A worth of friendship

How I love to watch a sweet, positive, nice, light film that not only can make me feel relaxed after a long hard day, but it can make me laugh, and also has a meaning. And that‘s the simpliest description of „I Love You, Man“ movie. It  is really a nice thing to watch. And the soundtrack of the film puts you in the right mood too, and it‘s all so great. But let‘s move on to the „meaning“ things and discuss them.

The storyline of this film goes around Peter – nice, well-mannered, educated, polite man who has no male friends and somehow it is thought to be wrong and not mannish. Why? So this leads us to the main idea of this film: friendship and the differences in female and male friendship. One of the most common beliefs that women tell EVERYTHING to their best friends. Like men don‘t do that. In fact, sometimes men tell so much more than women do. Yup, men do talk a lot. But should both men and women tell that much to their friends? Is there any borders that they shouldn‘t cross and limits they shouldn’t waste? Maybe there are certain things that should remain untold, especially if they involve two or more people? You know, I want to give straight answer, but I don‘t think I have one.

Another question that kept me bothering while watching this film was what is wrong if a man gets along very well with women? What is wrong with a man who is friends with women? Does this fact make a man less of a man? Why is it still thought to be weird? I don‘t get it. But then this leads to other questions, like: is it abnormal if a man doesn‘t have male friends, or a woman doesn‘t have female friends? I don‘t have answers to the last question though I would like to have, because for me it seems interesting. I just don‘t think that these days would be relvant to classify things into normal/abnormal because in my opinion the borderline of these things is barely seen which makes you imposible to conclude something and leave it unprotested. Before moving to another paragrapgh, let me quickly ask one more question: what is wrong with having mom or dad as a best friend for both men and women? Is it that miserable? Isn‘t it great when as an adult you can also be friends with your parents. Isn’t it great to have close and friendly relationship with your parents instead of an alieated relationship? If it‘s not than why is it a good purpose to laugh at someone because of it?

Let‘s go even deeper – does everyone need to have a best friend? Why? Is it impossible to live without a best friend? If the answer is NO then why all this „Best firend“ topic is fussed about all the time? I think there are people who can‘t live without other people (call them friends, buddies or whatever) in their lives they are in constant need to mix with people. But there are also people who can and, personally I don‘t see nothing wrong in it. Moreover, let‘s not forget that for some people making (new) friends is not an easy thing to do. Some of us are shy, some of us keep the distance and don‘t let others easily into our world. That‘s how some people are, and there‘s nothing weird about that.

Maybe, the issue occurs when we are pressed by someone to have friends? You know all this public opinion, others knowing better what is good for us and how we should live our own life. But then again, why should we do things that others want us to do and expect us to do it? I think we don‘t have to. We choose the path of our life and we walk it. No one should decide for us just because they think it is right. It goes this way in everything. Having friends/ not having, too.

Married couple. Boy, are they hilarious sometimes. Especially if you observe them from the perspective of a single person or not yet married and thinking when you will get married there‘s no way you‘re going to be that way. In this film we also have a hilarious married couple to observe (Zooey‘s friends) and compare them to Zooey and Peter couple. Married couples have weird rules sometimes (not that other couples don‘t, but somehow with married people it looks weirder). And it‘s really interesting to observe married couples (even if their relationship aren‘t happy) for some sort of your personal research or analysis purposes. I don‘t know why it is so, it just is.

Now, let‘s go positive way. I (and this is only my personal opinion) think that you don‘t have to go out and desperately seek to find yourself a friend (husband, wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, love) like it is shown in this movie. When the time is right all those people WILL enter our life anyway. And they do, sometime they are soul mates, sometimes they are a totally opposite to what we are, but in both ways it might turn into something great. All we need is time and patience (writing this sentence  “Patience” by  Guns n‘ Roses‘s  kept playing in my head, I don’t know why) for things to work out the right way. And it happened to Peter. He finds himself a friend – Sydney. Now, Sydney is completely opposite to Peter with all his worldviews, rules, moral values and habits. He’s a boy, a grown up boy. And he‘s really straightforward.

One more thing to discuss – I swear. How come women (well, men too) are so jealous when their men (women) are having good time with their friends and family? Why do they think that if they are together men (women) should ONLY be with them and forget their family and friends? In a relationship no one‘s a property of the others, so they can’t treat your partner as a property by forbiding something. And being jelous about if he‘s/she‘s spending time with friends and family is simply weird.


Moving on with Millenium film series

After finishing discussing Millenium book trilogy it is about time to go on discussing these film series. I‘ve already made a post about the first film, so it‘s time to make one about the second one – „The Girl who played with Fire“.

I talked a lot about Lisbeth‘s traumatic past (which is introduced to us) and in this film we are visually, though partly introduced with it. Her traumatic memories keep chasing her, moreover, they came back involving her into things she didn‘t do. So, the film is full of tension. And this is awesome, because it makes you want to proceed watching it. This tension and all these secrets that keep arising hypnotize you untill the film ends. That‘s a good thing for a movie. Plus, in my opinion, this part of Millenium film series corresponds the most to the thriller detective genre of all.

This time we are introduced with even darker side of Lisbeth both visually and mentally. She doesn‘t speak much, but makes certain (in a while violent) actions. She‘s concentrated, outrageous girl determined to work things out in her way and seek for truth and revenge. Though, darkness is only one side of Lisbeth. She also has a bright one, a sensitive one and we are introduced with this side of hers when we see how she‘s taking care of Palmgren.

We are also introduced with new characters who don‘t take much part in the film, however, they bring up some new storylines like prostitution and human trafficking in Sweden, sex trafficking that are the key to the main story – Lisbeth‘s story. Moreover, these issues are important (more or less) for everyone, because these happen in every country whether we know of it or not: violence against women, sexual abuse both of women and children, the fact how women and kids have to live with these situations and traumas, unable to fight against it. And the worst thing is when these things are covered up or not solved on a governmental level.

Another one horrible aspect of life shown in this films is terrible father-daughter relationship. It‘s insane how father treates his daughter and daughter treats her father. And the way truth is revealed is even more terrible. Not to mention seeing someone being burried alive.

Shortly getting back to Scandinavian cinematography subject I must say that Scandinavians are not only easily showing sex scenes, but they are OK with lesbian sex scenes. Not that I‘m pro or against it it‘s just my observation comparing to, let‘s say, American films, especially with those for the masses. Some how Scandinavian movie creators are open to these scenes, not afraid to show them. I don‘t know why is it so, it just is.

Another thing I‘d like to mention is the language of this movie. It‘s Swedish. And Swedish language seem to sound really calmly, without huge emotions. It‘s nice when you can listen to dialogues (you don‘t understand) on a calm notes, even though something really dramatic or intense is going on.

What amazes me watching movies is how characters description, his features written in a book come alive in the film and colors up the story. In this case it was really obvious. I mean it is fascinating how a selected person (actor or actress) even more colors the story with his physical appearance, advantages and maybe disadvantages of their look. Actually, I liked that actors (the characters they play) look completely non – glamorous. They look like regular people: me, you. And we are watching the story that happened to regular people. In general, I like that the film is made in a very subtle, ascetic way, economic way if you want to call it. But it does not worsen the narration of a given story.

The one problem with this film is the fact that certain things are happening way too fast. I did not like that. Some things are absent from the film at all. Like the biggest part of beginning (that we could read in the book) is absent. Sadly, because there were few interesting thigs that could appear in the film.



Last week I (as the rest of the world) found out that Michael Nyqvist, actor who played Mikael Blomkvist in Millenium series, has passed. It was a very sad news. It is always sad to hear that someone has died. It’s even sadder that  he had to fight this terrible disease – cancer. He was trully a good actor, talented actor whose journey ended way too soon.




Secrets of a long lost symbol and further journey through Dan Brown‘s world

There are writers that you fall in love with once you read their book. And it‘s always a pleasure to read something new written by them. Everyone has their own author, or maybe few of them. I do too. One of them is Dan Brown. I remember I‘ve made a post about one of his books, so pretty much I‘ve already told why I like him, so I won‘t go into the same details. All I want to say is that I like how he writes, I like his writing style, creating a story that might be completely untrue, but you will believe it as if it was true. I love how he incorporates history, historical facts, religion, science, figures and symbols from all these fields and joins them all together in this masterpiece of his. I admire this ability of his so much and I wish I could do something like that… However, at the same time in this book there‘s so much of everything that you don‘t even know whether it‘s good or not. On the one hand, you get so much interesting information and things to think about, but on the other hand, these things start to look too unreal. Oh, well… Let‘s move on and discuss „The Lost Symbol“ book.

This book also involves Robert Langdon – a character we all know. See, this is one more reason, that makes Brown‘s books interesting to read. There‘s a character that goes from book to book, so all these stories has duration and connection, and you can see how the character develops. Yes, there might be similar situation, yet it still is interesting. Remember Sherlock Holmes stories they all are the same: mystery/crime – solving it – it is solved schemed stories that are still interesting to read. The same with Robert Langdon – he‘s a scientific, nerdy superman that keeps you alert all the time as you read the story.

This time thes story involves mystries of Capitol in Washingto D.C. No more Italian history and art. This time story is filled with detective and thriller elements and of course mysteries, mysteries, mysteries that has to be solved. And these mysteries are gathered around the organization of Masons. And this organization is known for all kinds of conspiracy theories, mystique stories, so one way or another, it makes us pay attention, because there are lots of people who still think there is something mysterious about Masons. Maybe there is? Who knows. The exact same thing can be said about all these secrets on a governmental level. Sure, there are such secrets, but are they really that groundbreaking? Who knows? Maybe. And that‘s maybe why we know about them only under the title „Secret‘. And this is why we are attached to this book because of all the secrets. Everybody likes secrets and things that might be true, but known only to very few people. The same thing with gossip. Everybody likes them, even though they say the opposite. Of course, if certain things described in this book would have been so secret neither Dan Brown would know them, nor he could write about them and make fortune out of it.

Another thing that fascinates me about Brown‘s writing style is his passion about the places he writes about. Like this time, he so vividly and passionately wrote about some places in Washington that I actually felt this huge wish to go there and see everything myself. And believe it or not, not often books (and their writers) make such an effect on me like „The Lost Symbol“ did.

But more than just historical, ancient secrets, in this book is also raised family relationship issue. Especially between wealthy parents and their kids who pretty often act irresponsible due to their wealth and what they can do with their money. But sometimes kids have unexplainable hate and heartburning for their parents or certain actions made by their parents. It‘s difficult. But when a person lives with these feelings for too long bad things happen.

Religous aspect is also very interestingly developed in this book which is great, because somehow people still think religion and whatever it concerns is really boring and out of date. This is very misleading, because religion is a very interesting topic and wide topic. Moreover, nowadays lots of things are happening to different interpretation of different religions, there are lots of religious fanatics who are really dangerous and scary. So, actually, learning and  studying religions is not only interesting, but I think is also very useful for not to be misunderstood and not to misunderstand it ourselves. How can these books help us? Maybe in no way, but it can be a great trigger to start learning things. And that‘s a pretty good start.

So, all in all, every science is awesome in its own way. And I think we should stop claiming that learning things is nerdy, because actually it is great.

Why do people love bloody stories?

For a very long time I could not understand why do people like films filled with blood and bloody murders. In particular, I could not understand why there are so many fans of Quentin Tarantino movies. I mean it’s filthy, it’s bloody, it’s violent. Yup, all these features makes his style recognizable and you can say: it’s Tarantino, man. Tarantino. Tarantino.

And then it happened… I watched „The Hateful Eight“. As non – Tarantino and his style fan I enjoyed watching this one. It has its charm. First of all, because it doesn‘t feel like you‘re watching a modern film. It feels like you‘re watching something made in the 70s or 80s. Second of all, I loved the soundrack. Rarely I pay attention to it, but this time I really loved it. It brought (for me) completely other kind of mood. This was one of those cases when music is an equal partner of a good plot, good acting. Soundrack really worked for this movie. Thirdly, I loved the structure of a movie. It has chapters, like a book. So watching this film is actually like reading a story. A mystyrious story with suspicious, yet charismatic characters.

And a story is told from two places. One part of the story happens in a carriage. We learn a lot of useful information about the characters, what this story is about. Another huge parts happens at a Haberdashery. And that‘s it. Only two basic locations. On the other hand, if the story‘s good you don‘t need many locations. However, at Haberdashery we find more characters and we find the fact that all the story we‘ve known so far was actually a bit different and interesting things start to happen.

As all Tarantino’s movies this one is also full of macabrick scenes that are really disgusting to watch. Blood. There‘s lots of it (even though it doesn‘t look realistic) and vomit. But hey, it‘s Tarantino‘s film after all. I don‘t know why he chose this to be his style features. Maybe he isn‘t trying to show life through pink lenses, maybe he‘s trying to show it dirty, bloody and violent as it is, to show other kind of cinema aesthetics. Or, maybe on the contrary, he is trying to hyperbolize violence we are used to see on the screen? I honestly don‘t know and I don‘t even know how to comment on it. But in Tarantino’s and this films defence I must say that there are actually aesthetically beautiful scenes, like beautiful nature.

What is very interesting is the fact how language decorates a movie. In this case, the best language to watch this film in is only the original one. Believe me, no matter where are you from – you should watch it in original language. It gives you this specific charm, that any translation won‘t be able to. Also, it is interesting to observe how certain type of shots make a movie and decorate it at the very same time. In this case, I noticed lots of close up shots that brought certain mood into this film. You know, all these (I don‘t know how to call them) – tricks, features, or whatver, make up entire picture. It‘s like picking up a puzzle: you take great actors (one piece), great backround (second piece), killer, charismatic dialogues (third piece), beautiful music (another piece), these filming and focusing things (one more piece), some other stuff and… BOOM! You picked the picture. Amazing!

What else caught my attention is staticness of the film. There isn’t much action here. However, you don’t miss it, because somehow this story telling, dialogues gives you some sort of dynamic, though completely different kind of dynamic, not the one we are used to see in such kind of movies.

Talking about acting cast suprises (yes, I still find some acting cast choices surprising) Kurt Russell was sure one big surprise. And I don‘t even know why. It just was unexpected to see him in such kind of movie, playing such kinf of character as John Ruth. But with all my respect, I must say it was a good choice. Another thing related with actors of this film is the fact they worked under the condition that not all actors would.

I mean, there is the type of actors who only play pretty or sexy characters, they don‘t take challenges to change their appearance (look ugly, scary or unusual). I don‘t get why they are afraid of it? I mean, if you‘re an actor you should be willing to change, like Johnny Depp does, he changes every time, he tries all these different looks… So, „The Hateful Eight“ cast also played non glamorous characters and Jennifer Jason Leigh had a least glamorous role of all. And also I have one tiny notice: Samuel L. Jackson‘s characters bounty hunter Major Marquis Warren’s teeth look too good for that historical time  :). I also must mention cheriff Chris Mannix was a very good character. It was very interesting to observe his evolution throughout the film. And Tim Roth – good job, old fox.

And the very last thing that I enjoyed. Movie has some historic aspect: everything happens after the Civil war (a meaningful war for American history). Plus in this movie are actually raised important racial issue questions, like how black people are and should be treated, who can call a black man nigger and who can‘t if there‘s anyone who can actually do that at all? Even though this movie might be created to entertain us – viewers, but it also involve some serious questions that are still very important today. They really are.

Deathly Hallows: Part II. What do we learn from here?

The day has finally come to discus the very last part of Harry Potter series – “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II”. I know, that it might seem that this discussion is years late, but I don’t care, because I don’t go chasing only the newest films. So let’s start discussing.

Of all the Harry Potter series this was the darkest part for me in all senses. And the saddest. First of all, we had to face a lot of losses of our beloved characters. Second of all, it was the actual end, meaning there will be no more films, meaning this great story has come to an end. And this was truly sad thing about this part. Seeing everything ruined, gone is not what you would enjoy to see at the end of the story. It’s really black and dark.

Watching scene where we are introduced with all those characters who died in a fight is really sad. Sure, there were lots of losses throughout the entire Harry Potter series, but this time we lost so many beloved characters at once. Trully heartbreaking scene.

Again, here is brought back my already nationalism idea from my previous post on Harry Potter, in this part we also face the same issue in several ways. One – incaptivated, poorly treated (maybe even tortured) creatures considering them being lower (like dragon at Gringgots bank). Two – dark forces are so much superior than the good ones (last time I made a point on nationalism relating it to the problem of pure blood wizards and mixed wizard-Muggle, or entirely Muggle born wizards) so they persecute those who are against them. In this part it was visible some sort of propaganda machine example when Voldemort reaches out for Hogwarts students, he reaches their mind like talking through radio, controlling them. And there are other examples: students marching as soldiers… I don’t know how about you, but it somehow reminded me of Hitlerjugend (I know, dark assosiations of mine), then we of course have this lodgement of a complaint politics (well, this is not only a feature of Nazis regime, but fits for it as well). And all this has one grand goal –war, fight the good powers and win over them.

On the other hand, this part represents the beauty of unity. Whenever you face a disaster and to get through it the situations requires people. People who could get together, be as one to fight for the victory even though it might never happen. In this Harry Potter part we saw the biggest unity of a magical world to fight Voldemort. Moreover, this part (more than the previous ones) shows us that cowardness, in fighting problems is a the worst feature. It doesn’t help you to solve anything. On the other hand, true love, true friendship is the biggest value and are able to change unchangeable things.

While watching this movie, I don’t know why, but I remembered “The Lord of the Rings” movies. Probably it was so, because of the scene where a huge and wild crowd of Death Eaters was running to Hogwarts. They looked like orcs to me, but I don’t know why.

All in all, it was good film. And there are few things that caught my attention and does not need detailed discussion. First of all, – Voldemort in pain. I don’t know why, but it was interesting to watch it (I hope that does not make me a bad person 🙂 ). Second of all, in some scenes it seems that Harry’s glassess are actually without glass, it’s just frames. Thirdly, Snape’s part was well played, developed and tangled throughout the entire Harry Potter story. And lastly, even the biggest bad guys care for their kids – like Malfoys.

This whole magical story was such a great journey through this this mystique, another kind of world. It was interesting, adventurous and fascinating. Sadly, it had to end as all the good things do.