"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

"Alternates, will you clean the blood off my drum set?"

A young and talented drummer has dreams of fame and greatness, but is abused by his music professor, who pushes him beyond what is expected of him.

I wasn't sure if I'd ever end up watching Whiplash. Eventually I was both intrigued by the movie, but also tired because my friend Lotta kept praising the movie. I sort of wanted to see something great, and kind of prove my friend wrong.

I used to play piano in a really good music academy on my spare time for about four or five years, but then quit because I couldn't stand my teacher. Well, she was not so bad compared Fletcher, portrayed by J. K. Simmons. She, too, kept pushing me, and it felt annoying since I didn't have the passion for music at that time. Mostly it also bothered me, because I had school and she made me perform in these concert twice a year and it was very stressful. 

My struggles with music and studying music really seem like heaven compared to what our main character Andrew had to go through. This movie was really painful to watch because of the abusing teacher. I have to say that Miles Teller portrayed Andrew's physical and mental pain extremely well, which almost unfortunately made the viewing even more painful. Of course it could be worse: the movie could be painful to watch because it bad. In this case it's painful only because the pain is portrayed so well. 

The story was good, had a really nice structure to it. If there's one thing that maybe bothered me - seriously I'm not sure if it did when I look at the bigger part - is the beginning. Everything starts kind of fast, like there we have Andrew playing drums and then Fletcher shows up and everything. We don't know much about Andrew at that point, and that I think is okay, since we're going to know all there is to know about his character. But we have no idea who Fletcher is. It's not said. Then again it's also going to be clear. And we see a lot about Fletcher in the way Andrew is reacting to him. And of course when you know something about the movie, you know who Fletcher is. 

And if there's something I really want to talk about, it's music. I mean I talk about music on almost every single one of my reviews, and finally I have a reason to really, really talk about it. The music in this movie was - you guessed it - amazing. I don't usually even go for jazz, but it was just great listening to the music in this movie. Seriously, it was just perfect. Of course there was the one thing I've started to love: drums. Since when have I liked drums so much? Since Birdman (Or The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance). Yes, I'm bringing that movie up once again. The soundtrack of Birdman was mostly percussions, and in Whiplash, well, the main character plays drums. And it's fantastic how much diversity there can be while playing only drums. You can have so many different rhythms and it doesn't even sound repetitive if you listen to only percussion music for hours. It's great.

I wasn't exactly sure how to rate the movie. I was kinda going in between two different marks, and I asked my friend Lotta for help, and basically she decided the rating. I have no complaints though. I can trust her taste in movies. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 10

"I felt it. Perfect. I was perfect."

A ballet dancer Nina gets the role of Swan Queen in Swan Lake. She is perfect for the role of White Swan, which is why she needs to invest in the Black Swan. Slowly she gets deep into the role, and starts to lose her mind.

When Black Swan came out, I thought it was ridiculous. I don't know why, I guess I was a bit immature then. But I didn't know what it was about, I didn't know anything about it, except that it was about ballet and some really trivial things. And now, well, I've grown as a human being and as a movie viewer. 

And of course there's that one other reason that made me interested in Black Swan right now. The story of Black Swan mixes artists and mental illness. I've found myself to be very fond of that combination in fiction. Any kind of art is always tough for its artist, but it gets almost agonizing when it's taken to a certain level. Not every artist who practices their art daily feel like this, but not everyone is putting their whole soul to the work. Some artists do that. And I think dance is a very painful form of art. If you put your soul into it, it can be really tormenting mentally, but it's also painful physically - especially when we are talking about ballet. Even when you're just looking at pictures of the ballet dancers' footwork, it might feel painful. I can't imagine how hard and excruciating the pain can be.

I actually want to compare Birdman (Or The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance) to Black Swan. Here's the review of Birdman, if you feel the need to read that before reading my comparison. 

Both of the movies have an artist as a main character, a ballet dancer and an actor. Both of them are losing their mind, even though it's slower and less clear in Birdman. And both movies have the same kind of structure, in a way that it's focusing on practice / previews, and the premiere is what really shows us, what has happened to our main characters during their course. Then again there are differences in the characters. Nina and Riggan Thomson are at completely different stages of their lives. Riggan Thomson is well past his middle age, and it seems that his career is over, and that's why the play is important to him.  Nina is young and still lives with her mother. Partly the story of Black Swan is focusing on her growth, but maybe mostly the fact that she's still partly a little girl, who is going insane and craves the things adults have. She (also) craves for successful career and fame. Of course she also craves for perfection. Perfection was mostly what she aimed for, all the time, which was the problem. That's why she took everything so harshly, that's why the role of Black Swan was so hard to her, an that's why the role had so great impact on her.* So Nina still doesn't have the things Thomson once had (apart from the perfection, I don't think Thomson had a problem with that). That's one the key differences between the characters - you know, other than their gender. 

I haven't really seen so many movies directed by Darren Aronofsky. I've only seen The Fountain, which was astonishingly beautiful and heartbreaking. Black Swan was surprisingly different. Of course you can see Aronofsky's metaphorical handprint on it, I'm not saying the movie has nothing in common artistically speaking with The Fountain. The story and the themes just are so different. I think I should see the other movies directed by Aronofsky to be able to truly compare the themes found in the movie.

And suddenly my review got a really analysis-like feel to it. Just few days ago I was defending myself online, saying how my posts are reviews and not analyses...

Anyway, I loved the actresses chosen for their roles. I say actresses, because female characters were way more significant to this story than the male characters. Natalie Portman was astonishing, and she portrayed her character so very well. There might be actresses out there, who are just as good as her, or even better, but I truly think Portman was exquisite choice for this part. Mila Kunis was also very good choice. The contrast between Portman and Kunis was magnificent. Both of them also played well the character, and then the "other version" of the character. Nina's character sometimes so herself, but different, the Black Swan. The difference between the real Nina and the Black Swan Nina was good. I can't say if they were too different, in the way there was nothing same in them, because the other one was shown so little.

Clint Mansell's score was also amazing. It mixed really well with the music of Pjotr Tšaikovski. Mansell is a great composer - his music seems always so different. Compared to Elfman, Zimmer, and other really, really often used composers, because you are almost always able to recognise their style.

Many of my friends were complaining a lot about Black Swan. Mostly it was about how confusing this movie was. I actually have no idea what they mean, because everything they had said, some scene they didn't understand, etcetera, were pretty clear, when you look at the bigger picture. Sure, even though you know what some confusing and even "disconnected" part is happening, it might still feel a little odd or useless.

Anyway, I liked Black Swan. It was magnificent, beautiful, disturbing and distressing.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

*Of course someone else could say that I'm wrong, and they have their own reading of Nina. And yes, I may very well be incorrect on many things, and I blame that on the fact that this is my first time of viewing this. I'd need many more viewings to be able to read Nina on many different 

Academy Awards 2015

Sadly, I was boycotting Oscars by not watching - which is something I do every year, and it's not like my boycotting is influencing anything. So I have no comment on the show itself, but of course I do have something to say about the winners.

First of all I'm glad that fascist white propaganda movie they call American Sniper didn't win anything but one award, and it was one of the least meaningful awards to be honest. And to be even more honest, it would'be been better if it hadn't won anything at all. I think it was a mistake to even think it was worth the nominations - too many Muslims have felt unsafe because of the movie, and too many people have been actually assaulted because of the movie. So it's total crap propaganda about how great it is to kill Muslims. I want you to read this on American Sniper. I don't know if it's the best one of those, but still. 

And then, I'm so glad Birdman (Or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) won The Best Picture. Also best cinematography and original screenplay and direction. Funnily enough, as I said at the end of my review:

• "If Birdman doesn't win Best Picture or Best Directing or Best Cinematography, then I guess I don't know as much about movies as I'd like to."

Now I can safely say I know just as much about movies as I thought. So I'm not being pretentious and that's a relief. Anyway, I could quote through my whole review, because I've commented almost every part that it won. I'm not so sure if I talked about direction, but direction defines basically everything in the movie, so I have no idea why it should mentioned separately. 

But still, Alejandro González Iñárritu did one hell of a job directing Birdman. It truly is one of the most astonishing films I've ever seen, and deserves all the awards. Then again, I was hoping for Michael Keaton to catch Actor In A Leading role. 

And this leads us to Eddie Redmayne winning Actor In A Leading Role, for his role as Stephen Hawking. I was guessing that, but then again it wasn't really surprising. Basically Redmayne and Keaton were the only ones in this category that could've won and for reasons, but Redmayne seemed more likely to be a winner than Keaton. I haven't seen The Theory Of Everything yet, and I'm not sure if I will. I've always admired Stephen Hawking, which is why I get very emotional over movies about him. 

I'm also glad for the fact that Julianne Moore won Actress In A Leading Role. I was really hoping for her to, however I was also ready to bet on Rosamund Pike for her role in Gone Girl. I haven't seen Moore's performance in Still Alice - I meant to see the movie, but the audio wasn't working when we tried. The nominees in this category were a lot better than in Best Actor, but still it was easy to bet on Moore, Pike. I also had a strong feeling about Reese Witherspoon, but I'm really glad it was Moore who won, because she is excellent actress, and one of my favourites.

Actor In Supporting Role went for J. K. Simmons in Whiplash. I haven't seen that movie, but I've seen clips. J. K. Simmons seemed to truly deserve his award, I'm not saying anything otherwise. Of course I'm a bit disappointed, but I was only rooting for my favourite actor in this category, but I really didn't think he'd win it. My friend Lotta was sure about J. K. Simmons, so I went with it. Actress In Supporting Role went for Patricia Arquette for her role in Boyhood. I hadn't really heard about her, I mean she didn't seen familiar. She has been in True Romance, a movie based on Quentin Tarantino's screenplay, but nothing else seems something I should know. Am I just not aware of something, or is she not as "big" as the others? Anyway, at this point I was rooting and betting for Emma Stone (for Birdman) and Meryl Streep (Into the Woods)

At this point it's good to point out that all these nominees for Actor or Actress in whatever role were white. Not a single person of colour was nominated for best actor / actress. And from what I recall (I'm too lazy to check, and I know that's a mistake, someone correct me if I'm wrong) Alejandro González Iñárritu was the only director that wasn't white. Also none of the directors were women. Way to be racist and sexist, Academy.*

So that's about that. That were the (most important) winners this year. Now let's hope this year of films will be even better, and let the nominees be more exciting next year.

Sources:

Oscars

iMDB

* Of course there's more to this. This might also be something interesting to read.

"I'm through with love, I'll never fall again."

A girl gets her father together with a woman she knows almost everything about, while her half-sister gets engaged, but meets someone more exciting.

Basically Everyone Says I Love You is about relationships and love-life of this one family. Everyone has some kind of drama at one point, so yeah.

First of all, this is the first movie I've seen by Woody Allen. I don't know what I was expecting, but well, somehow Everyone Says I Love You was exactly what I expected - except for all that singing, that was a bit of surprise. Especially when I learnt that Tim Roth can sing - if he did really sing his parts. (Apparently he did, everyone did except Drew Barrymore)

Actually I have a feeling I wrote so much about The Shining I may not be so successful with this one.

Well, the movie was funny. I give it that. But it was also quite boring, especially when I usually don't want to watch movies that only revolve around relationships. And the fact that it had so many different stories kind of made the boring parts worse, because I got interested in the relationship between two characters, and then everything else seemed like it was in the way for that story. I just wanted those stories to go faster so I'd get to the "good parts." 

Also the movie was kind of bizarre, mostly because of the singing. Because the musical parts were highlighted. And in the end DJ, the narrator, mentioned how her sister said how if this was a movie, it should be a musical, otherwise no one would believe it. And DJ earlier kind of breaks the fourth wall mentioning it is a musical. And it's like everyone is aware of singing, but it's not considered off. Like in musicals usually no one says anything about anyone singing, because somehow they aren't singing, it's their way of doing dialogue. I have no idea if that makes sense, I hope it does. 

The cast was incredible, and almost unbelievable. Like there's Woody Allen (no surprise there), Goldie Hawn, Julia Roberts, Drew Barrymore, Edward Norton, Tim Roth, Natasha Lyonne, Natalie Portman... Like so many people in same movie, it was almost unbelievable. And it's so weird  considering Norton's only movie role before this was in Primal Fear, it's like, in two roles his career was so varied compared to some actors' / actresses' whole career. Like first thriller / drama and then romantic comedy musical. 

☆☆☆☆

4 / 10

Also after this movie, I'm 64 % done with my challenge. Ten more movies to go.

"Wendy? Darling? Light, of my life. I'm not gonna hurt ya. You didn't let me finish my sentence. I said, I'm not gonna hurt ya. I'm just going to bash your brains in."

A family is watching over a hotel for the winter. The father is slowly falling into madness, while his psychic son keeps seeing the horrible things that have happened in the hotel many years ago.

We decided to watch this last night when few of my friends were over, and since that was about 16-17 hours ago, I don't remember everything I thought while watching, but I will be trying my best with this review.

First of all, I haven't read the book. Well, I've read it, I just haven't finished it. The thing is, I don't like Stephen King. I like his short stories, but his novels just are too... well, I'd say "too complicated", but that's not the case. It's like he had tried to make them confusing and all that. The Shining is very hard to read. But the movie is not strictly base on it as the mini TV-show. In the movie, you can very much see Kubrick's ideas and what he's added to it. The novel has way too mane almost useless scenes and details, so it would be hard to make a film without leaving several things out of the movie. 

Jon S. Baird once said on Twitter, that so many movies would be much better, if they cut the useless stuff away and made it shorter. And I couldn't agree more, especially when we talk about The Shining. Kubrick made the movie so very very slow. There are scenes that happen twice slower than what's necessary. Of course I'm aware that it's an artistic decision, but it's frustrating. Of course things being slow can be a good thing in a horror film, but let's face it, the Japanese horror movies work that a lot better than American / British ones. And especially when you're watching a movie like The Shining with your friends, it's very frustrating. Last night everyone was practically screaming for the movie to pick up the pace and just get on with it. Some might argue that it's just because The Shining is a horror movie, and the slowness is frustrating because people are scared, but Id on't think that's it.

But is The Shining scary? I actually don't feel like it. It's distressing, yes, in a way thrillers are, but it's not scary. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But then again thinking about Kubrick's style making this movie makes The Shining seem more like an art film than a horror. That may also be because these days horror films are no way near art. Think about Paranormal Activity. They aren't made for the sake of art, but because of the makers simply crave for more and more dollars. You can definitely look at Kubrick's work an be almost sure that he wasn't in it for money.

I'd like to point out, that I like Kubrick's style very much. It might seem right now that I don't. I just don't think it suits with horror films, and his films can't be viewed as entertainment, they have to be viewed as art, and not everyone has the patience for that.

The characters are all very frustrating in this movie. I don't like any of the main characters, but how can anyone? Jack's just fucking insane, and when Wendy would have to do something, she spends time crying and panicking. I know, that's what most people would do in that kind of situation, but it's frustrating. That goes with every horror story with characters like this. My friend pointed out, that when Wendy sees how Jack flips, she never gets that adrenaline rush you could (or would) probably get. And of course then there's Danny who just... I don't know, his character makes me feel so distressed. He just sees things, and what's up with his imaginary friend Tony? I actually don't remember if there was something really important about Tony, him being even partly real, or was he just Danny's imagination? I don't know.

The actors did marvellous job, though. Jack Nicholson can always be so very terrifying. I don't like him as an actor though, not sure why. I feel bad for Shelley Duvall, though. If you read the trivia part on iMDB, you can see how shooting of the film must've been hard on her, and Kubrick definitely was way too, well, rough. I have one goof example, now let me quote

• "Kubrick insisted that Duvall and Nicholson perform the baseball bat scene 127 times, which broke a world record for the most retakes of a single movie scene with spoken dialogue" - Wikipedia (source)

I was going to quote the original article, but it didn't mention which scene. But if you've seen the movie, now you may understand why Shelley Duvall's character Wendy seems as hysterical as she does.

The music is also very interesting in The Shining. It's very distressing, just the way the music in horror movies is supposed to be. However, you know how music in horror films is kind of revealing? The way that the music tells that now something is going to happen, the music just tells it? Well, the soundtrack in this movie is different. It has those spikes that make you think now someone attacked someone, but nothing happens. Someone may just walk around carrying an axe, but when that certain spike comes in the music, nothing changes, it's the exact same scene, the exact same shot, there may not even be any kind of sudden movement. I think it's kind of interesting, and it's somewhat effective.

I'm not exactly sure how should I rate it. Artistically the movie is so great, the cinematography is amazing and the music is a spot on, and everything just clicks - as art. But when you look at the writing behind the movie, and the characters, and how the artistic side suits the story and genre, it just... doesn't click so much anymore. That's the interesting part about The Shining. So again, I'm not at all surprised if someone disagrees with me on this but this movie is really hard to rate. Like I need to think about both sides before I can think about the whole thing.

Of course I'd like to recommend The Shining, but if you don't like horror movies, then maybe not. However, if you do like horror movies, then maybe I still wouldn't recommend it. It's not like the horror movies now, the horror movies we see. It's something different. It's good to view it artistically, though. I have no idea how many people would do that.

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6 / 10

And oh, look at that, I wasn't sure if I'd write more than about three or four paragraphs but here we are.