and hey, we went home for a while and then returned the next morning... And I don’t think many of us were psyched about continuing the movie in the morning.

What made some of us even less psyched was that after we had finished the movie, our teacher went through it scene by scene telling us exactly why that scene is good and what’s important about that scene. And that took us about two days.

So instead of a three day long course about dramaturgy, it was a three day long course about Seven Samurais by Akira Kurosawa.

Even though I never want to see that movie again, mostly because of the past three days, I can’t deny this movie isn’t a masterpiece.

Watching this movie in 2017 is a whole different point of view to the movie than watching it like in the 1950s, 1960s... When I first watched it, I thought that the plot wasn’t anything special, it’s pretty typical. But as we discussed this with classmates, the thing is... This movie probably made that plot pretty typical, and it must’ve been something amazing when the movie first came out.

And as we went through the movie scene by scene, no matter how annoying that was at the time, there’s not a single useless thing about that plot. Of course it’s incredibly long and there are long scenes, but that can be a time thing or a place thing. But the story and the structure of the story is close to perfect, or at least to perfect as we know it, as we are used to thinking about the three act structure in plots.

And as an action movie on its own, Seven Samurais is amazing. It’s so emotional, which was a bit hard to grasp the first time, when I just wanted it to end and I wanted to go home. But after we viewed some scenes again, I actually understood them, and they actually hit me. And yes, some plot points are weird because of the cultural differences, but that doesn’t make them any less emotional. You might wonder why something happens, but it still hits you.

The biggest problem of the movie I can actually blame on the translator. The names of the characters were barely mentioned in the subtitles, so the first time watching it was really hard keeping a track of who is who. The first time the only ones I knew by name were Kikuchiyo and Shino. And since some of the scenes are so dark, it’s even harder to keep a track of who just died and who’s doing what, and when you don’t speak Japanese, you can’t trust your ears as much.

I absolutely adore this movie but also I kind of hate it because of the past three days. I hope to one day watch it and actually enjoy it, appreciate it properly. Right now I can just say, amazing movie, horrible experience.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 10

Alex & Emma (2003)

Directed by: Rob Reiner

Written by: Jeremy Leven

Alex has 30 days to write a novel and pay back his loan, so he hires a stenographer to help him.

---

Alex & Emma was a completely new to me. I didn't know anything about it once I started watching, apart from the short little Netflix summary. I mostly started watching it because I adore Kate Hudson and I really wanted to see a romantic comedy.

Alex & Emma is a charming, silly little rom-com.  One of its biggest flaws, however, is that it doesn't really rely on the threat as much as it should. Hey, the main character will probably be killed if he doesn't finish the novel and hence get the money, and for some reason they aren't focusing on that at all. Maybe they thought it would be too heavy for a romantic comedy, but I think if they would've leaned on it more, it would've really given the movie that special something. And not necessarily make the movie feel like a thriller, but there is definite pressure in the situation, yet it doesn't seem or feel like that at all. 

One of the strongest elements in the movie is that there are two stories going at once: the reality with Alex and Emma, and the novel they are writing. It's always interesting to see movies that work out that way, especially when you can see how the two stories intertwine, like in the play in Moulin Rouge! or the screenplay they are writing in Seven Psychopaths - though Alex & Emma artistically is nowhere near those two movies. Also even though there are two stories, the story they are writing wouldn't work on its own. It would be boring without knowing how it's affected by Alex's experiences. Also the other story on its own is no story without the one they are writing.

There's something really charming and sweet about this movie, and a lot of its charm comes from the style of the novel they are working on. It takes place in the 20s and it looks and sounds exactly like movies based on that era would, which is noticeably different from the base, which is a typically bland romantic comedy.

Alex & Emma is fun and sweet, yet eventually there's not much in it. It's good to watch it once, but I can't imagine seeing it another time. What could it offer me the second time? No idea.

But at least it made me want to write a novel. Thank god NaNoWriMo is coming.

☆☆☆☆☆

5 / 10

Carrie (2013)

Directed by: Kimberly Peirce 

Screenplay by: Lawrence D. Cohen & Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa

Based on a novel by: Stephen King

A shy girl, outcasted by her peers and sheltered by her religious mother, unleashes telekinetic terror on her small town after being pushed too far at her senior prom.

---

I went to see Carrie when it came out in the cinemas four years ago, and I thought I'd revisit it. Actually I was going to watch the 2002 version first but then realised how super bad it is, so decided to go with this one. I still haven't seen the original one, which is why I can't really compare this to the original one, I can only compare it to the novel. And I didn't like the novel.

First time seeing Carrie I loved it so much for some reason. But this is the third time and it's losing its charm. There's some really beautiful cinematography in the film, and some amazing lighting, but eventually the story doesn't really stand seeing it several times, or I've grown out of it in the past four years.

There's something kind of sweet about some parts of the story, and the rest is just really awful. That's a weird combination, because on the other hand it's this shy girl learning she has powers, but on the other hand there's a really disturbing abusive religious mother and all those students who are horrible to Carrie... I think especially now that I'm older I see better how sad the whole story is.

As a movie Carrie doesn't feel like anything great. It's a remake, and of course that affects it a lot. The story is well made, even though I didn't like the novel. The movie looks amazing, but something is off. Maybe I'll know better once I see the original.

☆☆☆☆☆

5 / 10

Hamlet Goes Business (1987)

Directed and written by: Aki Kaurismäki

A bizarre black-and-white film noir reworking of Shakespeare's 'Hamlet'. After the death of his father, young Hamlet inherits a seat on the board of a company controlled by his uncle that decides to move into the rubber duck market. But Hamlet is suspicious of the circumstances surrounding his father's death...

---

I've read few plays by Shakespeare, and seen even fewer live, but Hamlet will forever remain my favourite. So, when we had to watch and analyse a Finnish film for school, I turned to my dad, because obviously I wanted to see something by Aki Kaurismäki. Even if we did these in groups, I kind of chose on behalf of the rest of my team. My decision was mostly based on always been interested in Hamlet Goes Business and having read and seen Hamlet live, well, a weird adaptation of Hamlet, I thought that might give me some insight to the film.

Like I wrote before reviewing Drifting Clouds, the actors in Kaurismäki's movies are very stiff. There's basically no emotion in the acting comparing to Hollywood movies. During Drifting Clouds I wasn't a big fan of that style, but it suits Hamlet Goes Business. It gives a certain contrast to the somewhat theatrical dialogue and the fact that this is based on a play.

Also I was surprised to see how good Pirkka-Pekka Petelius was as Hamlet. He's mostly famous for being a comedian in many sketch shows, and this is honestly the first serious role I've seen him play. Of course this is a black comedy, a spoof of Hamlet, so the role is still not entirely serious.

While I love most things about this movie, it's that ending that kind of bothers me. After seeing this film several times I'm already used to it, but it still feels very separate from the rest of the movie. It's added by Kaurismäki, which might explain that. I could go into lengths what bothers me about this, but I'd rather not make this review sound exactly like the analysis we did in class, and also I don't want to spoil you.

The music chosen for this movie is amazing. The classical music and rock music go very well together. Most of the time there's a great harmony with what we see and what we hear, but even when there's not, it' amazing. And oh, the cinematography... Weird angles and crooked shots are so great. And of course the whole movie being in black and white amplifies the whole feeling. With colours, it wouldn't be the same film.

Hamlet Goes Business is an amazing take on Hamlet, and a great satire on business world. While it's clear I will not like all of Kaurismäki's movies, I can appreciate his work and I'm glad I've found a favourite

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

Little Evil (2017)

Directed and written by: Eli Craig

Gary, who has just married the woman of his dreams, discovers that her six-year-old stepson may be the Antichrist.

---

I was browsing through Netflix when I found Little Evil, which had come out recently. It seemed like a fun horror comedy, perfect for the day, so I decided to watch it.

There are many things I like in Little Evil, but it doesn't go above average. Of course the idea isn't original, isn't this a play on very typical stories about kids who seem to be the spawn of Satan. Most of them are actual horror movies, though. Little Evil mixes that horror story with the theme of being a stepparent in a humorous way, which itself is fresher than the movie might feel when you read the summary.

But in the end the story doesn't go where you'd want it to go. Of course some of the plot points are good, and the movie is fun and light, and there's something very special about it. But in the end the only thing this movie ends up being is somewhat funny. Everything else is actually quite superficial, and let's be honest, the humorous side probably wouldn't be as good if you watched this movie several times.

So definitely worth seeing once, if you're not too serious for horror comedies, but that's all.

☆☆☆☆☆

5 / 10

Drifting Clouds (1996)

Directed and written by: Aki Kaurismäki

The recession hits a couple in Helsinki.

---

We watched this movie in class, and our teacher has chosen this movie, because it's "easy to go forward and backwards" from this movie when talking about Finnish movies. I'm assuming it was referring to the time when this movie was made. Also another crucial factor in why we watched this movie is that our school has a permission to show this movie. Also we are supposed to watch Finnish movies because that's what we are going to be making in the future, and sometimes we forget or ignore our own movies.

I have never watched Aki Kaurismäki's films before, but I was already aware of his style. Cast is very stiff and acting is closer to underacting. It's a style, and it works, but it's not extremely realistic, since it sounds like how Finnish people talk in the morning when they're not fully awake yet, or how they talk to strangers. It sounds very reserved. Even though it can be painful to watch, it's very stylish and suits a film like this. And also the only reason why it can be seen as painful is because we're so used to the English way of dialogue and acting in movies.

Another almost painful thing is the cinematography. It's well made, and in theory thing are in the right place, but it doesn't look very pretty. Colours and things in the shot are almost ugly.

The pace of the movie is also very slow. Not much happens, yet it feels long, because it feels just an important to show a band playing than to process with the story. If you find the story boring, the slowness can be almost unbearable. 

But all in all Kaurismäki captures everyday life during recession well, and even if the acting can barely be called that, the story isn't emotionless. You feel for the characters and get annoyed by them. The story is almost boring because of the subject and the pace, but it's still easy for you to get into the story, and you can't just ignore what's happening, Maybe it's because the themes are close to many viewers, maybe it's just that well made that you hope for the best and fear for the worst.

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6 / 10

Lapland Odyssey (2010)

Directed by: Dome Karukoski

Written by: Pekko Pesonen

A comedy about Janne, a man from Lapland in Northern Finland, a man who isn't even able to buy a digital TV box. His girlfriend Inari gives him an ultimatum: a digital box needs to arrive by dawn or she leaves. Janne sets out into the night with his two friends to find a box. 

---

I’ve seen Napapiirin Sankarit or Lapland Odyssey once before in Middle School, when we watched it in class. At the time I didn’t have my blog nor did I think that much of movies, and especially Finnish movies felt almost foreign to me, so I rarely watched any outside of school at least.

Someone actually talked about the way this film starts in school – because it doesn’t start with the main character Janne. It starts with his friend and his narration. He talks about the tree many men in the area used to hang themselves from. It’s an interesting way to start, mostly because that’s super dark – but it suits the movie and it suits Finland – but also because there has to be a shift in the point of view, if you want to change from the side character to the main character. That shift works well though. It’s smooth, and it feels natural to start following Janne not getting the digital TV box.

The story is fun, and it’s entertaining to see what kind of misadventures the main characters get themselves into. It’s not the most original comedy out there, when you consider it globally, but at least around the time when it came out, it stood out from most of Finnish comedies. Mostly it’s not as bad as some, since there are Finnish comedies I refuse to watch because of the cast and the fact that the movies are remakes of a Danish comedy. I’m not mentioning the movie by name, but I think my Finnish readers know exactly what I’m talking about. Also Napapiirin Sankarit did win four Jussi awards, for best direction, best film, best screenplay and people’s choice award, and a Silver Dolphin for best cinematography at Tróia International Film Festival, and two awards at Alpe d'Huez International Comedy Film Festival.

Napapiirin Sankarit is entertaining and it looks amazing, and it takes place in the north, which is a plus since most modern movies seem to take place in the southern Finland. It’s definitely worth seeing, whether or not you’re from Finland or elsewhere, except most Finnish people have probably seen it already. However I’m not sure about the sequels. I haven’t seen them, and they are not directed by Dome Karukoski, but at least the third one is directed by Tiina Lymi, who also directed one of my favourite Finnish movies, Äkkilähtö. Not sure if I’ll ever watch them though, since they feel forced. The first one is always the best, right?

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Wonder Woman (2017)

Directed by: Patty Jenkins

Screenplay by: Allan Heinberg

Story by: Zack Snyder, Allan Heinberg & Jason Fuchs 

Before she was Wonder Woman, she was Diana, princess of the Amazons, trained warrior. When a pilot crashes and tells of conflict in the outside world, she leaves home to fight a war, discovering her full powers and true destiny.

---

Wonder Woman is now the first movie I've gone to see in this new town. I wanted to go see it already while I sill lived at home, but it was in the theaters for like two weeks, which is unbelievably weird, considering it has had good reviews, like, even compared to some earlier DC films. 

Wonder Woman is an amazing superhero movie, and this comes from someone who's a bit tired of superhero movies already, and is really picky about which ones they're going to see. It stands out for several reasons, one of them being that there are more elements from fantasy than science fiction in this movie.

First and most important and obvious thing has to be the fact that it has a female lead. It's ridiculous that it has taken this long for DC or Marvel to actually make a movie with a woman playing the main role, considering there are amazing heroines in the comic books. Diana is an amazing character, because while she's being a hero and kicking ass, she can still be a woman. There are tons of characters who are "strong female characters" while strength being their only defining characteristic. But Diana actually has feelings and is feminine without being just eye candy for the male viewers, while still looking absolutely stunning, though. 

One thing that bothers me is the excessive use of CGI and slow motion and all that, but Wonder Woman definitely isn't the only movie guilty of that.

Storywise this movie is enjoyable, and I felt amazing after I saw that. Is that how men feel all the time when they see other men in superhero movies constantly? 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Win It All (2017)

Directed by: Joe Swanberg

Written by: Jake Johnson and Joe Swanberg

Eddie Garrett agrees to watch a duffel bag for an acquaintance who is heading to prison. When he discovers cash in the bag, he's unable to resist the temptation and winds up deeply in debt. When the prison release is shortened, Eddie suddenly has a small window of time to win all the money back.

---

I came to visit my parents over the weekend and we wanted to watch a movie together. Looking through Netflix took a while, and eventually I just chose a movie that seemed funny from the small clip Netflix showed us, and mostly my decision was affected by how I've been watching New Girl again.

Story-wise Win It All is a standard gambling movie. I haven't seen that many, I've seen Rounders and... Does Casino Royale count? But there's a really familiar structure, which can make you feel like you've seen this movie already. That might be good if you're just looking to spend time, but if you're looking for something new, then the story won't do much to you.

While the story itself might not be original, it's still well-written. The characters feel like human beings instead of simple characters designed for the story. Especially the main character Eddie is an interesting character. You really want him to get through his problems, maybe because you see yourself in him. Also you really want to yell at him and stop being an idiot. And as the story progresses you get really stressed over how he uses the money. So even though the story isn't original, it takes you with it, and it's the perfect balance between a heavy and a light story.

But what is amazing in this movie is the cinematography and just the whole visual feeling to it. It looks like an old 70's movie, even though it takes place in 2000-2010's. The colours look amazing and bright, and the quality look like it's old or even made on an actual film. I especially love the handheld camera, which makes most of the scenes very feel very intimate as we get so close to the situations at hand.

Win It All might not stand out as a really special movie, but it's definitely worth watching at least that one time. It's a bit predictable, but there's something else about it that's special, mostly the cinematography and how just in a short while you already feel very invested in the characters and what happens to them. Definitely well written and directed movie, even though not close to perfect.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Film Student Update #1

Guess what!

Well actually you can pretty much guess already if you read the title of this post.

I'm now officially a film student.

Today I started at a "adult education collge" (Honestly, that sounds just wrong, but there's no better phrase for that, becaus "people's high school" sounds even worse) and I'm going to be studying films and TV with other people. And it's not going to be just studying everything theoretically, we're going to be making short films and stuff like that!

So I thought, since I'm running a blog about movies and since I think my blog played a crucial part on this, since mostly this shows my passion and my knowledge, and has made me a better writer and a better film-viewer, I might be updating something here every once in a while.

Mostly it will be anything of interest to me: something I never noticed before, or just an update on how I can't watch movies anymore without noticing every little mistake. We'll see.

And thank you to all of my readers. You might not comment much, but still the stats have kept me going with this blog. Love ya!

Hugo (2011)

Directed by: Martin Scorsese

Screenplay by: John Logan

Based on a book by: Brian Selznick 

In Paris in 1931, an orphan named Hugo Cabret who lives in the walls of a train station is wrapped up in a mystery involving his late father and an automaton.

---

I've wanted to watch Hugo for a long time, mostly because of its steampunk look. Also knowing it was directed by Martin Scorsese helped a whole lot.

As the story progressed, it reminded me a bit of Series of Unfortunate Events - mostly because of the mysterious fire Hugo's father died in and the previously mentioned steampunk aesthetic of the film. However instead of being a simple mystery story for the whole family, it took a weird turn I did not see coming, and there's a chance it might've ruined the movie a little. Not that the surprise-element ruined it, it was the way the whole movie changed into something completely different. First it's about a young boy and then... Then you're not even sure what's happening or why it's happening.

I haven't read the book, and frankly didn't even know it was based on a book until I read that on IMDb. There's a chance this story and the turn it took works better as a book, depending on how long it is and how long they dwell on which part. But as a movie it just feels like there's a lot of themes and stories they wanted to work in the plot, but it just feels like a hollow mess. If anyone's read the book, be sure to tell me if it works better.

But there's a lot of good in this film. It looks amazing, the cast is incredible. What I love most about this movie is the smaller characters. They don't have that big a difference, but they are in the background, and there's some focus on them, and they make the world feel more alive. The characters are fun and almost caricature-like, and the talented actors, very familiar to the audience, make sure to amplify that feeling. My favourite, who got actually more attention than most of the side characters, might be Monsieur Inspector, portrayed by Sacha Baron Cohen. It's a fun yet threatening character, who manages to have depth, even though he's mostly there so the main characters have someone to fear.

All in all, entertaining movie, even though it feels a bit long and tiresome, and even though I didn't like what it turned out to be about. I would've wished for a bigger mystery and more adventures, but if I view this once, it's not too bad. Second time it might get more annoying.

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6/10

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Directed by: George Miller 

Written by: George Miller, Brendan McCarthy & Nico Lathouris

A woman rebels against a tyrannical ruler in post-apocalyptic Australia in search for her home-land with the help of a group of female prisoners, a psychotic worshipper, and a drifter named Max.

---

I haven't see the original 80's Mad Max movies, so in case you wanted to read a review by someone with actual knowledge of the series, this might not be the blog post for you. I can't compare this to the original movies, but of course I'm aware of the influence the Mad Max series has had on popular culture, especially post-apocalyptic fiction.

I didn't actually think I'd want to see Mad Max: Fury Road, mostly because I haven't seen the original ones, but also because I generally didn't think I'd care about a movie that's mostly about car chases - even if that happens in post-apocalyptic Australia, and I love post-apocalyptic fiction. However what drove me to watch this movie was mostly the video game RAGE I've been playing a little, that's heavily inspired by Mad Max, but also the second episode of season 3 of Rick and Morty. Both of these made me realize I really do want to see this movie.

Of course I had heard a lot of good about Mad Max: Fury Road. Hell, it won six Oscars! But of course it's different to actually see it for yourself than just to rely on the opinions of others.

It's clear that this movie is different from the typical action movies that we get nowadays from every fucking movie studio that exists. There's something unique in the story and of course visually this movie beats any other action movie out there.

While the story is a bit dark and it has very serious themes in it, there's a somewhat loose feeling to it. The movie can be taken seriously, but there's a somewhat relaxed feeling to the things they've come up with. The filmmakers are pros and they know what they are doing, so if they want to add a flamethrower electric guitar in there, they can and they should - and it will be fucking awesome.

That flamethrower electric guitar reminds me, since I haven't seen the original movies I can't help but feel that I'm missing something. Why is there a guitar and war drums on a car? Is that... normal? Is that a regular thing or is Immortan Joe just a drama queen who needs his own theme music? It's cultural stuff like that that I don't know, but in the end that didn't seem to matter that much. But at least it feels like there's a world outside this movie, that the post-apocalyptic Australian wasteland has a culture, instead of just those three or four tribes we get to see.

Mad Max: Fury Road may be a bit long, and definitely feels longer than it is, but it's worth it. The audience wants desperately to see what happen, they desperately want a happy ending, all that. I was on the edge of my seat, even though during the start of the movie I was indifferent towards it.

Visually... I've never seen an action movie that looks like this. The editing is amazing, so are the effects, which might have something to do with the fact that they used CGI very little. But the cinematography... It's astonishingly beautiful. Every shot seems to be careful, and the colours are mind-blowing. Also the costume department has done such an amazing job, and all the vehicles look amazing... Everything in this movie just stands out from the typical post-apocalyptic action movie, and it's amazing.

Mad Max: Fury Road is an amazing post-apocalyptic action movie, that definitely stands out from all the shit that's out there. It's different, original, and just so damn thrilling and beautiful. It's a fucking action movie masterpiece! What are the originals like? If they are anything like this, I have to see them!

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 10

Kill Your Friends (2015)

Directed by: Owen Harris

Written by: John Niven

An A&R man working at the height of the Britpop music craze goes to extremes in order to find his next hit.

---

I rented Kill Your Friends mostly because of the cover and the title caught my eye, and the plot seemed like the exact thing I like. It wasn't until later I realised it was based on a novel by John Niven and written for the screen by the same guy. No wonder it seemed so good! (I actually said that to Niven on Twitter, and he just said "Ha!" I have no idea what he meant by that)

Kill Your Friends reminds me of Filth, which has shaped my taste in movies a whole lot. Well, instead of a Scottish policeman, the main character works in the music business and tries to scheme his way to the top while stabbing his "friends" in the back. This is the kind of stuff I really love in movies. They are awful, and you can't actually like the characters, but there's just something so amazing and enthralling about these asshole characters. It might be because you kind of want something bad to happen to these people because they represent the type of people you hate. But also it can be quite fun to see these awful people doing well in these movies. 

The story progresses well, though there are few a bit boring moments they probably could've survived without, but I guess they add something to the character, I don't know, but in the long run they seemed a bit empty. 

Nicholas Hoult is an incredible actor, and it was interesting to see what he brings to this role. I hadn't seen him in a role like this. He does an excellent if surprising job portraying this complete asshole. 

And since this is a movie about music business, the music is of course incredible. 

Kill Your Friends is an interesting, thrilling movie, definitely worth watching, even though it can be pretty rough at times. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

The Founder (2016)

Directed by: John Lee Hancock

Written by: Robert Siegel

The story of Ray Kroc, a salesman who turned two brothers' innovative fast food eatery, McDonald's, into one of the biggest restaurant businesses in the world with a combination of ambition, persistence, and ruthlessness.

---

Sometimes you choose to watch a movie just because it has one of your favourite actors, but you can't imagine how many feelings you will get from that movie. I got exactly one feeling and that is hate towards Ray Kroc and the whole McDonalds franchise. I don't know how this film was supposed to present Kroc, because if its point is to idolise him even the slightest, I'm just even more furious about the whole thing.

I got to appreciate Michael Keaton though. He doesn't portray Kroc simply as an asshole, even though that's what he is. We still see him as the jerk he was, since his actions are shown as ruthless as they were. Now of course in the capitalist wonderland this all might seem admirable, but the audience should be able to see that ruthlessness as something other than "business blah blah blah" or whatever it is to those same asshole businessmen. 

I mean I could go to a full anti-capitalist speech here, but perhaps I shouldn't. After all the fact that this movie made me actually feel something this strongly and made me think means it's a very well made movie. I didn't really have time to consider the technical side of the movie since I was mostly thinking about how angry the story made me and how much I wanted to punch Kroc. 

The Founder can be a bit boring at times but it definitely makes you think about the capitalist shithole that is the US and it's business world, and it makes you angry. Of course I'm not here to tell you what to think. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

Moonlight (2016)

Directed by: Barry Jenkins

Screenplay by: Barry Jenkins

Story by: Tarell Alvin McCraney

A young, African-American, gay man deals with his dysfunctional home life and comes of age in Miami during the "War on Drugs" era. The story of his struggle to find himself is told across three defining chapters in his life as he experiences the ecstasy, pain, and beauty of falling in love while grappling with his own sexuality.

---

It took me so fucking long to finally manage to see this. It didn't come to the local theatre so I've been waiting for it to be on DVD. It's been clear from early on that this is a very important movie.

The first incredible thing I noticed about this movie is the cinematography. I've seen jokes on the internet like "I can't believe Moonlight invented cinematography", but I had to say that too while watching. The cinematographer of Moonlight uses both still, calm shots and really effective movements of the camera, which still are super smooth. The colours are incredible, and so is the lighting and the composition of pretty much every shot. This is how movies are meant to look. Moonlight really sets the bar high. I especially loved the swimming scene and how the camera was partially underwater, that always looks amazing.

Moonlight has the same challenge every drama movie has. The plot is something very ordinary, and there's no great adventure to keep the audience interested. Moonlight keeps the audience's attention by being such an unbelievably beautiful slice of life movie. It's beautiful, delicate and poetic while also showing the dark parts of Chiron's life. The balance is amazing. And while the movie can be brutal, it doesn't revel in it. This is exactly what  drama should be like. 

Writing in Moonlight is amazing. The dialogue is simple and easy to keep a track of, yet there are so many incredibly touching lines. Also Chiron as a character is interesting to follow. While the actors change, the character is still in there, while also growing up and changing. It clearly is one person's story instead of three characters who somehow feel like they could be the same person but are too distant from each other. One thing that slightly bothers me though is how the kids' dialogue doesn't feel like actual children talking. But children's dialogue usually is very hard to write so it actually sounds real.

Of course this movie has that feeling all Oscar winners have - it feels a bit too serious, a bit too important, a bit too artsy and a bit too hyped. but that's often not the movie itself, it's the Oscars. Moonlight definitely deserved the hype it got, it was a beautiful film, even if a bit ordinary. Maybe it's ordinary just in the right way - enough to be relatable, especially to gay black people, but not too ordinary so it's actually interesting.

Moonlight is an incredibly beautiful movie and I will admit, probably the best movies made in 2016. However I'm only giving it 9/10 because I did feel a bit bored during certain scenes, but of course it seems like the story style was a bit minimalistic on purpose - not a lot happened, but that's what growing up might feel like.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

Directed by: Jon Watts

Written by: Jonathan Goldstein, John Francis Daley, Jon Watts, Christopher Ford, Chris McKenna & Erik Sommers

Several months after the events of Captain America: Civil War, Peter Parker, with the help of his mentor Tony Stark, tries to balance his life as an ordinary high school student in Queens, New York City while fighting crime as his superhero alter ego Spider-Man as a new threat, the Vulture, emerges.

---

Ugh, I've been so inactive since I started my internship, I apologise for that. I finally managed to watch something. It was actually easier to just force myself to a movie theatre since if a ticket's already bought, what would be an excuse good enough to avoid going?

I actually would've preferred to go see Baby Driver, but it's not here yet. Another movie I was interested in is Wonder Woman, but it was here already and left the theatres quite quickly. Huh! So it came down to Spider-Man or the new POTC movie, and that has grown old already. And there's no way I'm giving my money to Johnny Depp. A co-worker went to see Spider-Man: Homecoming earlier this week and recommended it warmly, so I thought I'd give it a shot.

One of my biggest issues with these Marvel movies is the fact that if I want to keep up I have to watch every single thing they produce because everyone has cameos and every movie is connected to another. There are no stand-alone films anymore, and that can suck, if you're not into every superhero. I don't care for Captain America, so I haven't seen Civil War, where this new Spider-man, played by Tom Holland, made his first appearance. However, this film quickly recaps the important bits of Civil War, and by important bits I mean what Spider-Man did. Still there's a lot of stuff you need to remember from other Marvel movies.

What's interesting in this new version is that there doesn't seem to be origin story the way Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man had origin stories. You could ask where the hell Peter Parker came from, but hey, I think we all know the thing with the radioactive spider and Uncle Ben getting shot, so we can safely assume that's still the case here.

And of course there's an issue with Peter Parker as Spider-Man: aren't we all bored to death? What about Miles Morales, or any other Spider-Man? What about Gwen as Spider-Girl?

The Amazing Spider-Man also took place in high school, but this time it actually feels like high school. Sure, Tom Holland is actually 21, but he's closer to a teenager than Andrew Garfield was, considering how fresh-faced Holland looks. (I thought he'd be younger tho, even if he's my age! This is how badly Hollywood has fucked up our perception of age on-screen!)

Tom Holland is great as Peter Parker, as great as Garfield was, and definitely better than Tobey Maguire (though that we can all blame on bad writing). Spider-Man: Homecoming has amazing young actors, such as Jacob Batalon, Tony Revolori and Zendaya. But one of the biggest reasons I wanted to see this movie was Michael Keaton. He is great as a superhero (Batman) and as a villain (Vulture) and everything in-between.

But apart from the fresh cast and new technology from the Avengers movies, Spider-Man: Homecoming isn't anything special. It's fun to watch, but not actually funny, apart from the typical Avengers humour. Plots in these are pretty much the same thing over and over, but then again, was anyone expecting anything else? Marvel is becoming a one trick pony.

So if you love superheroes, then of course go see it, but if you want something new from Marvel, then this movie isn't for you I mean third version of Spider-Man? They have so many superheroes and they go with Spider-Man, again?

☆☆☆☆

4 / 10

Hancock (2008)

Directed by: Peter Berg

Written by: Vy Vincent Ngo & Vince Gilligan

Hancock is a superhero whose ill considered behavior regularly causes damage in the millions. He changes when the person he saves helps him improve his public image.

---

Hancock has been on my watchlist since I really started liking Will Smith, which was about a year ago. When I finally managed to watch it, I didn't know much about it, apart from it being hopefully a different kind of superhero movie.

At first the movie feels refreshingly simpler compared to the epic superhero movies we keep getting. It felt like most of the idea came from how in those epic superhero movies the heroes cause a lot of damage to the city and its people. But as the story goes forward the story does become richer and, even if I hate the word, more epic.

It's refreshing to see a character like Hancock. He is like an asshole, clearly an antihero (it's already refreshing not to see a brooding white man antihero, mind you), but there's more to him. And what's important we actually can see how he feels about the people kind of hating him, even if he tries to save them. It's not just superficially shrugged off. 

I also love how the music is used so well with the story. When the movie becomes more like a superhero movie the soundtrack feels more like a classic score for that type of movies. 

Hancock is an entertaining and a surprisingly good superhero movie. I think I would've preferred something simpler, something more refreshing, but Hancock is good for what it is. Of course it's a bit typical, but it has several new elements, and it has great cast. And while the story is not great, there are a lot of things I like about it. Hancock definitely is worth seeing whether or not you are tired with the typical Marvel or DC movies we get.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Charlie Bartlett (2007)

Directed by: Jon Poll

Written by: Gustin Nash

A rich kid becomes the self-appointed psychiatrist to the student body of his new high school.

---

I saw the trailer for this movie ages ago, but didn't actually get too interested in it. Then I noticed the movie in Netflix, and thought hey, maybe now it's the time to watch this.

As a high school movie Charlie Bartlett is great. In the best movies, high school is never portrayed realistically, because it would be way too boring. High schools in movies are always way more colourful and have many big events during quite a short while. Stuff happens faster. It makes you kind of nostalgic for high school, while knowing it never was like that. But it's always fun to see typical sub-culture people like punks and goths and jocks and such, while the cliques might not have been so clear in your school.

Charlie Bartlett is both funny and sad. It's funny, because there definitely is humour there, even though it might be quite dark sometimes. Meanwhile it's also sad to see all these kids with their problems and seeing how little help they get - before Charlie shows up, of course.

However no matter how fun Charlie Bartlett might be, it feels also a bit boring. At least it's kind of a dull way to get all these deep, meaningful messages out. They get drowned in dialogue which isn't always that intriguing. There are several intense scenes that catch your attention though, but they are here and there and it's easy to not focus.

Charlie Bartlett is a good high school movie, but when it comes to movies in general, it's just decent. Most of it charms comes from Anton Yelchin, who was a talented, very present young actor. His performance alone makes this movie worth watching, however it doesn't quite reach my expectations.

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6 / 10

May - Quick Reviews

17.5. Point Blank (2010) - 5 / 10

I was renting movies but my friend was impatient and pretty much any time I even touch a movie I had to pick that one. So that's how I ended up watch Point Blank, or originally Á bout portant. I didn't know anything about this movie prior to watching it, and I didn't even know it was French.

Point Blank is a decent action thriller. It's thrilling, action scenes look good and the main character is easy to root for. The cinematography is also very nice. More artistic than in most action movies, and very nice colours. But while it all clicks it doesn't really stand out from the typical action movies. So in short, it's alright. If you like action movies, it's worth seeing, but if you'd like to see something different, then maybe this movie isn't for you.

18.5. Horrible Bosses 2 (2014) - 7 / 10

I liked this movie way more than the first time. I actually enjoyed watching this, while the humour was of course sometimes a bit dumb, but like the first one, Horrible Bosses 2 is a dark comedy. When done well it can me hilarious, when done poorly it can be absolutely horrendous. With Horrible Bosses 2 they did an okay job. Sometimes the dark jokes go too far, but sometimes they are also just right.

Still I got to laugh a lot, which is always a good thing when watching comedies.

One thing that bothers me though is that the name is still Horrible Bosses while there really isn't a horrible boss here, not as clearly a in the first one at least. This is what can happen if you make a sequel when you didn't exactly plan it carefully. It has the title, and while Horrible Bosses 2 had a better plot, better twist, it's still carrying the name which is a bit ehh.

There's also a chance I enjoyed this movie more now that I've learned to like Charlie Day. Like I've always found him adorable but because of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia I'm starting to really, really, like him.

20.5. Hardball (2001) - 6 / 10

Hard Ball is a very typical sports drama. It's whole purpose seems to be to get a huge emotional response from the viewer, but when isn't that a purpose of a movie? And Hard Ball definitely succeeds at this in so many ways. It's an average movie, an alright movie, and the story is hardly anything special. However it's well made.

30.5. What We Do In The Shadows (2014) - 7 / 10

I have seen a lot of footage of this movie, so I finally decided watch it. This movie is an excellent mockumentary, and absolutely hilarious. I love how they used very classic vampires instead of trying to make a modern version where they leave out certain parts of the myth or come up with new features for the vampires.

What We Do In The Shadows is a brilliant fantasy-horror-comedy, and in its way very unique. It's definitely entertaining and well made, even if it's not really my type as a movie.

Ant-Man (2015)

Directed by: Peyton Reed

Story by: Edgar Wright & Joe Cornish

Screenplay by: Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish, Adam McKay & Paul Rudd

Based on the comics by: Stan Lee, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby 

Armed with a super-suit with the astonishing ability to shrink in scale but increase in strength, cat burglar Scott Lang must embrace his inner hero and help his mentor, Dr. Hank Pym, plan and pull off a heist that will save the world.

---

Ant-Man? Marvel isn't making movies about the actually interesting heroes, but we get a movie about Ant-Man?

I was very suspicious when Ant-Man was announced. Who actually gave a chicken-shit about Ant-Man? However my mind changed once I learned Edgar Wright was one of the writers. I've liked his style so, you know, even if Ant-Man had been total rubbish, at least there was some skillful writing - not just from Wright.

The most distinct thing about Ant-Man is how much simpler it is compared to the massive Avengers franchise. The story is simple, mostly revolving around a heist instead of some huge, epic fight that will cause millions of dollars worth of damage to the cities. It's simple, yet still interesting enough to watch.

Another special thing about Ant-Man is how much more relaxed it seems. There's no giant need to make it super serious and stuff a lot of philosophical pondering in there, which usually does go to total waste when it comes to superhero movies. Ant-Man is an action comedy, and it usually manages to make even the most important fights quite funny in rather easy ways. Ant-Man does a way better job at making the situation lighter than, say, Avengers: Age of Ultron, where they just zing kind of cheesy one-liners here and there to get cheap laughs from the audience. Could it be because writers of Avengers are working under this huge pressure and they can't really enjoy themselves, while reaction to Ant-Man being announced was pretty much "Why the fuck would you make this movie?"

Of course there are annoyances, which are too common with any superhero movies, and they get recycled over and over again. There's that unnecessary romance, predictable structure, but what's most annoying to me is you can't really watch a Marvel movie unless you've seen like at least three others. I'd love to be able to watch Ant-Man as Ant-Man, because it's actually funny movie, but there's hint to movies I haven't seen, and I don't want to watch. This is the biggest problem with the franchise system - you can't just watch movies individually. Like sure I wouldn't watch Iron Man 3 without seeing the first two, but like this is the first Ant-Man movie and still I have to know so much? It's a buzzkill.

All in all Ant-Man is a very entertaining movie, but it has the same flaws every superhero movie has. Thankfully though it's hilarious and way more relaxed than any other superhero movie I've seen - apart from Deadpool, of course.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Carlos (2010) - Theatrical Version

Series directed by: Olivier Assayas

Written by: Olivier Assayas, Dan Franck and Daniel Leconte 

The story of Venezuelan revolutionary Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, who founded a worldwide terrorist organization and raided the 1975 OPEC meeting.

---

I'm tagging this as "mini-series" and "TV" even if I saw the 185 minute long movie cut. Now of course I haven't seen all the footage I could've, but I'm going to write this piece based on what I did see.

I actually chose to see Carlos (or Carlos the Jackal which seems to be the name here and in some other places) very randomly. My friend just picked something out for me because she thought I was wasting too much time browsing in the video store. I had actually knew nothing about Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, aka Carlos, prior to seeing this. I'm not exactly sure why there was such a gap in my knowledge, but as I learned he was an actual person (learned this from my dad before I watched the movie or series)  the whole story became much more interesting. Of course there's the "this is work of fiction" announcement at the beginning, so there's still the "what's true and what's not" since I haven't done research like at all.

Apparently that doesn't matter when watching Carlos. If you know, it's intriguing to see the fictional side of this, if you know nothing, it's intriguing to learn about everything.

In the movie cut the structure is a bit hard to follow sometimes. Characters come and go, time doesn't mean anything... But after I learned it's a mini-series it makes more sense. They had to cut like two hours. Still they saved an awful lot of the OPEC stuff while skipping the 80's completely. Now I don't know how long the OPEC situation is in the series, did they cut a lot or did they want to keep that whole thing, but it felt longer than any other part of the movie. It kind of ate the balance. It seemed like that was the point instead of, you know, Sánchez's life in general.

Also sometimes the music is a bit weird. Like it's good music but feels somewhat ill-fitting for the movie and what it's about.

All in all the story is definitely intriguing and from all the research I did do, Edgar Ramírez is extremely talented and a good choice for the lead role.The biggest problem is how much was cut and how rushed everything feels and what important events didn't make the movie version. Maybe I should watch the whole mini-series some day, to be able to give this a better, more accurate rating.

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6 / 10