March - Short Reviews

17.3. The Angry Birds Movie (2016) - 7 / 10

My little sister saw this film with a friend and finally I rented it so we could watch it together.

I think Angry Birds  create mixed feelings in Finnish people. On the other hand they are getting bored with it but on the other it's one of our best selling things right now it seems.

The Angry Birds movie is so much fun. Of course there are some crude jokes, but that's typical to any kind of movie. I think having an American (I'm assuming) screenwriter affects the movie a lot. It makes it easier to gain a larger audience world wide.

I'm astonished by the English-speaking cast. First of all, Jason Sudeikis as the lead, Peter Dinklage as the Mighty Eagle and Sean Penn as the big guy who basically doesn't even say anything? The cast speaks what kind of a big deal this movie was to make.

Very funny movie, but of course very typical plot-wise. But that's how it is with most animated mainstream children's movies.

21.3. We Need To Talk About Kevin (2011) - 6 / 10

I've been hearing a lot about this movie. Apparently it's excellent, but also very intense and agonising. But all that hype made me kind of disappointed. I expected something more cathartic, something more.

The biggest problem lies in the combination of non-chronological story telling and the auditory side of the movie. It makes the whole movie feel like several dream sequences. It made me think what part of this is happening for real and what isn't. That doesn't seem like the right feeling this movie should give out to the viewer.

Non-chronological story telling can be tricky, but on the other hand it's one of the best things about this movie. There were several scenes that made no sense, when you tried to understand when it was happening, until the very end, when it all clicks into place. Of course I could've just paid attention to Eva's hairstyle, but that's not always the first thing in my mind.

This is a dark, intense movie, but in my opinion something was missing. Also it may just require viewing it another time. Still I kept expecting something different and something better.

27.3. 127 Hours (2010) - 6 / 10

127 Hours is an interesting movie because its strengths can also be its weaknesses. It's slow, not much happens and it is weirdly surreal. It depends on the audience how it's received.

I actually thought this movie would rely more heavily on flashbacks than the actual situation the main character is in. It's better this way.

While the cinematography and soundtrack are amazing, this movie still feels a bit weird because of how slow it is. It's very thrilling, very agonising, and it's pace makes it even worse - which makes it of course better.

28.3. Cooties (2014) - 8 / 10

I rented this movie because it seemed like it would be hilarious and thrilling at the same time - and it was.

The setting of the movie is brilliant. There's always something creepy about zombie children. Yes, all zombies or infected or whatever is your preferred term for these horrifying creatures, are of course terrifying, but the children are even more so. It's like when children are singing in horror movies it's million times creepier. When ghosts are children, they are creepier. When any kind of monster in a horror movie is a kid, it's always like... yikes.

The main characters are such a strange bunch, it's a delight. They are all such stereotypical teachers. There's that cheerful, happy teacher, grumpy coach, different kind of creepy teachers and that one sub who asks students to call him by his real name. They make a weird team of survivors, and they are freaking hilarious. Most of the humour comes from their archetypes, and of course the dialogue is amazing. It most often is in actually funny horror comedies. 

Cooties is funny and thrilling while it's also wonderfully disgusting. Also if the beginning of this movie won't make you a vegetarian, then nothing will.

31.1. Eragon (2006) - 2 / 10

Everyone said not to watch this because it's bad, and guess what, they were right. And it's not as if the story itself is somehow really bad, it just feels empty and hollow. It info-dumps the lore on you in the beginning and then you're just going to have to remember and understand it. If you want to understand, you clearly need to read the book, but everyone who has read the book says the movie is so awful compared to that.

It's hard to be invested in the characters or the story when you're not exactly sure what is going on, and at the end, what was even achieved? 

The Evil Dead (1981)

Directed and written by: Sam Raimi

Five friends travel to a cabin in the woods, where they unknowingly release flesh-possessing demons.

---

If I'm watching horror, I tend to prefer zombies and / or violence instead of ghosts and possession. Why? I watched The Grudge 2 when I was 12 and it scarred me for life and I'm still not into any horror movies where the horror comes from ghosts and that kind of supernatural stuff. (Yes yes, zombies are supernatural, I know, but it's different because I didn't watch zombie stuff when I was 12). I still wanted to see The Evil Dead partly because of its status among horror films, but also because I really want to start watching the show Ash vs. Evil Dead, and obviously I need to see the original ones first.

My expectations were high. When I said I rented the Evil Dead, most people asked if it was the original one. I didn't even know there was a remake. But if that many people care, this one obviously has to be good, right?

Watching The Evil Dead in 2010s is kind of weird. It feels like one hell of a trope fest, but you can't help but think, how many of these tropes did this movie start? How can I judge that when I don't know, and it's for a review on a blog and I'm too lazy to do some research? And it's better to not actually address all that, because then I'd have to talk again about how stupid the characters are, because everyone's always a total idiot in horror movies. If I had to address that every time I watched horror movies, I'd probably never watch another horror movie again.

While the story is great, and this is an excellent things there are few things that bother me. One of them is the cinematography. It's sometimes so weird and bad it ruins the mood. And sometimes it feels like the movie is a bad home video made by my dad. That is an eccentric look and it could be either good or bar. In this movie that look did work, but then most of the cinematography was just weird.

Another thing was the effects, but hey, it's the 1980s, so it's not like I was expecting something hyper realistic. And I think it's better this way. All that crappy make up and stuff makes everything even more horrifying. You can't really get that same feeling with CGI.

While I notice and can acknowledge why The Evil Dead has that reputation as cult classic, and I see why it was a big deal when it came out, it kinda leaves me cold. Could be the fact that it's kind of short, and I'm hoping to see more of Ash. There's something really charming about Bruce Campbell as Ash, and I don't know what it is yet. But even if I'm not a big fan of the Evil Dead, I'm definitely going to see the second movie, and also The Army of Darkness. Just probably not immediately 'cause I have so many other movies to see, but soon.

☆☆☆☆☆

5 / 10

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Directed by: Danny Boyle & Loveleen Tandan (co-director)

Based on a novel by: Vikas Swarup

Screenplay by: Simon Beaufoy

A Mumbai teen reflects on his upbringing in the slums when he is accused of cheating on the Indian Version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?"

---

I've mostly been avoiding movies that win the academy award for best picture, because it has become obvious they aren't in my taste, so why force myself to watch something I'd find boring and then complain about it online and cause arguments and blah blah. Of course there are several that are of interest: Moonlight (2016), Spotlight (2015), No Country for Old Men (2007) and of course, Slumdog Millionaire - mostly because it seemed thrilling, but also because it's directed by Danny Boyle, who still hasn't disappointed me.

The story is intriguing, and it shows the worst and best of India. It shows the slums and brutality, but also the glamour of the rich. And the line between the two is clear, because not everyone is happy to just let a "slumdog" to become a millionaire and change the dynamic. But of course that's not just India, this is pretty much every country, where the differences between the poor and the rich are growing.

And this movie is so thrilling. Towards the end I was ready to scream, because I was so excited. I was hopeful and scared at the same time and had no idea what would happen to Jamal, would he get the answer right or wrong. 

One of the key features of this film is the structure. The narrative isn't chronological, and instead it's mostly told in flashbacks. That's always  risky, but in Slumdog Millionaire it's used amazingly. It tells you what you need to know and when you need to know it, not sooner than needed. This gives that certain air of mystery when you don't yet know everything, but you want to.

I wasn't really into the love story, but also I couldn't think what would make it better, so I probably shouldn't go into that.

Slumdog Millionaire is an amazing movie, very thrilling. There were several little things bothering me, but all in all it's astonishing and definitely deserved its win. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Dope (2015)

Directed and written by: Rick Famuyiwa

Malcolm is a straight A student and a geek surviving a tough neighbourhood. Surviving becomes even harder when after an underground party he finds drugs in his backpack. 

---

I've been looking at this movie for ages. It seemed like it would be great visually, and that it would have an amazing soundtrack. The story didn't seem bad either. I still didn't rent it until now, and it definitely was everything I hoped for - and more.

Visually this movie is exactly what I was hoping. The cinematography is nice, and very colourful, which is always great. The costume department also has done an amazing job. I want all the outfits worn by the main characters, Malcolm, Diggy and Jib. The soundtrack is unbelievably good, and I am so glad it's on Spotify. Every song has it's perfect place in the movie, and the songs are great by themselves as well.

I really like the story. Malcolm is a clever kid who wants to go to Harvard, even if he comes from a bad neighbourhood. All the turns and twists his life takes during this movie are amazing. While the story in a way is very classic and in that way predictable, there are many details that won't fail to surprise you. Another amazing thing about the writing is the dialogue. It sometimes takes the Tarantino kind of way, where the characters are talking about something completely different before a crucial plot point. The best example is the character Dom talking about politics before the party takes a different turn.

Dope is a surprising movie with a very fresh feeling. It's a pleasure to watch, yet it has it's not so pleasant moments. Everything about this movie just clicks!

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 10

28 Weeks Later (2007)

Directed by: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo

Written by: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, Rowan Joffe, Enrique López Lavigne & Jesús Olmo.

Six months after the rage virus was inflicted in on the population of United Kingdom, most of the infected have starved to death. The US army has secured a small part of London to begin re-population. As people move back to London, the virus starts spreading, and the nightmare begins again.

---

Originally it was 28 Weeks Later that my friend Rose recommended for me, I just wanted to watch 28 Days Later first, mostly to understand the story but partially because it was directed by Danny Boyle. It was of course a bit disappointing to see 28 Weeks Later wasn't directed by Danny Boyle. It's not that I wouldn't like Fresnadillo, considering this is the first movie I've seen from him. It was just mostly when a sequel has a different director, there might be a drop in quality. Of course it's not a fact, it just has happened way too often (Hostel 3, anyone?) 

But my friend Rose made a great point while we discussed the movie. Sometimes you have to lose something great to gain something great. Maybe we lost Danny Boyle as a director, but we gained an astonishingly good Scottish actor, Robert Carlyle. He is the main reason I watched this movie. If it wasn't for him I might've left it at the first one, because it hardly felt like it needed a sequel.

Did 28 Days Later need a sequel? Probably not, but I'm still glad we got one.

The story in 28 Weeks Later is happening in significantly smaller area. In 28 Days Later the main characters travel a lot while in this one the characters mostly stay in London, and especially that small, secured area in London. The more confined milieu gives the story something more, since the virus and the infected aren't really a thread somewhere outside, but it's inside, among you. And it creates even more chaos when the US soldiers are trying to control the situation. It's brilliant and agonising.

While all of the movie is very good, one of the most effective moments is at the beginning of the film, when Don (Robert Carlyle) runs when the infected attack his wife. Another friend of mine had seen the movie and described it to me when we were younger, when I was about 11 or 12. And I still remember the way she described it and how impressive, maybe even awesome that scene was. You're used to seeing people being heroes in movies, and that was the opposite. Even if we may not really experience Don's fear in that scene, his actions are incredibly powerful. 

Also the shaky camera, quick and fast shots at the beginning were a bit worrisome. I was afraid that's what most of the movie was going to be like, because it just kept going on and on. It's effective, but also makes everything really hard to follow. Yet you could see the most important things. 

The only thing I like less about this movie is how American it seems. Of course it takes place in UK, and Juan Carlos Fresnadillo is a Spanish director, so it's not the movie itself. It's mostly how the US army is involved in securing London, letting people back in London. It's annoying, but also it seems really fucking typical. It's annoying because you know that's exactly how it would go.

28 Days Later doesn't necessarily need a sequel. 28 Weeks Later is different, and a certain touch is missing with Danny Boyle, but Juan Carlos Fresnadillo has made something haunting and amazing. You don't need to see it, since the story is different, but it's still absolutely worth your time.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

The Nice Guys (2016)

Directed by: Shane Black

Written by: Shane Black and Anthony Bagarozzi

A mismatched duo - a private eye and a hired muscle - investigate a missing girl and a mysterious death of a porn star in 1970s L.A.

---

I meant to go see The Nice Guys when it first came to the theatres, but I don't remember why I didn't go. I finally rented it. Most of what I had seen before seemed great. A mutual from tumblr seems to like this movie and constantly reblogs GIF-sets and screencaps from this movie. All that dialogue seemed wild and fun, so I thought it'd be right up my alley.

An almost constant thought that followed me through the movie was "this reminds me of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang". No wonder, since it's directed by the same guy. Shane Black really handles neo-noir films very well. Few especially great details were the internal monologues at the beginning of the movie. They were like straight from old time-y film noirs, but way more fun. 

The plot was way more intriguing than anticipated. From the screenshots and GIF-sets The Nice Guys seemed more like a comedy than actually thrilling crime mystery. The plot is complex, and it's actually very satisfying and entertaining to see how the story goes, what was going on, all that.

One of the things that attracted me to this movie was the 70's aesthetic and music. I've always had a soft spot for 70's fashion, so movies from the past few years set in the 70's are great at least aesthetically speaking.

The Nice Guys is definitely a fun, thrilling movie, tho I am sceptical if it would be as good the second time.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

About Time (2013)

Directed and written by: Richard Curtis

At the age of 21 Tim discovers the men in his family have the ability to travel back in time and change things that have happened in their life. He decides to use his gift to find love, but he also learns something about the nature of life itself.

---

While I was at the rental store with my friend, we would've probably been there forever if she hadn't just decided on the fifth film for me. She chose About Time and promised me it was really good. I was sceptical, as I often am when someone else chooses a film for me to watch. And now that this movie is after, I know at least one friend whose taste I can trust.

I liked the plot almost instantly. Usually I'm not fond of any love related plots, and by that I mean how the main character knew he wanted to find love. Still it was clear that wasn't the only thing he was searching for. Moving to London he wanted to find his place, his future, and that was something many of us can relate to. Finding love just happened along the way, tho it was a bit frustrating to watch. How dumb can you be, travelling back in time without realising then you never met the girl? And why did he keep trying to find her? Sure, they are great together, but still it seemed a bit bothersome. 

One of the nicest scenes in this movie - and there are a lot - was the one in the dark restaurant where neither the characters nor the audience can see. It was amazing to see how well Tim and Mary clicked, even though they didn't even see each other. Because of that the first sight of Mary was so special. 

These kind of romantic movies seem to have the same structure, so I kept waiting for something tremendously bad to happen, like some misunderstand which would lead to awful things that would eventually turn out to be good and all that. But About Time's structure is different. Time isn't simple, and the events in Tim's life are just that - they are life. They are normal things, and his life is relatively normal apart from the time travelling thing. It's really nice, and it's very beautiful. 

About Time is a very beautiful, funny and touching movie. It's amazing, and I'm really glad my friend chose it for me. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

28 Days Later... (2002)

Directed by: Danny Boyle

Written by: Alex Garland

28 days after a mysterious, incurable infection starts spreading through the United Kingdom, Jim wakes up from a coma. He is puzzled by the almost empty city until he finds more survivors. Together they are trying to find sanctuary.

---

I rented 28 Days Later because my friend Rose recommended it to me. Actually she recommended both 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later but I wanted to watch this one before renting the other one. And this one's directed by Danny Boyle. Danny Boyle has never disappointed me, and he definitely didn't disappoint me this time.

I like zombie movies, I just don't watch them as much. My current favourite is Shaun of the Dead, which isn't exactly that serious. 28 Days Later is probably the first more serious zombie movie I really like.  Of course the problem is most of these movies have a similar structure to them. It's always about survival, having to kill someone you care, all that. Comedies of course take different kind of turns.

Plot structure to 28 Days Later seems pretty similar to the other movies I've seen or heard about. There are still some twists I really enjoy, and very many scenes I like. 

But the main reason this movie stands out is because of the characters. I usually am not extremely fond of characters in horror, because you never know what's going to happen. But then I realised how attached I was to the characters of this movie. That realisation happened during some of the most serene and so very nice scenes, like the one at the grocery store. Those little scenes are so nice and heart-warming it makes everything else even more painful. You just want them to have nice, good lives, but horror movies are what they are.

The cinematography is interesting. It's annoying at first, because it's grainy and really poor, but it keeps getting better. Also I really like the music in this film. It's simple, it amplifies the feeling in each scene, and it isn't just scary music used to make the scenes seem more threatening. It's a perfect soundtrack when you don't want to take any risks.

All in all 28 Days Later is a great genre movie. Danny Boyle sure knows how to direct all kind of stuff, huh?

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy (2011)

Directed by: Rob Heydon

Screenplay by: Rob Heydon and Ben Tucker

Based on a book by: Irvine Welsh

Small drug smuggler from Scotland is trying to figure out his way through life until he meets beautiful girl from Canada who seeks a change after bad relationship she just got out of it.

---

OH, OH I HAVE NO IDEA WHY I WATCHED THIS MOVIE, NO CLUE WHATSOVER, AND THE TITLE CERTAINLY DOESN'T REVEAL THAT.

But in all seriousness, I bought Ecstasy around the time I had seen Trainspotting for the first time. I was browsing through movies and on the cover of Ecstasy it said "From the maker of Trainspotting". I liked Trainspotting, I liked Filth, so of course I was gonna by this gem since it was on sale.

When Ecstacy was made, the best known film based on Welsh's work that had came out was Trainspotting. Of course there were other projects, but those aren't that well known to us. Maybe people have heard of Acid House, but movies like Dockers? Has anyone heard of those, apart from the people who made them? Trainspotting's touch is so clear on Ecstasy. The very beginning has the same feeling to it. The main character Lloyd is talking about ecstasy in a narrating, monologue way. When certain important characters appear, their names are shown to us, just like in the beginning of Trainspotting. While I like Trainspotting, I'd rather not be watching a movie where  the director thinks he's doing Trainspotting when he's not.

But luckily that's the beginning. Apart from drugs, Scotland and Welsh's charming text (and his face, briefly), there's nothing too similar in these stories.

The love story was somehow new to me. I have read only few novels by Welsh, but love and romance have never played such a major part in them. Welsh seems to be great at love stories too, which is something I couldn't have anticipated. But in the story two imperfect characters fall in love, and Lloyd's imperfection, addiction, creates a whole lot of trouble, but eventually it's clear they are going to be a great couple.

Have Welsh's characters ever been easily likeable? I don't think so. It's hard to like Lloyd when he's in debt and he knows he should get the money at a certain time, because the guy told him so, yet there he is, partying with his girlfriend. Get a grip! Also it's really frustrating in a good way (because you know you'r at least somewhat invested in the story) to watch this, because you start thinking if only. If only Lloyd had done this, if only Lloyd hadn't done that...

As always, I like how we get to learn about characters naturally, slowly, instead of  getting a massive dump of info on us.

I liked this movie visually very much. It was very colourful, mostly because of the clubs, but on the other hand there was a lo of earthly colours, because it takes place in Edinburgh. It creates such a nice contrast.

I can't say Ecstasy was anything I expected, because I wasn't really expecting anything. It isn't on the same level with Trainspotting, but how could it be, when the only similarity is Scotland, drugs and Irvine Welsh. Partly it's hard to watch, because it's a bit slow and doesn't seem to go anywhere, but at the end it's a great story, worth reading, watching.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Logan (2017)

Directed by: James Mangold

Story by: James Mangold

Written by: Scott Frank, James Mangold, Michael Green

In the near future where no new mutants have been born in years, old man Logan cares for an ailing Professor X. His plan to hide and escape changes when a young mutant Laura arrives, being pursued by men who are similar to those who made Logan Wolverine.  

---

I've been waiting for this movie for so long, but also I've been really nervous. The movie hasn't been hiding what it is: the last one about Logan, or at least the last one with Hugh Jackman as Logan, and let's be honest... It's not like they're going to cast a new actor to play Wolverine any time soon, eh? He's been in every single one of the X-men movies for 17 years. Hugh Jackman is iconic in this role, so why would they be in a hurry to replace him? Especially when now's the chance to make movies without him and maybe focus on some of the other characters.

But personally, am I sick of seeing Wolverine in every X-men movie? No. 

Another thing that made a bit worried was how I had realised I'm not at all into dark superhero movies, at least not the ones I had seen before Logan. They were a bit boring and miserable, trying to be all gritty and edgy. But when wasn't Logan an gritty, miserable, edgy character? And at the beginning this movie was exactly what I feared it might be - gritty, miserable, dark world with no happiness in it for Logan. Luckily that changed. It changed slowly, but the world did change into something a tiny bit happier, tiny bit more hopeful. 

Also at the beginning something felt so wrong to me, and soon enough I was able to place that feeling. It was Charles. I understand he had some kind of disease affecting his brain, so naturally that would also affect his personality, but at first he just didn't feel like Charles, and Charles has always been a very, very important part of the X-men universe. He's that one good spark of hope even in the middle of the worst moments. So when he's clearly not well, it's just awful to look at, to listen to. Clearly that was the intention for the writers, though. It was just really rough to see Charles that way.

Visually this movie was so beautiful, the cinematography was amazing. Also the composer, Marco Beltrami, did an amazing job. I like how the score sounds just a bit like the one in Wolverine (2013), but not too much, not like they were trying to do that same score again.

X-men movies have always been barely violent so they can be PG-13, but finally we get a Wolverine movie that is just as violent as it needs to be. Usually Wolverine stabs and slices and there's barely any blood. Ever since I played X-Men Origins: Wolverine videogame I've been waiting for that kind of movie. And now we have it! And  it's not just like full on violent content without anything else. The fight scenes are beautifully coordinated, and of course there's so much more to the story than just Wolverine and Laura fighting folks.

The story just is so beautiful I can't get over it. And while the movie wasn't perfect, and I didn't like everything about it, at the end of the day I don't know what else I would've needed. This is the perfect even if sad ending for wonderful 17 years Hugh Jackman has been our Wolverine.  

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Filth (2013)

Directed and written by: Jon S. Baird

Based on a novel by: Irvine Welsh

Bruce Robertson, a bigoted and corrupt Edinburgh policeman is in line for a promotion. If he wants something, there is nothing standing in his way so he screws over his colleagues and friends, while trouble at home, his past and drug habits are taking their toll on his sanity.

---

It's been over a year since I saw this film, probably even longer than I think. It is one of my favourite movies and I chose to do a 21 page analysis on it for school while we could've settled for 5-10 pages. But once you watch a movie as often as I used to watch Filth, you want to take a break. And it's good to take that break, because after a while you can appreciate the little things in the film. Like this time watching this movie I was astonished by the cinematography, especially the lighting and the colours, as if I hadn't paid attention during the first time. I had, but for some reason it all felt very new to me. It's probably the amount of movies I've watched between this and the last time I watched Filth.

There are many differences between the novel and the movie. Some of them are good, because you couldn't fit all that in the movie, and Irvine Welsh always takes his time before the actual twists come into the story. It's obvious Jon S. Baird had to tighten up Welsh's novel quite a bit considering Welsh's style and how many details he fits into a story. But if there's one thing that really bothers me, it's that the murdered Japanese man in the beginning was a black man in the book. It seems like a minor change but it isn't, and it will always, always bug me.

Of course there's obvious difference between any book and the movie - a movie gives a face to a character. And in the novel Bruce Robertson is awful, and it's hard to feel bad for him in any way, but when he's given James McAvoy's face and talent, it's harder to not feel bad for him. You know he's horrible. There's nothing about Bruce Robertson you could actually like, but it's James McAvoy's fault some viewers might feel bad for him. That's the only reason James McAvoy shouldn't play this part. McAvoy is amazing, he's truly phenomenal as Bruce Robertson, but he's also too sympathetic.

But while this film is completely awful, it's also hilarious. Just like with most of Welsh's stuff. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

After that 21 page analysis I feel like I can't do a short review anymore. If anyone is interested, I could edit that analysis a little bit and post it on here, but how many of my readers have even seen this film? 

That's why I'm not sure if I should or shouldn't.

Trainspotting (1996)

Directed by: Danny Boyle

Written by: John Hodge

Based on a novel by Irvine Welsh

Mark Renton struggles with Edinburgh's drug scene and his own addiction to heroin. He tries to get out of it despite the allure of drugs and the influence of his friends.

---

I can't believe the last time I saw this movie it was in English class. I remember it well, because Trainspotting is definitely a movie you probably don't feel comfortable watching with people from school: a two friends and mostly people you haven't talked to since first grade. It's even weirder when it's actually your teacher who chose the movie. It raises a lot of question. Okay, yeah, we were all 17 or 18 by then, so it's not like it would be causing us a lot of trauma. I mean maybe it would, but we'd be mature enough to get over it

Also I think it's pretty clear why I'm watching this movie now. I saw the second one two weeks ago - for the first time - and one week ago for the second. I'm also planning a trip to Edinburgh this summer, mostly thanks to Irvine Welsh. I'm going to watch Trainspotting and Filth and Ecstasy during this week, or next.

Anyway, now, let's get to the actual review.

If I had to choose a favourite movie from the year I was born, it would definitely be Trainspotting. 

The first novel I read by Welsh was Filth, and his writing style is absolutely fascinating. With Filth I was bored and then watched the movie and realised holy shit, I wasn't even at the important parts yet. So I returned to the book and while I had already seen the movie it still was able to blow my mind. 

Welsh, whose last name will never stop being amusing to me, is a really brilliant writer. One of the best things about Trainspotting is its dialogue. I haven't read Trainspotting as much as I'd want to, but I have a vague idea how much of the dialogue comes from him. The dialogue has a weird charm. It sounds real, like what you and your mates could talk about, but also makes you feel like why can't your conversations go like that. But still it's not entirely like Tarantino's dialogue, which is realistic, but also sometimes there's no point. With Trainspotting there are typical, realistic conversations about... whatever, but also there's a lot of plot related dialogue with some really witty notions here and there.

What seems to be typical to Welsh's style is that he takes his time. It takes a while to understand what it's about, or it takes a weirdly long time to get to the things the summary at the back cover said about the story (The bedroom secrets of master chefs). It's kind of the same with Trainspotting as a movie. It's hard to say what it's about without being vague about it. "Oh it's about young men in Edinburgh struggling with drugs and such". Yeah but what happens? It's easier to just know the whole thing.

Trainspotting's way of portraying drugs is also interesting compared to many others. Either movies are trying to praise drugs or they are trying to make them seem like devil himself invented them. In Trainspotting they tell straight out what's good about drugs while some of them try to get off it. Like drugs are obviously bad, it's not like anyone's hiding it, but they're also very clear about why it's so hard to quit, and how even after quitting you can still relapse. 

I love surrealism in Trainspotting. Sometimes it just feels like a special effect. Sometimes it feels like it's strongly related to what's going on, how the characters are feeling. It can distressing or it can be really hilarious.

The soundtrack of Trainspotting is iconic! There are so many brilliant songs that reflect the time and also suit the story well, instead of being just separate sounds in the background.

Trainspotting is a masterpiece. It's a true cult classic and I'll be forever bitter to that one friend of a friend who claimed that Fear and Loathing portrayed drugs better but eh, she turned out to be junkie few years later, so what can you say? 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 10