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.