Sushi Girl (2012) - Was it any good?

Directed by: Kern Saxton

Written by: Destin Pfaff & Kern Saxton

Upon his release from prison, Fish is brought to an abandoned restaurant by his old associate, Duke, to celebrate his newfound freedom. However, there's unfinished business that Duke is determined to solve.

---

(Was it any good? is a new section I'm trying out. I'm returning to films I liked years ago, and I wonder if they were as bad or as good as I though. I'm giving bad movies a second chance and good movies a second glance.)

When you see a movie you like and return to it years later, do you think it'll be as good as you remember, or worse?

I remembered Sushi Girl being really good, but I talked to a friend about it and she just said it seems bad. I had to rewatch it after that comment. I was going to anyway, but that was it, I had to know if it was bad, and I didn't know as much about movies then as I do now. That's always the thing, you watch movies you liked but years later you just find them weird and corny. And with Sushi Girl I thought... Is it just a Tarantino copy I liked because I was just getting into Tarantino?

But the thing is, 6 minutes into the movie, I'm already really feeling it. And that was honestly an amazing feeling. I was right years ago!

The cinematography is great, and the story is intense with very little. I think the writing alongside with the performance given by the actors are the strongest parts of the movie. The dialogue has that Tarantino problem, where the characters talk about whatever, and usually it gets annoying when writers do it when they obviously can't. But here it works. There isn't much of it, the biggest part is in the flashback and it suits the mood and the scene... The characters are memorable with very little. The actors look all different, and the characters have distinct personalities so it's easy to keep them apart, but it's also easy to... keep tabs on them. Like when one character looks a certain way, you can sense what's going to happen. And the actors all are great!

The character I remembered the most from the movie was Crow played by Mark Hamill. It was such a weird and disturbing character - like most of them - but Hamill was so amazing in it I remember being shocked realising it was Mark Hamill. I still haven't seen Star Wars, but I just thought, Luke Skywalker... No way.

There were few moments where I thought why are they telling and not showing? But the intensity still kept up - like you know that moment in Silence of the Lambs where Starling talks about the lambs to Lecter? The actors are giving such a performance you don't have to see it. And like eventually when the movie ends you do realize why it was that way.

So... Basically I haven't changed my opinion of the movie at all. Sure it's kind of a Tarantino copy but it's such a good one. I hope I'll remember to come back to this movie more and more.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 10

Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman

Directed by: Curt Geda

Sequence  directors: Jennifer Graves & Tim Maltby

The Dark Knight must contend with a mysterious female vigilante who emulates him, but to a more ruthless degree.

---

The DVD box that contains Batman: Mask of the Phantasm also has four other movie, including straight-to-video movie Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman. While Mask of the Phantasm was close to perfect and phenomenal, this one is just... ehh.

Don't get me wrong, the mystery part of this movie is amazing. It kept hinting that I was right, yet proving me wrong a lot, and I enjoyed every minute of it. But the thing is, that is the best part of the movie, everything else is just alright, mostly because there isn't much interesting in it, except the mystery of the Batwoman.

The main villain of the movie is Penguin, who's just super boring. I guess who we should be afraid of is who he hires, and in this movie he hires Bane. Freaking Bane! He's supposed to be interesting but I just found him odd. I mean definitely better than Bane in Batman and Robin, but different from the Banes I like: the one from The Dark Knight Rises and the one from the video game Arkham Asylum.

And nothing the villains are planning is interesting. Like sure, in Mask of the Phantasm didn't have a villain with a great plan. The movie had god damn Joker in it and he wasn't even the main villain, but it still was interesting because of other things. Here after the mystery of the Batwoman is solved, everything is just boring. I'm not really sure what Penguin did, probably sold guns or something... It just didn't really seem to matter.

If something saves this movie, it's the nice animation and the fight sequences, which are something really cool, other times... just weird.

Of course you can't expect a direct to video movie to be as great as something that was released in the theaters and which was clearly paid more attention to. Still I would've liked this to be at least a little bit more interesting.

☆☆☆☆

4 / 10

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993)

Directed by: Eric Radomski & Bruce Timm

Written by: Alan Burnett, Paul Dini, Martin Pasko & Michael Reaves

Batman is wrongly implicated in a series of murders of mob bosses actually done by a new vigilante assassin.

---

I tumbled onto a video of this movie by Nostalgia Critic, and he did a damn good  job talking about the movie, because I immediately wanted to watch it. What really won me over was how the movie has interesting character study without being too analyzing like some other movies filled with 'very important dialogue', and the fact that this story is actually a mystery. While Batman is a detective, the live action films don't really have any mysteries for him to solve. 

The runtime for this movie is only 76 minutes, so there is no time to waste. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm starts immediately, and there are no scenes or moments unnecessary during the story. And the movie actually manages to be thrilling right when it starts. 

The story is interesting. Of course the mystery is intriguing, and very well written. It keeps you invested and guessing. One negative thing I might point out is that it doesn't feel like there's anything to lose. Sure, people thing Batman is killing the mob bosses, but we know he isn't, and honestly, what could the police do about it? Clearly in the world of this story Batman sticks to the shadows and is rarely seen, so it doesn't seem like he could be caught, or that anything could happen to him. Also even if the killer of the mob bosses wasn't caught? It's not like the audience is interested in their lives.

Another great thing about the story is how we see a different version of Bruce Wayne in the flashbacks. He isn't exactly Batman yet, and he considers not even being Batman, since he's in love and actually happy. It's a new side to him, and it asks and answers the question, what if Bruce Wayne was happy? Could he still be Batman?

While watching the movie I was briefly annoyed by the amount of flashbacks, feeling that they might slow down the story, but they actually provided us with some time to breathe. And I won't lie, all those flashbacks were necessary in one way or another. 

And I have to say it: one of the biggest reasons I wanted to see this movie was Mark Hamill, and I love how they tied Joker into the plot. He could've just been thrown in the mix since he's the Joker and people love to hate him, but instead he actually had an interesting role. And honestly, Mark Hamill is the only actor who has made me sort of afraid of the Joker.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm is an excellent Batman movie, and if I had to rank all the Batman movies I've seen  - mostly live action - this one would probably be number one on that list. It's well-written, mysterious and while it's a family picture, it's thrilling to both kids and adults.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

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

Get Out (2017)

Directed and written by: Jordan Peele

Chris and his girlfriend Rose go upstate to visit her parent's for the weekend. At first, Chris reads the family's overly accommodating behavior as nervous attempts to deal with their daughter's interracial relationship, but as the weekend progresses, a series of increasingly disturbing discoveries lead him to a truth that he never could have imagined.

---

Usually when a movie is very hyped there's a chance it disappoints you, but that's not the case with Get Out. Everyone's been talking about how brilliant Jordan Peele is, and I have to agree.

The very first thing I have to say is I can't believe Get Out is Jordan Peele's directorial debut. The film show such profound understanding of cinema, that many directors don't grasp even though they've done more films than Peele. Also Peele's done some  very thorough work. I saw this movie last night and I'm only know writing this review, but during this time I've procrastinated I've re-realised so many moments and details of this movie. They weren't details that made no sense, they were details that either seemed like just an addition to the story or just the kind of stuff you usually have in this genre. The movie itself was completely amazing, but the more I keep thinking about this, the more I'm convinced Jordan Peele is a god damn genius.

All the ingredients of an amazing film are here. The pacing is amazing, so is the build up. The story is detailed, characters carefully planned and multi-dimensional. The soundtrack is incredible and haunting, and it definitely helps to keep you on the edge of your seat.

Get Out also has everything you need from the horror genre. The way the story and the horror progress is amazing and close to perfection. It's just unnerving, then turns into something really disturbing, then turns into absolutely terrifying. All the good elements are there: psychological horror, mind control (or hypnotism) and blood. Also they have manage to keep the audience absolutely excited during the whole thing.

Some of the white audience have been angry at the racism aspect though. But it shouldn't be hard to understand why the white people in this movie are so terrifying.

Get Out is absolutely brilliant movie, and without a doubt the best horror movie I've ever seen.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 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

The Usual Suspects (1995)

Directed by: Bryan Singer

Written by: Christopher McQuarrie

A sole survivor tells of the twisty events leading up to a horrific gun battle on a boat, which begun when five criminals meet at a seemingly random police lineup.

---

The Usual Suspects is a movie I've been meaning to watch since forever. My dad actually owns the DVD, but sometimes you have to rent a movie to actually see it - because you've paid for it and it would suck if you'd basically lose money and not see it.

I didn't know much about The Usual Suspects. Story-wise I only knew that picture of the line up. I had avoided the spoilers almost perfectly. Just almost? I did know about the twist. I didn't know what it was, I just knew there was going to be a huge fucking twist. Also I had seen that one Saturday Night Live sketch, which kind of gives something away. I'm going to link it at the end of the post. Even though I kind of knew something about the ending, I didn't know the story, and I didn't know how to get to the ending and what the ending would actually mean in the story, because a SNL sketch doesn't exactly explain the reference.

It's hard to get in the right mood with the movie. There's no hook before the opening credits, you just have to wait until they are over or maybe fast forward through them. They offer nothing except John Ottman's music, which is of course decent, but not any different from typical movie music. But when the movie begun, it just begun. It was a bit fast, unclear. What is happening, who are these people, oh now we're at now... When they start questioning Verbal it becomes clearer. Still flashbacks are a hard way to tell the story - they are very quick and the audience can feel like something was left out, except I think this is exactly what McQuarrie might've been after. 

But once you get used to the pace and the style of story telling, the movie turns into a very exciting thriller. 

I guess the only problem in watching this movie over 20 years later is that it's now easier to guess the big mother-fucking twist. It might be because of a certain actor, it might be because this kind of twist is now more common, or it's just the evolution of cinema. But at one point while watching this movie it all clicked together. Of course the SNL sketch helped, and so did that one scene from the first Scary Movie - which is something I haven't seen in ages but it just came to me and I realised that's where it's from!

But figuring out a twist isn't exactly bad, you can also feel super victorious.

All in all, The Usual Suspects is a good thriller, a bit slow but the end makes it so much better. It has definitely aged well. But after seeing it once I don't feel like watching it again any time soon. It might be like some other movies with major twist: once you know it, you can watch it maybe once more to like see it from the new perspective, but that's it. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Here's the SNL sketch I mentioned. I'd warn you to not spoil yourself if you haven't seen the movie but hey, would you listen?

Dark Places (2015)

Directed and written by: Gilles Paquet-Brenner

Based on a novel by: Gillian Flynn

When Libby Day was eight years old, her family was murdered, and she testified against her own brother. Almost thirty years later and desperate for money, Libby reluctantly revisits the old crime to see if his brother truly was behind the murders.

---

I've loved Gone Girl since I saw it for the first time, and I've read it once and listened to it once. I finished the audiobook last night and the whole story is simply haunting. It's haunting when read, seen or heard. Gillian Flynn is such an amazing author, so when I was looking through movies to rent, Dark Places caught my eye. Audible has been recommending it to me, but since it would be expensive to get it without ever reading it, I thought I'd rent it - and if I liked it, maybe I would get it on Audible one day.

Of course I'd hate to compare Dark Places to Gone Girl all through this review, but Gone Girl had a big effect on me. So obviously the first thing I notice is the difference between Amy and Libby. Amy is clever and ambitious, while Libby doesn't seem to care about shit. They both had money though, money they didn't exactly earn themselves. Amy got her money from her parents, and Libby got her money from generous donors. Both lose their money, but the biggest difference seems to be that Amy is active while Libby is passive turning active. Still, Libby is an interesting character. She has gone through a lot and has clearly put up some walls, and the movie keeps us at a certain distance from her. I feel like we could get to know her a lot better in the novel, which is why I'm really interested in reading that. 

To be honest the distance from the main character of Dark Places and Gone Girl shows the key difference between the film adaptations. Gone Girl's screenplay was written by Gillian Flynn herself, and in the movie we get to know Amy. We don't get to know as much as in the novel, but we know enough, while with Libby the audience doesn't know enough. Maybe the screenwriter didn't know "his" character as well as he would need to. But of course this is kind of in theory, since I haven't read the novel, but judging by Flynn's style in Gone Girl, I doubt she'd leave the main character at a weird distance. 

What's great about the story is how you can guess what happened. You know who could've been behind it, and you can form your own theories. I formed mine very early, but knowing Flynn I felt like it's not going to be what I guessed. Well, that was disappointing, because I guessed it right. Again, I feel like in the novel it might have been a bit harder to find it out before it was said, but in a movie those few clues can't be drown in as many details as would be necessary. That's what let me kind of disappointed, that and the fact that the feeling after you see or read Gone Girl is... haunting. That's what haunting about that story. But with Dark Places, the end just is. The feeling is completely different. Of course I'm not expecting every story of Flynn's feeling the same, but Dark Places doesn't feel as dark as Gone Girl.

The atmosphere - cinematography and music - of Dark Place are very typical for a thriller, and when looking at those Dark Places just drowns into all the other thrillers.

But while Dark Places isn't as good as I hoped it to be, it's still a decent thrilling. It's what it needs to be - it's an intriguing mystery. It just isn't a thriller which would haunt you, it's not that original. It won't stay with you for too long, and you probably won't think about watching it again. You could never watch it and you wouldn't miss anything. It's good for a one watch, it's thrilling enough for that, but once you've seen it all and you know everything, what would be the point to see it again, when it doesn't offer something really extraordinary like its counterpart?

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

Zootropolis (2016)

Directed by: Byron Howard, Rich Moore & Jared Bush (co-director)

Story by: Byron Howard, Rich Moore, Jared Bush, Jim Reardon, Josie Trinidad, Phil Johnston & Jennifer Lee

Screenplay by: Jared Bush & Phil Johnston

In a city of anthropomorphic animals a rookie bunny cop Judy Hopps teams up with a swindler fox Nick Wilde to discover why so many predators are reported missing.

---

Yay, another reason for my sister to think I'm a furry, smh.

I'm not usually into Disney. Everything is too soft for me. I like a few, mostly because I saw them when I was a kid and they make me nostalgic. I rented this mostly because there was a sale and if you rented five movies you could have them for a week for seven euros, and it was a bargain, and I remembered my sister wanted to see this at least at one point. I did want to see this for a few reasons. One of them was that people mostly said it was great. Another was that Jason Bateman was in this movie. Now I'm not his biggest fan or anything, but I've watched enough Arrested Development to like him. So, what the hell, I watched it.

I was so pleasantly surprised. What's the highest rating I've given a children's animated movie? The Lego Movie, which was awesome, and I gave it 9 / 10. Zootropolis doesn't come close to The Lego Movie, but Zootropolis is great. It is funny, and it is actually super thrilling. I was on the edge of my seat wanting to know what was going to happen, and what had happened, and all that. It also has just the perfect amount of scary. I'm glad I watched this.

Of course there are few things that bother me like why isn't Disney using voice actors instead of some random Hollywood live action actors and actresses. Like sure, they get more viewers, but there are amazing voice actors and actresses out there, who could be magical in a movie like this. Now it's mostly like "hey, that dude sounds familiar" and maybe recognising one actor (Tommy Chong). It's not like the cast is bad but... why can't you use people who will definitely, absolutely do a great job?

Also this movie could be a great metaphor for racism and all kind of prejudice, but it's a bit... weird. It's mixed. First it seems that everyone is pushing the prey down, but in the end everyone is awful towards PREDATORS, like hey, maybe don't be prejudice against that huge ass beast who could murder you and eat you. If you are a tiny bunny, you kind of have the right to be scared of a jaguar or whatever. Maybe you're not supposed to think about these animals as humans, but still you are kind of telling kids hey, that person who bullies you and hurts you? They have their own issues going on. Sure, they might have some issues of their own, but that doesn't make it okay... I don't know where I'm going with this, but this situation kind of bothers me.

But other than those things, this movie is surprisingly good. Like I said, super thrilling yet fun. I really like this movie.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Directed by: Alfonso Cuarón

Written by: J.K. Rowling (novel) & Steve Kloves (screenplay)

Harry Potter's third year in Hogwarts is shadowed by another threath: a dangerous murderer Sirius Black has escaped the prison of Azkaban, and is apparently after Harry.

---

Cuarón was a way better choice compared to Columbus! Columbus' versions were clearly meant more for kids than (young) adults, but Cuarón knows how to make a film truly for the whole family. Prisoner of Azkaban is of course scary for kids, but not too terrifying, yet still thrilling for anyone older. 

Visually Prisoner of Azkaban exceeds two previous movies. It's a lot different, considering how simple the first movies tried to be. There cinematography is astonishing and the camera moves in fun ways - like through windows or mirrors, and that always fascinated me as a kid. Even if movies are meant for children, cinematographers shouldn't shy away from eccentric, artistic choices because kids will love them. 

Also Prisoner of Azkaban rocks as an adaptation. It has scenes that didn't exist in the book and many details added by those who made this film, yet they all work. Those conversations between Harry and Lupin were always amazing and even if they weren't in the book or they were in the book but in a different form, those conversations were amazing and deep and gave... some hope to it. Also this is the only movie that has Harry's messy hair right.

Prisoner of Azkaban really stands out from all the other Harry Potter movies. It's no wonder many claim it to be their favourite.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Directed by: Chris Columbus 

Written by: J.K. Rowling (novel) & Steve Kloves (screenplay)

It's time for Harry Potter to start his second year at the Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardry, but he gets a warning from the house-elf Dobby that he should not return. It's soon clear that many students of the school are in danger, when it seems the chamber of secrets have been opened, and someone is after the muggle-born students.

---

Compared to the first one, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is still very much meant for children. It's Chris Columbus' effect for the film. But still, this time the story is scarier and much darker. You can see the slight change in the atmosphere. But it's still not too dark or scary for the kids. This definitely reaches a larger target audience than just families. 

If you've seen the Harry Potter movies and read the books, the stories don't seem that great after a while. You are so used to them. But when I just finished watching this movie I understood how amazing this movie is when thinking about the fantasy elements. There's a great wizard (Salazar Slytherin) who's heir is after those whose blood is not as pure as Slytherin would want it. That't has elements of epic and also a great narrative about the treatment of minorities. If only any of those characters petrified by the monster would actually be a minority, instead of being just metaphors for minorities.

The Chamber of Secret feels like a much better adaptation compared to the first movie. Of course I haven't read the book for a while, but as much as I do remember, they didn't use the lines exactly the same way they were in the book. Most important scenes were preserved and this time the film didn't seem too quick - though this one was longer than the first movie. This was almost close to perfect: they chose just the right scenes to include. Of course there are few things that now weren't mentioned or shown, but people who read the books will know them, and people who don't read the books probably won't need them.

There are many visual choices I wouldn't agree with. Like when Harry realises who opened the chamber of secret this time, the flashbacks to that person were... lousy. They used weird effects where the shot was distorted and it just didn't seem to suit the scene anyway. Sure, the technology wasn't as good as what I'm used to seeing, but there had to be better way. Also there were annoyingly many fast, dramatic zooms which just seemed too humorous for the scenes they were used during.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

Now You See Me (2013)

Directed by: Louis Leterrier

Written by: Ed Solomon, Boaz Yakin & Edward Ricourt

After four magicians pull off a bank heist during their shows, both FBI and Interpol are trying to catch them.

---

I've wanted to see Now You See Me since I saw a GIF-set from the beginning of the movie. In the scene Jesse Eisenberg's character does a magic trick with a cards, and even through few GIFs the trick works, and that blew my mind. Another reason was that I saw the trailer for the sequel, and I wanted to see that, but didn't catch it at the theatre.

The cast of Now You See Me is excellent, and that's the first thing I noticed even before seeing the movie. All the actors and actresses are well known, and while they quickly feel like a weird combination, they all work well together. For example it's always a joy to see Woody Harrelson in a movie - if the movie is good, that is, because I've had enough disappointments with movies he was in.

While the cast is amazing, the characters are even more awesome, and every actor does their job wonderfully and with skill. In the beginning you very quickly learn the basics about the four magicians, but towards the end they don't have so many lines and it's mostly about the FBI and the Interpol trying to catch them, but during that short while you are introduced to four interesting characters, and while I think there's much more to know about them, I am content with what this film offered me. While it's easier to root for the magicians, Mark Ruffalo and Mélanie Laurent's characters also turn out to be more  than two-dimensional Lawful Good characters what we are used to in a crime mystery movies where the criminals seem to be more like heroes. 

The plot of his movie is sensational and clever. It sweeps you off your feet right in the beginning: you see characters and you want to know what that mysterious party wants with them. And as the movie goes on the plot just keeps getting bigger and bigger, larger than you'd think. The film is full of delicious plot twist, and each and every one of those work instead of just being there to confuse the audience. Now You See Me is like a magic trick, with misdirection and all.

But this film was so great and well written I'm pretty skeptical about the sequel. How could it be as good, because how could they introduce just as amazing plot twists? Also it never feels good when a director changes between two movies. I'm not familiar with Jon M. Chu, but comparing his filmography with Louis Leterrier's makes me a tiny bit suspicious. But still, I wouldn't want to miss out on Now You See Me 2. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

I Know Who Killed Me (2007)

Directed by: Chris Sivertson

Written by: Jeffrey Hammond

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

☆☆☆☆

4 / 10

Saw (2004)

Directed by: James Wan

Written by: Leigh Whannell & James Wan

Two men are trapped in a room and neither one of them has any idea why, until they realise they are pawns in a game controlled and led by a notorious serial killer called Jigsaw.

---

The idea I've had of the Saw movies has been that they are mostly senseless stodge, gore done for no other purpose but score, and especially I've been very doubtful because of the several sequels. Even gore movies should be done with some other purpose than money. I can't yet say if I'm wrong or right: I've only seen the first, and considering the director (and writers) seem to be different in the others, the first one might still be way better than the others.

But I was pleasantly surprised by the plot - no matter how weird the choice of words may seem. The plot was extremely intriguing in a way, but it could've been much simpler - and that way more effective. What if we'd lose most of the flashbacks in the film, so for the most part it would be just the two men in the room, talking to each other, until the crucial point something else is revealed? That's what I thought during the film, but now that I've seen it I can see how important the flashbacks were, but before the end they just felt unnecessary way to make the film longer. But everything did wrap up nicely. 

Still the plot is quite simple. I mean is there anything unnecessary in it? There's not too much violence, and the film is about 1,5 hours. The plot is so much closer to thriller mystery than gore horror. That's something I won't expect from the sequels, if I ever end up watching them. I think they might be overplaying the gore parts and downplaying the mysteries - but what we already found out in definitely why the mystery in the sequels would be ruined. But still, I can't say yet. This is just my speculation.

The cinematography bothered me the most. It seemed tacky and bad, and the sped up effects seemed just ridiculously stupid. Sure, the way this film was shot gave it a certain atmosphere, but it was quite annoying to look at.

Saw was a great movie, which I'd prefer to call thriller than horror. I'm still surprised how it isn't as violent as everyone always said it was. It's simple yet it surprises you. Saw is an amazing film, and I didn't think I'd like it, but here I am. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Sushi Girl (2012)

Directed by: Kern Saxton

Written by: Destin Pfaff & Kern Saxton

Fish has spent six years in prison. Once he is released, four men he protected by his silence invite him to a congratulatory dinner - sushi served on a naked girl. But it seems that the dinner has another purpose: to find the diamonds that went missing six years ago.

---

I found this film in the rental store ages ago, but at that time I didn't rent it. I was kind of suspicious. But it started to haunt me, I knew I had to see it. The summary on the DVD kept saying how Sushi Girl is easy to compare to Quentin Tarantino, and since that man is the love of my life. The next time it was either all rented or I just didn't find it. Eventually I got it, and from the moment it started I knew I was going to fall in love with the film. It has everything I love to see in a film: mystery, violence, beautiful women (or a beautiful woman, or it happens to be with Sushi Girl), tension and thrill, revenge and so many other details and themes, I can't even list them all.

The beginning of this movie is beyond perfect. It's quiet, it's slow, yet it's extremely intense. It's something that makes you know you're going to watch the whole movie. 

And right from the beginning the music of this film is amazing. I want to listen to the whole soundtrack again, that's how good it was. Towards the end of this film I almost forgot about the soundtrack, because while the film gets even more intense, the music doesn't distract the viewer, it enhances the feeling of the scene. Every track goes well with the moments they were tied with. They create such a great balance it's easy to just make the soundtrack merge with the scene. They just belong together. 

Sushi Girl is also visually extremely beautiful. There were so many shots I just looked at and thought they were absolutely perfect. Either it was the colours, the simplicity, the details or whatnot, the cinematography of Sushi Girl just doesn't let you down.

The plot of this movie is an excellently planned mystery. The makers of the film have left you with enough space to try to guess the truth with the slow pace of the film. While a lot of things happen during the movie, you still have time to think about it on your own, but the film-makers still have the ability to surprise you. 

The plot isn't the only brilliant writing about this film. The characters are interesting, and there's a lot you don't know, but you can bet the writes know almost every detail of the characters. Little piece about them is dropped every now and then, but it's hard to tell if those things are true or if the characters are just mocking each other. Every character has this tension between them all the time, you just expect some of them to beat the hell out of each other any minute, while the tensions between the others is weird, and you can't quite say what it is between them. 

And the dialogue, well, the dialogue is the best kind of dialogue I want from a movie. It's clear the writers of this film have learned from the best.

Sushi Girl is everything I hoped it would be and more. The only thing I can compare it to is Reservoir Dogs, but even if Sushi Girl is clearly heavily influenced by Reservoir Dogs, it is still different and its own movie. It has excellent writing, music, cinematography, characters, everything. It's interesting, thrilling and surprising. I love every thing about this film. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 10

"...the Internet and dreams are similar. They're areas where the repressed conscious mind escapes."

Year: 2006

Directed by: Satoshi Kon

Written by: Yasutaka Tsutsui (novel), Seishi Minakami & Satoshi Kon (screenplay)

All hell breaks lose when a machine used by therapists to record and watch their patients' dreams is stolen. Three scientists, a police inspector and a sprite named Paprika must try to find the thief and not submit to the mind tricks created by the machine and dreams.

---

What did I learn while watching this film? From now on I will always, always read some kind of summary of a film. For like most part of this movie I had no clue what was going on. And I still have no idea what Paprika really was. And I watched this film with my sister, and she too was super confused during this film. Usually not reading the summary doesn't affect me one way or the other, but this time I realised that there still are very confusing and complex movies that require some form of research before actually watching it.

There's one thing I'm certain of Paprika: it's a very creepy movie. It's creepy in a weird way, and I can tell you that music playing when the weird dream parade marches on the streets will probably haunt me forever. And because the biggest theme of the film are dreams, many of those creepy, terrifying moments make absolutely no sense, like dreams usually don't. That what makes it resemble a nightmare and why you feel like you're going to have nightmares, even if you're not actually scared during the film. I mean nightmares are terrifying when you're sleeping, but once you are awake, they seem ridiculous. So that goes with Paprika. Naturally you are awake while watching the film, and it makes no sense like nightmares don't once you are awake, but it still creates that weird nightmare like feel to it.

Even though this movie is mostly about dreams, I love how they were able to bring movies into it.

But yeah, let's be honest, this movie is visually so beautiful! The characters are drawn very well, so are the backgrounds and all the weird dream things. Even when this movie gets so very freaky, it still looks amazing.

Paprika is an interesting film and I wish I could write more about it, but unfortunately I think it would need a second watch - at least. Because during the first time I just felt like I was trying to get what was going on. But it's visually beautiful, the music is amazing and the plot and the dream theme are very complex and astonishing. Still, Paprika is definitely the weirdest film I've seen so far.

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6 / 10

"Laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone."

Year: 2003

Directed by: Park Chan-wook

Written by: Garon Tsuchiya (story), Nobuaki Minegishi (comic), Park Chan-wook, Chun-hyeong Lim, Jo-yun Hwang, Joon-hyung Lim

Oh Dae-Su is hold prisoner for 15 years, and he has no idea why. When he gets released, he has five days to get his vengeance and find out the reason for his imprisonment.

---

To be hones I'm in a shock right now. 

The story of Oldboy is absolutely horrible. And no, I don't mean it's written badly, I mean the story is so horrifying that after I was done I just had to sit and stare the screen for a while. The only thought in my head is: "What the hell did I just see?" This is the beauty of movies with clever plot twists that actually do surprise you: Oldboy, Primal Fear, Fight Club... I'm sure there are many more, but just making a list would be lazy. The plot twist in Primal Fear is just surprising. It's clever, but the thing is, it's not that bad. while Oldboy... That plot twist is absolutely shocking. And the story is well written even when you don't count the plot twist. The main character's narration gives a lot more interest to the story. The mystery is intriguing, and the writers have a way of keeping the viewer invested in the story. Even when you don't really like Oh Dae-Su, you still want to know why. And even Oh Dae-Su is not really a likeable character, you still wonder if he deserved that. That would be an interesting philosophical debate.

There are a few group fight scenes in this film, and they are excellent. They are well coordinated and enjoyable (or as enjoyable as fight scenes are) to watch. The visual side of Oldboy amazes with how good it looks when it needs to. There were few gore-y scenes, yet nothing too horrifying was shown, so something was left to imagination. Still those scenes keep you on the edge of your seat.

There's always that one problem when watching a foreign film: cultural differences. That's mostly the case with Asian movies. When a character says something you find weird, is it a cultural thing, or is that character weird even in that culture? That problem wasn't that huge with Oldboy though. How many Korean movies have I seen? Not enough, but Oldboy definitely gives a good first impression on Korean cinema. 

Oldboy is a very well made movie. It's shocking, and I'm not sure how good it is when you watch it a second time, but at least after this first time I am astonished - and shocked. I'd love to recommend this movie but I don't know how risky that would be. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

"Oh, you believe in Jesus now, huh, bitch? Good, 'cause you 'bout to meet him!"

Year: 2015

Directed and written by: Quentin Tarantino

A bounty hunter and his prisoner are heading for Red Rock, when they encounter another infamous bounty hunter and a man who calls himself Red Rock's new sheriff. While the blizzard is brewing, they find shelter at Minnie's Haberdashery. They meet unfamiliar faces there, and it starts to become clear they won't make it to Red Rock after all...

---

If there is one director who never lets you down, it's Tarantino. His newest film, The Hateful Eight is an excellent thriller with great story, cinematography and music - but who would expect any less? Right from the start The Hateful Eight captures the viewer, even though it has its slow pace.

Tarantino is a very skilful writer. His characters are real, and not just some plain cardboard characters to fill out the blanks between the story. His dialogue is natural and amazing. The story of The Hateful Eight is simple when it's explained shortly, but it has many layers, just like most of his movies. And just like most of his movies, the events aren't in chronological order, but important pieces from before are revealed when needed. The thrill of the story is well built, and the violent action scenes are balanced with slow, calm scenes. 

I am glad to see Tarantino doesn't rely on mindless 3D technology to make a mediocre film look better. Many films that don't need 3D use it anyway. The Hateful Eight does look good though - it looks amazing. Every shot has whatever they need, the colours and details are astonishing. 

Tarantino's films always have the most amazing soundtracks. The soundtrack of  The Hateful Eight has several amazing pieces that shouldn't work with the movie, but they do, and they do so beautifully. One this kind of track is Apple Blossom by The White Stripes. Also L'Ultima Diligenza Di Red Rock by Ennio Morricone - and all the variants played throughout the film - is haunting. It reminds of the beginning of The Shining, except this is way better. That track also seems out of place, because it would suit some classic yet indie horror movie because of the sinister vibes it gives. But it is perfect for this film.

I think I loved every detail of this film. Of course there are slurs thrown around all the time, but it gives the certain effect to the characters: they are far from perfect. I don't think there was one character here that was completely good and pure. 

The Hateful Eight is a masterpiece. The rhythm is good, the film is balanced and it's violent in almost a funny way. This is definitely a film I will see in the cinemas again, because the big screen surely shows The Hateful Eight in its full potential.

 ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 10

And don't think I'll stop here. I ordered a Tarantino collection with everything from Reservoir Dogs to The Inglourious Basterds. I sure as hell am going to watch them all. Sure, I've written about them before, but it never hurts to do them again, considering I wrote about Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill when I was 16 and just starting. Ugh!

"When Logan said 'jump', did you actually say 'how high' or was there just an understanding that you would achieve max verticality?"

Year: 2014

Director: Rob Thomas

Writers: Rob Thomas & Diane Ruggiero

Veronica Mars gets pulled back to her hometown to help an old friend being accused of murder and just in time for high school reunion.

First of all, I haven't watched Veronica Mars TV show - ever. That's why it might have been a mistake to watch a movie, right? I didn't know any of the characters, I didn't what had happened before and all that... So why watch the movie? I don't know, the Internet was working, and I felt lie watching something else than all those stupid comedy movies I've been watching from Netflix. I just saw Veronica Mars and I went with it.

Luckily for me, there was this quick sum up in the beginning - what was the TV show about, the basics. That seems very helpful for people who haven't seen the show and for those who have maybe watched the whole series once and might have forgotten something. So thank you for that.

I'll shortly comment on the techniques: cinematography was decent, but not excellent. I like the idea of seeing text messages on the screen instead of those awkward close ups to the phones. Putting the text on the screen is easier for the viewer. You see the text, and the reaction, and it takes less time than zooming in and out. The music was alright. The original score must've been really insignificant, because I can barely remember anything from it. The chosen songs were alright.

The murder seemed interesting, but not really a movie material. In movies it's better to have more complicated murders and crimes, mostly because they require more time. Hannibal is one exception of a TV show with really weird murders that still work well for TV. Anyway, the crime in this movie felt too simple and almost normal. It felt like it could've been just an episode of the show, which is understandable. I'd guess it's hard to make a movie adaptation out of a TV show, and give it cinematic elements that are always missing from almost any show - it would feel wrong to the fans. It's easy to stuck with what you know, in this case, making things for TV. At points I was actually waiting for a commercial break.

The story and the murder got more interesting than what I expected from the start. Still, I felt like something was missing. Everything felt so simple, I almost hoped for something much darker, almost scarier. But that may not be what Veronica Mars is all about. 

In short, decent flick with interesting details. Those details however weren't enough to make this movie really stand out. It was mild and bland. I guess you need to be a fan to appreciate this movie.

☆☆☆☆☆

5 / 10

"I know what you're doing. I will not let you hurt my children."

Year: 2009

Director: Jaume Collet-Serra

Writers: David Johnson, Alex Mace (story)

After a family adopts a 9-year-old girl, some weird and dangerous things start to happen: weird accidents, people get hurt and even killed.

I remember when I was in middle school and we were skiing in P.E.. Few of my friends were and probably still are obsessed with horror movies, and they were talking about this movie. They actually told the whole plot, all twists, everything. I was fine with it, because I thought I would never watch this movie. But now, four years later, I watched this movie.

The first thing I noticed was the colours. Mostly the colours used were grey, white, black, brown... Neutral, earthy colours, except for when brighter more striking colours were used for certain effect. The use of colours in this movie was excellent, even though otherwise the cinematography was pretty average and typical.

I also pointed out the fact that the biological daughter Max was deaf. Her character didn't rely just on that fact, which is good. It's good to have disabled characters in movies for "no good reason", and it's even better to make their story not about being deaf. True, this movie was not about Max, but even if you look it from her point of view, it's not just about her being deaf. I like that. 

The orphan Esther has something in common with the whole movies. Neither of them is truly scary, just really, really disturbing. Esther's character is interesting, but not as interesting as many other villains in thriller movies. I think that might have something to do with how they revealed everything from her backstory, and she didn't have a good, interesting, unique motive. I think in the end they made her motive very cheaply, even though otherwise her story was very intriguing 

I first thought this was a horror movie, but apparently not. Well, typical style of horror movies was used a lot, but the plot and Esther are mostly from the thriller genre. Rarely the dialogue was like in horror movies, like I said about Poltergeist the other day. In horror movies the dialogue is relaxed and almost playful, when characters aren't talking about current events going on. But this movie was a very good thriller, I felt really charged during the movie.

Like I said before, I knew the whole plot. But did it ruin the movie? Actually it did not. The experience was still thrilling even though I knew all about Esther right away. I think this movie might actually require two viewings, if you don't know about Esther already, because when you watch it the second time, you have a different look on Esther since you know her motives, and what she is aiming for.

This movie was very intense, very disturbing, but all in all it wasn't a masterpiece. I had higher expectations, I think. Still, definitely worth seeing.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10