Boyhood editing blog post

Boyhood is an unique film to say the very least as it documents the boyhood of a boy using the same actors for continuity. In order to accomplish such a feat, good editing was needed to connect the scenes where he aged. For the most part Linklater, the director, does a great job with this never totally blindsiding us with any changes. This was particularly true with The "alcoholic Dad" sequence where it went from the Mother meeting him to her marrying him and then to their life together. Linklater then gives us a sense of time passing and their situation getting worse and worse without disorienting us. This was not true however, with the transfer from the angsty Mason to the super profound and hipster Mason. While we did a glimpse at his budding interest in photography from the darkroom scene, the changing of his overall attitude is very sudden and comes off a little irritating in my opinion. You could argue that such is the nature of this film and it was intentional but seeing as how it deviated from the rest of the films smooth transitions I'd beg to differ. This one hiccup however, does not negate the value of this film which tells the story of about from ages 6-18 in the most accurate way possible and is beyond a shadow of a doubt a historical milestone in filmmaking.

MYST #4: Children of Men

When we first saw clips from this movie my initial thoughts were that this movie would cover an intense civil war/rebellion and cover it in a documentary style which I had not seen before. I was disappointed by the eventual outcome of the plot but was nonetheless blown away by the superb cinematography and interesting world in which the story took place. First of all like I said the cinematography in this film is really good as it has long uninterrupted shots that caught some of the most important moments in the film. The first scene, which I find particularly effective, introduces our main character Theo hearing that the youngest person in their infertile world has just been killed. It then follows him outside to the gray, gloomy streets filled with cars and rickshaws uncharacteristic of a first world country. The camera then pans to the coffee shop that Theo just left, which explodes and then zooms to a dazed Theo and showing the viewer that this movie wasn't playing around. This method is utilized throughout the film and is able suck the viewer into the scene like nothing ive ever seen before. Also the World that the film creates is also gorgeous as it manages to look believable and classically dystopian at the same time. it is gray but also filled with ads and other aspects of modern life.
The overall plot is another story, however. Theo is an uninteresting cliche of a government bureaucrat caught up with some rebels. To be fair, the film doesn't really revolve around him but having his character be so dull really slows down the beginning of the film significantly. Also, it seems like the film does not know exactly what it is criticizing as it goes all futuristic one and consumerist one minute but then shifts to immigration. It is probable this is to satirize America in general, but the film could be much stronger if it chose to specifically satirize immigration. No particular character really stands out in this film as they are all mostly cliched. For example there Theo as I mentioned earlier, and Key the pregnant woman in this film is innocent but realizes her "ark" type status. I honestly think that if the environment and cinematography weren't so excellent this film would not be nearly as memorable. Also, the ending is absolute crap and has little payoff. Maybe I'm this cynical about it because of my overall opposition to the political message of the film which may be a factor behind the praise for the film, some of which is probably unwarranted praise. I give this film a 7.5/10 stars
 

Goddamn Conglomerates

Tuesday, after I came back from history club, I was watching TV in my living room. not too long after I sat down a commercial for the final installment of the hunger games flashes onto the screen. However, this one was different as it was simultaneously a Chrysler ad  that was telling me to go and buy a shitty domestic car with "0% APR financing for 75 months". Of course, this would've been ironic with any large corporation advertising a movie about a revolution but ,Chrysler, the company that only stayed in business because of $1.3 billion of tax-payer money and the peak of this Government's corruption, is just too much. This is of course to be expected with how corporations since the 80's have all but taken over from the independent studios and now tie in movies with merchandise and many more products, seeking to squeeze every dollar they can out of it. I just saw this as the most ironic ad ever and represents the slow erosion of the art of filmmaking.

Short term 12: lighting

Destin Daniel Cretin's film Short term 12 deals with life in a home for troubled youth ,ith troubled meaning abandoned, abused or just lost. Given such dark subject matter it figures that the majority of the film should have rather dark, muted lighting to match the tone and situations presented within the film. The use of lighting in a film is essential to establish mood and atmosphere. The film reaches its darkest when we delve into the personal struggles of both Marcus and Jayden. This is especially true of the scene where Jayden shares the story of her abusive father as told by the "octopus" story. and later at Jayden's dad's house. This darkness of course represents the mood and the feeling of being lost and neglected commonly found in group home kids but is also a great demonstration of trends in contemprary dramas, as new tech has allowed for more atmospheric shots and lighting. needless to say there was points in the film where the lighting was weak as it was often overused and made more positive moments feel somber. The use of lighting in this film is strangely similar to Christopher Nolan's memento, a thriller. I say this because Memento is largely dark as well and is very atmospheric, with several Noire elements, which also represents the trends in contemparay film.

MYST #3: Spectre

James Freaking Bond, doesn't get much better than this right? The adventures of 007 have been pulling audiences into theatres since 1962 with fast action, beautiful cars and gorgeous women. The newest entry in the series "Spectre" doesn't seek to change that, as we still see the usage of great visual effects and not one, but two beautiful women. As the fourth film starring Craig as Bond the film retains its markedly darker tone, having a grey hue throughout and making villains far more personal and diabolical, which we saw mastered in Skyfall by the likes of Silva. This time Bond is taking on the criminal organisation behind everything: Spectre.
The strongest point of this film as with all Bond films is the big-budget action, my personal favorite is a chase scene with Bond in a single engine plane pursuing a convoy of baddies who kidnapped Dr. Madealine Swann, his love interest, which culminates in Bond adjusting the trajectory, flying through a barn and straight-up ramming one of the vehicles, resulting in a huge fiery explosion. This in addition to a mid-air struggle to control a helicopter and the always excellent gunplay makes Spectre a solid action film in its own right. The editing in the film is also superb, being essential for action scenes. one such place it was well utilized is a car chase through the alleys of Rome which cycles through many shots to keep the pace of the action up.
Even so, the film is held back severely by its lack of an interesting plot. We see the introduction of a malevolent shadow organisation, which in spy movies is probably one of the most tired cliches available, barring the Soviets. The first half of the movie consists of Bond finding information about Spectre who, it turns out, seek to take over the world through a unified security program called "nine eyes" introduced by "C" the Joint Chief of Staff who you know is evil within two seconds. The second half consists of Bond stopping their "nine eyes" plan, which involves satellites and other stuff we've seen before in the series. The climax of Spectre was rather lackluster as well as it consisted of Bond saving Swann from the old MI6 building which was rigged to explode while "M" and "Q" stop "C" from activating "nine eyes". It's cool, but not as cool as the climax of Skyfall which was a last stand scenario at James' house complete with the old Aston Martin and an attack helicopter, which ultimately resulted in the death of a villain we thoroughly hated and despised. The saddest thing about Spectre is how Director Mendes failed to utilize Christoph Waltz, a man who owes his fame to a hammy, hilarious performance as a Nazi officer, as a villain. We see hide nor hair of him until the third act where his "personal" vendetta against James is revealed out of nowhere and throws the entire story off-track. Luckily, he survives in the end so he may come back later with a vengeance.
In any case Spectre's weak plot is real downgrade from Skyfall which makes it all the more tragic and with the next film likely being Craig's last we can only hope that the next film can leave us with the closure and payoff we saw in SkyFall

MYST #2: The Manchurian Candidate *loaded with spoilers*

In light of what we've been learning about in class paired with the release of Bridge of Spies I saw it fit to review the 1962 political thriller Manchurian Candidate which is one of the most iconic political films in American history. Adapted from a 1959 novel of the same name the film follows the story of Raymond Shaw, the son of a powerful political family, played by Lawrence Harvey and Ben Marco, a military officer, played by Frank Sinatra. It revolves around a Communist plot to usurp the presidency through a puppet president, a Manchurian Candidate. Senator Johnny Iselin, who is the the said candidate, is interestingly, a carbon copy of McCarthy, complete with the ever changing number of communists in the Government and provides a look into how it affected american politics.

The film begins with our two heroes serving together in Korea, during oddly enough, the Korean war. After a a moment it becomes clear Raymond is not liked by the other men in the unit, as he is an uptight and all-round unpleasant person with no sense of humor. Ben is the commander and orders everyone to move out as there was enemy contact about 3 klicks north. during the engagement, they are captured by the enemy who use brainwashing to condition the men to perform their will.

The men are sent back with a story of Raymond bravely fighting off hordes of communist troops and unanimously call him the "kindest, warmest, bravest human being I've ever met in my life". Raymond's "actions" win him the medal of honor which his power hungry mother and his stepfather Senator Johnny Iselin both of whom he despises, use as political leverage, and pose for pictures with the press.

However, Raymond's brainwashing had a deeper purpose than that of propaganda. He is a cold-blooded sleeper assassin who is activated by the phrase "why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire" which he plays until he comes upon the Queen of diamonds or the "Red Queen". He then proceeds to kill an anti-Iselin newspaper man just as Iselin reveals a list of "known" communists in the state department and sends the American people into a frenzy. Meanwhile, Marco has had a recurring dream about about a brainwashing demonstration as has everyone else in the unit, which prompts Marco to investigate Raymond who he saw killing people in his dream. He travels to meet Raymond whom he sees literally jumping into a lake after someone inadvertently uttered his his activation code.   Marco slowly begins to unravel the mystery and realizes his dream may not have been a dream after all.

*loaded with spoilers*

Raymond comes back to the house where a party is being to held to celebrate Johhnt's nomination as Vice President and while Raymond is there he receives a telephone call, which activates him. It is then revealed his mother is his handler and is the human form of the "Red Queen" and she orders him to assassinate Johnny's running mate at Madison Square gardens in order to elevate him to the Presidency. Just before he is able to do so, Marco who has figured the key to the puzzle, the "Red Queen" uses a deck of Queens to interrogate Raymond and get the whole story and orders Raymond t stop and no longer be bound by the red Queen. Despite this, Raymond proceeds to Madison square Gardens and retrieves the gun to be used in the killing. He waits until the perfect moment and shoot his mother and Johnny in the head. He then turns the weapon on himself and dies, The films ends with Marco reflecting on Raymond's heroism and what kind of man he was.

This film is, no doubt a quality political thriller. For the America of 1962 it took a very real fear and current events and translated into film. Even in modern times the movie still has a pretty interesting plot and blends suspense with intrigue which are both handled very well. Its also has great compostion specifically heavy use of deep space composition, typically in scenes with his mother showed where the strength really lied. This is a solid political thriller film with great performances. I give it a 7.75 out of 10

Memento:Editing

Editing

The most impressive feature of Christopher Nolan's all-around impressive film Memento is undoubtedly the editing. Telling the complex story present in the film would be a challenge within itself, much less telling it in reverse but Nolan pulls it off with enviable smoothness and the perfect balance of confusion and understanding.

The most notable aspect of the editing is, of course the transfer between scenes where the beginning of the previous is shown at the end of the current scene allowing for a much smoother transition and helping the Audience fully-grasp what is happening. This little detail overall makes the film a lot more enjoyable since it won't require multiple viewing to decipher the story until it makes sense. This also serves to make the film more interesting compelling as it keeps the audience guessing. One great example of this is when we see Leonard open up the closet to find Dodd. We don't know how he got there, and don't know anything about him besides his name, hastily scribbled on a blurry Polaroid.

Another great and innovative use of editing was the black and white sequences which somehow managed to have what appeared to be a Flashback within a flashback(a concept similar to that of a film also directed by Nolan)as the sections that pertained to Sammy Jenkins were intertwined with scenes of Leonard speaking on the phone with who is later revealed to be teddy. Similar to the other time jumps, this was extremely smooth and artfully revealed more and more info regarding the first scene of the movie as time went on.

Despite the great use of editing throughout the film but there is a weakest link in every chain. One place where the editing was particularly weak was towards the end as the scenes got shorter and more intense they got harder to keep up with. Of course this may have been intentionally disorienting but one of the chief purposes is to give the audience a new unique understanding of a scene so arrant confusion is not really the most safe option.

I'd say say the editing in this film is somewhat comparable to the 2002 film Minority Report as it also plays around with time and distortion of memory. This can be seen with similarities between the pre-visions and Leonard's memories which are both edited in a choppy style to mirror the real perception or lack therof of memeory

FFS: Violence in the films of Quentin Tarantino

Formal Film Study: Violence in Quentin Tarantino films
Quentin Tarantino is a Director famous for his films displaying gratuitous violence. I, being an American, ate this all up and went to see several of his films.  After having watched several of them, I noticed that this seemingly mindless violence may be more meets the eyes. Therefore, I selected 3 of his most violent and stylistic films Inglourious Basterds, Kill Bill, and Django Unchained.
Blood:
Being as violent as they are, blood has a constant presence in the films and pays homage to specific violent genres. In Django blood takes on a translucent and almost ketchup-like texture that gives it a cheap look paying homage to the appearance of low-budget western films. This also could likely to represent the cheapness of blood discussed in the film due to the presence of the slave trade and bounty hunting. In Kill Bill we see obviously fake bright red blood unnaturally flowing in gallons from the arms and legs of countless goons, inspired by "Samurai" films which are themselves overflowing with intense blood and gore and finally, we have Basterds, which keeps to the style of old American World War 2 films with blood only appearing where the victim is hit. By keeping elements of the genre, specifically blood, Tarantino succeeds in making all of his films feel like unique journeys through cinema rather than just the same film over and again.
Tension:
One of the things Tarantino does better than any director is creating tension, although this is not technically violence I chose to look at it because it immediately precedes most of the violence and greatly impacts how said violence is perceived. It always seeks to make the viewer uncomfortable through creating tension over the most trivial things that devolve into violence in no time flat. The finest example of this is seen in Basterds. Wherein, after inadvertently blowing his cover by expressing the number "three" a certain way, A British agent begins a standoff with an SS major in a room full of Nazi soldiers creating total suspense at the seemingly inescapable dilemma.  This type of scene is also present in Django before Schultz kills Candie for insisting upon a handshake after receiving a raw deal on Brunhilda and in Kill Bill over a cup of coffee in Vernita's house that results in a knife in her chest. These scenes make the cool violent scenes in the films really pop by making seem more effective because of extensive build-up.
Perception of Characters:
One of the essential elements of making any film, violent action films in particular, is to make it clear where our sympathies lie in terms of the characters. This usually calls for a clear good and evil to be established in order to not confuse the average viewer, however Quentin Tarantino has decided to move in a different direction by consistently blurring the line between the "good" and "bad" sides in his films. This is seen in Kill Bill in one of the very first scenes when the Bride goes to kill Vernita and meets her daughter, who the audience knows will eventually be motherless and weakens our support for the bride as she declines mercy and establishes her as a more ambiguous character. In the end of Django, after some of the already questionable bounty hunter scenes, Django returns to Candyland to finish what hes started even though he has his wife and freedom already. We then see him murder all of the white folks and Steven, everyone's favorite house slave in cold blood and blow up the House while running into the sunset as if our Glorious hero has finally triumphed while he really just killed 5 defenseless people. finally in Basterds  Tarantino ironically creates sympathy for some of the German soldiers like the officer who "respectfully refuses" to reveal the position of his fellow soldiers and is then massacred by Savage American soldiers for it, or Wilhelm, whose son was just born. this strays from the traditional portrayal of Nazis as evil, barbarians with no honor. By doing this throughout his films, Tarantino gives us an entirely new perspective on violence and how it is portrayed in film.
Gunplay:
A total must for Quentin Tarantino films and action films in general is the use of guns but rather than keeping the formula of more traditional action movies with more quiet and sustained gunfire, Taratino seeks to make his brand of shooting unique. In his films shootouts is far more loud and disorienting, resulting in scenes with a more chaotic than "awesome" feel to them. this is seen in Basterds when as the theater is burning down, which should probably be the most glorious part of the film, is instead filled with loud gunfire and screams whereas in a typical action film it would be by "awesome" music to highlight how badass the entire thing is. In Django as Schultz goes to shake Candie's hand and then pulls out his concealed pistol it literally rings out and throws the audience right in to the massive Sh**storm that has just been unleashed, leaving us especially disoriented as Django is "unchained". Furthermore in the Kitchen scene in Kill Bill when Vernita attempts to kill the bride with a gun concealed in a cereal box, it has only one shot, and takes the audience by surprise, leading to a quick turn of event that see Vernita dead. By dong this Tarantino not only makes the violence a lot more realistic and significant, h also makes violence seem a lot less glamorous in the process as it is often accompanied with screams of pain.

Citizen Kane: Composition

One of the biggest factors contributing to Orson Welles' Citizen Kane status as the one of the best films ever made is the shot composition. The film was blessed to have brilliant cinematographer Gregg Toland working on the film who provided us with some of the most recognizable shots in Cinema i.e. Rosebud. Two particular segments of the film that caught my attention in terms of Cinematography were the election scene and his marriage to Susan.
In the election scene, we see Kane at his most powerful which makes sense as he is closest to achieving his goal of love from the people. He is shown at a low angle huge image of himself, possibly mirroring his self-admiration. He talks about the wrongdoing of BOSS JIM GETTYS!!!! and how he'll stop all the greedy businessman amid the cheers of his supporters. It then takes an interesting turn as it flashed to Gettys in the box above Kane staring down, at a more insignificant Kane, with deep space composition. This series of shots is interesting and intriguing because it really paints a portrait of a the situation faced by Kane and shows varying degrees of power between the characters.
The other notable segment is when Kane is when, after his wife left him, Kane walks past a mirror with an infinite amount of reflections "mirroring" the many incarnations of Kane we've seen so far and relates to "a word can't describe a man's life" message at the end of the film. Kane ,in the shot, also seems to be highly reflective as he has lost what he loved just like so many times before and how his wealth has gotten him nothing "real". This shot is particularly effective because of its vast importance to the themes of the film and the character of Kane himself ,as this is his last stop in a life "well-lived".
The place where Toland seemed to compose the shots poorly was the shot where Kane typed the rest of the review for Susan's debut performance with deep space composition. Kane is a t the front with Leland in mid ground and Bernstien in the background. The reason this could be better is because Kane is letting his desire to be seen a certain way is at its strongest  and you could make the argument that this actually makes him weaker rather than vice versa. A different shot that ironically highlights the idealism of Kane would serve the scene better.
The composition is similar and likely inspired the later work of Stanley Kubrick paticularly the film Clockwork orange which also consist of various longshots with intense deeper meaning of themes and the characters.

1935 film proect

The Booze Baron of the Bronx!

History: In 1935 the American people forgot about the troubles of the depression by turning to the movies and one thing they were particularly infatuated with was the concept of gangsters from the Prohibition era. This film will come after the runaway success of  1932's Scarface but will instead follow two  New York cops trying to stop the "the booze baron" and portraying him and his cronies as morally bankrupt dregs of society in order to comply with the hays code. The film will fit right to other exciting films like Mutiny on the Bounty or the 39 steps which also came out that year.

The Studio: I will be going with Warner Brothers as they are the studio most experienced with the "gangster" genre, are good at deconstructing American society and cater to the working class audience who would most enjoy this picture as it distracts them from the toil of their everyday lives. The first cop will be an Irish immigrant played by George Brent that doesn't back down from a fight and his partner played by who thinks everything through portrayed by Paul Muni. The "booze Baron" will be played by James Cagney.

Story:The story is based off the story of Arthur Simon Flegenheimer AKA Dutch Schultz (he was still alive at the time so a likeness will be used instead). The story revolves around two cops who seek to take down the powerful mobster after one of their own is killed in the crossfire of a gangland dispute. They destroy and shut down several of his brewing operations, leaving the mobster very angry. so angry he bribes He bribes the corrupt police brass to take our two heroes off the force. Downtrodden and defeated, they leave their badges only to find out about the corruption and be reinstated. they finally get the Booze baron on corruption charges and lock him away for good.

The cast/crew:

Director:Howard Hawks

Starring: James Cagney, Paul Muni, and Geroge Brent

Cinematographor: Tony Gaudio

Technology/industry:The hays code severely limits the amount of violence and debauchary the film can show compared to previous ones which is why a good cinematographer is so essential to this film's success. The film will be in black and white as it better fits the tone of the film than color would and would be reminisecent  of the popular, earlier gangster films.

   

MYST 1: American History X

What could be more American than racism?

 This nation has historically been the site of intense racial prejudice and spectacular 1998 film American History X seeks to paint a picture about the state of racism today, (or a least in the last 20 years).This film is one of those movies that flashes between the past and the present day, represented by black-and-white and color, respectively. The transitions from past to present, however, are extremely smooth and help convey the development of the main character.  The story revolves around a young man: Derrick, played by Edward Norton in one of the best performances of his career, and his brother Danny, played by Edward Furlong. Derrick is a notorious former neo-nazi skinhead who has recently been released from prison for the murder of an African-American and has become disillusioned to the white power movement while in prison.

 This film turns out to be as good as it is shocking, just as any politically charged film with controversial subject matter, and displays scenes of intense violence and racism. A good drinking game(if you're 21) for this movie would be to take a shot every time you see a swastika because there are a lot along with other racist images, slurs, and symbols and when these come together  it produces some of the most moving shots in cinema history. For example after coming home Derrick, is just getting out of the shower. He looks in the mirror in a medium shot and lays his hand upon the huge swastika on his chest realizing that the symbol and what it represents have not caused his life to get better and it is to blame for all for his time in prison.

While Derrick was incarcerated Danny has become more and more involved with the movement. The film brilliantly uses Derrick's past to portray the evolution and eventual metamorphosis of a racist and how Danny seems to be heading down the same path. This connects to a theme that really captures modern racism within the film which is how easily the hate and anger present in so many people of all races and creeds can be exploited and how impressionable they can be, this is especially present in Danny as we see how all the people in his life are seeking to make him think a certain way.

This film is very interesting in its portrayal of modern racism as it generally unbiased as it shows that contrary to what the skinheads and most people think about it, it's not all black and white. (this is likely why the parts of the film in the past are in Black-And-White) Rather racism is shown as a complex gray area with points on both sides this is true in one scene where Derrick and his family discuss the recent events

All in All American History X succeeds in painting a portrait of racism today that both you and your secretly racist Grandfather can appreciate. It has remained relevant throughout the, admittedly through circumstance rather than choice, but that doesn't change the fact that this film is for this generation a beacon of tolerance and understanding. I'd like to end the review with a quote from the movie which is truly the most timeless element of the film: "Hate is baggage, life is too short to be pissed off all the time, it's just not worth it." I rate this film a 9.75/10

Review of the reviews

I saw this movie in theaters back in November and I remember enjoying it for its grittiness, setting and somewhat realistic sound effects which were a huge throwback to Saving Private Ryan. The fact that I am a total history nerd with particular interest in World War 2, especially the European theater probably had a lot to do with that, but I digress. In any case the film was largely praised recieving a 77% and a "certified fresh" rating on the website Rotten Tomatoes, indicating an above average movie. Despite the acclaim there were also many reviewers who called the film mediocre and cliched both sides of the argument can be seen in the following reviews:

The first review by Chris Nashawaty is from Entertainment Weekly: http://www.ew.com/article/2014/10/31/fury
The second, by Peter Rainer is from the Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Movies/2014/1017/Fury-is-a-solid-World-War-II-movie-throwback

The review from entertainment weekly was structured from broad to specific by talking about the setting first and finishing up by talking about the theme and how the movie progresses. The reviewer's biggest problem with the film is lack of character development and how director David Awyer "isn't concerned about giving his characters more than one note to play", he proves this by pointing out that most of the characters are cliches(the innocent new guy, the bible-thumper etc.) and the don't give enough backstory as to why they're fighting like they did in Saving Private Ryan. This review generally maintains the same tone all throughout, cynical and reasonable. This shows through as he is focusing on the character, which is the most important aspect of this film given it takes place inside a tank

Throughout his critique of the film he references the older movies in the world war 2 genre and the Sgt. Rock comics as he feels Awyer draws his characters and their stereotypical personalities from there. He also references the theme of "war is hell" which has been widely used since World 2 and the Cold War and how it is something we already are aware of and in that regard the film fails to offer a fresh message about war or comradery.

The second review is from  the Christian Science Monitor and it takes a more positive, if more sentimental view. Interestingly the reivew is again adresses issues in the film form broad to narrow as Its starts with the reviewer mentioning how the film in his opinion is a welcome throwback to the kind of WW2 films of the 40s and 50s in terms of the drama and overall style. He then goes on to talk about the characters, similar to the first except he instead praises the performance of Brad Pitt and the selection of characters and finishes up by talking about his favorite scene in the movie. The writer generally tries to create nostalgia for older style war movies about impossible odds and the futility of war and by giving a somewhat idealized description of all the characters that were scathed in the Entertainment weekly review.

 He uses language like "Raw Recruit" and "thoughtful" in an attempt to give them more depth. This reviewer basically veers all the focus towards the style and themes of the Movie as those, as opposed to the characters are really the strongest traits of the movie. He uses references to older World War 2 as he knows that audiences generally approve of more patriotic, older style war movies and that they hold a place in the heart of many baby boomers and many younger people as well with the release of Saving Private Ryan

In the entertainment weekly review I agree wth the reviewer when he says when speaking of the characters "We’ve all seen these olive-hued types before" because in war films you usually see the same or a similar set of characters like a tough as nails leader and philosophical gunner etc. so in the movie were not really getting anything new in terms of the kind of soldiers who are the main focus. In the Christian Science Monitor review I agree with the critic when he says that Fury serves as "a throwback to the war movies of the 1940s and '50s" as that is an accurate description of all the plot elements at work and its attitude towards war.

In my opinion, i would say that the Entertainment Weekly review was more convincing as it tended to focus on more important parts of the film like characters and themes. The CSM review just felt too sentimental about older war movies rather than addressing the obvious issues of the film head-on which is no way to approach a film. Also the entertainment weekly review also has a cynical approach to the extreme violence in the film as he feels they don't connect well and are often excessive. His generally cynical attitude towards the whole makes it a much more honest review and shows the film's true worth .

In the event that i had to write a review for thi smovie i would talk more about the way the big battle scene was done both visually and dramatically and still talk a lot about the characters. This movie has many twist and turns and its unfair to leave out much of the violence and some of the stunning and horrific imagery present in the film. I would leave out the theme as most War films like this have the same theme/message (resilience or War is Hell) and its really more about how they, in my opinion, present the said themes within the film since they are both incredibly broad.

Film Intro Survey

1.What is the first movie that really made an impression on you?

The first film to really have a lasting impact on me was probably the film Spirit which is about a mustang who is separated form his herd and his loved ones by the humans and is evocative of the old american wilderness. I really effected me because of all the tragedy the poor horse had to go through and how cruel humans are without realizing it in their constant mission to win against nature.

2.What are 3-4 of your favorite genres?

Probably War, Biography, Comedy and Gangster movies are my favorite, generally

3.What are 3-4 of your least favorite genres? 

Romances and Musicals have never really done it for me and despite being a teenager i'm not a big fan of teenage/coming of age movies.

4.What are your 5 favorite films?

The Godfather, Monty Python:The meaning of life, Clockwork Orange, Raiders of the Lost Ark and A Bridge Too Far which is a guilty pleasure of mine.

5.List three characteristic of what you consider to be a good movie

Likable characters, a character that you don't even care about ruins an entire movie for me or can drastically improve one. there is a difference between an antihero and just straight up unlikable character. A lot of style, by this i mean use of several things like bright colors or darker color and method of shooting that gives the film a more vivid feel. Some speed and excitement , this ussually can make the difference between a great movie and a slow,pretencious piece of garbage. For example in citizen while there is a lot of talking there is a lot of intrigue and interesting things going on at one time.

6.What are some of your least favorite movies

Godfather part 3, The gambler, and a million ways to die in the west

7.Name some characteristics of what you consider as a bad movie

Unlikable characters, an easily detectable theme/message or inherent bias on a very gray issue, and mindless satire.

8.Who are some favorite directors?

Stanley Kubrick who brought the art of film making to a whole new level and Quentin Tarantino, who portrays violence in many interesting often comedic ways

9.Favorite actors?

Gary Oldman, Liam Neeson and John Cleese 

10.What are 3 films you think everyone should see?

I say these both out of general like for the the film and pop culture relevance. Everyone should see pulp fiction, Its a wonderful life and Monty Python and the holy grail

11.Whats your oldest favorite film?

I'd say It's a wonderful is my oldest favorite movie, being made in 1946 and celebrating the american dream and the ideals of family and community

12.What is the best film you've seen released in the last two years?

out of those I've seen I'd say the best was Guardians of the Galaxy which was able to blend a feeling of drama and suspense with comedy typically found in most current marvel movies. The film also gave an amazing world for the viewer to enjoy and had great costumes and special effects.

13.What are the next 5 films in your queue?

Casablanca, Straight outta Compton, Full metal jacket, the original Batman, and Dr.Strangelove or how i learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.