Boys do cry

In the past we have naturally focused a lot on women. We figured it was time to write a feminist post about men. (Sorry, we ain't dropping the feminism any time soon.) So this is a list of our favourite male characters who subvert some masculine expectations (sometimes described as toxic masculinity). We decided not to include sexual minorities, since masculine expectations are heteronormative. So by being not straight, one has already bucked the major masculine norms entirely. We're not big fans of such terms as masculine and feminine traits because that is basically assigning personality based on someone's physiology. We think that the line that has been created between what is masculine and what is feminine is rather arbitrary. We await for the day when men are no longer from Mars and women no longer from Venus. Where our characteristics are under the blanket of "humanity" and where we see each other as fellow human beings. And no, none of the aforementioned means erasing biological gender. So, chill.

1. Vash from Trigun. D-uh! He might not give the best first impression, but just stay with it. He is the most gentle, caring and compassionate person. Vash subverts almost all masculine expectations. He cries at everything. It's not Hollywood tears, it's weeping. We're talking waterfalls. Yes, the picture we have is funny, but most of it is played very seriously. He's forced to wear this mask of a clown and an idiot but is actually incredibly open with his feelings and basically wears his heart on his sleeve. Heard of the expression "would not hurt a fly"? Yeah, it's this guy right here. Whether friend or foe he refuses to seriously injure anyone and eschews violence. Plus he has like, zero ambition. Literally none whatsoever. Superheroes usually have these very lofty and ambitious goals. All he wants is to live in peace as a nameless nobody in some crummy little village helping people for the rest of his life. Also, he loves kids - as in he'd be exactly the type to be a stay-at-home dad. And last but definitely not least, he learned all his values and beliefs from a woman. As we all know, "real men" never take advice from women - only a bro is allowed to teach another bro. There are a thousand other things we could list about this guy and that's exactly why he's #1 here. It is no wonder that he shares the top spot as our favourite male character ever.

  












2. Billy Elliot from Billy Elliot.  The boy who likes ballet - of course he's included! This is really the only boy character we have here, since boys are not yet men and can be often given more leeway than full-grown male characters. But Billy is such a seminal character subverting not only of what is expected of men but of boys, so we had to have him here. We especially love the fact that the story takes place in a working class environment, with a single father whose ideas of manhood are harmful to both him and his sons. It is a wonderful and heartwarming story, since the father and Billy's brother both learn to express their tender side to Billy and accept Billy for who he is. 

3. Ashitaka from Princess Mononoke. He's on this list because Faramir of the book does not exist on film. Ashitaka has quite similar attitude to conflict and war that Faramir has. He would much rather live in peace and harmony with all his surroundings and only fights out of necessity. You knew that at least one Miyazaki would make it here. 

4. Mr. Baxter from The Apartment. This guy is incredibly nurturing. Here is a movie where you see a man being a woman's emotional support. And there is nothing that we love more about him than that he is never that guy who guilt-trips the woman (like saying I'm so much better than him or why are you with that guy) that you have in every other romantic movie. He makes no demands whatsoever on her and expects nothing.

5. Willow from Willow. Willow's the first one we have where nurturing is the main reason we picked him. Especially nurture towards children. You don't see men doing the domestic side of nurture - like feeding, changing nappies or carrying a baby constantly. And showing that the man would actually enjoy taking care of a child. Willow exceeds in all.

6. Michael from The Deer Hunter. First, think of all the 70's and early 80's roles De Niro has done. They're all pretty hypermasculine - he's aggressive, violent and often lacking in general humanity. They're interesting roles but fit a certain stereotype of men. Michael as a character is actually quite a departure for De Niro's usual roles. It might not seem that way looking at the film's premise, but the character is surprisingly deeply compassionate. Our favourite moment where his compassion shines is when he's talking Steven through their torture - he never tells him to man up or not to cry, instead he says it's okay and to let it out and tries to comfort him and be there for him. Another one is when Michael goes to see Angela - she is in a state of shock and is unable to communicate, and of course you'd at least expect him to get frustrated, because in many films where women are in shock men usually lose their nerve and either shout or shake them or tell them to snap out of it. None of that here. He is nothing but kind, gentle and patient to the very end.

7. Holland March from The Nice Guys. This guy is so damn effeminate and we absolutely love it! It's kind of played for laughs, but then again it's not. It's much more physical comedy rather than the viewer laughing at the character failing in some "masculine act". Part of the subversion here is to do with the actor - Gosling's roles tend to be on the stereotypical sphere, so it was nice to see a role where he got to play on a different spectrum. And we're always happy to see caring fathers onscreen.

8. Quasimodo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame. He's a sweetheart. Even though he has been raised by the cruelest person, Quasimodo is astoundingly kind and gentle. Since he is a Disney character, the range isn't that wide, but especially when you compare him to other Disney men, he has far less toxic elements in his behaviour.

9. Lenny from Strange Days. Ok, he has some of the toxic aspects of "masculine behaviour" - like being hung up on his ex, but he does eventually learn out of them. The reason we have him here, is because when we (still 100% Mormon then) watched this the first time we deemed him a coward. Because he evades conflict and is afraid of pain. He uses every verbal method possible to avoid getting beat up. And he's always saved by a woman.

10. Ed Wood from Ed Wood. He's a cross-dressing straight dude. How much more norm- breaking can you get? And he's pretty much the only one on this list who's based on a real person, played with Depp's and Burton's weirdness, of course. We love it.

11. Newt Scamander from Fantastic Beasts. Here's another one who is a very nurturing character. The movie we don't much care about and have never liked Harry Potter, but this man was a pretty good main character. He focuses saving the animals without harming them and instead of violence opts for dialogue. It doesn't surprise us that some film critics took issue with Newt as a main character - for movies that are supposed to sell it is expected that the lead is your regular hero who punches first and thinks later (or never).

12. Ichabod Crane from Sleepy Hollow. This is another dainty male character with some very effeminate traits. He's physically incompetent, afraid of spiders and faints at the sight of blood. Here you have the classic man of action versus man of intellect division, but unlike in most Hollywood films where the man of action is the one to save the day, here it's the other way around. 

13. Shinji from Evangelion. The series, NOT the movie (which was basically the equivalent of the creator saying: oh, you like these characters? Well, fuck you!) Shinji is pretty much an antithesis to most animeboy teen heroes. He's a coward, indecisive and really really passive. Shinji is actually quite an accurate depiction of depression (the whole show kinda is). Point is, these kind of boy characters rarely show up anywhere mainstream and definitely feel more like actual teenagers than most we see in popular media.

 

The Good, the Better and the Best

It's strange that we have managed to get this far without making a list of our favourite films. There's a reason for that. We have so many movies that would deserve to be on this list, so in order to cut it down to a reasonable amount for a blog, we have picked our favourites according to genre. Some of the films' genres overlap, because obviously they do. We had to pick genres, otherwise this list would be over a 100 titles. 

A few genres are missing, like western. Because they aren't our thing. If we had to pick, we'd take a western in a modern setting (The Way of the Gun). We actually have one western that we absolutely love, but it's a TV series. Film noirs are also something we're not drawn to. Again, if we had to pick a film noir, it would be a modern one (L.A. Confidential). We've dropped the genre 'thriller' as we don't think it's a separate genre because it's always paired with something else, eg. mystery, horror or action. In addition, it's nearly indistinguishable from horror or mystery. Animated movies are just movies, you can have an animated anything. As you'll be able to see by the end of this list, we're ridiculously mainstream.

1. The Deer Hunter (war)

Anyone who knows us or has followed our blog, probably already knew that this is our other favourite film of all time. We assigned the war genre (it could have been drama as well) to this because we don't generally like war films. War films seem to take place only during the war and focus more on the military and army perspective. And a war is so much more than that. The Deer Hunter is not about the action or heroism in war but about war as a construct and its effect on one's psyche. Since it is Hollywood there's a serious problem with racism when depicting the Vietnamese. Everything else about this movie is on a different plane entirely. It has some of the best acting in film history. What we especially love about this movie is that you have to pay attention during the whole film. Everything is meaningful, no matter how insignificant it seems. This is what we compare other films to. This is the golden standard of film making for us.

1. It's a Wonderful Life (family)

Also, might not be a big surprise this shares the top place. This film is just so life-affirming. If you ever feel like you need to restore your faith in humanity, this is the one to watch. We're pretty sure that we're preaching to the choir here. Who hasn't seen this movie? 

3. The original Star Wars trilogy (adventure)

This might be cheating for some, but c'mon! The one does not exist without the other two. If we were held at gunpoint and forced to choose, it would be The Empire Strikes Back. But we're not. We love all three equally. These have stayed with us since we can't even remember. We love everything about these, even the silly, stupid and dated aspects. They are the perfect adventure films. Unlike most other adventure films these have more than one level. Plus Princess Leia is our first feminist icon.

4. The Apartment (romance)

Oh, the time when romance offered as deep and intricate insights into society, relationships and the human condition as the best of dramas did. When romance hadn't been degraded into something purely frivolous and superficial. We love good romance and we hate it when it's shoved into this narrow box that film executives have created. This is what great romance movies can be. It's so funny but so sad at the same time. The main characters are simply lovable. It's Billy Wilder at his absolute best. Though we like Psycho it does not compare, this definitely deserved the Oscar. We particularly appreciate the subtle anti-corporate message.

5. Princess Mononoke (fantasy)

Another case of sharing because we can't make a decision. We love all of Miyazaki's works but this is hands down our favourite. We love his humanist ideals that are reflected in his films. And Mononoke is no exception. Fantasy has probably always been our most favourite genre, so when you combine Miyazaki's humanism with fantasy, it's inevitable that film should end up on this list. This was something that transferred us to a completely different world. We don't like anime, but this is what it could be at its best. 

5. Beauty and the Beast (musical)

Obviously the animation. The best that Disney has ever produced. Indisputably. Menken's best music, best animation, best story and best characters. The visuals are far and above any other Disney film. This is not a Disney movie, this is A Movie.  This is the only one, THE ONLY ONE, that rivals Miyazaki. Is there anything more to say about it?

7. Eastern Promises (crime)

We felt guilty about liking this film for the longest time (chalk it up to trying to be good Mormons). But goddamn if this movie isn't impressive. This is one of those that we return to time and time again and we like it more each time we watch it. It's dark and twisty, just as we like 'em.  This film is brutal and unforgettable. The Russian melancholy really gets us every time. 

8. Arrival (science fiction)

We never thought we would have a favourite sci-fi movie until we saw this. It's definitely the best film we have seen in the cinema. The science aspect in it is linguistics, a humanist science. Of course we loved it. It's incredibly well-constructed. This is the only movie where we love the plot twist, we normally either dislike them or are indifferent to them. The twist makes the film bittersweet and we love it.

9. The Lady Vanishes (mystery)

Obviously we had to have a Hitchcock on this list. It would've been invalid otherwise. We loved it immediately after seeing it. We really like Agatha Christie's mystery novels and she might as well have written this movie. 

10. On the Waterfront (drama)

It was a tough choice between this and East of Eden. This took the edge by the difference of a hair. This is a classic so it's no surprise that this is on the list. The reason this film touched us is because it's a story of redemption.  We love that it's a working-class story from a working-class perspective.

11. Bringing Up Baby (comedy)

This on the other hand was such an easy choice. The minute we saw it we knew it would remain as our favourite comedy. The slapstick, the verbal quips and the wacky characters! It's a never-ending gagfest where all the gags work. We quote this movie a lot.

 












12. 28 Days Later (horror)

For quite a while this was the only horror film we did like (we have since discovered a few more). This was the first and it hit the hardest. This isn't about how frightening the monsters are but about how scary we as humans could be in this situation. 

13. Aliens (action)

Yes, we think that The Terminator is the best action film, but this is our favourite. Another film that we can't remember not having seen. Awesome and kick-ass female character, terrific action and surprisingly genuine human interaction. What's not to like?

 










The thread connecting most of these films is a character-driven story, often with a humanist undertone. Music is pretty damn important to us as well. Film language and visual storytelling are also things we pay a lot of attention to. 

The Two Turds

We're talking about the extended cuts because those were the filmmakers' vision. And boy oh boy, how we detest this one. More so than the 3rd one (which is not a favourite in our household anyway). We think we've proved that we are capable of analyzing films independent of the book or be at least somewhat objective when it comes to movie adaptations of books we worship. 'Cause the first movie mostly works even separately from the book. This one on the other hand... Even if one was to discard the book entirely, this movie still has some serious structural problems. Not to mention the awful character assassinations. As we've stated previously, there's no use in looking at adaptations separate from the source material. The intention of the filmmakers was to make an adaptation. So excuse our anger.

Pros: Gonna be a real short list. Music, costumes, set designs, locations and most of the actor choices. Some action scenes are entertaining and well-put together. Cinematography is also great. And did we mention music? 'Cause it definitely merits a second shout out. All the external factors that had nothing or little to do with story and characters were good.

Cons: We had to divide this into two parts; our biggest issues are story and characters, the rest would just be nitpicking. Let's start with the story. Anyone who has seen the documentaries knows that they explained the change in the chain of events in the book by some bullshit reasoning that the film's story should be linear (for some reason?). This causes some major trouble for pacing. Goddamn this movie is boring at times.  It starts okay, but the whole middle part is a real drudge to get through. They've added pointless scenes and needless crap that lead nowhere and add nothing to the characters, or at least add nothing good. They've also kept some parts from the book that could have been discarded (like the Dead Marshes). Best example about adding useless stuff - that damn wolf attack scene. What they were clearly trying to do (and they admit to this in the documentaries) is to create conflict and tension artificially. As they say, to "up the ante". There are not many tricks in storytelling we hate more than this one (we'll get to this in greater detail when discussing Faramir). 

In this particular case, linear storytelling is impossible. There's a reason why Tolkien wrote the rest of the story out of sequence after the Fellowship disbanded. By the way, viewers are not stupid - we can pick up on the real sequence of events even if they are told out of order. In the end, we just kept asking "why? why change this? this would've worked just as it was in the book and actually been better cinema-wise." Now it's just out of balance. Additionally, we do not appreciate cheap emotional manipulation tricks (eg. Sam's whole speech at the end of the movie). The movie is riddled with them. 

Moving on to characters. So what the fuck happened to Aragorn? He's an asshole now? (Viggo is still perfect, though). They nullified his growth from the first movie - his character suffers from the invented tension. Because apparently they needed to make him be a total dickbag to Arwen, so that we'll all be like "oh no, whatever will happen to them?", in addition to creating an excruciating love triangle.  This also bleeds into Arwen's character, who is treated abysmally. She's completely infantilized by both Aragorn and her father. She's one of the most ancient and wise beings in that world (if one has read the appendices), here she's a lovelorn teenager who doesn't know her own mind.

Frodo and Sam. This is where it all goes downhill for Frodo. They doubled down on everything that we didn't like about his character in the first film. He's totally passive and none of his actions (which are a few and far between) make any difference. This is also where the Ring porn really kicks off. And that means that Frodo's character is defined by the Ring. In the book, it is a fairly fascinating, gradual and psychological journey for his character. Here,  it's just a simple "Ring is evil, so now Frodo is under its spell". And dear god Sam, what have they done to you?!?! Sure, in the book Sam was very suspicious of Gollum, but NEVER to the point of cruelty or violence.  The wedge they're driving between Sam and Frodo is at its worst in the 3rd movie, so we'll talk more about it then. Outside of Faramir, Sam and Frodo are the primary victims of the forced conflict. Fuck this shit.

That brings us to two literary characters whom we have loved ever since we first read these books, namely Faramir and Éowyn. What they did to both these characters insults us deeply. Let's start off with Faramir. His character introduction was promising (as was Èowyn's) but it was undone in a matter of minutes by everything that followed. As said, Faramir is the biggest victim of this forced conflict/tension bs. For anyone who hasn't read the books, Faramir was supposed to be a peace-loving and gentle soul, someone who preferred a pen and book to a sword and shield. It is said that Faramir and his values were a reflection of Tolkien's own. And since Tolkien had taken part in one of the most destructive wars in history, that's not a difficult connection to make. In the book Faramir is someone who defies toxic masculinity. He goes to war only out of necessity. Yeah, he doesn't have a character arc, but for a character to be relatable and meaningful to the story, an arc is not always required (for minor characters anyway). His purpose in the story is integral for another reason.

Here we present the atrocious and frankly infuriating excuse they gave in the documentaries for the change in his character. Because apparently Faramir needed the exact same arc that his brother had had, in order to create that sweet sweet tension (since evidently there's only one way to create tension) and to keep the Ring eeeevil. Didn't we just see this? Talk about pointless and redundant scenes. The reason Faramir didn't want the Ring was BECAUSE he could see what had happened to Boromir and more importantly, the Ring couldn't offer him anything he wanted. We guess this subtle form of symbolism went over the writers' head. What offends us most is that a character who originally eschewed masculinity's most toxic aspects now embodies them. He's willing to break his promise and torture a pathetic creature in order to gain information. Fuck this shit! 

Now for one of the most influential fictional characters to either of us. We'll write more about Éowyn, especially about her motives and what a badass she is, in the last post - since she isn't really present in the second book so we don't have that much material to go on here. And it shows, because they invented some of the most insulting, stupid and sexist shit that a human mind can conjure up. She's an amazing and truly unconventional character in the books, especially considering the genre and when it was written. Like Faramir with masculinity, Éowyn bucks all the feminine stereotypes. We didn't love her purely because of her badassery, but also because of her personality. She was cold and hard as steel while still having humanity. And it was wonderful to read for once that such a woman isn't automatically a villain or deserving of misery. How often does one see cold and distant male characters who are hailed as complex? Well, here you had a woman who was truly complex while espousing those traits. 

In addition, we were raised in a religion where it was impossible and unheard of for women to be anything else but gentle and nurturing. Women's highest purpose in life was to be a wife and a mother. Even if those are the things that one wants in life, hearing constantly that one's divine duty is to be those things 24/7 can be quite debilitating. So it was pretty insulting for us to see that two female writers managed to turn Èòwyn (written by a man) into a stereotype of a female character. In the books she was never in love with Aragorn but instead of the idea of what his title could give her. If Arwen was a lovelorn teenager, Èowyn is ten times worse. She didn't give a damn what any man thought of her. Here you see her constantly deferring to the men, her gaze is drawn to the men onscreen and her motives and actions are driven by male characters. Èòwyn, probably more than any other character from this story, is personal to us, so yes, we admit that it might affect our judgement somewhat. FUCK.THIS.SHIT.

Also, fuck this scene. Jonna had to leave the room because she was hyperventilating with anger.

Disney, retrospectively

Hercules (1997)

This was the last of the 90's Disney we saw and we were already in our teens so there is less nostalgia to be had. That being said, we sort of enjoy it. Once again, particularly the Finnish dub. Objectively speaking this is most likely the worst Disney had to offer in the 90's. But we still like it way more than Pocahontas. 

Characters

Hercules: Just a fucking clueless idiot. Unlike Aladdin though, he's at least honest and sincere. Doesn't have much in the way of a character arc. Much like Aladdin, he's not the the most interesting character in his own title film.

Meg: She has the best attitude. We're especially fond of her sharp tongue. She does have a character arc, but of course it's all about the dude like one would expect from one's basic Disney movie. 

Hades: The last decent Disney villain, even though the role is forced on him (his motives suck). However, he's really fun and entertaining. 

Minor characters: There aren't many, but those that are important to the story (and even those that aren't) work quite well. They definitely provide the best gags. The cat gets us every time. 

Story

Obviously this has nothing to do with Greek mythology or even geography. Mt. Olympos does not look like that. Since one of us has lived in Greece for 18 months it's fair to say that we know more about the region and country than Disney. They clearly didn't consult any experts. Considering the company's track record with sticking to the original version, it's no surprise. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. 

The story is already weak to begin with, but it completely falls apart by the third act. This movie simply cannot decide its genre. It's tonally way more confused than Hunchback. The story works when it's comedy but not when it tries to be epic or serious. To be honest, we don't have much else to comment because this movie is utterly frivolous. Frivolous, but fun. We stand our ground that it's funny. But for god's sake don't mistake it for anything deeper. 

Miscellaneous

We love Menken, but this is definitely not his best work. The gospel theme is weird, we guess it has something to do with praising gods and stuff? We still think it's not the most natural fit. At least Menken has composed a score in addition to the songs, unlike many of the later Disney films. The popular culture references were a little too much for us. So if you thought the Genie was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. 

"Inspired" by Austen

We've already made lists of our best and worst Austen adaptations, so this time we thought to look at stuff "inspired" by Austen. And when we say "inspired", we mean they mostly have nothing to do with her books. These are ranked from our favourite to the most offensive to all of humankind, especially women. 


1. Clueless. We were actually shocked how much we still like this film. It's fun, it's light and makes some pretty clever references to Emma. It's the perfect guilty pleasure movie. Also, Cher has a character arc that's pretty rare to see in a teen romance.

2. Death Comes to Pemberley. First of all, the fact that Wickham would in ANY shape or form care about Lydia at all is pretty egregious, so that should already tell you how knowledgeable the people who made this are about Austen's works (that includes the author of the book this miniseries is based on). And poor Colonel Fitzwilliam, what have they done to you!?!?!? But they did manage to make Lizzy's and Mr Darcy's relationship somewhat believable, and that is this series' only saving grace. 

3. Austenland. Ok, this is incredibly cheesy and we don't much care for this film, but it does have some good things in it. For example, the main character learns to live in the real world and stop living in a fantasyland perpetuated by the chick-lit/flick industry. It is super sappy  and clearly written by a Mormon with Mormon understanding of Austen's creations. It could be a lot worse, though.

     








4. Bride & Prejudice. Again, this one could be a lot worse. It shares the same misconception that all adaptations (apart from one) of Pride & Prejudice have - the misunderstanding. Mr. Darcy is actually a decent man instead of an asshole and the conflict is all about miscommunication and not about a transformation of both Mr. Darcy's and Lizzy's characters. We don't watch much Bollywood, so we can't really comment on that aspect of the movie.

5. The Jane Austen Book Club. What annoys us about this one, is the reading of Austen's novels from a modern perspective - no, not the "Charlotte is a lesbian" - stuff, but the fact that they insist that these books are all about romance. They don't really talk about female experiences or how Austen could be interpreted from a feminist perspective. No, in the end it's all about boys (and romance) and not about a woman's inner thoughts and experiences, which is what Austen largely focused on (with some well-executed romance thrown in the mix). 

  











6. Becoming Jane. They claim this is based on Jane Austen's life. It is not. This movie is completely inspired by the modern interpretation of Austen's books. It is your standard "lovers separated by society" - cliché, and come to think of it, wouldn't even be anything that Austen would write. If she had, this is not what it would look like, not even close. Needless to say, this has nothing to do with Austen's real life. If you are interested in seeing a dramatization of Austen's life, watch Miss Austen Regrets. At least in that one they make it clear that what she wrote was fiction and during her lifetime might as well have been pure fantasy. Both James McAvoy and Anne Hathaway have done much better. And for God's sake, never make Anne Hathaway do an English accent ever again.

7. Pride & Prejudice and Zombies. Jesus Christ, this is one huge turd of a movie. Granted, the source material is incredibly lazy and only capitalizing on the Austen - craze going on. This doesn't have any characters of Austen that one would recognize or really anyone that you'd even wanna root for. The concept is quite brilliant, but the book or the film do it no justice whatsoever. This is just another romance disguised as an action film - and not even a good one by any standards.

8. Lost in Austen. P&P and Zombies is a piece of shit but this bs takes it to a whole 'nother level. This is downright offensive. EVERYTHING in this is wrong. The worst thing about this mess is that it plays into the unhealthy idea that women would have somehow been treated better by men in Austen's time. No. Just no. And hey, why does she have to exchange her world, where she has some tangible rights, to a world where she has no rights, for a dude?!?!?!?!? Why didn't they flip it around? Here it would've actually made some sense and we wouldn't hate on this so much. He (Mr. Darcy) would have much more of a chance to succeed and have a life in the modern world than a woman would've had in the Regency era. Fuck this shit! Plus, they clearly don't know anything about the characters, if they think even for one second that Jane would've married Mr. Collins. Even if Jane had consented, her father would have never allowed it. It was nice to see our fantasy of kicking Mr. Collins in the nuts, but everything else about this is literally the worst. 

 

It vs A Quiet Place

First of all, we don't like horror, modern horror in particular that often relies on gore and jump scares. Most of the horror films we like are older and focus on the psychological aspects and gear towards suspense, not horror. Hitchcock is the master. We saw both these movies about six months apart from each other. It is surprising to us, that we have now seen not one, not two, but three horror films in the cinema. Let us reiterate, we do not like horror. We also saw Get Out last year. We didn't include Get Out here, because it simply does not compare as well. These two are first and foremost entertainment. Content-wise they don't pack as much of a punch as Get Out, as it dives into the African-American experience in the US. So we're gonna go with these. If anyone wants our take on Get Out, ask Jenni to send the essay she wrote for her African-American cinema class (you'll need to understand Finnish for that).

It

Pros: Most of the children are good. Those kids that are given time, use it well. We especially liked Beverly as a character, despite the stereotypical storyline they pushed on her. Some of the visuals are cool and work pretty well. For example, the red balloon, the painting coming to life and the slide show. Most of the story works without major hiccups and manages to be quite entertaining. 

Cons: All the jump scare scenes and music. Too much of it. That always does away with suspense. Suspense is created by the good old Hitchcock rule: the audience knows something that's about to happen which the characters do not. Too little of that here. Not enough of planting and payoff. Underdeveloped characters (eg. Stanley and Mike). Stereotype storyline for the one girl. Although the abuse backstory is the best part of the film, but that damn damsel in distress strikes again. Isn't it time we get past this cliché? Plus why was she floating with the others when she wasn't afraid anymore? Also,  the film had other time-wasting clichés that don't lead anywhere. Like the good old 'heroes must fight and separate' which definitely contributes to the overlong runtime of the film. In addition, some CGI was pretty hacky. 

A Quiet Place

Pros: Good deployment of visual cues. Planting and payoff worked great. Well developed characters, it was most likely easier to develop them as there are only four. None of the characters are useless. When you have too many characters, some of them will suffer and not be as interesting as those who are given time. Not a problem here. Particularly mature storyline for the daughter and unlike in It, this film explores it and gives her a real character arc. There are actually tense and scary moments as they use visual and audible cues (not music, but sound). The silence was a refreshing take on horror. Surprisingly short and enjoyably succinct, it had no unnecessary scenes and was easy to follow. Did not try to branch off to anything more. That's a good thing. All of the performances felt real and packed an emotional punch.

Cons: Occasional use of the jump scare music, though nothing compared to It. Minor complaint would be (to others it might matter more) the creatures' CG. But again, this aspect did not bother us nearly as much as it did in It. And that's literally all the complaints we have, folks.

General: It should be pretty obvious which movie we like better. It is rare for us to see a film in the cinema about which we have minimal complaints. For us , It was a standard made for Hollywood blockbuster (though funnily enough, rated R) and didn't really scare us or leave a mark. Whereas, A Quiet Place kept us at the edge of our seats and we still think about the film three months after having seen it. Also, first time we have preferred a PG - 13 over an R - rated film.