The Fountain (2006)

Directed by Darren Aronofsky / Written by Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel

This movie is about death. Despite the gruesome-sounding subject, it is caressingly beautiful and not only visually, but also in terms of pacing, music and story. This, I believe, has been a conscious choice by the director to bring more emphasis to his perception of the theme – to show death is not not wholly gruesome even though it is mostly viewed as a bothersome necessity.

There was a juxtaposition between glorifying death and the fear of death, clearly presented and personalized through characters in the funeral scene: Lily speaking of death making us whole, and Tommy refusing to hear and stating he would find a cure for death. It is interesting how the one who actually dies, Izzy, seems to be neither, simply accepting death as it is.

When Izzy has already accepted she is going to die, her husband Tommy still holds on to hope and thus becomes blind to the last moments he could spend with her. His unwillingness to face and accept death is painful to watch as he is thus of no support to his wife who is already going through a process of letting go of fear and approaching death. This is an accurate description of what happens in relationships where one loses oneself for another: if you die, what will I be? Who am I without you? The only reason he worked was to save his wife instead of working for himself and his passion – and realizing there will be time for that after his wife's last moments have passed.

A choice I found pleasing was that neither the glorification or the fear of death was dubbed as a right answer. What matters is Life itself, because all we know of death is that it simply happens. All else is beyond us.

The movie fascinatingly introduces some death mythology. A legend of the Mayans is mentioned, where the “first father”, Adam, dies in order to create the world, and it is illustrated how his body became the roots and his soul the branches of the tree of life – and his head the underworld or life after death, which was believed to reside in a dying star behind a visible nebula in the night sky. To state that the afterlife is within a place that is dying is to me really interesting, as it could be interpreted our illusions of heaven and/or hell are to be evaporated – or the hope that there would be a place we could be “rescued” into.

This myth of Adam becoming the Tree of Life is dubbed as “death as an act of creation”, which I find an interesting thought. It is somewhat brutally illustrated how this happens whether you want this or not – there is no way to cheat death. The scene where the conquistador dies after drinking from the Tree of Life was a key element in this movie, nullifying all hopes of a “quick fix” that would allow us to not face death. The only way to be free, to “set Spain free” as the queen said, is to face death as it is.

Another detail I highly enjoyed was the Inquisitor as a symbol of the cancer tumor. Interesting links here and there. Also, there was an extra feature on the DVD related to “death as an act of creation” titled “Life on Ship”, where it is shown how the yoga-Tommy grows new fungi out of dead fungi. It was an interesting little video of its own, so I recommend to check it out if you have it on your disk.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Directed by Christopher Nolan / Written by Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer, based on the characters by Bob Kane



What I found most thought-provoking in this film was the fact that even though through words it promotes that "anyone can be a hero" (as said by Batman himself, when he states what his original purpose for creating the masked vigilante was), through actions it still tells a story of a single hero who saves everyone else at his own expense. Never do the citizens of Gotham actually act for themselves, nor does anyone expect them to; the arch-evil Bane does tell them to riot and to "take the power back to the people", but he never actually means it, and they never actually do anything about it. The quiet mass of people is still either on the mercy of the evil leader being blindly lead into chaos, or they're waiting for their external savior to come and save them. The police forces did act, though, and they were the only visible mass of relatable people in the movie, but even they are not relatable enough: a police officer is still an authority from the perspective of a common viewer, and thus not "on their level".


If the point of all this was to wake the viewer up to the imbalance of this mindset through the emotions that may occur when Batman supposedly dies, it didn't really get there, so I'm assuming the point was perhaps originally there but then smash boom bang Hollywood and its producers and we have a movie trying to be insightful but not having the balls to do it properly.


This movie is very clearly a product of its time, as it occasionally lingered in the spirit of the Occupy movement. The excessive realism through which the scene at the stock market was portrayed was perhaps a tad too underlining, yet that part of the plot itself managed to show the power hidden in the obscure numbers of stock sales and the influence that part of the financial world altogether may have on a single person. Though again, it was just the hero who suffered the visible consequences.


Also, the line Selina says in the dance scene paints out all the bitterness that dwelled in the hearts of those who went to the streets a year ago, and that of all those who have ever considered themselves poor and/or life to be unfair: "You think this can last? There's a storm coming, Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us."


Overall this movie had a delicious pile of elements to build upon, and it managed to do it just fine irregardless of the dizzying pace it rampaged forth - it could've done it better, though, and had some of the explosions and chases been cut off, it might have become a spectacle of its own kind. In The Dark Knight Nolan gave the viewers something to care about by giving the characters enough time to grow, but now it seems he trusted everyone in the audience to already know the characters and love them just the same. I wonder if it occurred to him how much a character can change in an 8-year gap.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Directed by David Yates / Written by Steve Kloves (based on a novel by J. K. Rowling)






Instead of focusing on the themes I consider the most improtant in the sixth book of the series (love, friendship, loyalty) the movie concentrated on one of the lighter themes: Teenage relationships. They did manage to make me laugh, though, as they were portrayed very entertainingly yet maintaining the bitterness that's involved in first love and such. Since the books are dialogue-based and the biggest audience will run screaming out of the theatres if a movie consists mainly out of dialogue (booriing! I want explosions!), I know it's always been a challenge to put the story onto the screen. With the sixth book, the most essential part of which consists of Harry and Dumbledore discussing, the challenge has been even bigger. One thing I really missed was the examination of Tom Valedro's personality (as well as Dumbledore's), because understanding the "bad guys" is what makes the story even more interesting. Maybe the american black-and-white perspective is to blame: Bad is bad and good is good? Although this doesn't apply to Draco Malfoy's character, who is given some depth (which I think is mainly because the audience loves the character and it's actor Tom Felton so much). However, this film did work as a movie. It didn't get caught in wanting to show every single event written in the book, but cut out and added things boldly to make this a movie, not an adaptation. In some scenes I still got the feeling a viewer not famailiar to the books might be left out, but considerably less than in the previous parts of the movie series. And by the way: Alan Rickman and Tom Felton kick ass.

A Serious Man (2009)

Written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen






I gotta love a movie that makes me want to see it again right away; This movie has got to be deciphered. I have a feeling the story will unravel properly when seeing it for the second time (or third). I also have a feeling I might have to study a bit of Jewish tradition to find all the hidden clues. Man, a movie that's a real challenge! Damn refreshing! Although the story with all its exotic details might also be just a shallow artistic scam, I don't really mind: Exploring it will still be intriguing. Apart from the interesting story, I really love the subtle humor this director duo fills its movies with. I find myself giggling all alone in a full audience! They have really found the essence of black comedy and a fine way to present it: It oozes out of evey character, every picture, every movement. The Coen brothers have a fantastic sense of rhythm when it comes to movies.

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

Directed by Spike Jonze / Written by Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers (based on a book by Maurice Sendak)






I loved how this movie didn't follow the usual blockbuster drama pattern and instead tried to maintain some realism. If it would have followed the usual cycle of drama, Max would have magically found a way to make them all get along; Perhaps the very fact that he was an incompetent kid would have saved everyone from disaster? Luckily that's not how it went, as it would have screwed up the entire storyline. A little kid can't solve the social problems of a community, the members of which all behave like kids themselves - a kid can't be a parent. Games may cheer you up for a while but they won't fix anything. That's all I want to analyze: The better the movie, the less I have to say about it. The imagery was beautiful and I loved the score. Gotta find that soundtrack somewhere.

Avatar (2009)

Written and directed by James Cameron






This movie reminded me of Pocahontas, Jurassic Park and Laputa - all of which I adore. Apparently mashing them up wasn't such a bad idea, since Avatar still succeeded in being an original story despite all the references. Avatar is clearly a product of its time: A judging finger pointing at the ones guilty for destroying our own environment just as full of wonders as the one on Pandora. As a treehugger to the bone I hope the message has reached the thousands of guilty ones sitting everywhere in the audience. Individuals may not have strength over authorities but masses do. I completely fell in love with Pandora and it's people, the culture of the na'vi's. It wasn't mind-blowing, as living inside huge trees and communicating with the nature was already introduced in, for example, Lord of the Rings (elves, anyone?) as well as in many other stories, but I did enjoy it nevertheless. I loved the design of the na'vi race as well as all the flora and fauna; The science-based point of view on mother nature was fascinating. I was suprised to find a reference to the war on terrorism as well. Near the end of the movie, where the evil commander (you know, the "Papa Dragon") holds a speech for his soldiers before the final battle, he says: "Fight terror with terror." These are the words that were used to justify the invasion to Iraq during the early decade and the words that still keep the military forces present. The situation is kind of comparable to the one in the movie: The natives simply try to defend their land from the ones exploiting and raping, and thus may seem aggressive and threatening. War is blind on both sides. The music was, in my case, disturbing, as it kept on reminding me of Titanic. I don't know why James Cameron wanted James Horner to write the score for this spectacle as well: He seems to use the same kind of elements whatever music he writes. I heard the same instruments, same rhythms, same themes even. The native music was the best part of the score, yet it too reminded me of the choral parts in Titanic. The worst parts of the movie were the well-known cliches of american blockbusters: Predictability, happy ending, romantic relationship on the main focus. - I hate predictability: I knew within the first five minutes how the movie was going to roll all the way to the end. Of course he'd stay with the na'vi's, he'd fall in love, learn their ways, betray everyone, be an outcast, boo-hoo, and of course they'd win the ultimate battle (and there is going to be an ultimate battle, of course, with a preceding smaller mid-battle). I would have loved some edge on the ending! The remaining humans all dead instead of exile, just to set an example. Now it was just too smooth to be interesting. - Romance is something people love to focus on, because it's sweet yet bitter and oh-so-familiar. It's easy for the large audience to pay attention to emotions; They don't require thinking since they run on primal instinct. I'm sick and tired of romance, at least in movies. Why must every story revolve around a romantic relationship between two people? Wake up: There's more to life than that! This story as many others would have worked fine, if not better, without the relationship courageously surviving in the middle of all the epic struggle. But all in all it was a good movie: Complete, influential and visually high quality. I wouldn't have noticed it's three hours long (whew) if the 3D-glasses hadn't started to hurt and my neck scream in agony. Most importantly it got me thinking: Even though in the movie they claimed our planet is dead, that we have killed our mother, I still believe the heart of the earth is beating somewhere, in places far from cities like mine. I will travel to those places one day, and when I do I might end up like Jake Sully: never wanting to leave again.

The Lovely Bones (2009)

Directed by Peter Jackson / Written by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Peter Jackson (based on a novel by Alice Sebold)






I love the way this movie sounded: The voice editing was beautifully done and I really enjoyed the music. The story was good as well, even though it was unneccessarily heavily foreshadowed - despite that it still did manage to have some small yet signifigant surprises in the end. I liked what this movie had to say about family and loss and, like the title says, how they grow bones around that loss, creating new life around the shadow of a tragedy. This movie wasn't really about Susan Salmon, it was about her family and friends. What disturbed me was the occasional stiffness of the 3D-animation and -backgrounds: This was definately not the best CG I've seen. The imagery was fascinating, though, yet it's finest moment was not in any of the digital scenes but, in my opinion, in the scene where the murderer bathes himself clean. I was fascinated by that and some of the other visual ideas, for example the scene where Susie steps inside her murderers house and discovers the other victims. I love how it shows the whole house as a tomb or a memoir to all the killings he's committed. The beautiful Saoirse Ronan did a good job acting, and I think we'll be hearing more about her in the future. The actors did an all-around good job, but the deepness of the tragedy didn't show on all of them. Something about Mark Wahlberg disturbed me as insincere. Holly Golightly was plain annoying, stereotypic and seemed like a useless character. Why was she in this film at all?

Kick-Ass (2010)

Directed by Matthew Vaughn / Written by Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn






On the way home after this movie I felt like a total super hero myself, being a tad more nimble than the character Kick-Ass. And that, I guess, is one of the things this movie was aiming to wake up in a viewer. I hate it when a promotion gone wrong ruins the market for a movie, and this is the case. Kick-Ass was marketed as one of those half-brained teen comedies that make fun of currently popular movies and subjects: Not Another Teen Movie, Disaster Movie, you know the likes. In reality Kick-Ass is way out of that league: It didn't really laugh about the super hero movies as much as I expected and actually embraces geeky lifestyle instead of mocking it. I daresay it's also probably made by the geeks for the geeks (I saw that Watchmen album! a-ha!). The other reason this movie stands out from the blockbuster crowd is its actual message, which is unlike any I've seen in movies in years ('just be yourself', 'love conquers all', 'let's protect the environment' etc): Don't close your eyes from the evil - do something about it. And this concerning us everyday joe's. Even though super heroes don't exist, the bad guys still do, and it's up to every one to do something about it. Especially those everyday bad guys. The violence in this movie was well-reasoned, and in a way I enjoyed its cruelty: Violence is not a joke and hurts people very easily very severely. I think it's good to amplify that message. I also actually found some grand beauty about a little girl slaying the entire evil on her own; It was like a triumph to the strength of a small individual. Which gets me to the actors: Hit Girl is my new idol. <3 The actress did a good job even though some of her lines didn't really fit her and seemed too written, but I'll excuse that. She's young, she'll learn. All of the other actors did a good job too, but I do have a complaint about that Kick-Ass-dudes girlfriend: I didn't buy that character. I'm all fine with pretty girls reading comics - I'm one too oh ho ho - but a comic geek girl who self-tans? No way. I'm not buying it until I see evidence of one existing. The music was totally groovy, made me wanna dance around the cinema. Gotta get this soundtrack yeah!

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Directed by Tim Burton / Written by Linda Woolverton (based on the books by Lewis Carroll)






I saw this movie in a cinema in 2D and don't really feel I've missed anything essential. I guess that one extra dimension doesn't matter so much after all, at least not in this case. This movie bored me. The combination of the wacky original consept and Tim Burton could have been so much more, but the script was way too dull to make this film the magical reincarnation it could've been. Acting wasn't at all bad, it was quite good actually, but the limpness of the film itself didn't bring out the individual performances as well as it should have. Costume design was very successful. I really enjoyed all that well executed eye candy since it was the least boring thing about this overhyped flop of a movie. I don't blame Burton, though, my finger is pointed at the producers (who there were, I noticed, quite a few).

The Wolfman (2010)

Directed by Joe Johnson / Written by Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self




Note: The version I saw was the Director's cut, which is about 15 minutes longer than the theatrical version. I was a bit disappointed by The Wolfman. Based on the trailer I had been expecting a fresh renewal of the dusty old myth, and all I got was an extremely predictable story presented in frames I've seen numerous times before. Everything in this movie gave me the feeling of having seen it done already: The visual setting was very similar to the one in Sleeping Hollow; The score was as generic as any common thriller's (such a disappointment from Danny Elfman); Characters, dialogue, all plot points so tiringly mediocre. The movie did have its merits, though. Emily Blunt was truly convinsing in her character, which could have been done, and the likes of which have been done, sloppy and with plenty of overacting. I can't say as much for the other performances: The brilliant Benicio del Toro did not shine and neither did Anthony Hopkins, even though their laconic, uninspired interpretations of their characters did match as father and son. One of my favourite scenes was the part where Lawrence is taken into the mental institution, since it gives a glimpse of the medieval "healing" methods for mentally ill still used in the 20th century. The short yet captivating hallucination dream Lawrence has when in treatment was probably the most intriguing moment in this movie. A funny thing I noticed: As a werewolf Lawrence is shown attacking and slaughtering plenty of people, but none of them are female; Even when he attacks a bus full of screaming women, the couple of people he then is very graphically shown slaughter are men. Is this just a part of his characterization, being so noble at heart that he spares women even when he's an out-of-his-mind beast, or is this just another Hollywood taboo: tearing a man's guts out on screen is alright, but when done to a woman it's sacrilege? Is that what the western world sees as equality? PS. The werewolves looked like they were sent straight from the 1980's. <3 Like the silly make up they had thirty years ago, except now it was enhanced with some crappy CGI! Wow-wee!

Youth in Revolt (2010)

Directed by Miguel Arteta / Written by Gustin Nash








[Note: This review was originally published on a platform that had a 5-star rating system.]


This is one of those moments when you really have to ponder where the line between four and five stars lies. I rarely rate any movie 5 stars: My standards are high and the movie really has to feel like a masterpiece of sorts. If a movie is perfectly good and well-made but doesn't leave me emotionally stirred and shaken, I give it 4. This applies to most drama, but comedies, oh comedies, they have rules of their own. If it makes me laugh, smile and giggle even while walking home from the cinema, it's got to be marvelous. Literally. I am a happy person, but it still takes a marvel to cheer me up. Thus the 5 stars; Besides being a quality movie, Youth in Revolt was genuinely funny, quirky and featured realistic characters. I really dislike the regular (teenage) romance comedies for being so sugary and written and ingenuine, but this was presented the way teenage affairs really are, even though the formula used was the traditional "geeky boy falls for a pretty girl but woe there be obstacles such as a sporty ex-boyfriend and christian fanatic parents". The notable difference here was that this time the pretty girl wasn't actually "out of his league" at all: They were both quite geeky and even the sporty ex wrote poetry (no matter how pretentuous), so they were, in fact, all in the same league. I loved the animated parts, so various techniques used and all still matching the story livening it up. Yay for a big ass movie for supporting the animation industry!

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010)

Directed by Edgar Wright / Written by Edgar Wright and Michael Bacall







This is the ultimate young adult fantasy movie tailor-made for my generation: the kids who grew up playing video games surrounded by the blooming pop culture of the 1980's and 90's. I have never felt so at home in a cinema being able to spot all the overflowing tiny references to games, comics, technology and music.


I understand why some people might find it uneasy dealing with this kind of audio and visual editing, but to me it was pure candy. I love it how emphasis on a characters thoughts or the tension of a situation can be made with a simple, well-thought tiny sound effect that's barely noticable but extremely clear. (Maybe one's brain has to be young enough to be able to recieve and understand that kind of a stream of AV? That might explain why none of the older critics I read reviews by appreciated the editing.)


Now I disagree with the critic Michael Cera has had to face about "always acting the same character". It is true that he's only been cast to do the stereotypic geeky guy representing the typical young male movie directors of our time, but by no means has he ever been lazy about his acting and just done the same character over and over again. I actually kind of admire his ability to play the same stereotype time after time and still make all of his characters different and clearly distinguishable with small adjustments, barely noticable, such as the differences between geeks and all people in the end are. He makes his characters very alive.


I loved the way this move visualizes the fact that while playing video games every one of us can be a martial arts expert. Or any other kind of expert! Adults need their fantasy land of games.

Enter the Void (2009)

Written and directed by Gaspar Noe







Oh dear. What on earth to say about this movie. I still feel exactly the way I did when the movie ended and I felt like saying something to the 3 people besides me in the audience but didn't. I had no idea what to say. I could've been crude and blurted "what the fuck?" but that would've been plain stupid, now wouldn't it. I mean, I understood the movie. It didn't overwhelm me story-wise. It overwhelmed me experience-wise. It was an acid trip of its own kind, unlike any I've seen done with this media.


Noe had captured well that one certain side of Tokyo and tokyo-ism: the inhuman acid neon raves in dirty clubs with emotionless sex between empty people. Everyone was presented so deeply inhuman. Everyone was a void. I actually kind of enjoyed that raw perspective since everything else is always softened with some kind of highly emotional imagery.


I also liked the way this movie pondered the thought that sex from a man's perspective is nothing but a craving back to your mother, she who will always be your madonna. Then your mother dies and you move your craving to your sister. Then your sister becomes your mother. And the cycle continues. Forever and ever.


But this movie is looong, almost three hours. It felt like too much. Maybe I'm just too used to typical blockbusters where you can hear the ending stomping and shouting from 45 minutes before the movie ends? In any case: no matter how interesting, it was exhausting to watch.

Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale (2010)

Directed by Jalmari Helander / Written by Jalmari and Juuso Helander







Oh wow. You know a movie must have something exceptional about it when there's a collective giggle in the audience when the last frame fades out. Or maybe that's when you know you're surrounded by the exact right kind of audience. 


This movie was very finnish, indeed, all the way from the colour scheme to dialogue and character design. I enjoyed every bit of the naturally quirky dialogue and the script was pure golden, except for the "exciting adventure boy grows up cunning plan" -part where the line of too much Hollywood-cheesiness was crossed in a very out of place kind of way. The boy hanging from the helicopter shouting "YEE-HAWW!!" made me feel queasy: The character growth of Pietari happened too fast, out of nowhere. I could see the script kinda leading the boy into that direction but I didn't see it in the movie itself.


Acting was darn good (I really love seeing stereotypical yet true finnish men portrayed in movies) and even the kids did really well.  I already loved them in "Skavabölen pojat" and I loved them after two minutes of screentime once again.


I really hope to see international success for this film. How will the world react to this kind of a statement of owning the origin of Santa? Bow to the only original verison of the story presented in hundreds of years? Believe in Santa Claus? Pass it as fiction? Doubt every Santa they see from now on?

Winter's Bone (2010)

Directed by Debra Granik / Written by Debra Granik and Anne Rosellini







Jennifer Lawrence and John Hawkes just went up to my list of favourite actors. Lawrence was especially brilliant in her acting followed by a convincing crew of supporting actors.


Yet the true strength of this movie is not only in its leading actress. Explaining as little as possible it paints a breathing picture of the reality of the southern states of USA, focusing on fickle tones of humanity instead of the landscape it could have so easily used to fill in the gaps. This movie grasped something essential about the everyday lives of these people as well as the bigger issues they have to face. I never saw a glimpse of this shiny reality I live in, and I loved getting the chane to plunge into a whole new world of people, a reality so strange yet recongnizable. Well written, well directed.




PS. I loved Cupcake and Brownie. So witty of you, oh writers!

Black Swan (2010)

Directed by Darren Aronofsky / Written by Mark Heyman, Andrés Heinz and John McLaughlin






When I was younger, I dreamt of becoming a ballet dancer; Not young enough though, as I was already too old to start dancing professionally. It was tough for a 10-year-old to realize having already missed something just because you didn't think of it sooner. It was also around that time in my life when I began to notice how loathsome most girls my age were, vicious in their gossiping and slutty in their stupid behavior around boys. I became a misogynist, hating my own gender, yet in love with the elegance of a female body in movement.


The Black Swan made me remember that young girl long since, yet not entirely, gone. Nina reminded me of her, isolated from the others by her introvert talent, torn between the love for the dance and her relationship with the instrument for it, her body. It was like watching different sides of physical being battle: the sexual against the spiritual, the visible against the hidden, the artistic grace against the survival instinct. A beautiful dance-like struggle where there are no winners.


The movie was admirably well directed. From the beginning I felt it was like stepping into an alternate reality where I had to doubt everything: is what I'm seeing actually happening or is it another hallucination? And the pacing of the story, following the storyline of the actual ballet in question, my god how it sucked me in, the camerawork making me a part of the furious dancing and whirling of the characters and emotions. When the end titles started to roll, I found myself sitting on the edge of my seat, jaw-dropped, hands clenched in fists and tears streaming down my face. I had lived the dance. I had been the swan, both of them.


To this day, I still dream of dancing ballet. That search for perfection in movement and physical expression fascinates me to no end. Now after seeing The Black Swan I think a part of that dream has been fulfilled: Even if not physically, on a spiritual level I have experienced the fury and thrill of performing a masterpiece choreography, no matter how gruesome a way. It was a trip and truly worth taking. "It was perfect."

Red Riding Hood (2011)

Directed by Catherine Hardwicke / Written by David Leslie Johnson






There's something I have to get off my chest before I get into dissecting yet another case of moving pictures. Before seeing Red Riding Hood I hadn't yet formed a clear opinion on Amanda Seyfried and her acting. Everything has now crystallised: Amanda is a lousy actress. This movie gave her plenty of chances to show what she's got, but she blew them all. Her sister dies? She gapes for air like a dying fish, her eyes revealing that she knows she's supposed to be acting out pain and shock but not knowing how to, screams a petty "no" and makes it apparent that she has never experienced the pain of a loss in her entire life. The reaction reminded me of a 12-year-old finding out someone has been reading her super secret diary and throwing a tantrum. Amanda, that close-up shot of your face was your chance. You screwed it up. I am not convinced. Now that I got that off my face, I can get down to the plot itself. I had seen the trailer and made my guesses about the identity of the wolf (I was wrong, but we'll get to that) and also about the nature of this movie, which I was correct about. It was god damn predictable and annoyed me to no end, as the movie kept on building big suspenseful cliffhangers when I already knew what was coming up. I'm not sure wether the fault is in the script or the directing; Whichever the case, the story was dull and made me care about none of the characters involved. A basic "boy loves girl, girl loves another boy, oops there's a monster involved and ooh-how-convenient it wants the girl as well" plot with a very distinguishable three-point storyline doesn't get far with just pretty costumes. And now that I got to the costumes, I'll talk a bit about the setting of time and place in this film. The timeframe was clearly left a bit vague to create a storybook-like atmosphere, and to me the setting seemed to be "(not too) long ago, somewhere far away (and cold)". Except that the winter didn't feel like a real northern winter, as I think it was supposed to feel, with such obvius fake snow, ridiculously light clothing and stupid lines such as "it was the hardest winter in ages". Yo girl, you come here to Finland and spend some time in those clothes in -30 celsius in knee-deep snow and THEN tell me it was a tough winter. Jeez. I know that when produced in Hollywood the target audience for these "grown-up fairytales with a twist" are the US teenage girls, but surely even they know how to dress properly when it's cold enough for snow not to melt? There's one big risk in making a movie set in an old age: not making it carefully enough. If you leave in such modern things as body-licking dresses (duh, the leading actress can't wear a sack like all the other women), casual speech and, for god's sake, sexy night club dancing with a little hint to medieval court dances (which is also not historically correct especially if these people have lived in a forest village all their lives and thus can not have been exposed to fancy prancy dancing), I GET MAD. How is anyone going to take the setting seriously with such foolish fan-service? The props and dresses were otherwise very well made and a pleasure to watch, it's just the "let's make the head girl sexay" -attitude that I can't bear. If you pick a timeframe, no matter how vague, please stick to it. The theme of evil living inside a person was very interesting and I think much more could have been done with that. Right when it started to get good the movie was already over. Instead, the focus was in the romantic relationship, but this movie was at least honest about it form the beginning; It didn't try to disguise itself into adventure or politics or even the horror film it could have been and embraced the romance throughout the story. The nature of the love triangle irked me though, as these do in most Hollywood films. From the very beginning the girl was portrayed as the passive receiver to be taken by the whims of men, and to be happy only when loved by a man. Even during the almost-sex scene her only line is "Don't you want me?" when the man in question has made it pretty clear he does. The rivalling man says: "You will be happy again", as if its his job to make the female happy. Otherwise, though, I was happy with the rival boy Henry: He was kind, friendly and honourable, instead of being the nasty lusty stereotype of "the other guy", and actually earned Valerie's respect. To contrast that, "the true love" Peter was a bit of a bad boy, as these type of characters tend to be these days (Twilight, anyone?). Valerie states that he was always one to lure her into shenanigans, and during the movie acts like a real douchebag, but not too much to make him an obvious dickhead. So tell me: Why did there need to be a contrast like this between the two guys, and why is it the trend nowadays for the bad boy to get the girl? Why is the prince charming no longer the winner? And about the wolf, yeah, actually the wolf thing was so boring I almost don't even want to write about it. I figured out the wolf before it was actually revealed. This kind of a mystery is very hard to portray with all the layers of doubt, deceit and paranoia it deserves when your media of choice is a two-hour film with a romantic focus; A 500-page novel would be a completely different and more suitable platform for such a story. PS. I just learned the director of this movie also directed the Twilight movies. Not surprised! Ha ha!

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

Directed by Rob Marshall / Written byTed Elliot & Terry Rossio






I was bored to no end. Seriously. If it wasn't for the reoccurring theme of compassion, kindness and mercy this movie would have been completely void of soul, and even now it was just a lukewarm, rarely spotted flicker of a dying flame. I mean, SERIOUSLY. It was just another tired gag after gag after yet another yawn-a-licious restlessly cut escape scene with five different shots of the same barrel roll yeah can you hear me snore already? There is nothing wrong with the acting or the visual stuff or the props (man that ship was awesome, I want one); It's just that when you write a story thinking only of audience and profits and popularity and "ooh, which pirate myth should I rip this time", the story will be hollow. When creating a story, one shouldn't be focusing on the people who might perhaps possibly maybe end up experiencing it in the future. The emptiness of this fourth PotC makes me really sad, considering the storytelling might of the first three. Something has clearly been lost, tampered on and forgotten. PS. That religious dude is totally going to reappear in the next movie.

Lost in Translation (2003)

Directed and written by Sofia Coppola

We all know what it feels like to be stuck and lost. You keep stopping and wondering how you got here, what happened to things that were, who are these people surrounding you, where are you going, why is it all so blurry. Why can't I see what's ahead of me? Why does this moment feel wrong? Why do I feel out of place? Tokyo is a place of great magnitude, like a swarm of cities gathered together, forming a nest of incalculable possibilities. The vastness might even feel suffocating, like it's a labyrinth you can't escape. It's the perfect place to lose yourself, disassemble yourself, recreate yourself. Tokyo is the city of seekers. What gets lost in translation is the greyscale, the in-between; that of which us people consist. We are not black nor are we white, and it all comes down to longing for someone to see us in all the shades. People collide in ways unexpected, and that's the way it ought to be. There are no similar encounters for different individuals. There is no norm for meetings and partings. There are no happy endings because there is no end: We are all, everywhere, always, everything there ever was and will be. The frames of a motion picture are just frames, for the picture goes on forever beyond them, stretches out to infinity. The story never ends.