MYST The Hobbit:The Desolation of Smaug

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Rating: This movies was great! I give it 8.5 stars out of 10.

Overview:
This movie was the second in the trilogy about the adventure of Bilbo Baggins to help a company of 13 dwarves lead by the great wizard Gandalf the Grey. In this installment, Bilbo and company are on the run from the Orcs and evil that are following them as they make their way to the Lonely Mountain, the home of the Dwarven city of Erebor that was taken over by the dragon Smaug years ago.

This movie makes use of long shots in order to show the greatness of the landscape in comparison to the characters. The film also uses sound to really amplify the experience as well as vibrant colors, while color is great in most movies, this movie in particular would be very depleted without strong color. This movie is of course an escapist kind of film that draws on the senses and imagination.

The technology and industry for this film was top notch. The but get was very high given the enormity of the task at hand. The technology was great, as it needed to be in order to get the full feeling of the quest conveyed. This is one of those movies that really is better in a theatre setting versus at home on a small screen and a sub-par sound system. The marketing for this films was explosive. The movies trailer was epic and the advertising for it was everywhere. This was one of those big blockbuster kinds of movies.

Conclusion:
If you're into fantasy and adventure this is a great movie for you. The visual is beautifully created, the sounds are breath-taking, and the plot riveting leaving you wanting more. This film is great if you're looking to kill a few hours and escape from the real world for an adventure that will stretch your imagination. Be prepared to even laugh during the smattering of puns and humor that are thrown in.

Formal Film Study on Woody Allen as a Director

Woody Allen

Born December 1st, 1935 in New York, Woody Allen had a "stern" upbringing. His parents didn't get along very well and he had a trying relationship with his mother. He was a funny child and started earning money by creating jokes and gag lines for columnist and other comedians. He found great success in his comic role as well as in his writing abilities. After dropping out of college Allen was self-taught. Eventually he rose to fame through the films he wrote, directed, and often starred in becoming the Woody Allen of today, a quirky, funny man that has a mind that is always on the run.

The movies I chose are Annie Hall (1977), Manhattan (1979), and Radio Days (1987), the first two being considered two of his best films of all time. The last being a more comedic movie (Though pretty much all of his movies are comedic in some way).

Annie Hall is a movie about Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) looking back and wondering why his relationship with Annie Hall (Diane Keaton) ended when everything seemed to have been going so well. The movie weaves through their awkward meeting, the beginning of their relationship and on through their "good times" and finally to their struggles and falling out. The story is quirky, as is the character that Allen plays. Though seemingly a typical romance story, Annie Hall is nuanced with philosophical ideas and comedic input that only seems dry to the ignorant-minded individual.

Manhattan is another kind of romance story again starring Woody Allen and Diane Keaton. In addition to the pair is Mariel Hemingway and Michael Murphy. In this film, Woody Allen's character, Isaac Davis, a 42-year-old television comedy writer, falls for the intellectually competent Mary Wilkie (Diane Keaton). The twist is that, Isaac is already dating 17-year-old Tracy (Mariel Hemingway) of Dalton School and his married friend Yale (Michael Murphy) is having an affair with Mary. Isaac is also twice married and twice divorced. His first first wife Jill (Meryl Streep), is writing a book about their relationship issues and is happily coupled with her partner Connie, whom Isaac supposed tried to run over with his car, though he denies it every time. This quirky movie addresses many issues and contains many mind grabbers due to the "messed" up nature of the characters' lives.




Radio Days, very different from the other movies, addresses the main character, Joe's boyhood by talking about the different things that were on the radio during the time and how they effected his life.  Joe is growing up in a Jewish-American home that houses not only his parents and siblings but his extended family as well. The movie tells Joe's life in parallel action to the lives of famous radio stars like Sally White and his own family members like Aunt Bea who just wants a man. The music track behind the movie plays a very important roll in this particular film.















Style/Industry/Technology: The differences in these films are quite apparent when you watch them. The color scheme for each is very specific to the movie it is enhancing. Annie Hall is shot in a duller color, but the movie is still in color as compared to Manhattan, which is shot in black and white. Radio Days, unlike the two before it, is shot in brighter color, which may be partly due to improved technology. In addition, Manhattan has a very reminiscent feeling to it at times provoked by the longer shots of Manhattan and the famous music in the background. Annie Hall has a lighter feeling to it drawn out through it's new romance content and quirky jokes. Radio Days has an up beat edge that plays off the music of its time and the events of the era. From a technological standpoint, Allen does not use a great deal of special effects, instead he relies more on the spoken words of either his narration or his actors' voices. Cinematographically, Allen tends to have typical shots of thigh and up for the majority of scenes. In Manhattan, long shots are used when displaying the beauty of the Manhattan area. Typically shots are made to revolve around the conversation between two characters, though this is usually done by showing both speakers rather than having a back and forth editing style that is utilized in many other movies.

Culture/Politics/History: In any great Woody Allen movie, history and culture is on stark display. Allen is an intelligent man, and because of his great wealth of knowledge, it spills over into his movies too. Radio Days itself is a movie based on history through a radio-colored lens. Manhattan and Annie Hall of course are a bit more subtle, but even still, the conversation between characters is usually at a much deeper level, especially in Manhattan when talking to Mary the culturally intelligent. On a basic level, Allen's movies are dull stories, on a more meaningful level, the movies address things like the meaning of love and maturity. Allen addresses the way things like radio and art change people and the philosophical theories of the intricacies of life. The war is broached in Radio Days when the women draw on nylons since they can't buy them due to the war effort. The subtle clues and jests at history within the contents of Woody Allen movies bring a depth to his movies that many others seem to lack.

A Closer Look: On a cinematographic mindset Allen does some cool things too, but in more subtle ways. In the beginning of Manhattan we watch beautiful scenes of Manhattan fade in and out as we listen to the wonderful music of Gershwin that we've all heard before. Another scene from this movie that has specific importance is the image of Mary and Isaac sitting on a bench in front of the Brooklyn Bridge at dawn. In Radio Days, Allen's cinematographic eye shows us the superb scenes of classic club shows with singers and fancy show girls. We also get to glimpse the stunning lights of New York at night from the roof of the club building.

Discovery: While Woody Allen doesn't try to do anything super strange in his movies, it is obvious that he has a distinct style when it comes to movie making. I have found that he focuses more on the words that are said during a movie and the sounds that are heard. This is apparent in his almost constant use of comedic lines and personal narration of the story's plot. Allen also utilizes the music that he adds to his movies like George Gershwin pieces in Manhattan, specifically,  Rhapsody in Blue and an assortment of music from the 30s and 40s as well as the renown, Flight of the Bumblebee in Radio Days.

Research: Use the following links to watch trailers for the three movies.
Click Here for Radio Days
Click Here for Manhattan
Click Here for Annie Hall

Fun Facts:
-As a 4 million dollar project, the budget for Annie Hall was dwarfed by its overwhelming success, grossing over 39 million dollars.
-The title Annie Hall came from Diane Keaton's real name and nickname.
-Manhattan was one of Woody Allen's least favorite movies he directed and he was surprised by its amount of success.
-Manhattan was deemed "culturally significant" buy the US Library of Congress and is preserved in the National Film Registry.
-The movie Radio Days is a rare instance in which despite not actually acting in the movie, Woody Allen narrates the film.
-Many of the life anecdotes in the movie were derived from Woody Allen's personal childhood.

1975 Movie Post

Movie Overview:
In this movie the audience travels through the strange life of Alfred Winslow. The story comes in when he meets the overbearing but intelligent Jenny Spillers that piques his interest. As they get to know each other the history of the 1970s is spayed out in the background of the story as they speak about the world they live in. Winslow makes a mistake and loses they only girl he really cared about. He spends a great deal of time searching for his lost companion and lives to see her once again. Once he reunited with her he finds that she has become a new woman. She's changed and learned to live normally, something he could never fully do. He loses himself to drinking and finds that he was better off without love. Or maybe not....

Genre/Style:
Sentimentality/Drama-Realistic sentimentality that picks at your brain and just enough flavor and spicy drama to keep you on your toes and willing to watch.

Message: Life has a funny way of messing with you. Love has an even funnier way of messing with you.

Title: Living for the Girl
Woody Allen's movie often have a lead female character that has sway over his quirky character. This story is all about the strange relationship of Allen and Keaton's characters.

Director: Woody Allen
Woody Allen has continued to be an amazing director when it comes to film and in the 70s he made some good ones, both before and after 1975. His style is very particular and his technique outstanding.

Cast: Woody Allen ad Diane Keaton
I chose these two because they are known to work well together based on past movies that Allen and Keaton acted together in like Sleeper and countless others. These two have done great work together and they continued to do so after 1975. (Annie Hall and Manhattan)

Crew: Robert Surtees as Cinematographer
Surtees has won many academy awards in the 70s and has a great record when it comes to showing off a movie. Woody Allen, known for doing cool things with his movies, must have a good cinematographer like Surtees.


Studio: United Artists: MGM
I had to choose this studio due to Woody Allen specifically producing all of his prior movies out of MGM. United Artists because they made some great movies that I've seen such as Annie Hall and Manhattan


Rating: R for restricted
Due to some of the themes and language of usual Woody Allen films the rating is made R.

THIS Story:
I chose this story because the story still allows for realistic truths of life which seemed to be a common theme in the 70s. The movie is not an escapist film as most 1970s films were not such. The film is more realistic and quirky.

MYST Post #3 About Time By: Richard Curtis

About Time
Directed By: Richard Curtis
Starring: Domhnall Gleeson, Rachel McAdams, Bill Nighy and Lydia Wilson
I give this movie a 7 out of 10

Overview/Summary:
About Time starts out as a movie about a semi-geeky guy named Tim looking for love. Soon after the beginning of the movie her learns from his father that all of the men his family have the ability to go back in time. The movie takes off from there with Tim learning the ins and outs of the time travel. He quickly realizes that time travel has its limits and that he must be careful. He chooses to use his ability to find love. He meets Mary and they fall in love, get married, have kids, and live happily ever after... well sort of. The journey has its bumps as do all. By the end of the movie Tim has learned a lot about life and changed as a person. The movie itself also transforms, from one of a fun love story to one that has powerful things to say about what life should be and the time we spend in this world.

Cinematography and Key Scene:
While a lot of the movie revolves around conversation between characters the camera is still able to do some cool things. During conversation the camera does a lot of jumping back and forth between speaker and audience. This keeps the movie rather upbeat and lively. When the camera slows down you can tell when the sentimentality is going to be coming. The camera utilizes a lot of close ups on faces and for the time travel sequences the closed fists necessary to travel back in time. The lighting in the movie is generally pretty bright except in the dark rooms needed for traveling back, in which case the lighting takes on the opposite effect  of dark and barely visible silhouettes. Another fun scene that uses cinematographic techniques interestingly is the scene when Tim meets Mary in a restaurant owned by blind people so the screen is actually black and the only thing going on s the sounds of the dinners.This black screen heightens our sense of hearing causing us to relate with the characters experiencing the complete darkness. Even when the lighting in the movie is dark though the average scene has a warmer feel to it. The only time this seems to be broken is when two serious events occur. The first being the car crash with Kit-Kat, Tim's younger sister, and the death of Tim's father. The lighting in these scenes gives a flatter feeling to these moments portraying the emotions of the family. Overall, the movie wasn't overtly cinematographically strange, but the movie definitely used its techniques effectively to convey what it intended to.

Reference:
As far as this movie goes the acting was great. The actors really seemed to get into their roles well and the message of the story was sincere and relatable. Rachel McAdams as always did a flawless job. She has the wife/girlfriend role down perfectly after having played in movies like The Vow, Midnight in Paris, and The Time Travelers Wife. Though put in the category of comedy drama sci-fi romance, the movie seems more a romance that has something more to say on life.

 Click here to see what others have to say about this movie.

Click here to watch the trailer!

MYST #2 Memento Directed By Christopher Nolan

Memento 
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Guy Pearce, Carrie-Anne Moss, and Joe Pantoliano
I give this movie 3 ½ stars out of 5

Overview:

Leonard Shelby has short-term memory loss and can only hold onto new memories for 5-6 minutes at a time. When the movie begins he is on the hunt for the man that raped and murdered his wife. Leonard has made a system for himself in order to "remember" the important things. His system consists of note writing, taking photos, and tattooing important facts on his body. The other characters in the story are Natalie, a woman who seems to be helping Leonard out of pity because she has also lost someone, and Teddy, a "sketchy" character that we don't really know what to think about.

I decided to watch the rest of the movie after we saw part of it in class. The whole going backwards in time with a guy who has no new memories was extremely intriguing to me. I think this movie intrigues a lot of people because you never can be sure of what the truth is, similar to the way that Leonard doesn't really know what is going on in his life. The twist comes at the end of the movie when we learn that Leonard set himself up to kill Teddy after Teddy and him have a bad confrontation. 

From a critical perspective, this movie utilizes some of the most interesting tactics. Not only are the cinema graphic choices, they are also uncommon, which in and of itself makes this movie stand out. Some of the moat obvious movie choices are that the movie is going in reverse order. This decision helps to make the movie more confusing in a intellectually intriguing way. In compliment to the backward order, the movie also contains black and white scenes that are played in the right order. The odd combination of backwards and forwards confuses us in the beginning, but as the movie goes on, we find that we are starting to understand what is being communicated and we are capable of piecing together some of the bits of the story. In addition to these two rather obvious cinematic choices, there are also the occasional flashbacks that Leonard has that make us question what we thought the story was about. These flashbacks have us starting to wonder if Sammy Jankis and him are really the same person and that Leonard was the one who accidentally killed his wife and went to the mental facility. The confusion in this movie is strange because, while one usually hates a movie that fails to clearly communicate what is going on, in the case of this movie, the confusion adds to the experience of watching the movie. Another obvious, but rather forgotten point is that this movie doesn't show everything, but rather tells. Instead of showing us how some things happen they are explained due to the difficulty of making it fit with the movie. The movie at first seems almost memoir style, but quickly changes to down right confusing. Despite all that though I enjoyed the movie. I didn't mind being confused, it was the hardest I ever had to think during a movie. I think that was what was cool about the movie, the movie makes you think hard to piece together the story and no matter how hard you try you will still be confused just like Leonard.

Something cool I researched quickly was the comparisons people were making between Inception, also by Christopher Nolan, and this movie. Both movies as a blogger stated, "play with your mind and your perception of time and reality". As I have seen Inception, I would definitely agree. I think the idea of comparing the two of these movies to be very interesting. If you like being challenged to think a lot during a movie and trying to solve puzzles is fun to you, you'll probably love this movie.

Undercover Money (1930s Movie)

Undercover MoneyAmy Spencer and Annie Cappetta

Plot Summary:This movie follows Howard F. Stowe, or “Stowie” as his old friends call him. Stowe grew up on the streets, and was heavily involved in gang activity. Somehow, unbeknownst to the audience, he breaks free from the gang life and become captain of his city’s police department. He has a great family, three kids, and goes to church every Sunday. On his way home from church one day, he sees a bank robbery take place, and a man fleeing the scene (bank robbery was the aim of most of this gang’s crime). He arrests this man, and upon the arrest realizes the man was his best friend from childhood Jimmy Smalls, presumably still involved in gang activity. Stowe gets back involved with his old gang going undercover pretending to be a dirty cop. Through this investigation, he uncovers evidence of the corporate heads at several of the banks the gang has robbed being involved with fraud costing the people of his city millions of dollars. Stowe arrests the bankers, and the evidence also exonerates Smalls, who Stowe then convinces to join the police force and leave the gang life. We also find out at the end that Smalls was the one who helped Stowe get out of the gang life when he was younger, and Smalls has avoided being involved ever since.
Relevance to 1935:
A 1935 audience would enjoy this movie because it's under their favorite category of gangster films, but the story has an original twist that they'll love. Given the Great Depression is going on during this time the audience will resonate with the idea that banks are the bad guys. Also, people will be able to relate themselves to "Stowie" because he's kind of your "average Joe". 

Style:
This film would take on a critical feel towards banks while still maintaining a gangster-esque quality. In addition, the movie would exude a feeling of slight confusion as to what side "Stowie" is playing for and a touch of humor and sarcasm.


Message:
The basic message is a few things.
1.) Banks are the bad guys
2.) Despite having a "stretchy" past you can make something of yourself it you're willing to try and work for it. ("Stowie" used to run with gangs as a kid and grew up to be a cop, and Smalls ends up joining the "good side".)
3.) Sometimes the lines between doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing are blurred. (Stowie seems to be doing some "sketchy" stuff with his old gang, but in the end he "saves the day".)

Genre:
As far as genre goes, this movie is obviously a gangster movie. This genre goes well not only with the studio we chose (Warner Bros. known for doing gangster movies), but it also goes well with much of our cast. (James Cagney and Paul Muni were common gangster film actors.) We liked the idea of doing a gangster film since in the 1935s everybody liked a good old gangster movie. (Violence sells, more about in the Hay's Code section)

Studio:
We decided that Warner Bros. would be the best fit for our movie for a few reasons.
1.) Warner Bros. was known as the gangster film "kings"
2.) They were known for doing movies that were bold and dealt with some of the contemporary societal issues going on. (Banks and Depression)
3.) They had contracts with the actors we wanted to star in the film.
4.) We wanted our movie to make sound a big part of the movie and they were one of the first ones "out of the gate" with sound technology. (Vita-phone, sound-on-disc.)
5.) They targeted a "blue collar" audience and we feel that our movie would do well with that particular audience. (We think our movie would do well with all audiences, but especially blue collar due to the Great Depression/Bank connection.)

Scale:
Given the studio we chose we knew we couldn't have an extreme budget, but since we decided to go with a sound focus, we would be able to save money on what would be expensive violent scenes. (Sound would replace some of the more "dicey" action in the movie as a way around the Hay's Code as well.) While some of our crew is a bit pricey (James Cagney) our supporting actors would make up for some of the losses there. Also, our director, though known and talented, is not someone really expensive, like Capra or Hawke.

Cast and Crew:
Lead Actors:
James Cagney: We chose Cagney for his background in gangster films, his relationship with Warner Brothers, and his relationships with the other actors that were chosen. He commonly worked with Joan Blondell as well as playing opposite role of Humphrey Bogart. He was is famous movies like Public Enemy, Little Caesar, and Smart Money. 
Paul Muni: We chose Muni for similar reasons as Cagney. Muni was also a well known gangster star and he has a familial background in acting. In addition, he had the lead role in Scarface (1932), a famous gangster movie.
Supporting Actors:
Humphrey Bogart: We chose Bogart for his partnership with Warner Brothers, his commonality for playing as a supporting actor, and his experience with gangster films. He was also commonly casted as Cagney's opposite as I mentioned before.
Joan Blondell: We chose Blondell for her acting relationship with Cagney, her pre-existing contract with Warner Brothers, and her skill as a supporting actress.
Director-Raoul Walsh: Walsh was our choice director for a number of reasons. We knew he was a great director because of his success previously. When he was younger, his first feature-length film was a gangster movie by the name Regeneration which came out in 1915. He also worked with the famous D.W. Griffith as his assistant and had a relationship with Warner Brothers as well as Bogart and Cagney. As a side note, he wore an eye patch because he got into a car accident.
Sound Engineer-Nathan Levinson: Levinson seemed to be a perfect fit for our movie given his extensive successful background. He has won 16 Academy Awards for best sound and he worked on the all famous first sound film The Jazz Singer. In addition to that, he worked with Warner Brothers.

Hay's Code:
Due to the nature of gangster films, violence is a must, but since the code doesn't like violence or the demonstration of how to carry out a criminal act we are replacing scenes that would otherwise be screened by the code with intense detailed sound that would be able to portray what is going on. Another part of the movie that was molded around the code was the decision of Smalls to break his ties with his gang for the "good" life of a cop.

Technology:
Due to Warner Brothers being one of the top-runners when it comes to sound, sound is going to play a big role in our movie. Vita-phone technology used with the sound-on-disc idea will allow the audience to experience a great gangster film that will leave a memorable impact on the viewer whether they paid attention to the plot or not. Our only other important technological choice was that we want the movie to still be a black and white film. While color could have been made possible, for the particular movie we felt black and white sufficed for many reasons. Most importantly, color would have been too expensive for the lower end budget of our movie. Another valuable reason that black and white would be better for our film is that it's what the people were used to and black and white was seen to portray reality over what was at the time considered colorful surrealism. As was later seen in the Wizard of Oz, color was more used in movies to represent the unreal. A minor reason would also be that black and white films tend to make the idea of good vs evil more prominent, if only slightly.

Changes?
While I hadn't really had what our result was in mind when I thought about this project, now that it is completed, I wouldn't really change a thing. I felt that all out big decisions seemed to be good ones that made sense with the time period and what would have happened. My only change may have been in making the plot of little clearer since I myself still don't really know how everything would work out in the end. Since we didn't need to really know how our movie would work itself out though I don't really have much to say for change. Fortunately, Annie and I were on the same page about our project and we made our decisions unanimously.

Formal Film Study Project #1 War Movies Through the Years: Apocalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan, The Hurt Locker

Introduction

After a few days of deciding what I wanted to do for this Film Study I decided to go with a focus of war films. I chose Apocalypse Now directed by Francis Ford Coppola in 1979, Saving Private Ryan directed by Steven Spielberg in 1998, and more recently, The Hurt Locker directed by Kathryn Bigelow in 2008. Each of these films deal with the realities of war, but despite being from the same genre they differ greatly. This film study will hopefully give you a better understanding of the changes of filming over time as well as a history lesson on 3 of the biggest wars in American history. Since you may not have seen all of these movies, let's start out with a quick synopsis of what each of these movies were about.

Movie Overviews
(For more information on any of these movies, just click their Overview title.)

Apocalypse Now Overview


Apocalypse Now is an intriguing film that has a very different feeling than many other war films. It takes viewers on a disorienting journey up the Nung River alongside US Army Captain Willard and his crew as the Vietnam War rages around them. Captain Willard's mission comes straight from the top dogs and the task is simple, "terminate with extreme prejudice".

Saving Private Ryan Overview
Saving Private Ryan is a patriotic movie centered on the mission of the 2nd Ranger Battalion headed under Captain Miller to find and rescue Private James Ryan after the confusing events of D-Day on the beach of Normandy. Viewers watch in sadness as the events of D-Day and its aftermath come alive in tear-jerking reality.

The Hurt Locker Overview
The Hurt Locker portrays the realities of the war in Afghanistan by following the actions of Bravo Company, a bomb squad working to disarm bombs left around civilian areas. While the film has few action scenes the intensity of the situations are very present and shocking.

Compare and Contrast

Style/Mood
The first thing one notices in watching the three of these movies is the immense differences in style. Apocalypse Now just seems disgusting and chaotic. The mission seems insane as does the entire war itself. As for Saving Private Ryan, the movie is very patriotic and moral. Despite the chaos of war, we see the bond of the battalion and the sense of duty these men feel. In the Hurt Locker, the style is of constant tension that mimics the emotions of soldiers as they get up close and personal with the threat of death by bomb explosion.

Technology/Cinematography

Each movie has a very different feel which is created with stunning attention to detail. The three movies pull out all the stops to put together something so intense and brilliant. In Apocalypse Now Coppola's use of lighting and intense colors really adds to the crazed madness that was the Vietnam War. The effects as a whole give the movie a rather hallucinogenic feel, as if one were watching the movie from a clouded surreal lens.

On the opposite end, The Hurt Locker is move about the sounds of war. While all movies use sound effects, this movie over the other two really pulls at the audience through hearing. The sound makes the movie because there is way less action than some of the other movies. The sounds feed our tension. The heart beating, the bomb going off, that's the reality.

For me Saving Private Ryan's cinematography wasn't as apparent in comparison to the others but a noticeable editing technique was the way Spielberg at times cut the sound and slowed down the action. The use of taking away sound is surprisingly impactful. When these moments in the movie occur, we stop hearing war and start feeling it. The slowed down scenes allow of us to really notice what is going on and take it all in. Hearing the action is no longer that important.

Politics/History/Culture
As is obvious, these films are centered in American history. The way these movies are presented is strongly based in the feelings of people during that particular war. In Apocalypse Now, the hatred of the Vietnam war is obvious. Men are shooting anything that moves and missions seem pointless. The whole war seems pointless. The cha
racters have all gone crazy and the antagonist isn't that clear most of the time. The movie basically describes what the Vietnam war was to the American people. There wasn't that feeling of patriotism as there was in other wars. Soldiers didn't care what was happening, all they wanted was to get out of 'Nam.

In Saving Private Ryan people felt like they were fighting for something. The soldiers were dying in large numbers yet they did their duty because they knew that their efforts meant something. Historically, America had a very strong feeling about WWII. Morals were important and feeling like you were doing something meaningful was enough. The movie addresses the courage of a man and strong leadership as a catalyst for change. Saving Private Ryan gives the audience something to remember, to think about. The movie reminds us that we should live lives worthy of the sacrifices of our soldiers.

As for The Hurt Locker the focus isn't so much on war as a whole, but rather the men that serve in it. We see this from the beginning, the focus isn't a troop of soldiers, but a small team of three tasked with the sole purpose of disarming bomb after bomb. The movie outlines the different kinds of men that are still fighting for our country. Sanborn is a logical leader that deep down is like any other man with hopes and dreams as well as fears and sadness. Eldridge is a regular guy that is just scared of war and thats obvious. But he is capable when he is needed. James, the bomb specialist, is great at what he does and he knows it. But he too is human, when he's at home he doesn't know what he's doing. He isn't as sure of himself. He's good at defusing bomb threats. He knows exactly what's going on, and he knows the consequences of failure. For James, war is the drug that gives him control.

My Discovery
In these movies, I see a very common element in all of them. While the war going on holds the control on the events in the film, it's the characters that really stand out. In all three movies there is an importance in understanding who these men are. The films help the viewers to come to terms with the fact that these are ordinary men and that we aren't different them really. These movies try to make their audience realize that despite a hardened outer shell, these men are fathers, sons, brothers, friends, like all of us. Another point that is subtly seen in all the movies is that war changes a man, sometimes for the better, sometimes for worse.

In Apocalypse Now, the movie begins with the slightly dysfunctional Captain Willard, we journey with him as he struggles with the decision of having to take the life of an American. We also watch as his crew slowly goes mad the further they go up the Nung River. Most intriguing of all in the movie though is the strangeness of Kurtz and Kilgore. The funny thing is though, despite having "gone off the deep end" they still have those traits that make men of war just like any other man. Kilgore loves surfing and Kurtz has passions despite their craziness. Apocalypse Now is based in the humanity of its characters and how war changes them.
In Saving Private Ryan we see similar ideas. The characters range from religious, vulgar, honorable, brave, cowardly, and loyal. Miller at first seems like the unbreakable hero, but in reality, as we later find, he was an ordinary school teacher before the war. He has a wife he wants to get back to and his motives for completing his mission is no more than a desire to earn the right to go home. Upham on the other hand is a cowardly man that has never seen battle prior to this mission. He's a translator and he doesn't have the guts to put his life on the line for those that rely on him. But how can we not relate to him, could we do any better put in his position? Maybe, but that's not the point. We see that war is composed of ordinary men. We also see that men are changed by war. An obvious example Upham killing his enemy in cold blood despite their surrender.

In The Hurt Locker we see the same kind of characterization idea. Sanborn is a logical leader that deep down is like any other man with hopes and dreams as well as fears and sadness. Eldridge is a regular young guy that is just scared of war as well as failing his team. But he is capable when he is needed. James, the bomb specialist, is great at what he does and he knows it. But he too is human, when he's at home he doesn't know what he's doing, he isn't as sure of himself. He's good at defusing bomb threats, he knows exactly what's going on, and he knows the consequences of failure. For James, war is the drug that gives him control of his life. Here too we see a change in character. By the end of the movie Sanborn has come to the realization that he wants a child. He wants someone that will love him come the end of his life besides his regular family. War has made him realize that he wants more out of his life than a tragic death alone.

If you want some outside proof of the importance of characters in these war movies, click this link. It'll show you why characterization is so important in movies and how to do it.

Browne, Robert G. "Creating Movie Characters That Jump Off The Page." Web log post. Movie Outline. Nuvotech Company, n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2013. 

A Closer Look
Let's take a closer look at some of these movies, shall we? It's hard to believe, but when it comes to movies, every little detail is thought out and adds to the movie, usually... Point being, even the less noticeable details of movies can be important, sometimes they even give hints or add to the story. In these three movies, apart from the importance of the characters, we notice that Saving Private Ryan uses a lot of hand-held camera work, Apocalypse Now has a thing for long slow dissolves that juxtapose the changing scenes, and The Hurt Locker utilizes the long shot for bomb explosions to show the ultimate doom of failure. There are many other nuances in these movies, each one hand picked to further improve the movie. 


Some important quotes from these movies that stuck with me....

The Hurt Locker:

1.) William James:  [Speaking to his son] You love playing with that. You love playing with all your stuffed animals. You love your Mommy, your Daddy. You love your pajamas. You love everything, don't ya? Yea. But you know what, buddy? As you get older... some of the things you love might not seem so special anymore. Like your Jack-in-a-Box. Maybe you'll realize it's just a piece of tin and a stuffed animal. And the older you get, the fewer things you really love. And by the time you get to my age, maybe it's only one or two things. With me, I think it's one.
2.) William James: Everyone's a coward about something.
3.) Opening Quote by Chris Hedges: The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.

Saving Private Ryan:

1.) Captain Miller:  You see, when... when you end up killing one your men, you see, you tell yourself it happened so you could save the lives of two or three or ten others. Maybe a hundred others. Do you know how many men I've lost under my command?

Sergeant Horvath : How many?

Captain Miller: Ninety-four. But that means I've saved the lives of ten times that many, doesn't it? Maybe even 20, right? Twenty times as many? And that's how simple it is. That's how you... that's how you rationalize making the choice between the mission and the man.

2.) Corporal Upham: "War educates the senses, calls into action the will, perfects the physical constitution, brings men into such swift and close collision in critical moments that man measures man."

Captain Miller: I guess that's Emerson's way of finding the bright side.The Hurt Locker

3.) Old James Ryan: [addressing Capt. Miller's grave] My family is with me today. They wanted to come with me. To be honest with you, I wasn't sure how I'd feel coming back here. Every day I think about what you said to me that day on the bridge. I tried to live my life the best that I could. I hope that was enough. I hope that, at least in your eyes, I've earned what all of you have done for me.

Ryan's Wife: James?...

Old James Ryan: Tell me I have led a good life. Tell me I'm a good man.

MYST #1 (Movies in Your Spare Time) The Avengers (2012)

The first time I saw this movie was  in the theatre with some friends, and after seeing this movie twice more I can confidently say that it was a well made movie. If you're someone that likes action/adventure with a fun dose epic fight scenes this is the movie for you. Even if you're not the usual fight movie person I would recommed  still giving this movie a chance. Despite a somewhat typical plot, the movie holds a lot of appeal for anyone that enjoys a plot line revolving around an interesting group of people learning to work together. On that note, I would like to remind you that despite what the movie is categorized as, the plot has its twists and the characters have structure to them. Another great thing about this movie is that in addition to being a movie of intense action, it also has great actors, graphics, and a good balance of humor. One of the first things I noticed in watching this movie was its ability to make you laugh. Watching the characters grow from start to end we see the same kind of sarcastic humor and witty punch-lines that we ourselves would possibly use in our own lives. Overall, The Avengers is a great movie that I feel can speak to movie goers of all kinds and and is a well put together film. I give this movie a 7 1/2 out of 10 stars. 

Some things to consider before watching this film is that while it is a stand-alone film, it does have some backstory based on other Marvel movies, such as Thor, Iron Man 1 and 2, Captain America, and The HULK. Despite this slight inconvenience, I believe the movie did a good job with informing viewers of the most important events that could add to the movies completeness. Another thing I would like to point out about this particular film is some of the more complex questions about this movie. As we all know from E1H, there is more to a story than an intriguing plot. Usually this comes in the form of a bigger picture theme or message that the writer would like to impress upon readers. The same goes for movies. I may be reading too much into the movie based on personal bias, but I think the movie has a lot to say. The movie, directed by Joss Whedon, maker of the popular 1 season show Firefly, broaches many important topics that we should consider in our own lives. He touches on the importance of "going green" and the need for sustainable resources for energy as well as the high likelihood for success that can come about when we set aside our differences and work toward a common goal. 

What sets this movie apart from others? Well for one, unlike other movies of the past, we get to see some of America's most known superheroes battle it out all together in one movie. The appeal of this kind of combination is obvious given the movie's rather high rating. On Rotten Tomatoes, both critics and the general public gave this movie at least a 90%. The amazing aspect of this movie is the exceptionally great special effects that make it seem pretty realistic and the life-like. This can be compared to movies like J.I. Joe that also really amp up the possibilities of hat can be seen in the big screen. Now consider this movie next to something like early 1900s gang films that also had many fight scenes. The difference is obvious, the vast amount of things that can be done compared to then is incredible. Lets look at the actors now, We have Robert Downey Jr. as the arrogant, highly intelligent, tinkerer that is Iron Man, his organized, down to earth girlfriend Pepper Potts played by Gwyneth Paltrow, Mark Ruffulo as the angry, gamma ray expert beast that is the HULK, Chris Evans as the logical leader of the pack, Captain America, and the super sexy lightening demigod Thor, played by Chris Hemsworth. In addition, the two side agents Hawk-eye (aka Clint Barton) and The Black Widow (aka Natasha Romanoff) are played by well known Hollywood actors Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner. This cast in general is just outstanding. These actors stand in stark contrast to actors of musicals like Singing in the Rain's don Lockwood and Cosmo Brown. These two dancers were absolutely amazing at what the did and so are the Avenger's actors. The difference is that while the pair of dancers specialize in song and dance movies, these actors tend to star in movies of action or drama. Another actor that would be under the same category as this cast would be Angelina Jolie. Jolie has played in many roles over the years, many of which involve fighting and heavily physical acting, though she can do other stuff too. One of her more active roles was in Mr and Mrs. Smith playing as Jane Smith with her co-star Channing Tatum (another great example of this type of actor by the way). Basically, my point is that this movie is a specific type of movie and for that reason, the plot, the actors, and general audience is going to be different than a movie like Singing in the Rain or The Wizard of Oz. (In general the older movies, but some modern day movies could be generalized as very different as well.)

Now, let's take a closer look at a scene from the movie. This clip can be watched here.
The beginning of this scene starts with a shaking camera shot of Agent Romanoff riding a flying alien ship. This technique used with the camera helps mirror the unstable position that she is in at the moment. It also conveys to some extent possible emotions playing out in her head. The longer angles that we see when the camera pulls back allows us to see what is going on around her. We can see that this moment is obviously very chaotic. Then we jump to a medium-close shot of Hawk-eye, indicating to us that he's probably going to become important to Romanoff's current situation. When the camera jumps to the angle looking straight up at Hawk-eye and specifically his bow, we put together that he is most likely going to use it to aid Natasha. The composition of the camera focus that comes next is indicative of the way one would prepare to shoot a gun with precision, or in this case a bow. Once he lets the arrow fly we get a shot in which we are in front of the arrow looking back at it as it makes its journey. This zoomed in focus on the arrow, preventing us from seeing the target approach builds suspense of whether the shot will be a hit. The dutch angle used during the explosion and tracking Loki's motion as he falls is representative of the falling, tumbling motion that is actually taking place. As Loki is getting up we get to see from his perspective the HULK coming up from the bottom of the screen to attack. Coming in from a place that we did not see before emphasizes the surprise Loki must be feeling, wondering where this beast came from. The next shot of Loki thrown to the ground shows his weaker state. The opposite is used on the HULK as the camera looks up at him in his position of power. Not to mention we see his immense bulk. Just when we start seeing the camera come down to show Loki in power the angle shifts and the HULK once again has the upper hand. Going to a long shot we get to watch on a laugh as Loki is smashed over and over again. Again angles of high and low confirm the fact of who is weak and who is strong. This is a great scene in the movie and I hope you enjoyed really dissecting it for meaning.

If you're not sure about whether this is the movie for you, watch the trailer here. 

If that trailer made you curious and you have a Netflix account, watch the movie and rate it for yourself on Netflix instant. Just click on the Netflix link.

Review of the Reviews-The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (directed by Peter Jackson)

1.)
The first review I read was that of a fan of the movie and I thought that his analysis was better structured. While it is more broken down than the second review, that stated the movie was "rotten", I thought it was more able to communicate it's argument by giving each piece of analysis emphasis and attention. The tone of the first review, written by Chris Vognar, had a much more up-beat and interested feeling that brings the reader in. He writes in a conversational feeling that allows people to feel comfortable with reading his review on the movie. While I am bias, I believe the second writer, Christopher Orr, wrote his review in a very sophisticated and more professional manner, which in some contexts, such as professional, is good, but, I believe readers respond more to opinions when they have relatable feeling to them. Similar to the tone of the reviews, Vognar's vocabulary choices are more conversational with a few bigger words mixed in. On the other hand, Orr uses words like "absconded" and "extraneous". Though big words make you seem smart and likely a reliable source of information, the big words are too sophisticated for the whimsical nature of the movie being reviewed.

Appart from the semantics of Honors English classes, these reviews contain much more valuable information. These reviews after all, are exactly that, reviews. So lets focus more about these writers opinions and the facts that they based their "top critic" opinions on. Vognar's positive review of the movie is based on the movie's well-done story weaving that allows non-readers to understand the plot of the movie. He also applauds the movie's whimsical and humorous nature. He does realize the movie is long, but he remedies the negative with the insight that even though the book was short, the journey was still a long and arduous one, thus the movie should be the same. Vognar also references other successful works such as the movie Skyfall and Paradise Lost the book, explaining that we all love well done villains that have humors that can even outshine our favorite protagonists, in the case of the Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins is often out-shined by CGI character Gollum (voiced by Andy Serkis). Of course,, he also references the previous movies by Jackson that pick up the tale of Middle Earth after the movie in question, the Hobbit. He does this for the obvious reason of acknowledging the great success the previous movies had.

Looking at Orr's review we get a different perspective on the same movie. In rather a bias opinion, Orr's review lacks analysis. His only focus seems to be that Peter Jackson made the movie too long. Saying that he spends too much time on pointless scenes. He also declares that Jackson used the Hobbit  more as a way to promote his other Middle Earth related movies and in addition to that didn't make something original. Orr uses references mostly to compare things in the movie to real-world things like Wyatt Earp's mustache and fleeting glimpses of Godzilla. Other than these references the other references refer back to judgements on the previous movies and how they pertain to the movie at stake.

2.)
For Vognar's I choose the quote, "Occasionally a slog, 'the Hobbit' also has a fair amount of charm". Indeed, the movie is full of charm from the surreal film locations of New Zealand to the wide ranging personalities of the dwarf company, not to mention an old man that is so much more than your average wizard. Peter Jackson fills his movie with the whimsical charm of Middle Earth and the far-awayness that the movie brings us. 

In Orr's review I choose the quote, "Bilbo's mortal game of riddles with Gollum (Andy Serkis) is nearly worth the price of admission by itself: tense, textured, and devoid of the embellishments that slow down so much of the film. I agree with the first half of the quote at the very least...the riddle scene between Bilbo and Gollum is humorous, serious, tense, and all-round great fun to observe. The actor's have great command of their body language (in which case Gollum is just a CGI) and even greater command of their vocal inflection (which Andy Serkis does the voice over for Gollum). 

3.)  
Personally, neither one of the reviews seemed that strong. Orr's was not convincing at all, the only thing I saw going for it was that it was written professionally and with sophisticated, which in my opinion belongs in a different style of writing. On the other hand, while I thought Vognar's review was written well on an English class standard, the content lacked in the ability to persuade a reader that the movie was a must see due his seeming undecidedness. Qualities that would have made a convincing review would have made a convincing review (both those used and not) are flow, natural tone, obvious personal interest in topic, mention of main actors, a brief plot explanation without giving important information away (no spoilers). Also a review should be similar in style to the movie for better reader understanding and have a clear position even if it's undecided. The writer needs to explain why they are undecided or love/hate the movie. 

4.)
If I were to review this movie I would let people know the kind of movie it is since not everyone is going to like the type of movie right from the beginning. It is important to understand that everyone has different tastes. I would tell people that there are appearances from actors from the previous movies in the sequence as well as some great new actors. I would inform readers that the movie hosts some great action and includes humor even in some of the serious scenes. I would make note but not in detail that the movie is rather long and for those that like a long sitting of adventure. I would also leave out that the movie, while true to the book, does include information that Tolkien wrote elsewhere to fill in the gaps that the book may have left out. Overall, I would give this movie an A-/B+ for its great acting, engaging action, wide range of emotions, and central themes that the movie includes. Not to mention the filming was done with a 48 frame rate camera to optimize clarity in action scenes. 

Films Through the Eyes of Me!

1.) A Christmas Story. When I was a little kid my parents were watching the movie and I walked in on the scene when the boy got his tongue stuck to the cold pole. From that day forward I refused to watch the movie (or stick my tongue on a cold pole in winter).

2.) I tend to be pretty open with my movie selections. I like Anime, Action/Adventure, some Romance, Documentary (especially war ones) , Independent, Crime, Drama, Fantasy/Sci-Fi, Teen, and Mystery/Thriller.

3.) I've never been all that interested in Comedy, Horror, Western, or Classics. I don't like musicals all the time, but some of them I very much enjoy.

4.) My favorites are for sure the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, The Harry Potter Series, Perks of Being a Wallflower, It's Kind of a Funny Story, Cyberbully, and many more of course.

5.) I love any story that has great characterization. By doing this the movie brings you to better understand the character's motives, even when their choices seem poor. Additionally, I am a fan of movies that are able to teach something to it's viewers. Though fantasy movies may seem trivial, some of my favorites from this genre I feel do a great job of bringing in many important lessons. Finally, I enjoy movies that do something different. I want something that isn't mainstream or seen before, originality.

6.) On the other hand, movies I consider to be pretty bad are monster movies like Piranahs due to their seemingly lack of plot or reality. Overall though, I usually stick to my favorite genres and don't have a problem with bad movies.

7.) For me, bad movies usually have these 3 really awful characteristics. First, they tend to be very unrealistic. Though I love fiction, it is still very much possible to make a movie that is relatable and realistic in some sense of the word. Second, I can not stand movies that have no plot and are just brainless slasher movies. Third, I have no desire to watch a movie that is poorly made. This ranges from  a bad script to bad acting and etc. Though on occasion a obviously fake looking fight scene can be looked past if the whole of the movie is a winner in the other areas of judging. Movies like V for Vendetta that had good acting and plot but lacked when it came to some of the fight scenes are still considered great.

8.) I have seen many movies by Peter Jackson of course, as well as Tim Burton and Steven Spielberg.

9.) As for actors, I am not very up-to-date with Hollywood and the actors, but I do believe that Jeremy Irons, Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Sean Connery, and Ed Harris are Great male actors. I love a great many more though, male and female.

10.) Though I am definitely not a movie expert, I would say Schindler's List is an important one, as well as the original Christmas Carol and something by Woody Allen.

11.) For me, I've seen Singin' in The Rain (1952) and The Wizard of Oz (1939)

12.) For me, I would say Perks of Being a Wallflower because the movie had a lot of personal meaning and was well done, and had great insight.

13.) I'm really itching to see Lincoln, Les Miserables, Lee Daniels' The Butler, Life of Pi, and The King's Speech. Some of these I realize are old, but I never got around to seeing them and I heard they were really good.