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 :)