Battle of Algiers

I chose to read a review on The Battle of Algiers done by The New York Magazine. I found this review to be rather interesting and added in information about all the characters and casting that I would have never guessed. Apparently, the only professional actor was Colonel Mathieu, played by Jean Martin. Other characters such as Ali La Pointe, were as unprofessional as illiterate peasants, but were chosen based on other attributes, as in Ali's case, his "riveting, prole-hero features" were what got him the job. The review also points out that the person who the movie originated from, was a man named Saadi Yacef, who was a rebel leader of the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN), and while in jail, wrote the "sketchy" first draft screen play. I think that's interesting because alot of the key events that happened (such as the women bombing the cafes) was something that really happened, and that makes the movie seem even more realistic, and even more horrifying. The one point that the review didn't make till the end, which I think is the most important is the point that the director, Gillo Pontecorvo, portrayed the battle in a sense that both sides in the conflict lost souls, and that "all men are carrion". I think the writer could have went more in depth with this and made this a bigger point. Overall I found this review to be very informative and helped me to see past just the film part of the movie, but to see the motivation behind it and the people involved in the creation.

..Memento..

I think Memento is by far the most interesting movie we've watched so far. The one question that I can't really seem to find an answer to is whether or not to trust Teddy. There are so many points made that could argue it either way. Through out the entire movie Teddy is playing with Lenny on what he says, and in a few scenes seems to be taking advantage of Lenny's memory issue. I think in general, Teddy is kind of a weird person, like he has a goofy way of going about things, and somethiing about him just doesn't seem right, and that's what leads me to think he may be lying. I don't really see why Teddy wouldn't just keep reminding him everytime about him being a cop, and that he already found and killed the real John G.

The reason I think that Teddy may be telling the truth is because of that one polaroid that Teddy has of Lenny smiling, pointing to his tattooed chest. This suggests that he had already found and killed the real John G, and that Teddy is really telling the truth. Another reason I think that Teddy may be telling the truth is because he straight up tells Lenny that his real name is John G too, and though he knows that this puts him in jeopardy, he tells Lenny anyways, hoping to gain trust.

Overall, I found this movie to be really confusing and hard to find answers. But I suppose that was how Christopher Nolan wanted it.

Kiss Me Deadly

I found Kiss Me Deadly to be much more interesting to watch than Double Indemnity, probably because of the added violence and dramatic sequences. The one thing I was upset with was how the plot never really led to any rhyme or reason. The "box" appeared, to me, to be completely irrelevant to the entire movie, or vice versa. The only sense I got out of it was that it really portrayed the characters' intelligence and persona. For Hammer, the box is something that he wants answers from, even though he doesn't know what he is looking for, he rationalizes into thinking it holds the truth about Christina. This shows how he is a bit naive, but after opening it, understands that it should not be opened again. Gabrielle on the otherhand portrays her complete stupidity. It is sort of an irony for her character considering that she spends so long searching for the box and obtaining it, when infact it's kills her in the end. This also shows her naiveness, but mostly her stupidity for not listening to Hammer. Lastly, for Velda, the box shows how much more intelligent and rationale she is. She doesn't know what is in the box, and she doesn't care to know.

Overall, this movie was a little confusing with the plot and hardly made sense, but the one thing I understood was that the importance of what was in the box, isn't as important as how it portrays the characters.

Double Indemnity

This movie was not my favorite, but I will say that by watching the other video about film noir and learning the techniques, that this movie really does fit that category. Double Indemnity, directed by Billy Wilder has all the common characteristics of the film noir genre: black film, dramatic crime plot, low key lighting, and strong sexual reference. The one aspect I felt it was missing was the high amount of violence that is usually associated with film noir. But that was okay with me because I hate fighting and blood and all that stuff. A character that really stood out to me was the manipulative character of Phyllis, played by Barbara Stanwyck. I really didn't see any bad in her when she was first introduced in the movie. I actually thought that she really loved Walter, and I didn't understand that she just wanted money out of it. I think Stanwyck was perfect for this character, even her physical appearance and her sly smile gives the notion that she really does have a filthy heart.

Over all, I'm going to say it and I know Mr. K will hate it, but I don't like black and white movies, and I have no way to relate to this movie in modern day times, so I didn't like it that much. I just thought that it fit the noir category and the casting was done very well.

Groundhog Day :)

Groundhog Day, has been by far the best film we’ve watched in class. I thought the whole concept of the movie was really original and interesting to consider actually happening. I think the most imperative thing that I got out of the movie was the theme. Bill Murray’s character, Phil Connors, took a complete 180 turn into a completely new person. In the beginning Ramis really wanted the viewers to be disgusted with Phil, which I know I was. But by the end of the film Ramis really made the viewer take a liking to the new and improved Phil, which is what leads to the theme of self improvement. This improvement entailed Phil to look inside himself and really reevaluate the important things in life and realize that to be happy, you must help others and not concentrate on oneself. This sort of “rebirth” of Phil is what people consider to be religious. Buddhists, Christians, and Jewish leaders all think that this movie is a rebirth as a reflection of the character’s “spiritual messages”. It has also been called one of the most spiritual films of our time. I, being my not so religious self, disagree with this belief. I think that you could pick out spiritual story lines from many movies as long as you look hard enough. I would compare this movie to the other movie I wrote about for journal #1 called The Number 23. In The Number 23, the actual number 23 was derived from many “coincidences” that you could really pick out any number for and find more coincidences. Overall I guess I can see why people view it as religious, but I don’t think that Ramis intended for it to be viewed that way. It’s a romantic comedy, and that’s that! I liked it a lot though :)

Bringing Up Baby!

I guess I don't really see why people dislike this movie so much, I found it to be much more entertaining than the westerns we had watched. I know that a common thought is that Susan is such an annoying character and her vioce and non stop jabbering was something to make you want to turn the movie off, but that was sort of the whole point. The movie would be boring without her non stop annoyance, and I think her role is really crutial to pointing out the "screwball romantic comedy". She drives us nuts, and she certainly drives David nuts as well. David's uptight nature and Susan's outrageous personality are what really clash, and this is what Howard Hawks wants the viewers to see. He wants us to feel like David, he wants us to half hate the woman and half love her, make you debate between the two.
Another aspect of the movie I enjoyed was the sheer comedy and ridiculousness of the adventures that took place. Who in their right mind would ever get a pet leopard, and then loose it, and then chase after it, and then make it all turn into a love story...it's just bizarre... and that's why I like it. Lastly, I just think it is interesting that this movie kind of paved the way for adding in sexual comedic slurs that you had to be very attentive to catch.

Overall, good movie :)

My really late Western Blog Post :)

Once Upon a Time in the West.
This movie though not my absolute favorite, was alot better than I had expected. I thought that Leone did a really outstanding job with the characters because each one was so different from the rest and it really set out to define the types of heros, villians, whores etc. of the western time period. From reading some reviews, most people view this film as EPIC and one of the best westerns ever made. I disagree. I thought there was an extreme lack of plot and the lack of dialogue really didn't help either. I think that this is the kind of movie that you need to watch a couple times, but that's not appealing to many considering it is a whopping two hours and forty-five minutes. I don't know if I'm just slow or dumb or something but I watched it for a second time at home and I had to try really hard to remember which character was which and who was good and who was bad, and it took alot of thinking to get the whole movie put together to make sense. If you're into sorting things out like that then this is a movie for you, but it's not something you can just sit back and enjoy because its just too confusing. I will admit though that at the end it was rewarding to understand everything that was going on. Overall I'd say this movie is a workout for the brain, but in the end what you get out of it is worth the sweat :)

Journal 3: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

this was a mistake

My Darling Clementine

So I'd have to admit, this movie is one of my least favorite out of any movie I have ever watched, but that would probably be due to my extreme dislike of westerns. So as to not focus on the plot line, I will discuss the characters and the acting that made these characters as fitting to their time period as they were. (Also the acting is one of the few parts of the film that I consider well done)

Henry Fonda, who played Wyatt Earp, did the best job out of all of them in my opinion, he really knew how to fulfill his role as a truely humble man, adding at times a rough edge, only to deal with the "bad". Victor Mature, who played Doc Holiday, did a really nice job of switching attitudes from being a complete downer (pessimist) to someone who lives for the moment. I think a really important character to point out is Old Man Clanton, played by Walter Brennan. This character really brought evil into a single human, and showed the viewers the truth of a real western bad man. Lastly, Clementine, played by Cathy Downs, was an excellent pick by Ford. She really knew how to protray herself as new to the town and everything about her (all mise-en-scene) fit the womanly role.

Overall, I guess by just writing about these characters and realizing the greatness of the acting, I have come one step closer to enjoying this movie. It's a great a cast, and Ford chose them all for the distinct reason of creating a realistic and successful western story.

Citizen Kane: Camera Angles

After viewing Citizen Kane, I found the most prominent element of film to be the various camera angles that Welles used. The most obvious angles were when Kane was speaking to other people. The camera would always be at a low angle to make Kane look authorative, and with alot of power. The person he would be talking to would always be filmed at a lower angle to make them look inferior to Kane. This High-Low camera angle tactic is what makes the viewer feel that Kane is so important. Though I don't know what this angle is called, when the camera tracks through the neon sign and then dranes down onto Susan, it makes susan look "doomed" and "helpless", which she was after the death of Kane. Overall camera angles in Citizen Kane are what really influences the viewer to see cerain characters certain ways.

Pan's Labyrinth Review

The movie I chose to watch is called Pan's Labyrinth directed by Guillermo del Toro. This is his 6th movie, and considered to be one of his most successful. The movie is set during 1944 post civil war Spain, in a countryside fort. It’s based on a 12-year old girl, Ofelia (played by Ivana Baquero), who is taken by her mother to her new stepfather's property. The young girl has a fascination with fairytales and refuses to let go of them even after her mother’s request. The movie focuses on Ofelia's constant struggle to deal with the reality of not conforming to her sadistic stepfather, and a fantasy world where she is trying to complete three risky tasks to be able to go back to being princess of the underworld. This obsession and insight into the fabled world is what makes not only Ofelia, but the viewer too, battle between seeing the movie as reality or fantasy. The overall tone of the movie is very dark and ominous, as you can see from the picture. Toro purposely never uses bright colors and all the lighting is very dark, creating a really sinister mood. The soundtrack, all made by Javier Navarrete, is also very gloomy and I don’t remember one upbeat tune.

Going into this movie, I thought it would be more like fantasy and Harry Potter-like, carrying out beautiful mythical creatures. I was sorely mistaken. Though mythical creatures are included, it is very dark and there is a lot of violence, which I felt was really unnecessary. There were a few scenes that left me closing my eyes, cringing at even the audio. This is not a movie I would ever recommend to children. Though it may appear children friendly, it is strictly meant for older teenagers and or adult minds.

Besides the violence, I thought Toro did a really nice job with creating a really solid cast. The acting was always so real, which you’d obviously expect, but each character really made sure that the sinister tone stayed in place. I thought Ofelia was by far the most outstanding considering she her age. The step father, Vidal (played by Sergi Lopez), was also a huge part of making the film so cruel-intentioned, but this was a good thing because it always kept the viewer’s awareness at a high level.

Overall, even though I had expected something much different, I really did enjoy this movie. I’ve never seen anything like it, and I truly would consider it to be one-of-a-kind. I thought it was thought-provoking and Toro really knew how to play with the viewer’s mind, constantly switching between fantasy and reality. Though not for the squeamish audience, it really captures and keeps the viewer’s attention through the full two hours. I’d definitely recommend it to anyone who is open to seeing something new and different.

Surf's Up!

I'm choosing to write about a movie I saw this past summer, called Surfs Up. I think this was the most underrated penguin movie that came out in the past few years. I don't really think the people behind the movie marketed it to the right audience, and the movie was nothing like I had expected. I went into the theater thinking it was just anyother cutesy reminition of Happy Feet but after the first five minutes, I could tell that I was definately in for something else. Surf's Up is actually filled with tons of underlying humor that I found myself laughing hysterically at. Yeah, there are some scenes where a penguin slips and that is aimed at the younger children, but when the never mentioned, but obviously baked chicken character is acting like his own high self, that's something aimed at the older more teenage audience, that you would never expect. The movie is also shot in a documentary-style, which was in no part of the previews of the movie. Though it was animation, they made it seem like they were using a hand-held camera, with shakey scenes to make it all seem real. Over all I thought this movie was absolutely hilarious and I would definately reccomend it to anyone who has sly humor and a thing for penguins!

Journal #1

The review I chose to critique is by James Berardinelli and the movie he reviewed is called The Number 23.

The movie is a thriller about a man played by Jim Carrey, who has a severe obsession about the number 23 after finding and reading a book his wife bought at a second hand book store. He starts seeing parallels in his life to the number 23 and it starts to drive him insane. James did a good job of explaining the plot with out giving it all away, but I thought he should have explained the plot earlier rather than jumping straight to saying it was a bad thriller with a horrible twist. If I hadn't of seen the movie before reading the review I would have no idea what he was talking about. I definitely agree with James when he states that "the twist is telegraphed early but it is presented in a clumsy and unconvincing manner". He also goes as far as to say that you wouldn't have had to watch the whole movie to understand it, you just need to watch the last 15 minutes because you are apparently dragged through each event in those last 15 minutes after the twist has been re-revealed. That statement is one that I strongly disagree with because though I understand that it is a little repetitive with going through each event, it would be a total loss if the viewer hadn't of seen the whole movie and the longer version of each part, because there are many details that are necessary for the viewer to catch in order to put the movie into a certain perspective.
In terms of Jame's views on the character choice, he thought that the cast was put together just fine, but instead what sunk the movie was 'the writing and direction'. I completely disagree with him on this because never in a million years would I have seen Jim Carrey playing such a serious and psychotic character. One of my favorite movies is Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and it's because Jim Carrey is so funny, and to picture him in any other kind of serious role just feels so wrong. I think that the writing and direction would have been just fine if the producers had of picked a better cast.
Another way I related to Jame’s review was when he explained how the number 23 is really just a number that people had to ‘fudge’ around to find so many coincidences. I agree because I think you could really just do that with any given number, it would just take time. The idea to put it into a movie though and show people, I think is still cool.
Over all I think that James Berardinelli’s review on the movie The Number 23 is a little harsh and gives the reader a preconceived idea that the movie is absolutely horrible, but in reality, in my opinion, I think the movie is still interesting to watch and is one that certain people may enjoy.