MYST Post #2: A Beautiful Mind

A Beautiful Mind is one of my all time favorite movies because I remember watching it when I was young and thinking about what this movie meant.  This movie was the first time I can remember a movie making me reflect through cinema.  Although, I did not fully understand what the movie was trying to tell me, I could understand that it was trying to tell me something.  My whole family enjoys this movie and we end up watching it at least once a year.  I figured with the news of his death, it was time to watch it again.

The movie follows an eccentric mathematician named John Nash, played by Russel Crowe  ,who is trying to push himself to reach the expectations that he sets for himself.  Through this, he finds love in his student, played by Jennifer Connely, and friendship throughout his experiences of teaching and working as a respected math mind.  He hits a speed bump in his life though, when he finds that he has schizophrenia and that some of the most treasured relationships he has had were only in his mind.  The movie then shows his battle against schizophrenia through traditional means until he finally has to will his mind into rejecting the creations of his mind, this is shown as he is getting recognized for his previous work throughout his life. 

The movie has very interesting cinematic elements that I feel make the movie stand out.  To me the makeup work is an unsung hero for the movie.  The main character is shown in depth from ages 18 to 40 and then again at 65.  This is done very convincingly and subtlely throguhout the movie making it very realistic.  This aids the ability to effectively story tell because we are more convinced of the characters and settings.  The movie is shot using very standard shots throughout and relies on the acting and writing to really carry the movie.  This is common throughout other Ron Howard films, such as, Cinderella Man and Apollo 13.  The lighting throughout is very dull and grey making the whole movie seemingly filmed on a cold cloudy day.  The movie also interstingly chooses to ignore and create parts of John Nash's story in order to help tell the story that they want to tell.

The movie really shows its heart at its climax.  This is when Russel Crowe is learning the depths of his disease and how it has affected his life throughout.  It shows him facing complications with his medicine while still seeing the hallucinations he has always seen.  He is at a crossroad in his life because he is risking his sanity for his family and his passions. 

The movie shows him struggling with what and who is real through his day to day life and the the isolation and fear that his schizophrenia caused.  He then has to ignore his friend who is constantly following him and calling to him because he realized  that he was only imaginary. At this point he decides to confront the hallucinations in his mind and control them to finally end the communication between the two.  He does this by telling them goodbye at the steps of Princeton,  where he and his friend first met.  The performance by Russel Crowe is one to get lost in.  I forget regulary throughout the movie that he isn't experiencing this life first hand, but only displaying someone elses interpretation of John Nash's life.

I give this movie 5/5 devitos without a doubt.  It is so personal and touching yet entertaining and interesting that it would be hard to find someone who would not enjoy this film.  I would recommend this movie to anyone and everyone regardless of age, race, gender, or class. 

 

Myst Post #4: Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure

Over the weekend, I had so much to do, with makeup work from my surgery and finals coming, I was completely swamped with things to do. The one thing i was looking forward to was having to watch a movie for my film studies class which i figured would be a nice break. I figured for this break from work id watch a comedy to prevent myself from short circuiting, so I turned to the eighties and decided to watch Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure. This is a movie I see frequently see on netflix while surfing endlessly to find something to watch. My dad has always said it was a funny movie, so I figured I'd give it shot. I did not know really what to expect, The 80’s are a hit or miss genre for me and I was not sure how a pre-Matrix Keanu Reeves acted. I knew from the beginning that I either would love this movie or hate the fact that I wasted two hours watching it.

It really was a most excellent experience that was comedy straight in the vein that I enjoy. It's a movie where the characters are incredibly dumb but the writers aren’t. They get clever with bill and Ted’s stupidity, putting them into conversations or situations that maximizes their idiocy.  For example while they are picking up historical figures for their history report in their new time machine, they find Socrates giving a lecture in front of the Parthenon.  They then look up "So-crates", in their textbook and determine he'd be perfect for their project.  When confronting him they determine that in order to convince him to join them, they must "philosophize" with him.  They do this by having Keanu Reeves quote a Kansas song and demonstrating that we are all dust in the wind.  This then leads to a revelation for Socrates and he then joins the group and meets the other figures that they have already included like Billy the Kid. 

This silly premise fits perfectly into the 80s teen comedy style like movies ,Weird Science (1985) and Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982). The movie’s main problem or conflict is simple, but the characters over complicate the means and create the plot through their actions. As far as modern movies go, I’d compare the movie to Talledega Nights(2006) or Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010).

Bill and Ted physically resemble the director’s other well known works which include, The Mighty Ducks(1992) and 101 Dalmatians(1996). What I mean by this is that his movies do not generally contain experimental film shots and they rely on the script and acting for the spirit and tone of the film. Also, through the movie the use of Special effects in the post edit  are used to help make the movie more believable and imaginative, but the movie does not rely on them to propel the plot or theme of the movie. This is also used in the Back to Future movies very effectively.  Also, an important feature of the movie is the unique set design that changes frequently through the movie.  Since the movie follows teenagers with a time machine, we see set changes from a High School to an Austrian battlefield, to a Western settlement, to a Prehistoric setting.  Without a convincing set design this movie would quickly change from cool and inventive to lame and very cheesy.  The  same point could be made about the costume design as well. 

 

I would not recommend this movie for everyone and see it as mainly a male based audience.  This style of comedy usually is more effective in the male demographic.  Also,  anyone who is looking for a serious movie or a movie with a deeper meaning should steer clear because this movie is intended solely for entertainment.  Again, if you enjoy 80s teen comedies like Fast Times, Weird Science, or Police Academy then you will like Bill and Ted.  Rating this movie personally and from a comedy point of view,  I would give this movie a 4 out of five Devitos.

 

 

 

Create a Movie:1935: Godtoddlers

Basically the whole story is Humphrey Bogart, Da Boss is a huge mafia guy in Chicago and as  soon as the movie starts, he dies and his daughter Shirley Temple, Crystal takes the throne of his large Mafia. She takes control of some parks and such. whatever a 7 year old gangster would do. Then the rival gang, with leader Edward G Robinson, Frankie Joyce decided to retire to compete against the competition properly and puts his son Norman Chubby Chaney, Chubs, competes against Crystal. At first, Chubs follows his father footsteps and rules his gang as a mean mobster, but when he found out he was competing against the cute little Crystal. Crystal and Chubs have a friendly get together at the neutral ground, Grant Park, and Crystal changes Chubs for good. Over some time, Crystal and Chubs get in a relationship and the become great friends. Through their relationship, the gangs dissipate and they work together to make chicago a better place.

For the Genre we chose Gangster and Comedy.  We chose this combination because we thought that the two are so contrasting that they would make a unique movie.  Also, the two were the biggest genres in the movie business at the time.  With them together we figured that it would be able to gather a large audience for the movie.  

When choosing a studio, the best choice was clearly Warner Bros. because at the time they were known for specializing in both Gangster Films and Comedy Films.  This would mean that we would be able to get the personnel for our movie and the best support.  Also, since they were a bigger studio, they would be able to fund our movie if it became expensive.  All around Warner Bros. was the best fit for our group.

We chose Humphrey Bogart for our movie because he was a big actor known for his roles in Gangster Films and felt he would bring in a serious gangster vibe to the movie to appease the Gangster movie fans.We chose Shirley Temple because she was a rising star and would help make our film the crazy mashup that we wanted.  Then finally, we chose Norman Chaney to star opposite Shirley Temple because he was another up and coming star who we felt could add to the movie with his own comedy style.  We chose to specialize in sound and editing because we felt that the movie would benefit from being the two.  The gangster parts of the film especially since there will be action and the sound of Tommy Guns and laughter.  Also Warner Bros. was very inventive and pushed a lot of the industry in these aspects of movie making.

I think that our movie would be mostly unaffected by the Hays code since the gangster elements of the film would have been  more playful for example with something like candy trafficking instead of drug trafficking.  With this I believe that our movie would stay within the same direction that we intended to send it.

If I had complete control over the movie then I would have only a few changes because overall I was very pleased with what we decided.  The main change I would have would be the plot point of the rival gang appointing the young son to the head of the Gang.  I thought that it would have been better for our movie to keep the rival gang head an adult for most of the show at least.  By doing that then we would keep a more gangster feel to our film and also I think it would have been funnier seeing a gang of immature kids beating a vicious rival gang.  It would have given the movie an almost Home Alone vibe to the movie.  All in all though I was pleased with how the movie came out.

MYST Post #2: The Master

   

 

 After watching There Will Be Blood (2007), I was eager to watch anything else Paul Thomas Anderson had directed. So when I was looking at his filmography, the first movie that caught my eye was The Master(2012), because of the story and the actors. Its of a man played by Joaquin Phoenix desperate to gain his sanity and goes to great lengths in his attempts. Also involved is a charismatic cult leader played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman and his loyal wife played by Amy Adams. After watching the movie I was pleased with my experience with the movie, but my Dad really disliked all of it. After reading the online reviews, it seemed to be a polarizing movie, either you loved it or hated it. I found myself more in between because I enjoyed the different parts of the movie such as the acting, the editing, and the story, but together as a whole, something was missing. I think that it was a lack of relatability. Though the story is gripping and deep, I don’t think that at any point of the movie can we find ourselves in the same position as these characters, well at least I hope not.

The movie is at its peak when Joaquin Phoenix’s character, Freddie Quell, joins Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character,, cult. He is hoping that Philip seymour Hoffman’s character Dodd holds the key to unlocking his sanity by his method of “processing” his followers memories. The scene where Freddie is going through the processing methods is one of my favorites in the movie. It starts with Dodd asking Freddie if he’d liked to be processed, after Freddie eagerly agrees, we watch Freddie experience the different techniques that Dodd has developed. The first is being asked questions without blinking, and if you blink the process has been ruined and you have to start again. The next is staring into someones eyes and mentally changing the color. Then lastly, the final method is walking between a window and a wall until the area around you has mentally changed. What makes this scene so great for me is that we see the character slowly go from hopeful and optimistic to frustrated and angry and because the it means so much to him, it is extremely personal. Like Freddie we are also experiencing a bit of a revelation because up until this point in the movie, Dodd seemed very credible and we experience the truth unraveling with our character. The performance by Joaquin Phoenix is amazing and is perfectly displayed in this scene. This is an important scene in regards to plot as well because in the scene Freddie goes from loyal follower, to a non believer and a huge risk for the whole cult. It is this scene that really sold me on the movie.

Through the movie we see that Paul Thomas Anderson has developed a style that

has helped push his movies into critical acclaim. The techniques used in this movie were a bit different from There Will Be Blood. In this movie while he still uses a lot of moving camerawork he also uses a lot of long takes for the conversations and processing in the movie. The mix of the two was useful in being able to see into Freddie’s state of mind. Also used in this movie is the use of the same style character, a desperate and flawed character whose flaws interfere with his everyday life tremendously. For his movies, its this character who pushes the story forward. I found it interesting that he switched between a 70mm camera and a 35mm camera. The 70mm camera has a higher resolution but is also used less and not compatible with many movie theatres.  You can really see the difference between cameras when he is on Dodd's boat because the ocean looks amazing but the inside looks dark and barren.   Like the use of the different types of shots, this also helped show the contrast between scenes the gritty scenes become grittier and the pretty scenes become prettier. Paul Thomas Anderson utilizes all of this to make his movie much clearer and deeper for the watcher. 

 

 

 If you are a hardcore movie fan then I’d recommend this movie because it has great camera work and a great story, but if you are looking for a movie to be entertained by, then I would not recommend this movie because like my dad you would probably find it boring and like the movie was trying too hard to say something. Also if you are a fan of acting then I would definitely recommend this movie, the performances given are so powerful that the three main characters were nominated for Oscars. If you are a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson I would also suggest this movie. Personally, seeing him progress from Punch Drunk Love to There Will Be Blood to The Master has been a treat to watch. While I still think think that There Will Be Blood is his best movie, I think The Master shows the best direction in it. If you like movies like Her(2013), Crazy Heart(2009), or Birdman(2014) then I think you will enjoy this movie. I’d rate this movie a solid 3 out of five Devitos

Formal Film Study: The Dollars Trilogy

I remember buying my dad the Dollars Trilogy when I was much younger for his birthday, and at the time, it did not really interest me because Western movies were just a weird genre that my dad would watch.  As I got older though,  I began to enjoy the genre more and more with movies like True Grit and My Name is Nobody.  So when I was given this assignment, the first thought I had was to go back to where the Spaghetti Western started.  The Spaghetti Western start with the three Sergio Leone films,  A Fistful of Dollars(1964),  A Few Dollars More(1965), and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly(1966).  Their influence can be seen through the rest of the Western genre and it is from this that I came to the conclusion that the modern western was born from these three movies. 

The trilogy was shot with a distinct style in mind from the beginning.  Sergio Leone wanted to do something new with the Western genre because he felt that they began to fall short of what a
Western should be.  He has stated that he felt that, "the American westerns of the mid to late fifties had become stagnant, overly-preachy and not believable"(Leone).  With this in mind we can begin to look at the techniques and styles he used to make a different more believable Western.  With these techniques he reinvented the western genre.  Starting with the characters in the movie, the line between hero and villain is a lot less clear.  Leone uses an anti-hero in all three films where the protagonist is greedy and ruthless just like the villains but also lives and acts by a set of morals that keep the audiences favor with the lead.  For example in The Good, The Bad , and The Ugly we get introduced to the three title characters with their titles next to their still after a character defining action.  For Clint Eastwood who plays The Good, his action is that after he teams up with one of his bounties to collect the money he helps them escape so that they can do the plan again in another town.  After Eastwood cheats his partner and leaves him tied the movie pauses and we are introduced to him as The Good.

This is a drastic change in not only Western movies but the industry as a whole, because even though the noire style anti-hero was now a popular character, they had to yet to go as far as Leone's characters.  Also, the majority of movies were still Frank Capra style family friendly movies with a happy ending and message at the end.  Eastwood confirms this by saying on his end that,"In Rawhide I did get awfully tired of playing the conventional white hat. The hero who kisses old ladies and dogs and was kind to everybody. I decided it was time to be an anti-hero"(Eastwood).  Through the Dollars trilogy the good guys can only be seen as relatively good. 

Leone uses through his directing, techniques that at the time were unthought of.  This is shown within the movies and is used repeatedly for common effect.  For example the use of spacing between characters and buildings were used to give a deeper more paced feel to the movie.  This allowed the director to also use a deep space composition to show more action and depth at once giving the movie a more realistic town feel.  Lastly, now a trademark in the genre, Leone implemented closeup and extreme closeups, not as reaction shots or for dramatic lines which was popular during the time, but for increasing the tension between connected characters. This popularized the Eastwood scowl that was imitated by movies eversince.  Also this allowed the score to become as important as the dialogue and to give its own flavor to the movie.   

Also, common in the Man With No Name trilogy is the story and plot.  In all three movies the main character, Clint Eastwood puts himself in situations where there is a conflict between two  parties and he controls the parties through manipulation to push the movie forward and to gain as much through the two as possible.  He is then caught by one of the two parties and is beaten but not broken, he then escapes his captors and returns for the climax fight scene.  Through the movie there is a lot that pushes the boundaries of American cinema and with the gained popularity of the first movie the second and third take much more risks then the first.  For example in the first movie there is still a lot of killing and shooting but the actors fall certain ways to cover the shots and prevent showing the injuries, but in For a Few Dollars More,  the opening scene shows a man being shot in the head falling back into the camera only to reveal the bleeding bullet hole in his head.  Also, in A Fistful of Dollars, the main character saves a family that is about to separated and killed, but in For a Few Dollars more before the main character enters the city, the villain orders a wife and her 18 month year old baby to be killed off screen.  Lastly, one of the characters in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, breaks into a hotel to find a woman bathing.  These important plot points pushed the envelope as far as American cinema code went and made for a more realistic grittier movie. 

This change of direction for such a popular genre had huge effects on culture.  The main influence on culture is the change in protagonist because for decades after these movies,  Clint Eastwood was the image of a tough guy.  He was a man that other men would strive to be.  This is a change of culture compared to the self described white hat protagonist that ruled before the Dollars Trilogy.  This gave a message that a tough guy or a real man takes what he wants, but not from the innocent bystanders, only the bad that were guilty of exploiting their power.  This message was powerful considering the size of audience. 

In conclusion the Man With No Name trilogy had an impactful influence on not only the Western genre or the movie industry, but on society as a whole.  This can seen through the movies that they influenced and the audience that they reached.  Without the Dollars Trilogy perhaps the Western as we know it may have never came to be.

MYST Post #1: Snatch

            I remember when I first watched this movie it was at night with my dad and I did not quite know what to expect.  The movie recommendations from my dad are either hit or miss so I did not know if this was going to be two hours well spent or two hours spent looking at the clock.  I am glad to say that Snatch was an awesome movie that I now have to watch every time it’s on.  The story revolves around different groups of seedy men all involved in some sort of underground business, and they all get connected by a priceless giant diamond.  It is a crime thriller with a comic tone to it and includes actors like, Jason Statham, Brad Pitt, and Benicio Del Toro.  It is directed by Guy Ritchie and is considered a follow up to Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels.  Although similar in style and technique I definitely prefer Snatch, because it used the efforts of the first movie to perfect it. 

           This movie flows and moves quickly; almost every shot that is used is a dolly shot or some other form of moving shot.  When the characters and camera are not moving, the cuts are very quick and very short.  This helps keep the audience on its down by helping the plot seem unsettled and the future story as unpredictable.  Also used in the movie is a very dull color scheme.  The whole movie seems to be shot through a blue steel lens that keeps the movie gritty and not overly comedic.  With these used in combination it gives a unique movie experience because not many movies are done this way.  Guy Ritchie will use this same method again in the Sherlock Holmes movies.

 

            The scene in my opinion that epitomizes the movie is when early on, two of the main characters wish to buy a caravan from the local gypsies and after many odd interactions with them, they are introduced to their leader played by Brad Pitt.  This leads to the failed negotiation on price and the determination that the only way to settle it is in a Bare knuckle boxing match.  The two main characters are confident in this proposition, because after all, they have the Heavyweight underground boxing champion fighting for them.  The fight starts with their boxer, “Gorgeous George”, giving the much smaller Brad Pitt a nasty beating while he seems to be stretching out.  After being warmed up he knocks out George and for a while thinks he killed him, which makes out horribly for the main characters because they may have witnessed murder committed and gypsies do not like to leave witnesses.  The scene works because although it seems almost pointless to the plot, it is weaved perfectly into the movie and used to throw the movie even further into uncertainty.  It continues to show that movie will intertwine action with humor with quirky dialogue and odd characters.  It is at this point in the movie where you begin to understand the process that the movie will use. 

 

            I recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys the stereotypically male genres of Action, Adventure, Thriller, or Comedy. Also if you enjoyed, Pulp Fiction, The Boondock Saints, or Lock Stock and Two smoking barrels then you will enjoy this movie as well.  I will have to give this move a solid 4 out of 5 Danny Devitos

                      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review of the Reviews

Rax Reed, of The Observer, reviewed the movie Birdman and through the review it is clear that he did not only dislike the movie, but he is annoyed by the success it has had so far.  First, he gives the background on the movie and its actors, then he goes on and lazily explains the plot that is seen in the movie.  While he is giving the plot he is picking out the things he disliked about the movie and comes to the conclusion that the movie stupid.  The thesis of his review is that this play is pointless and is overrated, but the process he uses is wrong.  Through the the review you can feel the tone of his explanations is that "I do not relate or even understand the play and therefore it is stupid".  You get this feeling because he writes off key points of the movie that even if you do not understand them, you understand their importance to the film.  For example, when Michael Keaton uses his "powers" at the end of the movie, he explains it as his character giving up and levitating away and makes no connection to the rest of the movie.  I would be alright with reading a negative review, but not one that bashes a movie simply because he does not understand the movie. 

I do not disagree with the review entirely though,  I did agree that Michael Keaton was the star of the movie and completely stole the show with such a unique performance.  Rax Reed finds a way to applaud Keaton while putting down the movie by saying, "he’s still the best (i.e., only) reason to suffer through a miserable load of deranged, deluded crap".  I agree that Keaton is the best part of the movie because without his touch on the role the movie would be just be another movie about an artist needing identity.  With Keaton though, I felt his vulnerability and his delusion that showed me that not only did he need to find himself but why and how he needed to.  I think universally all movie watchers would enjoy to see the acting in the movie.

If I  were to read this review it would not be convincing at all.  The review does not give credible critiques and as I said earlier, the tone of the review is that he dislikes the the movie because he doesn't understand the movie.  As a movie watcher this really frustrates me and so when I see this in a critique I almost always disregard the review.  I think that what this review fails to do to win over readers is make clear and credible points about why we should not see this movie.  It also does not allow the reader to read the points and make their own assumptions on the movie.  I believe a review is most persuasive when it gives the reader its points then allows them to come to their conclusion. 

In contrast the other review I read by Jocelyn Noveck was very brief and praised the movie and its actors for the performances it gave.  This review starts by giving praise to the dirrector for the movie he createed and then he explains the plot, but instead picking and choosing the certain parts he did not like, she gave the essential details that will be an important part of you choosing to see the movie.  The tone is satisfied yet neutral and altough she is praising the movie throughout, we are given credible reasons beforehand to validate it.  The thesis of the review is that the movie seen is very good and is worth seeing.  It makes this arguement by making points that relate to the important parts of the movie, such as its plot, the acting, and the directing. 

There was one quote that I really agreed with in the review and it was ,“Birdman,” more than most, seems a film that deserves a second viewing, not only to admire the work of Keaton and his co-stars, but to delve into its many layers".  I think this is something that most who enjoyed the movie will say.  I agree with this because not only is the acting so remarkable that it does deserve our time to appreciate what they created, but the movie hits on so many emotions and themes in so many different and unique ways, it is impossible to think that you picked up on it all the first time.  I think also that you can enjoy the movie more the second time because you know what to expect the second time around. 

I find this review to be much more convincing in its arguement.  I think this because this article hits the important points I find a review should have in order to be convincing.  For example, the writer clearly states that she enjoyed the movie and gives reasons to why she did.  She also does this in a neutral writing voice that comes off as informative and not cynical or preachy.   Also, the writer gave the important plot points to the reader without criticizing it.  The other important thing it does is it lets the reader decide its position on wanting to see the movie or not.  From this we can see the key to winning over the reader is the clarity of the review in informing the reader of the movie and the writers opinion on it. 

If I were writing a film review of the film, there would be important things to include and leave out.  To include, I think it would be important to telling the reader that this movie is a bit odd and is not a tradtional movie experience.  Also that the movie is a big picture that makes it hard to take it all in one viewing.  I think it would also be very important to include the acting perfomances that the actors gave, because if the plot is not something that interests them maybe watching the acting would.  I would mention the plot without giving away too much about my own  personal interpretation of the movie and without giving away what makes the movie weird specifically.