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.