"Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention."

Two detectives, a rookie and a veteran, are trying to catch a murderer. This murder chooses victims, who have committed one of the seven deadly sins.

I'm pretty sure most people have heard of Se7en. It might be stupid to assume that, but on the other hand Se7en is kind of a cult classic. I mean the plot - at least the small summary of the plot - is familiar to a lot of people. And I bet most of you have at least heard that one line being quoted, you know. "What's in the box?!"

I personally am grown tired of the deadly seven sins. Like whenever they are used they feel like such a cliché - which they totally have become by now. I mean I don't care how the seven sins are used; if there are "characters" based on these sins, if they are reason to kill someone, or whatever writers can possibly come up with. Most of those references to deadly seven sins are very tiring. Well, then again most references to Christianity are tiring, because people like to use the same things over and over. But for some reason I despise the deadly seven sins - and the seven virtues. Maybe it's that they are so old-fashioned, out-dated. the "new seven sins" feel so much more accurate at this time. ¨

I actually didn't think I'd watch this movie, because I didn't feel interested enough. (You can probably see why from my rant above) However Goodreads recommended the book for me, and I read it. I really liked the book, though. At first it felt like some really cheap literature you can buy at a kiosk, you know. But when it went on, it became really thrilling and I just had to keep on reading it, because when something very interested happened, there still was too many pages left, so you just know it's not over yet. And I read the whole book, even though at first it felt really, yeah, "cheap". But it was very, very good. If we compare, the movie isn't much different to the book - or actually the other way 'round. The book is in this case based on the movie. 

HOWEVER there's one thing that makes the book better. The book is almost humble. It doesn't try to be any better than it was. It was like someone just wrote it to get money so they can stay alive for weeks. The movie on the other hand, compared to the book, feels like it's trying too hard. Too hard to be all deep and thrilling and mysterious. It's weird how the book was better, I was almost certain movie would be based on it, because the book felt so much clearer - it had much more in it, but mostly just characters' inner thoughts and all that, nothing really relevant. I have a feeling I can't even but it in words, but the book had something the movie didn't. 

I think I'm starting to dislike Fincher. I mean Panic Room was good, Se7en was disappointing and, well, when I saw Fight Club I thought it was really good. I had read the book like three or four years earlier. I read the book again and I had a feeling Fincher didn't get it right at all. It's a good movie but it's... it's not Fight Club. I should watch the movie again and do another, angrier review, I think.  I think this is why I'm not interested in going to see the new movie by Fincher...

☆☆☆☆☆

5 / 10

"I knew there was something fishy. We never got the cause of death. She's been murdered, and you think I did it."

An author is staing at the Grand Budapest, and then notices an older man. He finds out that the man is Zero Moustafa, the current owner of the hotel. Moustafa then begins to tell a story about a concierge of Grand Budapest, Gustave H, and how he was accused of murdering a woman, and other adventures they shared between the first and second world wars.

I think I wanted to see The Grand Budapest hotel ever since I first learned about it. I don't even know what made me so interested. I just had the feeling I might like it. And I was right - I truly did. For many reasons.

There's one thing about this movie that is needless to say, but I'll say it all the same: the cast is amazing. Many famous actors and actresses, but most of them in very small roles. Ralph Fiennes was amazing, of course his role wasn't exactly small. Fiennes was amazing and so was his character, who was awfully polite and friendly in a weird way. I mean it totally was professional politeness that was there even though he wasn't working, but it felt weirdly genuine, even though it was completely over the top. Then of course there was the lovely Saoirse Ronan who I've liked even before I saw her in a movie. She's a wonderful actress, and extremely... well, lovely is the best word. Then there was Edward Norton, who I've loved since The Incredible Hulk. His character Henckels was hilarious in a weird way - the character was totally serious, but somehow all the situations seemed weirdly funny. Or maybe it was just me, I don't know. And of course there was Tony Revolori, who I need to see in other movies as well, he was marvellous.  There are many wonderful actors and actresses, and I really can't talk about all of them this much, or the whole post will be just adoring actors and actresses, even though I really want to talk about more things. But there are several actors I'd like to mention, that I was glad they were there, even if they didn't do much: Jeff Goldblum, Harvey Keitel, Jude Law and Jason Schwartzman.

Now to the other thing I'd been dying to write about. The filmography in this film was amazing - and I've heard Wes Anderson does this kinda filmography often: it's how the shot is centred. There's always that one part you can see is at the centre of the shot, and usually the background is very symmetric. Then of course the characters are somehow there, not usually in the middle, but your attention goes where it needs to go. Like at one point were Dmitri was chasing (well, walking) after Agatha, it took me a while to notice that Henckels was at the corner of the shot. I almost bursted out laughing when I noticed him. But I absolutely loved the filmography. I think I might watch another movie by Wes Anderson just for the sake of looking at some beautiful filmography.

And this movie made me realise something about the genre "comedy". I mean when I think about the genre "comedy", first movies that come to my mind are actually the crappiest examples of that genre. And then there's The Grand Budapest hotel, which is probably one of the very finest examples of comedy. It's not forced comedy, and it's not the kind of comedy that makes you laugh at every joke. No, it's the kind of comedy where the situation just makes everything a tiny bit funnier. True, it's not as funny as some not-so-subtle comedy, but even though you may not laugh at everything, subtle comedy makes you happy, and you might smile after the movie without noticing.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is a great movie, and I hope people who haven't seen it will watch it. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ 

10/10

"You are here on account of one person; do you know who that one person is?" "Yeah, my no-good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather."

Stanley Yelnats is sent to a camp Greenlake for stealing shoes from homeless shelter - though Stanley never did anything of the sort. At the camp the boys are forced to dig holes in the desert for no apparent reason except that digging would build their character and make them better people. But something does seem off with the digging. The movie also explores the history of the lake years before, and the life of Stanley's great-great-grandfather, who all the Yelnats' blame for the curse of the family and their bad luck.

I remember reading the book in middle school. We had about three weeks to read the book and I read in one day - and not even day before it was due, but right when the assignment was given. It was easy to read the whole thing quickly; it was smoothly written and the story was interesting. After reading the book we watched the movie in class. And Holes is probably one of the very few movies that are a right spot on if compared to the book. Like sure, many lines are missing, but that isn't important when the whole theme otherwise is very well explored. 

I really like the characters in the movie - though most of them aren't really that important characters. Most of the kids just are at the camp and trying to live with the whole thing. Most of the characters however are really interesting, and I'd really like to know more about them. Well, Louis Sachar has written Small steps which is about one of the other boys at the camp - Theodore, better known as Armpit. I think I should read that book once, just for the sake of getting some more of this. I've actually borrowed it several times but I just didn't even start reading it, don't know why. A lot of other characters seem marvellous too, though they are explored better than the kids at the camp. One very good example is Kissin' Kate Barlow. She's really interesting, and I'd actually like to read more about her, but I don't think there is anything else to know about her. Then again there's the Warden... She was interesting character, though I don't feel like I'd like to know anything else about her. It's like I'm done with her. 

Music in the movie is wonderfully used. Most of the songs aren't probably something I'd actually like to listen to on my spare time, but they work really well for the movie. And to be honest, I guess that's more important than using "good songs". Music has to go with the movie otherwise it's just useless.

But even though the movie is good and I appreciate how well it was adapted, for some reason I don't like it that much. I mean that I know it's good, but I don't think I'll watch it in another let's say three years. I mean it's very simple plot. And most of the beauty of the plot is there when you first watch it / read the book. You get the "OH" -feeling when you realise why something is happening and all that. Though now that I watched it like after three or four years, I didn't remember every detail in it. Though I think next time it probably wouldn't be at all surprising, because seeing something two times makes you remember most of the plot. At least that's how it works for me.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ 

7/10

"Haven't you heard of peace on earth and goodwill toward men?" "NO!"

Jack the Pumpkin is feeling depressed after Halloween, which seems easier and easier year after year. He wanders around and finds himself in Christmastown! He suddenly feels inspired again - and he decides to plan Christmas.

There's that eternal problem with this movie - do you watch it during Halloween or Christmas? Well, we watched it in September.. Which is close enough to Halloween.

I've always liked this movie. Even though I have seen it many times it hasn't lost its magic. It's partly because of the wonderful soundtrack. All the songs are fun, and I know almost every one of them by heart. To be honest, I probably annoyed my sister by singing all the songs. The lyrics are just simply amazing and melodies are simple and catching - and that's all you need in a good musical: lyrics that carry out the story and melody that gets into the audience's head. My favourite songs are probably "This is Halloween", "Jack's lament", "Kidnap The Sandy Claws", "Sally's song" and "Poor Jack". Even though there's this really cool album with all the songs sang again (meaning This is Halloween performed by Marilyn Manson and Sally's Song performed by Amy Lee and what else), the original soundtrack is much better.

But what's more amazing is the animation. Stop motion animation will always be hundred times more impressive than CGI animations. Stop motion looks amazing, it has a lot more 3D feeling than 3D CGI has, which of course only makes sense since the characters and things actually exist, they are actual things rather than inside some computer program. And also... the patience the animators must have. But the animation is one of the reasons for the magic of this movie. I don't think it would have the same eerie feeling in Halloween town if it was simply CGI or the traditional animation. 

All the actors are also well chosen. What I most love is Danny Elfman singing Jack's songs. He has magnificent voice. Though I keep wondering why didn't he do the whole thing - is it because he isn't an actor? I mean voice acting is challenging, so if Elfman hasn't done any acting then I kind of understand. But Chris Sarandon has such a similar voice, which is why it took me a while to even realise there was something different with Jack's singing and speaking. I think accent or something gave it away. Also Catherine O'Hara is marvellous as Sally. I especially love her voice when she sings Sally's song. There's something unique in her singing voice. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9/10

"How dare you be rude to this women who has invited us into her tent, offered us her hedgehog?" "Says the man who throws women from trains."

While the world is in the middle of crisis, bombings and a possible start of war, Sherlock Holmes knows who is behind all terrorist attacks - not nationalists, not anarchists, but professor J. Moriarty. Holmes takes Watson, who was looking forward to his honeymoon, on his hunt for the professor across the Europe.

I remember when everyone was excited about the last Harry Potter movie, and at the same time I was freaking out over the trailer of this. And I think I went to see it two times. I've seen the other movie too, but A Game of Shadows is way better. I mean for one thing it has an actual villain from the stories, and not some cult leader who comes back from dead. Don't get me wrong, the first movie was also brilliant, but seemed a bit far fetched. It seemed like something sir Arthur Conan Doyle would roll his eyes at. Then again that man would roll his eyes at anything Sherlock Holmes related, since he truly hated the stories. He truly wanted to kill the Holmes character but the fans didn't let him. I'm just waiting for film or a TV show that finally gives audience the true ending sir Arthur Conan Doyle wanted.

Even though I liked Moriarty in this film, I don't like him as a character at all. Actually I phrased that wrong. He's a great character, but his character is used wrong. In the stories he appears in two short stories. And in the TV shows and movies he's used again and again and again. This is kinda why I did like the villain in the first movie more, but then again the first movie was ruined by Moriarty doing secretly stuff in the background. And if there's a stand-alone Sherlock Holmes movie, who is the villain? It's almost exclusively Moriarty. It's annoying, I mean he is one villain and there are so many.

If there's one thing I adore in Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes movies it's the special effects. They are extremely well done and effective. And I also love how they made Holmes a good fighter. I mean in the stories he kind of is - at least he's strong and all that. But in the TV shows and other movies I've seen he doesn't fight that much. Of course that's kind of different these days, but I like seeing fighting Holmes. It kind of shows that if he really wants to, he can be an expert in many, many things, and he's not just clever. It more like seems that... Holmes thought martial arts were interesting, and he studied them - probably read about them mostly - and then adapted to them. I don't know, but I really like the idea.

I sort of hope for the third part, but then again I don't know what they could even do. I mean the ending of this movie was perfect on it's own, so it could be amazing just to leave it at that, you know. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
8/10

"Nice wig, Janis. What's it made of?" "Your mom's chest hair!"

Cady has been home-schooled most her life, but now it's time for her to join the actual high school world. By accident Cady finds herself befrieding three most popular and most feared girls known as the plastics. With some aid from other friends, she starts to sabotage the plastics from the inside, but by what cost?

That was a really lame summary by me, as usual.

If I like something about this movie, it's the script and the writing. I mean it's amazing. It was really hard to try looking for the best possible quote for the title of the post, because this movie has many of the best quotes, and many of the best known quotes also. I mean when I first saw the movie, I was like "So that's where that's from", over and over again. The one-liners are usually so much fun. But then there's also Cady's inner narration, which has a lot of longer parts, which are also very well written.

And then of course there's the thing that this movie teaches a very important lesson. Ms Norbury says at that one part: "You all have got to stop calling each other sluts and whores. It just makes it ok for guys to call you sluts and whores." That lien is something most girls should take note of. And why not boys too. 

If I can say one other thing - I mean I should say more things, but I only have this one to say - I used to like this movie. It's well written, it's fun and it has a good purpose. But... you get tired of it. And I don't usually go for high school movies, with a few exceptions that all include James Spader. I just don't enjoy watching high school stuff, I mean I'm living through high school right now. Like I'd rather watch something else. Sure, high school in US is probably a bit different, but still, you know. I want to watch something I haven't experienced. Not that I've experienced stuff like Mean Girls, Easy A and Pretty In Pink, but I mean... high school is high school. It's hell, why is there so many movies about it? I feel like they are mostly for the teenagers not yet in high school, I don't know. The only high school thing I like to watch regularly is Sabrina The Teenage Witch, but come on, Sabrina is a witch. Her life is a bit more exciting.

I've seen this movie several times, yes. I only watched it now so I could do a review. I didn't do any last week nor this week (until now) and I feel... weird if I don't do any in several weeks. I feel weirdly guilty. Now anyway, woohoo, mission accomplished, one review done. I have no idea what to watch next week.

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6/10