Category: awful movie titles

In the category awful movie titles: Blubberella (Uwe Boll/2011). And yes, the movie is exactly about what the title already implies: an overweight woman whose footsteps cause explosions and who uses dual swords against anyone who makes fun of her.


Also, completely unrelated, but worth mentioning nevertheless: how is it possible that both John Travolta and Forest Whitaker - who both aren't the worst of actors - star in a movie that ends up with a total score of 2.4 on IMDb and ends up in the bottom 100 list there as well? Check this out, because apparently it's possible! - leaves in shock - 

Movie fact of the day

The Shining was nominated for two Razzies in 1980. Including worst director.

I bet King submitted this movie himself, as it's told that he disliked what Kubrick had made out of his book. 

Movie fact of the day

The lowest grossing film of all time was Zyzzyx Road, which only made 30 dollars in a Texas theater.

IMDb adds: A crew member who took a friend got a refund, so the final domestic box-office gross was 20 dollars. 

Shockers

I don't know if it's because I started watching horror movies at such a young age, but whatever the reason is, I've always been looking for the most extreme movies. How far does a director dare to go? And how long does it take for the audience to reach their limit? And why does a director dares to go that far? What makes it that these movies are appealing (to some of us) yet disgusting, horrifying, awful to watch at the same time? Is it just that what makes us watch? Do we wish to take part in something so extreme that we wouldn't dream of ever doing it ourselves for real, which is why we make use of these movies, so that we can see something getting fulfilled? Maybe, at heart, we are all a 'disaster tourist'. 

Anyway, my search for these kind of movies, brought me to A Serbian Film yesterday. 

According to the internet, this 'beast' had to be one of the worst in its kind, so I was mentally preparing myself to watch this movie for some days. The fact that I hunt these kind of movies, doesn't mean I think it's easy to watch them. Normally, I wouldn't have any sort of expectations of a movie. I've learned myself a long time ago that it's best not to expect anything. But it's different with these kind of movies, especially if everyone I know who has seen it, told me I shouldn't watch it (even though they know I'm always looking for these kind of movies). So yeah, I was kind of expecting something that would make me cry, or at least something that would make my stomach turn upside down. 

Boy, was I disappointed. 

The story is about Milos, a retired porn actor who's still beloved in the porn world for what he's done. He's chosen for a family life, but finds himself in financial trouble at some point. When a former colleague tells him about a very special movie going to be filmed and that the director of the project wants him to star in it, he's got no other choice than to agree to whatever the project is about. Because that's the thing: the director won't tell him a single thing and when Milos finds himself doing stuff that goes beyond himself, it's too late to back out. Since I'm not aiming to write a blog post that has contents that aren't suitable for people over 16 or 18 years of age, I won't go into details here, so if you're curious to what this stuff is, you'll have to watch the movie for yourself. 

Aside from one scene, a scene I thought was so funny and corny at the same time, that I had to laugh so hard that I was afraid I'd wake my mum, I thought the movie was a drag. I almost fell asleep for several times, but managed to stay awake, because I kept waiting for the ultimate extreme to show up. It never came. I don't mean to say that this movie is fun to watch, because all in all, it's still awful what's happening here. I can totally understand that there will be lots of people out there who think this movie is disgusting, something they never wish to see again, or even something they wish they hadn't seen in the first place. Because, in essence, it is a disgusting movie. But I set aside my feelings of disgust, as those feelings came from my core moral values: you just don't do what is shown in this movie. And we all know that and if you keep clinging to those moral values, you shouldn't watch movies like this one, because that way, they'll always be wrong, no matter how beautifully shot such a movie can possibly be. After all, it's just a movie, what is shown, is not actually happening, it's not real, so you should be able to let go of what is real, and that are those moral values that make you reject such a movie. Do yourself a favour, if you're a person that is not able to let go of that, then just don't go watch this, or any related, movie, because you won't ever enjoy it. (Also if you just can't handle this degree of awfulness). 

So why then didn't this movie work for me? 

Maybe because I've seen too much of this already. I believe the first movie of this kind I watched, was Salo, or the 120 days of Sodom. I don't really remember how old I was when I first watched this movie, but I think I was 15 or 16, certainly not any older. And maybe, if I watch it today again, or in the (near) future, I won't be as impressed with it anymore as I was back then, because I've seen so many other disturbing movies now.  Anyway, where I thought that Salo (I tried to read the book too, but I just couldn't get through it, because of the awful writing style. Marquis De Sade may be a legend as much as he wants, but he can still kiss my ass if he wants me to read anything of his) worked very well, I thought A Serbian Film didn't, and I think I know why. While, again, it's absolutely disgusting what A Serbian Film shows us, all it really does is appeal to our visuals. Everything you see, has been extremely exaggerated, all in order so that it may look awful. A Serbian Film taps well into the gore hype that's going on today, without ever so much thinking about what psychological effects will do to the audience. Of course, the many visuals do have its very own psychological effect, but the movie doesn't make much effort into creating deep characters that you can sympathize with. So, when the grande finale takes place, I couldn't do much more but think: damn, that's awful if that would be really happening. But it wasn't really happening, and because the movie didn't take much effort into creating the illusion that what you see is actual real, because of the massive visual exaggeration you get, you can't even imagine it would be real. Which is why the psychological effect is left behind and why all there is left, is visual gore porn, which in the end is just make-up. 

It's a different story with Salo, if I remember it correctly. Why I thought that movie was so awful, was because of the humiliation. While (gore) porn and torture play a great part in this movie as well, it's also about the humiliation of mankind and that's what hit me the hardest. A Serbian Film wasn't about the main character humiliating someone else, but about doing something so extreme, that the only choice the director felt he had, was to show it in visuals. The extremity of that movie didn't lie in what effect there was, but in how far he was able to go to show visual gore porn. To me, that doesn't work. Salo played a game that worked effectively in my psyche, which caused me to believe that what I was seeing, was actually happening somewhere in the world, of had been happening somewhere in the world. That movie was about how far someone would go to satisfy his own fantasy, despite of others, over the heads, hearts and souls of others. Humiliating others to meet your own satisfaction, subdue any innocent soul to your wishes.While A Serbian Film was in the end just about a fucked up director who had to use drugs in order to let his main character do whatever he wanted to, to show the world how visually far he dared to go. Sometimes you show more by not showing anything at all and that's not something the director of A Serbian Film understood. 

Some reviewers of A Serbian Film write about how well acted it has been. I disagree. There isn't much to act. The movie doesn't bother to investigate what effect goes out of all the awful events to the victims of those events. It also doesn't really bother to show us how the main character feels. Yes, we know he doesn't like it, because at the beginning of the movie or somewhere in the middle, he stated he wasn't into anything like this (when he had a clue of what was going on). But after that, we only get to see his grimaced face as he's doing what he's hired to do. And of course, in the end, when everything comes together and he decides to do the ultimate deed, we see his understanding and his disbelief, but by then, it's too late. The director just didn't put enough effort, or not any at all, to make his audience familiarize, identify and sympathize with Milos and his family to be anything but disgusted, just because whatever is happening, is disgusting in any scenario possible. It isn't disgusting or awful or sad or fucked up for Milos and/or his family, it just is because it is and that has got nothing to do with the main character. That's where A Serbian Film fails big time and that's why I almost fell asleep for several times. 

The start to my quest for movies.

Since as long as I can remember, I've been enjoying movies. There are probably two movies that have mattered the most to me, two movies I watched at a very young age and they probably have opened the door to my now movie-me. Wow, that almost sounds as if I'm starring in a movie myself! Anyway... those two movies are: Dracula and Terminator 2: Judgment day. While today I don't really like Francis Ford Coppola, (I think he's one of the slowest directors of this day and age, well, of the well known directors that is. And yes, I hated the The Godfather trilogy and I thought Apocalypse Now was a total bore. Big respect goes out to my mom, who watched the entire, mind numbing long, movie in Paris, dubbed in French, without subs. Really. Respect!) I'm still much of an Arnold Schwarzenegger girl (really, I can bet my life on it that I'll come to talk about that someday too :P). I watched Dracula when I was six, with my then best friend ever and her father and my mom was highly displeased with it. What kind of parent would let a six year old watch a horror movie filled with so much sexual tension, that the child watching is bound to get screwed up? (No pun intended. But hey, I might have discovered here why my mind is permanently in the gutter!) She was sure I'd get nightmares out of it, but I didn't. Or maybe I did, I'm not really sure, because I did dream about the movie for a few days in a row, but never about the scariest parts of the movie. I re-watched it when I was older and understood why I wasn't impressed as a six year old, because it's a Francis Ford Coppola movie and everything Coppola touches, turns into a total bore and a long one at that too.

It's a whole different story with T2. I LOVE this movie. I loved it when I first watched it when I was seven, and I love it now. While it's from 1991, it clearly is a leftover from the 80's action movies. I LOVE the 80's when it comes down to movies. Most of the time they're awful, horrible, poor, and awful, but I like them. It's absolutely a unique era when it comes down to movies and that's why I do not believe in remaking those movies or in kicking them back to live by creating sequel number whatever that no one's asking for. In my humble opinion, T2 is one of the best action movies ever made. With, whatever you may want to say about the guy, a perfect role by Arnie. I may not be a big fan of James Cameron (well, at least he isn't Steven Spielberg. It really doesn't make any sense, but I dislike Spielberg so much, that I dislike his movies just because he directed them. It doesn't matter if they're actually good (like Schindler's List for instance) I still dislike them, just because Spielberg directed them. I know, not something that looks good on an almost professional movie watcher! But at least I'm being honest about it ;)), but with Terminator he created a movie legend. I really think that if you're such a movie nerd as I am, this is a movie that should be on your 'I watched these movies and they were awesome' list. T2 is one of those movies that I watch at least once a year and it never gets boring. I know what happens, but it doesn't matter. Robert Patrick in his role as the T-1000 is still the fastest man on earth in my eyes. And the scene in which Arnie pulls a gun out of his bouquet of roses and starts shooting, is still as epic as ever. Of course, in the end T2 is nothing more than a 137 minute long chase through the city, but that doesn't matter, because the chase is awesome and filled with adrenaline. What makes the movie so great to me, is that Cameron succeeded in building a credible and realistic (as far as that word fits) relationship between a human and a machine. Cameron didn't forget that a machine can learn and that means that it can learn to be human. At least, to some extent. It can learn to understand certain things that come normal to humanity, but are foreign to a machine that's, in essence, only build to serve. But just in that idea, that idea of to serve, Cameron found room for learning. Because, in the end, if a machine doesn't understand what someone is asking of him, how can he do as he's been told? If I give my computer to run the command aiyajadiuhdhd and it doesn't understand it, nothing's gonna happen. I cried my eyes out the first time I watched the movie, when the Terminator had to terminate itself.

Maybe there's one other movie I should mention before posting this post. I didn't watch it at the same age I watched the aforementioned movies, but it still plays a big part in my love for movies. It's also a movie I at least watch once every year again. The Exorcist is in my eyes still one of the very best horror movies out there. While of course it's a much older movie and people have discovered other ways to give terror and horror a face, but The Exorcist has, in my eyes, never ever lost its value. Coming from a whole other era, 1973, it still has shock value, because what is happening in that movie, still happens in a lot of other movies in this era. Only The Exorcist still does a better job at it. Another reason why this movie is so good, is that it's successful in mixing drama and horror together, creating perfect balance. It's not just about the horror, about the girl being possessed and terrorized by a - or more - demon(s), but also about what it does to the family structure, to the friendships of her mother and most importantly: to the mother herself. The despair that she feels has been given a prominent place in the movie and has been build up so realistically, that - aside from asking whether or not something like this could be really true - you can believe that this is real. Also, the make-up is AWESOME. I've never seen Hollywood doing a better job at it in later movies than they did in The Exorcist. Add the magnificent special effects, which, in my eyes, still are better than most CGI we get nowadays, and you've got yourself a perfect horror movie, that dares to ask (good) questions about faith, without being judgmental. It's an intelligent horror movie, with intelligent dialogues rather than just screaming, mindless girls. The Exorcist actually is also about the story, as to where most horror movies we get nowadays, aren't at all anymore. It's just to watch the pretty girl running with dancing boobs and screaming, right before she gets beheaded by a serial killer that, even if he walks as slow as he possibly can, still manages to get somewhere faster than her. 

Movie fact of the day

During the filming of "Batman Begins", Christian Bale lost his voice three times due to altering his voice while playing Batman.

I've never even understood why he'd do that. He's Batman. He wears a suit. A nipple suit (something I don't understand either) for that matter. Who's to recognize him? It'd be easier if they'd just censor his eyes or something :P;) Well, it annoyed the crap out of me, and apparently his voice wasn't all too happy with it either!

Movie fact of the day

Bruce the shark in Finding Nemo was named after the nickname of the mechanical shark in Jaws.

I like this one. I think it's a funny one. Maybe we'll get a movie with a shark named Bruce, that's named after the shark in Finding Nemo that was named after the nickname of the mechanical shark in Jaws and so on :P.


Also, to add to this movie fact, another related movie fact: the shark in Jaws was named after Spielberg's lawyer. 

The ward - be warned!

Yesterday I decided it was going to be one of those bad horror movies night. Well, I picked the right movie for that cause, because it's been a while since I've seen a horror as bad as The ward. 

Well, as any one can see, the movie's directed by John Carpenter, whom we all know (or at least should know) from the horror classic The thing (which is getting a remake by the way). And if you don't know John Carpenter's The thing, then you should at least know Halloween for he is the man who started the whole franchise. And while the latter isn't one of my favourites (as the whole slasher genre isn't really my cup of tea) I have to agree that the movie has been of significant value to the horror genre. Halloween may not be the first in the slasher genre (Tobe Hooper and his The Texas chainsaw massacre have that honor) but it sure has kicked open some doors. No, I like The thing better, and even that one isn't one of my absolute favourites. But I know and respect my classics! Alright, now that we're done with the little history lesson, let me get back on topic: The ward.

So, the story is quite simple: a girl, Kirsten, gets placed in a psychiatric hospital and becomes terrorized by a ghost. The ghost, of course, has claimed other victims before the arrival of Kirsten. And this is immediately the first mistake The ward makes: Kirsten gets placed in the room of the last victim. While at first this seems logical: the room is vacant after all and maybe the ward doesn't have any other rooms left (I doubt that though, since there aren't that many girls there...) but as the movie continues, you'll understand just how much of a cliche and just how much of a 'coincedence' that really is: the whole movie sucks so hard, that you just can't believe the director put Kirsten there for another reason other than that the last victim resided there. 

Kirsten gets placed in the room and soon after we will meet the other residents of the ward. All girls. What meets the eye first is the fact that they all look downright beautiful. (Aside from the one that's just been born ugly ;)) They all look very well taken care off, very refreshed, with their hair all nicely done, make-up that doesn't get washed off under the shower, clothes that are all ironed and clean. They're all on whatever cocktail of drugs, and yet somehow they all manage to put on mascara without their hands shaking uncontrollable. 

Yes, these two really are staying in a psychiatric hospital

And make-up's written all over her face!

If I wouldn't think that the 'scaryness' is in fact CGI, I'd say the 'girl' in the background's got the most make-up done!

So we've got ourselves beautiful girls, locked up in a psychiatric hospital, while some scary person is haunting the halls at night. Oh, did I mention they get to go without supervision when the nurse feels so? Yes, there's one nurse and one male nurse who every once in a while comes around to give the girls their medicines. But the head nurse's the only one constantly present at the ward, unless, of course, she feels like going somewhere else. The girls stay behind without any form of supervision (the movie's set in 1966, so I doubt they have the same fancy security measures as we have nowadays) and can do whatever they feel like. For example: entering (it isn't even needed to break in: they can just walk in as if it's not off limits) the nurses office and steal whatever they want.

Now these are the basics and I haven't even mentioned the acting yet. It is poor. Poor isn't even the proper word to describe it, but I'm afraid my English vocabulary is lacking here so I don't even know what to call it. Let's just say that it's another teen-is-lost-in-whatever-haunted-building-and-all-that-she-really-requires-to-do-is-scream movie. The girls aren't even trying to act that they're crazy. Aside from this one girl who keeps giving her teddy bear a bottle with milk, but I guess talking slower and in a slightly different voice than your own doesn't really count as being crazy. Oh and this other girl who keeps shouting random stuff and who, according to the other girls, should be ignored, but I believe she's just always this annoying. 

Well then, if the movie isn't worth watching for the basics and the acting, then at least it should be scary, right? I mean, it is supposed to be a horror movie after all. Neh-eh, WRONG! Not. Scary. At. All. The thoughts that ran through my head while watching the movie were more scary and those involved innocent things like: I think I'm going to sleep in a bit. Which, by the way, I did. So yeah, I didn't watch the whole movie, but after watching an hour or so of cliches, stupid girls crying over nothing,  girls we've all seen before in any other Z-horror movie (yes, because it actually is worse than a b-movie), girls who are supposed to be scared, but who apparently are as impressed with the ghost as I am, because all I've seen them doing is trying to be scared and of course a ghost that, if you ask me, should see a psychiatrist itself because it obviously doesn't know its place, I thought I wouldn't miss anything if I'd go to sleep. 

The main reason why this movie isn't scary isn't at all because the girls can't act, but because the ghost just is not scary. Not to me anyway. I'm a big fan of psychological thrillers because they get in your head and what people fear most, is their own imagination. (And if anyone out there knows me, then you surely must know how wild my imagination is :P) Carpenter completely fills in what the ghosts look like and I'm sorry to say that it isn't any different from any other pre-made ghosts I've ever seen. Maybe the dude should borrow some of my imagination, because what I have in mind is clearly a lot more scarier than what he's got in mind. I don't think his power lies with the supernatural horror genre, because he does know how to build tension like he did in The thing and Halloween. But the difference with The ward is that the former two aren't supernatural horrors: those are horrors that require visual monsters, one way or another. Getting your viewers to be scared of a serial killer on the loose isn't that difficult to achieve: it's something we all can relate to, to some extent. At the very least it's something we all can imagine and the fact that it's a human that can do things like that to us, make it scary. It doesn't work the same way with a ghost. If you make a ghost look like a human being, one way or another (and do a poor job at it too), you take its sole identity away from it: then it's no longer a ghost, but a human acting like a ghost. And that's exactly where Carpenter went wrong with The ward: there's no ghost in this movie, there's some actor in a ghost suit, with poor make-up and poor computer effects. The shock effect that should come from the viewer's mind, just because a ghost is supernatural and therefore we in essence don't know what it is or looks like, is taken away from the viewer by giving the ghost a face that often doesn't fit in the viewer's idea of the ghost. And if you're stupid enough to be as obvious with your 'scary moments' as Carpenter was in The ward, then you've got yourself a horror movie that's wrong in every possible way. 

Movie fact of the day

In one scene of Memento, Leonard quickly passes in front of a comic book store. The Batman logo is displayed prominently on the stores window. Christopher Nolan later directed Batman Begins (2005) and The Dark Knight (2008).

And as we all know, a new Batman movie by his doing is in the making!

Movie fact of the day

I know who killed me starring Lindsay Lohan has had the most Razzie awards ever given to a film. The Razzies are awards for the worst in movies.

I've actually seen this movie and there's only one thing I can say: only a ritual burning might make this movie worth its while. 

There's a start to everything

I wasn't planning on starting this blog with a movie or television series that I've seen last year or even several years ago, but I'm going to make an exception. Why? Because the television series that I'm going to talk about deserves a (new) audience. It deserves to get 

(re-)discovered and while I know this is wishful thinking, I still hope HBO will pick it back up again. If there are people out there reading this who know me, I'm sure they already know what series I'm talking about and I'm also sure they get quite fed up with it. I'd say: if you feel addressed to, stop reading ;)

Anyway, to those who are curious about what series I'm talking about, I will not let you wait any longer! It is... Carnivale!

Well, if you've clicked on the link, or if you know the series yourself, you'll know that it is a series from 2003, which (unfortunately) ended in 2005. After only two seasons, HBO cancelled the show because ratings dropped and each episode was too expensive to keep producing. Well, I'd say approximately one million dollars per episode is quite expensive, but I doubt Carnivale was, or even is, the only series out there that's got such high production costs. Guess ratings is what makes money go round. I also think it got cancelled due to the fact that HBO couldn't just buy one season but had to buy two if it intended for Carnivale to continue, thanks to creator Daniel Knauf's idea of the series: that it should consist out of three 'books', each book covering two seasons. Anyway, one way or another, after only two seasons it got cancelled and that's just too bad, because the series was just about to really start at the end of season two. ... Maybe that's a reason not to start watching, but let's ignore that!

Well then, what is this series about?  Let me provide you with a warning first: what comes next might come off as some cheesy, lame story that's not worth to watch, but you'll be sorry if you let that little voice in your head that tells you that have its way! 

So, this is what Carnivale's about:  Ben Hawkins (played by Nick Stahl, whom you might know from   Terminator 3: Rise of the machines) is picked up by a traveling carnival comprised of a tarot card reader and her catatonic/telekinetic mother, a snake lady, a blind mentalist and others.  The traveling carnivale is owned and ruled by the mysterious and unseen Management, with Samson (played by Twin Peaks's  Michael J. Anderson) as his spokesperson. Management has plans with Ben, plans Ben doesn't know of, as Ben has got the power to heal the sick and to raise the dead - of course at a price. During his stay with the carnival, Ben is disturbed by cryptic and  prophetic dreams, which he shares with Brother Justin Crowe, (portrayed brilliantly by Clancy Brown, who also provides Mr. Krabs with a voice in SpongeBob SquarePants) who is a preacher in California. Convinced by these dreams he is following God's will, Brother Justin has begun to practice his very own extraordinary talents. But not even acting in the name of God protects you from tragic and even disturbing consequences. Brother Justin and Ben are meant to meet, are meant to wage a battle in this "last great age of magic" set against the Dustbowl in 1934 in America. They are making their way toward a great conflict between Good and Evil, but it remains to be seen on which sides these men will stand. 

Ben Hawkins

So what makes this such a great series to watch? Of course, that's all subjective, but this is what I started blogging for in the first place, so let me try to convince you to at least give this series a try. First of all, the setting is marvelous. Most series that are even in the slightest fantasy-like, with even the slightest hint of magic, lose themselves in ridiculous and incredible settings, which makes it hard for the viewer to actually believe that what they're seeing, is real. Carnivale, however, was able to avoid this. Maybe because Daniel Knauf chose to set the series in a time period that's long gone instead of some era that has never existed. It is clear that he has put energy into looking into the scenery and what the landscape should look like, because there isn't a second that you think the series is based in the here and now. Carnivale is fully convincing in its setting, which makes the viewer able to believe that what's happening, actually could have happened back then. After all, we're talking 80 years ago here, so it's easy for us to let go of the modern way of thinking and accept whatever the 1930's has to offer us according to Carnivale. 

Brother Justin Crowe

Second of all, it's the cast. They are so convincing in their roles, that the viewer is sucked into their play to that point on which

they get the feeling they're actually there, watching whatever drama unfolds in front of their eyes. The actors don't just deliver their role, they are their role. I've always wondered why it's possible for actors who are great in performing in television series, to suck in movies (for example: Josh Holloway may be great as the arrogant and annoying Sawyer in Lost, but he sucks in movies) but I think I understand why now. Whenever you play a part in a series, and especially if it's a bigger (perhaps even important) part, you're able to become the person you're supposed to play in the series. Simply because there's more time to do so and because, if you're playing in the right series, there's character development to your role. That's exactly what Carnivale gives us: character depth and actors who become their roles. Clancy Brown, with his deep and authoritarian voice, was the perfect cast for Brother Justin, just as Nick Stahl was the perfect cast for the somewhat timid and mysterious Ben Hawkins. What you see is what you get, for real. 

I could go on for ages about how awesome this series is and why everyone should watch it, but I don't think anyone's really waiting for that. That's why there's only one thing I want to say to try to convince you one more time: the music. I think people tend to forget how important proper music is for both movies and television series. Most of the time it goes unnoticed (except in horror/(supernatural) thrillers, because music plays a huge part in getting to jump people from their seats), but music has a great deal in making you feel the right emotions, get you into the right mood or setting for the scene to come and even in giving away clues as to what will happen next. The music in Carnivale is beautiful, brilliant, consequent and is highly functional in creating the perfect atmosphere for each and every scene. Jeff Beal is responsible for the awesome music, which will only add to your watching experience in a very positive way. It brings the right vibe and upon hearing the intro theme, you're immediately in the right mood for an episode of Carnivale! 

Movie fact of the day

Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" was the first animated film to be nominated for an Oscar for best picture. 

The reasons as to why this blog exists

As with anything... an introduction:


I'm a girl and currently still studying. Whenever I have some spare time, I like to watch movies (and many at that) and television series. I also like to read and to write. However, I'm not really active with the latter anymore, unless you consider writing book reviews also writing, which is true in essence, but I'm talking creative writing here. I like to do those things while enjoying one or two or more cups of tea. Oh, and perhaps it's also nice to know that I'm actually one of those gamer girls: yes, I do play video games and yes, I do play Magic the Gathering.

The reasons as to why this blog exists:


Well then, as said before I like to watch movies and television series whenever I have some time to spare. So I thought, why not combine my love for movies and series and combine it with another love of mine? Writing. And here I am. Maybe I might add a book review or two too if I feel like it, because after all, it is my blog. Wouldn't it be cool if I'd also be reviewing the book a movie was adapted from?

Until a year and a half ago, I used to work at a video store. Unfortunately, the store closed down and here I was: a girl with a passionate love for movies, but no public to share it with. Back in my video store days people would ask me what movies I recommended, because they knew I watched a lot of them and I also always knew why I thought a movie was worth to watch or why it wasn't. Well, that's basically what I'm going to do here too, but always keep in mind: in the end it's just my opinion.


What movies do I like myself then? Well, I like a lot of movies. In fact, simply put, I'm willing to give each movie a chance. I've got a special weak spot for bad horror movies and I think horror and the supernatural (thrillers) are my most favourite movies. I'm also a huge fan of Asian cinema. 

A Tale of Two Sisters (Janghwa, Hongryeon) being one of my absolute favourites.

However, as I said, I'm willing to give every movie a chance (well, maybe that's not entirely true, as I don't think the chances are high that I'd ever watch a comedy starring Jim Carrey unless someone pointed a gun at my head).

I'm also that type of movie watcher that watches a movie just because a specific actor stars in it, or because a specific director has directed it. But I bet we'll come to that in other posts enough already, as I'm sure at some point you'll notice that some directors and actors are re-occurring in my posts.

I guess that's it for now! We'll see how often I'll get around to posting, as there are days I won't watch any movies at all and there are days I won't do anything else!