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

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

Tom of Finland (2017)

Directed by: Dome Karukoski

Story by: Aleksi Bardy & Dome Karukoski

Screenplay by: Aleksi Bardy

A biography about Touko Laaksonen, who after the war became a gay icon by drawing homoerotic art of men behind the name Tom of Finland.

---

Tom of Finland is definitely one of the most anticipated Finnish movies in 2017, and with reason. Many of us already know the homoerotic art made by Tom of Finland - art which has made its way to textile and even post stamps. This film directed by Dome Karukoski introduces us to the man behind the stage name - Touko Laaksonen.

The story is both touching and really empowering. It has heart wrenching drama, but it's also a message of hope, which is something we need right now, considering how scary the world feels right now. But it was certain from the beginning that this movie will make people feel all kind of things. People will be furious about it, mostly because people already feel that way about the art. Some people are not into anything that's so blatantly homoerotic. But as Dome Karukoski said today, it's a loud minority that's against this movie and everything it stands for, not a majority.

One of the most important things about the film is how Touko Laaksonen wasn't flattened, which worse director and writer(s) could've easily done. Of course this is affected by the fact that the events of the film take place during several decades, so there's no reason for Laaksonen be the same all through the movie. But I'm mainly talking about Laaksonen was introduced to us as a both sensitive typical artist and as a gay icon. If they would've tried to leave out the homoerotic art, it would've erased a big part of Laaksonen's identity. On the other hand if they had only focused on the gay icon side of him, the character could've easily become flat. And isn't it quite impossible to even take these two parts of Laaksonen completely apart from each other, since they aren't really that separate?

It's also amazing to witness how Laaksonen is affected by where he is and who he is with. In the middle of mostly straight people he has to hide parts of himself, and his Tom of Finland side isn't as visible. But in California, among the gay community, he can openly be who he is. I'm sure many closeted non-straight people can identify with this.

We all know our modern world isn't completely equal yet. Still it's horrible to see how much worse the hatred towards gay people was when Touko Laaksonen was younger. But comparing that to now, it gives us a little sparkle of hope, that maybe we are going in the right direction. And Tom of Finland movie is coming out (by coincidence, as Karkukoski stated) at the perfect time, and I'm not just talking about the Finland's 100th year as an independent country, but these few weeks. As of first of March, same sex marriage is legal in Finland. So this movie clearly couldn't have come at a better time.

Tom of Finland is a wonderful, touching movie about an artist who is so very important to the gay community. It's a touching biography, and everyone who can should watch it. I'm mostly addressing Finnish people right now, of course, but seriously, you should see this film. Many of you are going to, but if you had some doubts, now it's time to throw them aside and go to movies when Tom of Finland comes out on 24th of February. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 10

Wait a minute, 24th? Then how come I already saw it? Well, it's one of my perks as an intern, I went to see it earlier and got to meet with Dome Karukoski and the lead actor Pekka Strang, it was super awesome.

How to Lose Friends and Alienate People (2008)

Directed by: Robert B. Weide

Written by: Peter Straughan & Toby Young (book)

British Simon Young has been writing for a humorous gossip magazine, but he gets an offer to join a high profile magazine in New York. The ride is bumpier than he'd expect.

---

I don't remember why I originally added this on my list on Netflix. I'm pretty sure I did not read to plot description. I mostly looked at the name and went with it. The name of the movie is strong and weak at the same time. It attracts attention, it certainly gives you a certain feel to the movie before you watch it. But eventually, is it accurate? And is it too long for people to remember, therefore making it harder for people to talk about it? "Hey, have you seen How to Lose Friends And Alienate People" just doesn't come so naturally to people. Thank god we can discuss it mostly online or in text messages.

The plot is intriguing because of two things: the beginning and Simon as a character. 

The beginning is a scene closer to the end - the "You're probably wondering how I got into this situation" kind of beginning. And when the movie actually starts, the contrast is amazing. You know where the main character Simon Young is going to be, but the how of the trip is intriguing considering the beginning doesn't seem to go so smoothly for him.

Somehow the beginning while interesting also made me sigh in frustration. Someone moves to New York? That certainly has never been done before! The story can be different, but the setting is getting tired. Is New York really that great? And people living in New York, don't come after me after I wrote that remark, you hear? 

Simon Young as a character is interesting. What are fictional journalists usually like? They always want to write serious stuff, win prizes and make a difference. That's always the way it goes, right? But Simon Young is into all the gossip articles. His priorities (he wants to have humorous, ironic look on different celebrities) are different from the people in other movies, and all the characters around him. Again, wonderful contrast. Now, is Simon Young likeable? He's a bit sympathetic, but some details about him annoy the audience. But what makes you mostly root for him is the way his opponent is even more annoying. There's nothing likeable in that guy, so you root for Simon. And eventually, you really like him, and you want to see him shine. 

Those are the two reasons that make you want to watch the entire movie. You want to know how Simon Young got to the place shown in the beginning, and you want him to be better than the more annoying character. Of course the movie is also enjoyable and fun, but those two are way more effective. If a movie is fun, but there's nothing else interesting going on, audience might not be as motivated reach the end.

It was weird listening to this movie. Almost every song on the soundtrack is on some playlist of mine. There's a chance it gets annoying if a movie is filled with recognisable, popular songs after another. In How to Lose Friends and Alienate People it works. Songs go well with the scenes, and they don't feel as forced as songs that are there just to trick you into enjoying a scene.

There are many typical details to How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, but it's also extremely refreshing. It's fun, even if a bit annoyingly vulgar at times, but at the end extremely enjoyable. It feels like this movie could be analysed way more - there's so much going on under the surface.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

Domino (2005)

Directed by: Tony Scott

Written by: Richard Kelly & Steve Barancik

The story of Domino Harvey, who turned away a career as a model to become a bounty hunter.

---

If there's a movie I'd compare  Domino to, it's Natural Born Killers. Not that those two films have much thing common, apart from being huge fucking disappointments, and mostly the most annoying parts are similar.

Why did I want to watch Domino or NBK? The stories were interesting. They were simple, yet intriguing. But in both cases the story is ruined by the director trying too hard to be very unique in their style of directing. Even the simplest, most  boring way is better than throwing too many details in one absolute shit show.

In this case the story was ruined by the large amount of characters, while many of them seem like trivialities compared to the main trio. It is hard to keep a track on who did what and who is who. Sometimes even the main plot seems like it doesn't matter, that there's something more important to the movie, but I can't figure out what that could be. 

At first Domino seems visually interesting, but that wears off soon. The way this film is shot is confusing and hard to follow, even if it sometimes looks real pretty. The strongest quality of the cinematography is the colour scheme, yet that is used in very few scenes, contrast to really annoying effects. Those special effects are used so much they lose their effect, which is where Tony Scott fucked up. Those little fun effects would've made this film greate, if they hadn't been used every five seconds. This is why this film's technical strengths became its greatest weaknesses.

The best thing about this film is Keira Knightley, who is an extremely good actress, and since I've liked her since my childhood (Pirates of the Caribbean), it's always wonderful to see her in a movie.

In short, the story was butchered and Tony Scott tried too hard to be artistic instead of making a simple action biography that more people could enjoy without getting a fucking headache from the effects used.

☆☆☆

3 / 10

"He wants more than he has. I want precisely what he already has."

Year: 2015

Directed by: James Ponsoldt 

Written by: Donald Margulies (screenplay) & David Lipsky (book)

The story of the five-day interview of acclaimed author David Foster Wallace by a Rolling Stone reporter David Lipsky.

---

I used to like this movie, where the main character loves this one specific book, and so does another character. The author is praised, but his name is never said, neither is the name of the book. But based on everything said in said movie, that book was apparently Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace. And all my knowledge of David Foster Wallace came from that movie, until I saw another one: The End Of The Tour. It's not my choice not to know more. I want to read Infinite Jest, but it's not in the local library, and also my dyslexia would make reading that 1,000 page book hellish.

There was one thing I was mostly worried about this film. Is there enough content for a movie? I know it works as a book, but when the whole thing mostly runs on dialogue between too characters, is there a movie? A dialogue itself isn't the problem, it's the nature of that dialogue that was concerning. An interview isn't necessarily mutual interaction. But in the case of The End Of The Tour it was surprisingly mutual. David Foster Wallace, or at least this version of him, asks the same kind of questions from the reporter. He gives his answer, and asks: "You?" That's a relief, it's not just a question and an answer, but there's a proper dialogue going on, even if we get to know more about David Foster Wallace than the reporter. But still, even if the dialogue works, there's still so many things that could go wrong with a film like this. It is biographical, but a film usually needs some sort of a conflict, disagreement, tension, something like that. Luckily The End Of The Tour has some structure to the story. 

This movie gives an interesting image of David Foster Wallace, which is the main reason for the tension. If anyone is interviewed they might try to have a certain role, and David Foster Wallace might've had something like that going on as well, but what we see is the nature of introversion. There isn't some major conflict between Wallace and Lipsky, even if they have a disagreement, but we see how an introvert reacts to people. Introverts need some time for themselves. Also David Foster Wallace describing his life as a writer and as someone suffering from depression was excellent. It wasn't glamorized, quite the opposite. While Lipsky might've been trying to find some poetic reason for the depression, it was mostly said how he just had depression, that's it.

And since this film is mostly dialogue, I have to write about that for a bit. The text, the dialogue in this film has several sides. Of course David Foster Wallace says several serious, deep things, but a lot of the dialogue is also very much fun. And when things aren't exactly serious or fun, the dialogue has the feeling it's trying to sketch a sort clearer, more complex  portrait of David Foster Wallace, since only the material for the interview isn't going to show us what David Lipsky saw. Every piece of the dialogue serves a certain purpose, no matter what subject they are talking about.

I've loved Jason Segel since I first saw him on the screen, which was the first time I ever watched How I Met Your Mother. That show might not be the greatest, not after the finale after all, but Segel shows true talent even in that show. Segel can be funny, he can be serious, he shows emotions well. Still, he was better as David Foster Wallace than I assumed. He's believable, at least to someone who isn't familiar with the author.

Visually this movie is basic. The music is also quite bland - weirdly light at many points, but it still doesn't stand out much. But it's not like those were that important in this case, because this film is mostly about the text and the people than any other cinematic look.

The End Of The Tour is an interesting piece of cinema. It's not something you can watch just for one, there's no any kind of action. Even if there is tension it's nor entirely cinematic. There seems to be only one reason to watch The End Of The Tour, and that's to get to know at least the idea of David Foster Wallace, even though it can't be certain how real the character in the film is. The End Of The Tour is an astonishing film, and if you didn't know much about David Foster Wallace, you want to learn more. Which means the film has reached its purpose. Is it worth watching twice? Maybe, but not too soon, because otherwise you just learn the dialogue by heart, and you're not able to actually hear it again.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

"Skrinkle begat Skroddle and Skrinkle and Skroddle were the Lego blocks of a strange new world he was building for us all. I Somehow, his dopey language caught on like his stupid parties."

Year: 2003

Directosr: Fenton Bailey & Randy Barbato

Writers: Fenton Bailey & Randy Barbato, James St James (the book Disco Bloodbath)

Based on the true story of the fall of the club kid Michael Alig, and how he murdered a drug dealer and his roommate Angel Melendez.

I mostly wanted to watch this movie, because I used  to love it when I was about 12 years old (how fucked up was my taste in movies anyway?). Another reason was that it took me so long to realise Wilmer Valderrama was in this movie. When I first saw this movie, I watched in YouTube - no kidding in about 10 parts! - and there was even a notification or something like that, saying "Yes, that's Wilmer Valderrama", and I just realised that this year! Amazing... Also I kind of wanted  to see this again, because it wasn't too long ago that Michael Alig actually got released from prison, right?

There's something I should've read before watching the movie again, or maybe I need to do another review after reading that... But I have a copy of Disco Bloodbath and I've been wanting to read it. But James St. James' style is quite weird and when I got that book (I was 12) I didn't think I could read it. So, I don't know what's in the book, I don't know what really or "really" happened, I can't know which parts have been exaggerated. Maybe I should've done some proper research...

But oh, the characters and the dialogue seem so corny after all these years! A 12-year-old doesn't think about that so much but now... Some scenes and things and dialogue made me cringe a little. It's mostly how Michael Alig seemed in this movie. Again, I can't really know what Alig is really like, but in the movie the character seemed so immature, someone who had never truly grown up. I don't know if this is actual Michael Alig, or Macaulay Culkin's acting - or Macaulay Culkin himself!

Now that I'm talking about Macaulay Culking, it's time to appreciate the casting. Some choices are of course weird (Marilyn Manson, whose performance was apparently a spot on), but when you look at the big picture, it actually works. Everyone whose character matter in the story seems very good in their role. Maybe all of them don't seem realistic, but when the movie is like this anyway... it doesn't seem to matter.

What is the movie like then? It's hard to think it actually takes place in this very real world. It just seems so much more twisted and wonderful, like a really fucked up Wonderland, which turns out not to be so wonderful after all, but a really brutal one. 

The cinematography is colourful and almost playful, which affects that "fucked up  Wonderland" feeling a lot. But when the scenes were brutal and sad and all, the effects, filming and colouring were different. The cinematography in this movie is pure art, it's amazing on its own, but of course it's even more amazing. The music too is also amazing, and everything said about cinematography goes with the music too.

In short, Party Monster is an interesting film, even if you don't view it as a biography. It's peculiar and well-made, definitely worth seeing, even if it isn't the best movie made - after all it's not worth seeing many times, because the story is easy to learn by heart. There are several other movies about the subject, documentary/documentaries too. Maybe it would be more interesting to watch those, than this movie many times.

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6 / 10

"If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you."

A partially idealized film of the controversial pornography publisher and how he became a defender of free speech for all people. 

- Kenneth Chisholm

Actually before I started watching the movie, I couldn't quite remember who Larry Flynt was or if he even was anyone, but well, it didn't take long to remember who he is. 

I don't know which portion of this movie was true, because the movie was idealized a lot, just like Chisholm said in that quoted part. Flynt was portrayed as an asshole a lot, which I think is, well, that's believable. Somehow I think there was more of Flynt being an asshole than being a "defender of free speech", but I seriously don't know that much about Larry Flynt, so I have no idea.

I guess the most important think about this movie was that it really makes the audience think about free speech. And mostly it shows how ridiculous censorship was or is in the US. And like Alan Isaacman said (to be honest I have no idea if that was really what either one of the lawyers said (Alan Isaacman and Gene Reeves Jr,) or if it was only something that was put into the film) that h doesn't like what Flynt does, but he still thinks everyone should have the right to like it or dislike it, to be able to purchase it or throw it in the garbage can.

To be honest I have no idea what to say about the movie. It was frustrating to watch, for some reason, which currently is unknown to me. It was an alright movie but I don't really know, I didn't get much out of it, except what I already said in the paragraph above. 

☆☆☆☆☆

5 / 10

"Have you ever confused a dream with life? Or stolen something when you have the cash? Have you ever been blue? Or thought your train moving while sitting still?"

Girl, Interrupted is based on a story of Susanna Kaysen, and her 18 month stay in a mental hospital back in the 60's. 

First of all, I had seen the trailer of Girl, Interrupted what feels like million years ago, but I just didn't watch it then. I don't know if I was interested then, to be honest. I mean at that time I was about 13, and when I was 13 I didn't give a shit about drama. I don't remember what I watched, but not drama. And even though I was in a dark place when I was 13 (though not darker than now) I didn't want to watch Girl, Interrupted. Maybe it was because I felt like I was depressed, I really don't know. But last night I came home from our last show, and I wanted to watch something, because, well, last shows are last shows, which means it was full of tears and hugging. And I wanted to get my mind off it. But I didn't really have anything to watch, or at least it felt like that. So I decided I would finally watch Girl, Interrupted.

I have said before that I don't recognise directors, except for Tarantino and Kubrick, and it happened again during this movie. I've seen two movies from James Mangold before, but I don't recognise his style - does he have one? Then again the movies I've seen before have been a romantic comedy (Kate & Leopold) and super hero action movie (The Wolverine), which probably explains how I don't recognise anything characteristic from James Mangold. Anyway, Mangold did a good job, though it makes me wonder, how much better or different would the movie be, if it was directed by a woman. I mean most of the characters are female, at least all the important characters are. I mean a female director could've given the movie something James Mangold can't. Just a thought.

The name Girl, Interrupted first made me think about some kind of psychological horror or a thriller. If I had known it was based on true experiences, maybe I hadn't given much thought to the name. But yep, Girl, Interrupted wasn't a thriller or a drama. It was psychological in a way, though, but what else can be expected from a movie taking place in a mental institution? So maybe it wasn't "scary", which was my first thought. But it was very agonising and distressing most through the movie. I don't know what exactly gave the distress and agony to the movie. Maybe it was the story, the atmosphere, acting, cinematography... Maybe it was all of those things. But the outcome was amazingly distressing. I mean I wasn't feeling exactly good last night and the movie made me feel worse. But not bad worse, like shit, that was a bad movie. It was a good worse. At least it made me feel something, and tha'ts what movies are supposed to do to all of us. If a movie doesn't make you feel anything, the movie is bad, even though the story would be very good. And bored isn't a good feeling though. 

Acting in this movie was brilliant. Winona Ryder was amazing and convincing. Her performance was agonising to watch because she was so good. Angelina Jolie, who I adore so much, was amazing and terrifying at the same time. It's no wonder she got awards for her performance, she was truly amazing. But if I compare - I don't want to, but still - I liked Ryder's performance a bit more. Mostly because she was easy to relate to. This was also the first movie I saw Whoopi Goldberg in (unless you count the Muppet movie, and funnily enough I don't count it), and for some reason she reminded me a lot of Morgan Freeman. I mean there was something so peaceful about her that I always connect with Morgan Freeman. 

But I don't regret seeing Girl, Interrupted even though it made me feel worse than I already felt. It was a brilliant movie, and it's worth seeing second, third, tenth time, and you can bet I will watch it at least that third time. I recommend it to mostly everyone, but don't blame me if it makes you also feel a bit bad about... well... things.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 10