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.