Reviews

There's one word I'd use to describe The Shape of Water: Beautiful. It's beautiful in so many ways:

The story and especially the love aspect of the story feels more genuine than anything I've seen in ages. The love between the characters develop and while it's of course unusual, it feels more real that way. All the characters in typical romantic movies are the same, but Elisa and the "amphibious creature" are different from those characters.

Alexandre Desplat's score was also astonishing. It was light, simple and after the film ends it makes you feel like you're half dancing out of the theatre.

And of course we can't talk about beauty of a film without talking about the visual side. The cinematography is stunning. The film is unbelievably colourful. I especially love the use of green and blue throughout the movie. Honestly, this is what I hope I could achieve one day as a cinematographer.

The Shape of Water is a beautiful film in so many ways, while still managing to be brutal when needed. Totally a masterpiece, worth all the nominations and awards.

I went to see Looper when it came out in Finland, and I was in love with it since then.

I've always liked the idea of the story. It's complicated in the way time travelling stories are always complicated. Still the plot is mostly straight forward and it's clear what people want. Also it's brutal just in the right way.

Of course if you're serious about the time travel aspect, sometimes the time travel paradox doesn't seem to make awful lot of sense, but if you're just in it for an action thriller then you're going to be fine.

One of the weirdest things in this movie is to see Joseph Gordon Levitt look like Bruce Willis. Like he pulls that off, and it's not completely awful, but it just look odd. You could've made that happen some other way too, not just make JGL copy Bruce Willis completely...

I'm usually not a big fan of science fiction, but when it comes to only small doses of science fiction, I might love it. With Looper the only doses of sci-fi are the time travel element and the telekinetic abilities possessed by some of the characters. Even if time travelling is a key element in the story, it doesn't make the story feel too futuristic. The weapons look pretty regular and there are only few futuristic looking vehicles in the world.

This makes it possible for the story not explain the world too much. It looks and works pretty much like ours apart from the few details that are explained very clearly. It's not necessarily only a good thing: you might want to know more about the world, but you can't. You can only see the slightly dystopian aspect on how there are clearly wealthier people partying and then there's so much poverty on the streets and all that.

If I absolutely hate something about this movie it's the sound mixing. Sometimes watching this movie is painful because the characters talk quietly but then there's all that action noises and shouting... It's easier if you have subtitles on, then you don't have to blast the movie on full volume. I often stop paying attention to it, but there's that one diner scene where I always pay attention to it, it's just super annoying.

It's always a risk to rewatch a movie you used to like 5-6 years back, because you might ruin it, but also can you be neutral in reviewing it if you already like it? The thing about Looper is that while it's a good action movie, watching it too many times doesn't make it good, unfortunately. It's still alright, and there are still some scenes that are breath-taking, but everything between those few amazing scenes feels dull.

I really liked this movie when I was a kid and because I'm hungover I wanted to watch something comfortable and I though hey, I haven't seen Looney Tunes: Back in Action in ages. Yeah, of course it's a children's movie and it's very silly, but for me this is kind of that adventure comedy I compare all others to, at least subconsciously, since it's about the first one I saw.

Even as a grown-up I still find this movie funny. Yeah of course there are some corny childish jokes in there, but most of the comedy is still funny. The Looney Tunes character bring most into this movie. Sure, Brendan Fraser's character is alright and Timothy Dalton is good and all that, but still none of those characters beat Daffy Duck or Bugs Bunny and all those other characters we've learnt to love watching the Looney Tunes shorts.

The story itself is pretty simple but it has so many hilarious details and the characters and the fun mix between live action and animation are the things that make this movie fun. It's not the best adventure movie out there, but it's hilarious, and what kid wouldn't love it?

I've loved Four Rooms ever since I saw it. It's an excellent episode film, where each episode is weirder than the other. Even though there are four different directors for each part, they go along perfectly even though styles differ from each other. Also all have certain really weird kind of cheesy elements that go well with the weird stories, like really bad special effects and transitions between scenes or weirdly dramatic musical sound effects...

If there's something I don't exactly like about this is that there's some overlap between the second and third segment. If it was done flawlessly, I'd be completely ready to accept it, but I have hard time trying to place the second segment The Wrong Man inside the third segment The Misbehavers.

Still, Four Rooms is a hilarious comedy. It's over the top, but that doesn't matter, it goes well with the short stories.

The Babysitter has been on my list on Netflix ever since it came out. It seemed like a fun splatter film to watch. I was right. The Babysitter is an excellent, kind of B-movie horror comedy. It's so over the top it's fun, yet it's actually really thrilling to watch.

Especially horror comedies can sometimes be way too cheesy when they're going for the certain B-movie look. In The Babysitter they often used text over the film, which is sometimes a nice touch, but sometimes it did feel a bit useless. You don't necessarily need that, so why use it? But it was a minor detail, however, and it wasn't over used.

Another little annoyance in horror movies can be the jump scares. In the worst case you can see them coming miles away and then it hits you. If they aren't done well they are just tacky and even though they give you a fright you just get more annoyed than actually thrilled. But jump scares or the wait for the jump scare where used well.

The Babysitter is a fun, quirky yet thrilling horror comedy, and definitely worth seeing, if you're looking for this kind of a movie. If you want something serious or something actually terrifying, then no.

I hate these kind of movies. The structure of the story is always similar, and you can see how the story is going to go from a mile away. It's an easy movie to watch, I guess there's nothing more to it. And yes, I admit, at one point I was almost excited to see how this was going to go, but that feeling lasted for two minutes, and that was that.

The only thing I liked in this movie is the actress Rose McIver, yet her performance wasn't as great as I had hoped. The only one giving this movie a little charm was Honor Kneafsey as princess Emily. Everyone else was just plain bland and awful.

So yeah, if you want an easy movie to watch over the holidays, this is perfect for that, but honestly... Nothing special about this movie. absolutely nothing. It's boring, bland, and I feel like I've seen it million times before. And I have no idea why Christmas even is a theme here, it could've been done without that.

Skeleton Crew is definitely a weird movie. And I guess it's because I kept telling myself (and my friend) that this is going to be so bad, that I'm almost positively surprised. It was bad, but like with so many movies like this, it's kind of the point. If a movie like this would be made completely seriously and well, it wouldn't have any kind of charm, would just make you wonder if the writers are okay. When it's done with a tongue-in-cheek attitude, it's usually more entertaining.

Skeleton Crew plays with horror movie tropes in a fun, fourth wall breaking way, while being brutally violent and just... f###ed up. It's been hours since I saw the movie, and I'm still confused about... well, everything.

It's a bad movie, but I definitely had fun when watching it. So if you do watch it, make sure you watch it friends, because this is one of those movies where it's just sad when you watch it alone and can't really laugh about it at the same time.

Since I saw the trailer it was clear that this movie is kind of a B- movie. Not so much when you look at the quality of cinematography, editing, stuff like that, but mostly because of the plot, the writing and the acting, which was weirdly porn-y and just uncomfortable, especially when it comes to Paz de la Huerta, who played the nurse Abby Russell.

The plot actually made me think about American Psycho 2, and how I've often said that movie would be way better if you just took away all the American Psycho references. Nurse is incredibly similar to American Psycho 2, but it's hard to say if it's a good thing. On the other hand there's blood and gore, more than in American Psycho 2, but the story doesn't seem as rich.

The movie was surprisingly colourful and looked really nice. Only problem is we didn't see it in 3D, which I guess is somewhat the point, so sometimes some effects look really tacky. Are they less or more tacky with 3D?

Nurse is an alright horror movie. There are so many things I'd like to change about it to make it even better, though. It has potential, but doesn't reach it. Still, fun to watch at least once.

Alex & Emma is a charming, silly little rom-com. One of its biggest flaws, however, is that it doesn't really rely on the threat as much as it should. Hey, the main character will probably be killed if he doesn't finish the novel and hence get the money, and for some reason they aren't focusing on that at all. Maybe they thought it would be too heavy for a romantic comedy, but I think if they would've leaned on it more, it would've really given the movie that special something. And not necessarily make the movie feel like a thriller, but there is definite pressure in the situation, yet it doesn't seem or feel like that at all.

One of the strongest elements in the movie is that there are two stories going at once: the reality with Alex and Emma, and the novel they are writing. It's always interesting to see movies that work out that way, especially when you can see how the two stories intertwine, like in the play in Moulin Rouge! or the screenplay they are writing in Seven Psychopaths - though Alex & Emma artistically is nowhere near those two movies. Also even though there are two stories, the story they are writing wouldn't work on its own. It would be boring without knowing how it's affected by Alex's experiences. Also the other story on its own is no story without the one they are writing.

There's something really charming and sweet about this movie, and a lot of its charm comes from the style of the novel they are working on. It takes place in the 20s and it looks and sounds exactly like movies based on that era would, which is noticeably different from the base, which is a typically bland romantic comedy.

Alex & Emma is fun and sweet, yet eventually there's not much in it. It's good to watch it once, but I can't imagine seeing it another time. What could it offer me the second time? No idea.

I went to see Carrie when it came out in the cinemas four years ago, and I thought I'd revisit it. Actually I was going to watch the 2002 version first but then realised how super bad it is, so decided to go with this one. I still haven't seen the original one, which is why I can't really compare this to the original one, I can only compare it to the novel. And I didn't like the novel.

First time seeing Carrie I loved it so much for some reason. But this is the third time and it's losing its charm. There's some really beautiful cinematography in the film, and some amazing lighting, but eventually the story doesn't really stand seeing it several times, or I've grown out of it in the past four years.

There's something kind of sweet about some parts of the story, and the rest is just really awful. That's a weird combination, because on the other hand it's this shy girl learning she has powers, but on the other hand there's a really disturbing abusive religious mother and all those students who are horrible to Carrie... I think especially now that I'm older I see better how sad the whole story is.

As a movie Carrie doesn't feel like anything great. It's a remake, and of course that affects it a lot. The story is well made, even though I didn't like the novel. The movie looks amazing, but something is off. Maybe I'll know better once I see the original.

Like I wrote before reviewing Drifting Clouds, the actors in Kaurismäki's movies are very stiff. There's basically no emotion in the acting comparing to Hollywood movies. During Drifting Clouds I wasn't a big fan of that style, but it suits Hamlet Goes Business. It gives a certain contrast to the somewhat theatrical dialogue and the fact that this is based on a play.

Also I was surprised to see how good Pirkka-Pekka Petelius was as Hamlet. He's mostly famous for being a comedian in many sketch shows, and this is honestly the first serious role I've seen him play. Of course this is a black comedy, a spoof of Hamlet, so the role is still not entirely serious.

While I love most things about this movie, it's that ending that kind of bothers me. After seeing this film several times I'm already used to it, but it still feels very separate from the rest of the movie. It's added by Kaurismäki, which might explain that. I could go into lengths what bothers me about this, but I'd rather not make this review sound exactly like the analysis we did in class, and also I don't want to spoil you.

The music chosen for this movie is amazing. The classical music and rock music go very well together. Most of the time there's a great harmony with what we see and what we hear, but even when there's not, it' amazing. And oh, the cinematography... Weird angles and crooked shots are so great. And of course the whole movie being in black and white amplifies the whole feeling. With colours, it wouldn't be the same film.

Hamlet Goes Business is an amazing take on Hamlet, and a great satire on business world. While it's clear I will not like all of Kaurismäki's movies, I can appreciate his work and I'm glad I've found a favourite

I was browsing through Netflix when I found Little Evil, which had come out recently. It seemed like a fun horror comedy, perfect for the day, so I decided to watch it.

There are many things I like in Little Evil, but it doesn't go above average. Of course the idea isn't original, isn't this a play on very typical stories about kids who seem to be the spawn of Satan. Most of them are actual horror movies, though. Little Evil mixes that horror story with the theme of being a stepparent in a humorous way, which itself is fresher than the movie might feel when you read the summary.

But in the end the story doesn't go where you'd want it to go. Of course some of the plot points are good, and the movie is fun and light, and there's something very special about it. But in the end the only thing this movie ends up being is somewhat funny. Everything else is actually quite superficial, and let's be honest, the humorous side probably wouldn't be as good if you watched this movie several times.

So definitely worth seeing once, if you're not too serious for horror comedies, but that's all.

We watched this movie in class, and our teacher has chosen this movie, because it's "easy to go forward and backwards" from this movie when talking about Finnish movies. I'm assuming it was referring to the time when this movie was made. Also another crucial factor in why we watched this movie is that our school has a permission to show this movie. Also we are supposed to watch Finnish movies because that's what we are going to be making in the future, and sometimes we forget or ignore our own movies.

I have never watched Aki Kaurismäki's films before, but I was already aware of his style. Cast is very stiff and acting is closer to underacting. It's a style, and it works, but it's not extremely realistic, since it sounds like how Finnish people talk in the morning when they're not fully awake yet, or how they talk to strangers. It sounds very reserved. Even though it can be painful to watch, it's very stylish and suits a film like this. And also the only reason why it can be seen as painful is because we're so used to the English way of dialogue and acting in movies.

Another almost painful thing is the cinematography. It's well made, and in theory thing are in the right place, but it doesn't look very pretty. Colours and things in the shot are almost ugly.

The pace of the movie is also very slow. Not much happens, yet it feels long, because it feels just an important to show a band playing than to process with the story. If you find the story boring, the slowness can be almost unbearable.

But all in all Kaurismäki captures everyday life during recession well, and even if the acting can barely be called that, the story isn't emotionless. You feel for the characters and get annoyed by them. The story is almost boring because of the subject and the pace, but it's still easy for you to get into the story, and you can't just ignore what's happening, Maybe it's because the themes are close to many viewers, maybe it's just that well made that you hope for the best and fear for the worst.

I've seen Napapiirin Sankarit or Lapland Odyssey once before in Middle School, when we watched it in class. At the time I didn't have my blog nor did I think that much of movies, and especially Finnish movies felt almost foreign to me, so I rarely watched any outside of school at least.

Someone actually talked about the way this film starts in school – because it doesn't start with the main character Janne. It starts with his friend and his narration. He talks about the tree many men in the area used to hang themselves from. It's an interesting way to start, mostly because that's super dark – but it suits the movie and it suits Finland – but also because there has to be a shift in the point of view, if you want to change from the side character to the main character. That shift works well though. It's smooth, and it feels natural to start following Janne not getting the digital TV box.

The story is fun, and it's entertaining to see what kind of misadventures the main characters get themselves into. It's not the most original comedy out there, when you consider it globally, but at least around the time when it came out, it stood out from most of Finnish comedies. Mostly it's not as bad as some, since there are Finnish comedies I refuse to watch because of the cast and the fact that the movies are remakes of a Danish comedy. I'm not mentioning the movie by name, but I think my Finnish readers know exactly what I'm talking about. Also Napapiirin Sankarit did win four Jussi awards, for best direction, best film, best screenplay and people's choice award, and a Silver Dolphin for best cinematography at Tróia International Film Festival, and two awards at Alpe d'Huez International Comedy Film Festival.

Napapiirin Sankarit is entertaining and it looks amazing, and it takes place in the north, which is a plus since most modern movies seem to take place in the southern Finland. It's definitely worth seeing, whether or not you're from Finland or elsewhere, except most Finnish people have probably seen it already. However I'm not sure about the sequels. I haven't seen them, and they are not directed by Dome Karukoski, but at least the third one is directed by Tiina Lymi, who also directed one of my favourite Finnish movies, Äkkilähtö. Not sure if I'll ever watch them though, since they feel forced. The first one is always the best, right?

Wonder Woman is an amazing superhero movie, and this comes from someone who's a bit tired of superhero movies already, and is really picky about which ones they're going to see. It stands out for several reasons, one of them being that there are more elements from fantasy than science fiction in this movie.

First and most important and obvious thing has to be the fact that it has a female lead. It's ridiculous that it has taken this long for DC or Marvel to actually make a movie with a woman playing the main role, considering there are amazing heroines in the comic books. Diana is an amazing character, because while she's being a hero and kicking ass, she can still be a woman. There are tons of characters who are "strong female characters" while strength being their only defining characteristic. But Diana actually has feelings and is feminine without being just eye candy for the male viewers, while still looking absolutely stunning, though.

One thing that bothers me is the excessive use of CGI and slow motion and all that, but Wonder Woman definitely isn't the only movie guilty of that.

Storywise this movie is enjoyable, and I felt amazing after I saw that. Is that how men feel all the time when they see other men in superhero movies constantly?

Story-wise Win It All is a standard gambling movie. I haven't seen that many, I've seen Rounders and... Does Casino Royale count? But there's a really familiar structure, which can make you feel like you've seen this movie already. That might be good if you're just looking to spend time, but if you're looking for something new, then the story won't do much to you.

While the story itself might not be original, it's still well- written. The characters feel like human beings instead of simple characters designed for the story. Especially the main character Eddie is an interesting character. You really want him to get through his problems, maybe because you see yourself in him. Also you really want to yell at him and stop being an idiot. And as the story progresses you get really stressed over how he uses the money. So even though the story isn't original, it takes you with it, and it's the perfect balance between a heavy and a light story.

But what is amazing in this movie is the cinematography and just the whole visual feeling to it. It looks like an old 70's movie, even though it takes place in 2000-2010's. The colours look amazing and bright, and the quality look like it's old or even made on an actual film. I especially love the hand-held camera, which makes most of the scenes very feel very intimate as we get so close to the situations at hand.

Win It All might not stand out as a really special movie, but it's definitely worth watching at least that one time. It's a bit predictable, but there's something else about it that's special, mostly the cinematography and how just in a short while you already feel very invested in the characters and what happens to them. Definitely well written and directed movie, even though not close to perfect.

Of course I had heard a lot of good about Mad Max: Fury Road. Hell, it won six Oscars! But of course it's different to actually see it for yourself than just to rely on the opinions of others.

It's clear that this movie is different from the typical action movies that we get nowadays from every f##king movie studio that exists. There's something unique in the story and of course visually this movie beats any other action movie out there.

While the story is a bit dark and it has very serious themes in it, there's a somewhat loose feeling to it. The movie can be taken seriously, but there's a somewhat relaxed feeling to the things they've come up with. The filmmakers are pros and they know what they are doing, so if they want to add a flamethrower electric guitar in there, they can and they should - and it will be f##king awesome.

That flamethrower electric guitar reminds me, since I haven't seen the original movies I can't help but feel that I'm missing something. Why is there a guitar and war drums on a car? Is that... normal? Is that a regular thing or is Immortan Joe just a drama queen who needs his own theme music? It's cultural stuff like that that I don't know, but in the end that didn't seem to matter that much. But at least it feels like there's a world outside this movie, that the post-apocalyptic Australian wasteland has a culture, instead of just those three or four tribes we get to see.

Mad Max: Fury Road may be a bit long, and definitely feels longer than it is, but it's worth it. The audience wants desperately to see what happen, they desperately want a happy ending, all that. I was on the edge of my seat, even though during the start of the movie I was indifferent towards it.

Visually... I've never seen an action movie that looks like this. The editing is amazing, so are the effects, which might have something to do with the fact that they used CGI very little. But the cinematography... It's astonishingly beautiful. Every shot seems to be careful, and the colours are mind-blowing. Also the costume department has done such an amazing job, and all the vehicles look amazing... Everything in this movie just stands out from the typical post-apocalyptic action movie, and it's amazing.

Mad Max: Fury Road is an amazing post-apocalyptic action movie, that definitely stands out from all the s##t that's out there. It's different, original, and just so damn thrilling and beautiful. It's a f##king action movie masterpiece! What are the originals like? If they are anything like this, I have to see them!

Kill Your Friends reminds me of Filth, which has shaped my taste in movies a whole lot. Well, instead of a Scottish policeman, the main character works in the music business and tries to scheme his way to the top while stabbing his "friends" in the back. This is the kind of stuff I really love in movies. They are awful, and you can't actually like the characters, but there's just something so amazing and enthralling about these asshole characters. It might be because you kind of want something bad to happen to these people because they represent the type of people you hate. But also it can be quite fun to see these awful people doing well in these movies.

The story progresses well, though there are few a bit boring moments they probably could've survived without, but I guess they add something to the character, I don't know, but in the long run they seemed a bit empty.

Nicholas Hoult is an incredible actor, and it was interesting to see what he brings to this role. I hadn't seen him in a role like this. He does an excellent if surprising job portraying this complete asshole.

And since this is a movie about music business, the music is of course incredible.

Kill Your Friends is an interesting, thrilling movie, definitely worth watching, even though it can be pretty rough at times.

Sometimes you choose to watch a movie just because it has one of your favourite actors, but you can't imagine how many feelings you will get from that movie. I got exactly one feeling and that is hate towards Ray Kroc and the whole McDonalds franchise. I don't know how this film was supposed to present Kroc, because if its point is to idolise him even the slightest, I'm just even more furious about the whole thing.

I got to appreciate Michael Keaton though. He doesn't portray Kroc simply as an asshole, even though that's what he is. We still see him as the jerk he was, since his actions are shown as ruthless as they were. Now of course in the capitalist wonderland this all might seem admirable, but the audience should be able to see that ruthlessness as something other than "business blah blah blah" or whatever it is to those same asshole businessmen.

I mean I could go to a full anti-capitalist speech here, but perhaps I shouldn't. After all the fact that this movie made me actually feel something this strongly and made me think means it's a very well made movie. I didn't really have time to consider the technical side of the movie since I was mostly thinking about how angry the story made me and how much I wanted to punch Kroc.

The Founder can be a bit boring at times but it definitely makes you think about the capitalist s##thole that is the US and it's business world, and it makes you angry. Of course I'm not here to tell you what to think.

The first incredible thing I noticed about this movie is the cinematography. I've seen jokes on the internet like "I can't believe Moonlight invented cinematography", but I had to say that too while watching. The cinematographer of Moonlight uses both still, calm shots and really effective movements of the camera, which still are super smooth. The colours are incredible, and so is the lighting and the composition of pretty much every shot. This is how movies are meant to look. Moonlight really sets the bar high. I especially loved the swimming scene and how the camera was partially underwater, that always looks amazing.

Moonlight has the same challenge every drama movie has. The plot is something very ordinary, and there's no great adventure to keep the audience interested. Moonlight keeps the audience's attention by being such an unbelievably beautiful slice of life movie. It's beautiful, delicate and poetic while also showing the dark parts of Chiron's life. The balance is amazing. And while the movie can be brutal, it doesn't revel in it. This is exactly what drama should be like.

Writing in Moonlight is amazing. The dialogue is simple and easy to keep a track of, yet there are so many incredibly touching lines. Also Chiron as a character is interesting to follow. While the actors change, the character is still in there, while also growing up and changing. It clearly is one person's story instead of three characters who somehow feel like they could be the same person but are too distant from each other. One thing that slightly bothers me though is how the kids' dialogue doesn't feel like actual children talking. But children's dialogue usually is very hard to write so it actually sounds real.

Of course this movie has that feeling all Oscar winners have - it feels a bit too serious, a bit too important, a bit too artsy and a bit too hyped. but that's often not the movie itself, it's the Oscars. Moonlight definitely deserved the hype it got, it was a beautiful film, even if a bit ordinary. Maybe it's ordinary just in the right way - enough to be relatable, especially to gay black people, but not too ordinary so it's actually interesting.

Moonlight is an incredibly beautiful movie and I will admit, probably the best movies made in 2016. However I'm only giving it 9/10 because I did feel a bit bored during certain scenes, but of course it seems like the story style was a bit minimalistic on purpose - not a lot happened, but that's what growing up might feel like.

One of my biggest issues with these Marvel movies is the fact that if I want to keep up I have to watch every single thing they produce because everyone has cameos and every movie is connected to another. There are no stand-alone films anymore, and that can suck, if you're not into every superhero. I don't care for Captain America, so I haven't seen Civil War, where this new Spider-man, played by Tom Holland, made his first appearance. However, this film quickly recaps the important bits of Civil War, and by important bits I mean what Spider-Man did. Still there's a lot of stuff you need to remember from other Marvel movies.

What's interesting in this new version is that there doesn't seem to be origin story the way Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man had origin stories. You could ask where the hell Peter Parker came from, but hey, I think we all know the thing with the radioactive spider and Uncle Ben getting shot, so we can safely assume that's still the case here.

And of course there's an issue with Peter Parker as Spider-Man: aren't we all bored to death? What about Miles Morales, or any other Spider-Man? What about Gwen as Spider-Girl?

The Amazing Spider-Man also took place in high school, but this time it actually feels like high school. Sure, Tom Holland is actually 21, but he's closer to a teenager than Andrew Garfield was, considering how fresh-faced Holland looks.

Tom Holland is great as Peter Parker, as great as Garfield was, and definitely better than Tobey Maguire (though that we can all blame on bad writing). Spider-Man: Homecoming has amazing young actors, such as Jacob Batalon, Tony Revolori and Zendaya. But one of the biggest reasons I wanted to see this movie was Michael Keaton. He is great as a superhero (Batman) and as a villain (Vulture) and everything in-between.

But apart from the fresh cast and new technology from the Avengers movies, Spider-Man: Homecoming isn't anything special. It's fun to watch, but not actually funny, apart from the typical Avengers humour. Plots in these are pretty much the same thing over and over, but then again, was anyone expecting anything else? Marvel is becoming a one trick pony.

So if you love superheroes, then of course go see it, but if you want something new from Marvel, then this movie isn't for you I mean third version of Spider-Man? They have so many superheroes and they go with Spider-Man, again?

Hancock has been on my watchlist since I really started liking Will Smith, which was about a year ago. When I finally managed to watch it, I didn't know much about it, apart from it being hopefully a different kind of superhero movie.

At first the movie feels refreshingly simpler compared to the epic superhero movies we keep getting. It felt like most of the idea came from how in those epic superhero movies the heroes cause a lot of damage to the city and its people. But as the story goes forward the story does become richer and, even if I hate the word, more epic.

It's refreshing to see a character like Hancock. He is like an asshole, clearly an antihero (it's already refreshing not to see a brooding white man antihero, mind you), but there's more to him. And what's important we actually can see how he feels about the people kind of hating him, even if he tries to save them. It's not just superficially shrugged off.

I also love how the music is used so well with the story. When the movie becomes more like a superhero movie the soundtrack feels more like a classic score for that type of movies.

Hancock is an entertaining and a surprisingly good superhero movie. I think I would've preferred something simpler, something more refreshing, but Hancock is good for what it is. Of course it's a bit typical, but it has several new elements, and it has great cast. And while the story is not great, there are a lot of things I like about it. Hancock definitely is worth seeing whether or not you are tired with the typical Marvel or DC movies we get.

As a high school movie Charlie Bartlett is great. In the best movies, high school is never portrayed realistically, because it would be way too boring. High schools in movies are always way more colourful and have many big events during quite a short while. Stuff happens faster. It makes you kind of nostalgic for high school, while knowing it never was like that. But it's always fun to see typical sub-culture people like punks and goths and jocks and such, while the cliques might not have been so clear in your school.

Charlie Bartlett is both funny and sad. It's funny, because there definitely is humour there, even though it might be quite dark sometimes. Meanwhile it's also sad to see all these kids with their problems and seeing how little help they get - before Charlie shows up, of course.

However no matter how fun Charlie Bartlett might be, it feels also a bit boring. At least it's kind of a dull way to get all these deep, meaningful messages out. They get drowned in dialogue which isn't always that intriguing. There are several intense scenes that catch your attention though, but they are here and there and it's easy to not focus.

Charlie Bartlett is a good high school movie, but when it comes to movies in general, it's just decent. Most of it charms comes from Anton Yelchin, who was a talented, very present young actor. His performance alone makes this movie worth watching, however it doesn't quite reach my expectations.

I have seen a lot of footage of this movie, so I finally decided watch it. This movie is an excellent mockumentary, and absolutely hilarious. I love how they used very classic vampires instead of trying to make a modern version where they leave out certain parts of the myth or come up with new features for the vampires.

What We Do In The Shadows is a brilliant fantasy-horror-comedy, and in its way very unique. It's definitely entertaining and well made, even if it's not really my type as a movie.

Ant-Man? Marvel isn't making movies about the actually interesting heroes, but we get a movie about Ant-Man?

I was very suspicious when Ant-Man was announced. Who actually gave a chicken-s@#t about Ant-Man? However my mind changed once I learned Edgar Wright was one of the writers. I've liked his style so, you know, even if Ant-Man had been total rubbish, at least there was some skillful writing - not just from Wright.

The most distinct thing about Ant-Man is how much simpler it is compared to the massive Avengers franchise. The story is simple, mostly revolving around a heist instead of some huge, epic fight that will cause millions of dollars worth of damage to the cities. It's simple, yet still interesting enough to watch.

Another special thing about Ant-Man is how much more relaxed it seems. There's no giant need to make it super serious and stuff a lot of philosophical pondering in there, which usually does go to total waste when it comes to superhero movies. Ant-Man is an action comedy, and it usually manages to make even the most important fights quite funny in rather easy ways. Ant-Man does a way better job at making the situation lighter than, say, Avengers: Age of Ultron, where they just zing kind of cheesy one-liners here and there to get cheap laughs from the audience. Could it be because writers of Avengers are working under this huge pressure and they can't really enjoy themselves, while reaction to Ant-Man being announced was pretty much "Why the f@#k would you make this movie?"

Of course there are annoyances, which are too common with any superhero movies, and they get recycled over and over again. There's that unnecessary romance, predictable structure, but what's most annoying to me is you can't really watch a Marvel movie unless you've seen like at least three others. I'd love to be able to watch Ant-Man as Ant-Man, because it's actually funny movie, but there's hint to movies I haven't seen, and I don't want to watch. This is the biggest problem with the franchise system - you can't just watch movies individually. Like sure I wouldn't watch Iron Man 3 without seeing the first two, but like this is the first Ant-Man movie and still I have to know so much? It's a buzzkill.

All in all Ant-Man is a very entertaining movie, but it has the same flaws every superhero movie has. Thankfully though it's hilarious and way more relaxed than any other superhero movie I've seen - apart from Deadpool, of course.