The Last Post

     In the last few months I've started blogging for my english 112 class at Nova community college. I've done blogs before, but not for class. Even so, I did learn how to hyperlink, and that will be helpful in any other blog I attempt. I think that blogger is a bit more geared toward hardcore writers like journalists, or science writer. A lot of lighter material can be found on Tumblr. If I were to continue this I would probably post it there.
     If I've learned anything on my topic it's that you can't judge any two movies by the same standard. Each genre is geared toward a different audience, and therefor has different guidlines to judge them by. The same is true from movie to movie.
     I most likely will not keep blogging, at least on this subject. I don't like writing about my own experiecnes. So, writing about something that's very hard to find objectivity on is difficult to me.
     I didn't really enjoy reading other movie bloggers. I found most of them to be boring, and I would rather just watch a movie myself.

Star Wars Sold Its Soul, Preparing For the Apocolypse

     In recent movie news George Lucas has sold “Lucas films,” to Disney. This was met with severe criticism by the big Star Wars fans.This is mainly because the prequel series wasn’t seen as on the level of the previous three films, and this was only adding insult to injury. I don’t think this should be  such a black and white issue as other fans think it will be.

The first reason is that Disney already owns “Marvel.” There hasn’t been much change in that franchise. So, why expect Star Wars to be any different? We don’t see Mickey Mouse rearing his ugly head into “The Avengers,” and by the way Disney owned them while they made that movie. 

Although, I don’t like the choice of screenwriter. It was the same guy that made “Toy Story 3.” That movie, really? Why not get zombie Hitchcock to direct “Icarly,” while you’re at it? 

The other thing is that they’re planning to do the next installment in an alternate plane of existence, at this point. This is the best move I’ve seen so far. This will keep the libraries of fan, or professional literature safe, and let Disney have the opportunity to make a new film.

At this point it’s all about keeping the fans happy. Personally, I would love to see Matt Sloan play Darth Vader. He played the Sith Lord in the most recent installment of “Force Unleashed,” video game, and does a series on his youtube channel about Darth Vader’s younger brother Chad who is a day shift grocery manager. 

All in all I think we’ll have to wait to get a good idea of what these new films will be like. Often, in life that is what we must do.     

Big Bang theory, the sucess

A few years ago I started watching a show called “Big Bang Theory.” The show was a pretty new concept, and a good one as far as it went. The idea was to have a show where the main characters were most of the characters were these geeky nerds, each with a specialized problem and interest. The show is a success on many levels.

                The goal of a good show is to reach out to as big a viewership as possible. The humor in the show seems to be slightly reminiscent of the same network’s “Two and A Half Men,” of the same network. Even though some of the references are for a few they don’t negate, or are necessarily part of the overall humor. This can keep both the geek, and non-geek audience happy and well pleased with viewership rather effectively.

                I think the other reason that it does well is that almost all the characters are pitiable in some way. There’s the nervous one, the one that tries way to hard, and the one who has a somehow playful disorder. We can empathize easily with these roles.

                If this wasn’t good enough the show has been running for six seasons. Most shows don’t make it past the first, if they’re good. “30 Rock,” being the obvious exception. When one of the main actors was asked about the show he claimed that he didn’t expect them to get past the pilot, but because it was somewhat of a good, and new concept it got past the fresh season, and became a fairly successful show.   

Analysis paper Sources

     I think the sources in this analysis paper I should choose the places that have had the best impact on the posts that i've done. One of them has definitely been IMBD.com. This sight provides basic information to any movie I could think of, which is helpful in deciding what films I felt equipped to write on. Rotten Tomatoes was just as helpful. Although, this gave me links to other professional critics, which can be extremely helpful. The other source I want to use is "Danse Macabre," by Stephen King. It taught me to open my mind a little, and see movies as art rather than pure film and market.

Offensive Material In Movies

         There is hardly a vulgarity which movies haven't touched. From sexuality to unspeakable violence. Morality is a set understanding of the way we understand right and wrong. So, the question is: what about movies? Is it immoral to watch certain movies?
Violence is one of the bigger topics among vulgarities in movies. If you watch it as a child there may be a case for not watching. After all the mind is still being formed, and is quick to absorb almost anything. Or take someone who is mentally impressionable. I would not show them a horror movie. However, if I watch say "Frankenstein." I'm not going to go grave robbing any time soon. If it doesn't influence my behavior, then it can be deemed as amoral.
Cursing is another piece that needs some thinking about. Our language can carry weight. Certain words can only do harm. The question is does the media we digest force us to curse? I don't think so. We are around other people all the time. At work, or at school we hear a mixed vocabulary. We hear these words in our world every day. So, why do we need to filter our movies, if we hear those words anyway?
Smoking, and drugs is another area. We see it all the time in movies. It can be argued that theses are destructive habits. It is the viewers that make decisions on whether they engage in them.
No one can argue that movies don't have vulgar elements. However, this doesn't mean we can't watch movies for moral reasons, necessarily. The viewer is free will, and free to choose what they do.

Cherry: On With the Independant.

     The first time I saw this movie was afew months ago. It was during that middle peice of summer that seems to stretch on for forever, and since I had nothing else to do why not play point and watch with the Netflix selection screen. It turned out to be quite a good catch for random choosing. It seems to succeed, at least as a peice of art.
     Cherry is the story of a seventeen year old who is so brilliant that he gets into his college early. His mother is feircly overprotective, and it's obvious that they'll relationship is going to be strained during part of the movie from the start. During art class, a class that his mother didn't want him in in the first place, he meets a woman. A woman about the same age as her mom. They talk, and she takes him home. He sleeps on the couch while she entertains a man in her room. It is during this first visit to their home that he meets the woman's duaghter whom he says "talks way to god damn much." She is agitating, and a rebel in every sense. As the film goes on though we find iout the reasons for disfunction, and empathies with her. The film's main conflicts ahappen when trying to balance college life, and trying to help this family.
     Thematically it has to do with the forbidden. In this case it has to do with the main charecter's romance between the mother, and the duaghter. Each of them is forbidden in a different, in fact the opposite way. One is far to old, and the other far to young. It has to do with love that is differentiated from sex. That's the entire point of the roomate charecter who personifies sex without love. The point of it seems to be that Love, that divine spark, transcends all.
     The weight of the acting is enormous. There are alot of dramtic scenes of people crying. It demands alot for an audience member not to groan, or have a desire to turn off the movie right then. It was done believably enough to keep the action moving.
      As an independant it does well. It has a good plot, a sustainable theme, and doesn't slow down the action. This was a good example of the independant.
    
     

Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World : Not Half Bad

           I can only remember bits and pieces of “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.” However, the first time I watched it: I liked it enough to watch it again the day after. The movie is based on a comic book series, which as of date, I have yet to read. It proved to be good independent of any understanding of the comic’s world. 

There are a good instances of storytelling where you can see that this came from a comic book. First, a lot of the characters have colored, or bleached hair. Second, a lot of the conversations seems a little bit like a hack. More of the characters are outrageous than normal, and situations are a little bit too contrived. Even so, it more than makes up for it with playful humor. 

The special effects in the movie make the characters appear to be in a video game world. The characters get coins, lives, and after a fight sequence the letters K.O. appear. As far as video game movies go this goes a good distance in showing the kind of finesse needed to create this. 

This movie reminded me of other movies with the main lead “Michael Cera,” but it is still worth noting his progress in the lovable nice guy role. This character seems to be a little more boy-like than other Cera counterparts. 

This was a good comic book movie. It played off of other previous roles of Cera. It had good story,and heart. This was definitely a re-watch.    

28 Days Later, Lifting the Weight of unbelief.

      Last summer I was on a horror movie kick. So, for the first time I saw the zombie film "28 Days Later." I remember lovng it, and for good reason. A good horror movie is supposed to tell us something about ourselves, society, or even the universe. For the latter read H. P. Lovecraft. A good horror movie will be able to lift the weight of unbeleif. It doesn't take much to believe in ordinary things like your car or a tree, but it does take alot to believe in Lovecraft tentacly deity Yogzathoth. As a whole "28 Days Later," succeeds as a horror movie.
     The plot of the movie is always on the move, even though it dealves deeply into the moral issues of killing. "It makes for a more intimate brand of horror, one we can't explain away by pretending we're watching the same old well-oiled Hollywood malarkey." (Rainer,1). The movie starts with a group of animal activists breaking into a scientific facility to free animals. What they do not know is that the animals are the carrier of a deadly disease. During a tustle with one of the animals on of the activist gets bit and so the apocolypse begins. We follow the story of a young man who has woken up, and doesn't know, at first why everything is abandoned. He follows a woman who is more knowledgable about the situation they are in.
      If you've ever read richard Matherson's "I Am Legend," the book the theme will be familier to you. It has to do what is the best we can hope for in a dark world. The two different charecters represent the two different lines of thought. the main charecter is rather optimistic. He hopes for everything that he had in his old life before the zombies. While Selina, claims "staying alive is the best they can hope for." This gives the movie a layer that goes beyond gore. "I enjoyed watching this film, mostly because Murphy and Harris make such an appealing central couple to build a new world around."
     The film also seems to have believability. This is a duel issue since it rests on both the acting, which was superb, and the special effects. The special effects were not bad, but not terribly good either. So, the acting hold the weight of the duality. "A thrilling, gory affair, 28 Days Later is a well directed, believably acted yarn and well worth a watch, particularly for Romero fans." (Saney,1).
      The movie succeeds as a horror movie since it is able to lift the weight of unbeleief. It does this by making a good plot. It has themes that draw the veiwer in, and it has convinceing acting. It easily succeeds as a horror movie.  
    
 










      Rainer, Peter. "28 Days Later (2003)." New York Magazine. 7 08 2004: 1. Web. 10 Oct. 2012.
    
      O'Hehir , Andrew . "28 Days Later." Salon.Com. 23 6 2003: 1. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. http://www.salon.com/topic/movies/.
      
     Saney, Daniel . "28 Days Later." Digital Spy. 14 07 2011: 1. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. <http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/review/a30577/28-days-later.html>.   
      
    

You've Got Mail: Building From Past Attempts

                  We start with the camera panning into a New York apartment building. We see a woman and a man talking. The man is ranting about the evils of technology, and the women listens politely. Once the man has left the apartment; she logs onto her online email. We quickly find out that the underlying reason is that she is going online is to flirt with men, one specific man in this case. On a whole the film succeeds as a romance.

                The makeup of the movie seems extremely similar to the earlier “Sleepless in Seattle.” It has the same two leading actors, and, in fact, the same director. The two have very different feels to them, however. “Mail may not be as romantic as Sleepless, but it's wittier.”(Millar,1) ^[1]. The story revolves around a man and woman, who are both in competition with each other in the book industry. Meanwhile, both continue to flirt online, without the slightest knowledge of each other. Halfway through Tom Hank’s character figures out that he’s in competition with the woman he’s been flirting with online. When he puts her out of business, he starts hanging out with her, and flirting in person.

                As compared to other love stories, it’s lighter. Especially, when you compare it to its predecessor it’s less heavy feeling. In “Sleepless in Seattle,” the opening is a graveyard which pans up, and  reveals that the main character’s wife has died. “The coincidences that make the destined lovers' paths cross aren't contrived with much finesse, but the characters get in some decidedly clever lines.” (Alspector,1). [2]

                The acting by Ryan, and Hanks are superb. There is no real defining difference between the characters they’ve done in previous movies, except they both work bookstores in this movie. I think the good acting can be chalked up to the fact that both have played the role before. Jack Mathews of the Los Angeles Times agrees saying “There's no denying the chemistry between Hanks, whose comparisons to Jimmy Stewart are becoming annoyingly accurate, and Ryan, whose schoolgirl cuteness is finally taking on a layer of matured confidence.” (Mathews,1) .[3]

                The film has seemed to make a new mark outside of its director’s  own earlier classic. The acting has been well honed, it’s light, and it has some amazing story development. It certainly has a lot of credence from other’s to watch.

               

               

---

[1]  ^{Jeff Miller . "You've Got Mail (1998) " Houstin Chronicle . Houstin Chronicle , July 21, 2005. Web. October 3, 2012.}

[2] Lisa Alspector . "You've Got Mail" Chicago Reader. Chicago Reader, May 27, 2011. Web. 10/3/2012.

[3] Jack Mathews . "You've Got Mail (1998)" Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, February 14, 2001. Web. 10/3/2012.

 

BBC's Sherlock, Seriously A Good Series

          For those of us who watch british television we are more than familiar with "Doctor Who," but recently a new show has emerged. It's name: "Sherlock." It tells the stores from the popular Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The only thing that's different about this series from other movies that have been based on the novels is that it is a modernized version. It takes place in today's London. 

The plots on this are fairly powerful.  They combine elements from the books, or parody playfully with them in some way. The greek interpreter is called the geek interpreter is an example. Unlike other screen versions of the books the changes that it makes feel right. They are twist that you think Doyle would have smiled, and nodded at. 

The themes are parallel to the books themselves. Both portray the rationalistic Sherlock Holmes stepping into a seemingly chaotic universe making sense of it all, and showing the virtue of that attribute. 

The storytelling is also fairly well done. We see some neat glimpses into Sherlock's mind. We get to see what he observes, and we become impressed with what he deduces from them. 

This is a great series, and I can't recommend it enough. It provides good parallel with the books, and has imbedded the themes well.  

Crazy, Stupid, Love. Worth the Watch.

The first scene opens as the camera pans the feet of what is presumed to be a high class restaurant, at least for the middle class. Eventually we make our way to the two leads of the movie, and as soon as we do the ensuing conversations sets the plot in motion. As the Steve Carell character makes bad conversation, his wife blurts out that she wants a divorce. The movie on a whole is charming, and definitely deserves a second, or even third watch.

                The acting in this movie is quite impressive. Given, all the difficult weight of acting is given to Carell, a phenomenal actor it’s understandable. His character, to give some compass, is very similar to his character in “Date Night,” with Tina Fey, but it was done more convincingly in this film than the former counterpart. The other roles act as more reactionary to him throughout the film, but even so they do very well.   

                The theme has to do with how love concurs all. It’s a theme we’re familiar with: found in countless romantic movies, now mostly romantic comedies. The thing that’s worth noting in this one is that it takes into account how messy love is. In the film each person loves someone else than the one they’re “supposed to.” It gives it a more real feeling than its more shallow counterparts.

                The story arch is slightly different from most other movies like it. Most of them start with a fairly speedy pace. Then by the end they slowly grind making you groan. However, the difference here is simply that this formula is turned around. Starting out slow, but speeding up at the end. I found it refreshing, and even successful.

                The movie has a lot of heart, and a little bit of an unexpected turn around the acting is good. It’s definitely a recommend.  

King of the Classics, Godzilla

          The first time I had seen "Godzilla King of the Monsters," was when I was twelve. The movies enjoyed a resurge with my small band of friends. This was the second Godzilla movie I saw, and it struck me as a stand alone, even then. 

Godzilla Poster 

The effects in the movies are good, for their own time. The city of tokyo is rendered destroyed by small miniatures. They are only apparent upon a second look. The same is true of the Godzilla suit. You can almost believe that it is a huge radioactive dinosaur that is walking out of the ocean, and the grainy black and white makes it feel, somehow like a piece of literature, and gives it the ability to suck you in more easily. 

For the theme we need to understand a little bit of history. During WW2 the United States dropped two atomic bombs on the island nation of Japan. This was a tragedy for the Japanese, and rightly so. The monster, born of radioactivity, is a blatant metaphor for those bombs. This is why Godzilla is a simple city-destroyer: who lives solely for that purpose. 

The storytelling is superb. It's done by a narrator, who is a visible character. Half of the story we're in the dark about what has destroyed tokyo, but in the back of our minds we know. 

This was, and is an excellent movie. It deserves a place on the DVD shelf, or at least the Netflix que. I fully recommend this.  

Proposition

     As of date I have never seen the movie psycho, however, I plan on doing my final analysis paper on that movie. Since, it is one of the most reviered works of the great filmaker Alfred Hitchcock. I have read some things on the film, however. I plan on using Stephen King's "Danse Macabre,", and "The Psycho File," by Joseph W. Smith.

I Was Expecting a Little More, Dan In Real Life

             For this post, I’d like to take a look at the movie “Dan in real Life.” I am a huge Steve Carell fan, since I watch “The office.” In fact, I’d call him my favorite actor. The first time I watched this I had only seen a few of his other roles. This movie wasn’t necessarily bad, but it wasn’t his best that I have come to expect from a Steve Carell movie.

                The plot has to do with the main character, Dan, who goes to a family reunion. At home he has three daughters, two of whom are about junior high age, and one who is in fourth grade. The older two both want something from their Dad. The more irresponsible one want approval for a relationship, and the responsible one wants to learn to drive. While Dan goes to a bookstore, he meets a woman, and attempts to hit on her. He finds out at the woman’s home, over coffee and muffins, that she is in fact engaged, but low and behold: the woman that his brother brings over to the family reunion is one and the same. Over all, I thought the plot was average. It didn’t have any brilliant twists, and it didn’t have any overtly corny plot points.

                The theme is put into words when the boy who wants to date Dan’s daughter says “Love isn’t a feeling it’s an ability.” This theme is actually well placed, and shown throughout the film well; with Dan’s daughter’s relationship, and with his own relationship with his brother’s fiancé.

                The acting in this movie is okay. I felt a little that the role limited Steve Carell as an actor, especially after seeing him on “The Office,” for so long, and “Crazy, Stupid Love.” Britt Robertson who plays Cara, Dan’s rebellious daughter, I’ve seen only once before in a film called “Cherry.” Her role in that film, and in this film is almost interchangeable. It was definitely a well-casted role. The rest of the cast was completely new to me, and they did an average job.  

                For the most part this film was ordinary. For the most part, it had no real big laughs that Steve Carell has given us elsewhere. The plot was typical. The theme was, however, well conveyed. The acting was also fairly normal. I’d say this film is worth a watch, but not a re-watch.

Jurassic Park, Worth the Re-Watch?

I can remember the first time I watched ‘Jurassic Park.’ I was about thirteen, and I had finally got my hands on an old V.H.S. copy: I can even remember the old, dusty player we had at the time. I loved the movie then. So, I wanted to see if it was still worth watching, or did it deserve a trip to the local dump? 

The science fiction story, based on the best selling book by Michael Crichton, focuses on a paleontologist, someone who studies dinosaurs,  who is required to inspect a park by a rather intrusive funder. While  on a tour for the doctor, his peer who studies paleobiology, and the funder’s grandchildren is going on: a corrupted programer shuts down the fences keeping the predatory dinosaur in. Most of the rest of the movie is about this cast of characters running away from the predatory dinosaurs. It makes for a suspenseful watch, even the second time. 

The special effects were, actually, still well done. There are certain moments when the dinosaurs are clearly computer generated, but for the most part they look convincing. My guess is because a lot of the scenes were done in the dark, or they were large suites of metal and rubber, which are convincing all on their own. As far as the dinosaurs went, it didn’t feel outdated at all to me. The only real part that you could tell that this movie was made in 1993 was the big boxed white computers. 

The theme of the film is the philosophy of naturalism. It means that there is nothing outside of nature, and that nature is, as the film itself puts it “the most powerful force in the universe.” This not only gets put into the dialogue itself with lines like “Nature finds a way.” It also makes its way into the plot. The dinosaurs that represent nature, in this context, break down all the tools that man has built up over the centuries. These tools can easily represent social constructs. Social constructs are rules or conventions that societies creates in order to be able to live as a group. This may seem a little far fetched, but this is one among many implications for the claim that nature is all. 

The story to this movie was good. It was worth the second watch. The special effects still hold up, even after 19 years. The theme is well conveyed, and clear. All in all an amazing movie, and definitely worth the re-watch.    

Charm Of the Independent, My Last Five Girlfriends

         The camera pans in closer, and closer into a cluttered desk. A man that  is dressed in underpants and a crumpled green t-shirt walks up to it, and sits down with a large bottle of alcohol. He begins to write a suicide note: describing his last five girlfriends, and how they are the cause for his suicide. The rest of the film is a summery of those five relationships, done in retrospect. Hence the title: “My Last Five Girlfriends.” It’s a good example of the independent film. These are films that don’t have any big companies behind them, but they have an odd sense of charm to them, that is lacking in a lot of “big company” movies.  There are a few elements in this movie that deserve a look.

 My Last Five Girlfriends (cover) 

The plot is fairly simplistic. You see the ending in the beginning. The five girlfriends embody the 5 stereotypical bad relationships. The ones that actually add good fuel to the plot are the ones that are still in love with her ex, the one who is just settling for him, and the cheater. The plot is simply the main character having his heart broken, and spurring himself onto the next relationship. The ending is not quite so smooth. It ends with the screen fading to black, after we cut back to the suicide ending, with him saying “I am a martyr for love.” I groaned at that last sentence. The plot was believable until that point. The line was far to corny to be believable, and it should have been left out.  

The theme ties into the ending, however. The movie seems to be saying that love ,specifically romantic love, is the theme of life. There’s a scene in which the main character is asked “Do you believe two people should live solely for one another?” He answers “In most cases.” Never once do we see his life outside of the dating world. The other point the movie makes is that if this facet of life remains unfulfilled; you might as well be dead. Apart from my personal disagreement with this theme, I don’t think that this is earned, in the movie. His suicide doesn’t have a buildup. It doesn’t rear it’s ugly head until after he breaks up with the cheater.

The story really finds its charm in the way the story is told. Every time he gets a new relationship, we get a cutaway to a theme park that represents his life. In it each ride represents a new relationship. The people in the park ask the questions he’s asking himself. 

The movie is worth seeing, if you like romantic comedies. It’s not the best of the genre, but it’s still ok. If you don’t then you might wanna pass it up.           

What Movies Mean

       When it comes to movies it's new to the scene, as far as entertainment goes. It's close cousin the book has existed for centuries. The big defining factor has been narration. The book feels need to give off much more narration, and so has cinema's younger and much slower brother, radio dramatization. Although the back and white movies with no sound are anything but sleek, the movies we have now have are cutting edge, and better than anything radio could have hoped for.

The movie industry is now one of the biggest. They can now truly be considered art. From the early development of movies distinct genres have emerged. The horror movie captures its audience with the fear of the unknown, and the Romantic comedies win over the hearts of many a single woman.

The general purpose of movie is to entertain you. What kind of movies you see may not define you, but they are good indicators of who you already are. Personally, I like horror movies: from the almost comical "Godzilla King of the Monsters," to the disturbing " 28 Days Later." 

Today we see an increasing number of books being made into movies. Doesn't this show that really the movie is the close cousin to books? 

I'd like to take a look at movies. Not in the sense of what I liked, or disliked about them, but what I took away from them.
     I want to take a taste of a lot of different things. As much as big producers may make a lot of very good things: there's something charming , and almost mesmerizing about the independent film. Like the big industries that do a lot of movies, purely for the purpose of making money, they have as much of a potential to do poorly. Even so, they do it in a different way.
      There's something to be said for each genre's value. I don't think they're as intrinsic as some may think, but they can be grasped, and understood in a single genres language.
      Movies are powerful. They are this generation's language. Whether they realize they speak it or not: they are fluent. They understand it better than any other time, and simply because they were born into it.
     

Introduction

     I'm a huge fan of movies. The really good ones can force you to think in a way you haven't before. They can be a powerful way of conveying emotions , or ideas. Of all the ways to tell a story; it is  one of the newest. Even though it's new to the scene, it has saturated our minds, and hearts.
     The messages in movies can range from the corny and downright thoughtless, to the sophisticated and even brilliant. It is unfortunate that the former outweighs the later, but when you stumble upon a good film it makes it that much better.
     Here at this small corner of the web; I'd like to take a look at movies. How good are they? What is the overall message of the film? What am I going to remember about it? What was the filmaker trying to accomplish, and did he/she succeed? Good, or bad let's take a look at them.