I am quite the fan of action movies; when I saw the preview of The Equalizer, the movie instantly earned a spot on my movie list. Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) finds that performing one "good deed" sent him back to a habit/lifestyle that he thought was behind him. Although this story is often the plot for many of the thriller/action movies today, The Equalizer's tone of a blue-color world contrasted with a shadowy Noir underworld kept me intrigued. This movie was released in September of 2014, and was first a crime drama on television, but I have yet to see the television show. An aspect of the movie that stood out to me was that this Hollywood film did not use romantic love as a factor in this movie. From trends I have noticed, romantic love is very much included because it represents our popular culture, and is very much a Hollywood trait. Another noticeable aspect of the movie was the level of violence -- every shot was very graphic and often off-putting (in my opinion). Visually speaking, this film has a dark and moody feel -- lots of tones of blues were used in the output visual. An interesting visual element the director added was his arrangement of slow-motion sequences, meant to represent a time-precision combat style. The idea was very similar to Sherlock Holmes, but was unique in its own way -- there was an added story aspect to it, that is all I will say.
I find it interesting that you noted the lack of a romantic plot or subplot; like you, I've noticed that so many movies tend to make romance almost mandatory (and I don't just mean recent movies of course - this seems to trace back to the beginning of the twentieth century). I think that producers back movies with romance subplots in their scripts because the romantic genre is sort of "all-appealing" in terms of audience. An unfortunate side effect of this seems to be that it also ends up making the movies less unique - and in many cases the subplot seems roughly stuck in, distracting from the genre. This is especially apparent in action movies. Some of my favorite exceptions, though, are movies such as Jaws, Jurassic Park, Terminator 2 (which tries to focus on a love of a different kind), and War of the Worlds.
For this blog entry, I wanted to dedicate it to that one or few T.V. series out there that we love and live by. The series that you never miss one episode, know most of the episodes and lines by heart, and even when the series has ended, you still find yourself thinking about the characters’ future, making up a future for the characters. I have a few shows like this: M*A*S*H…and…West Wing. I grew up watching these shows (re-runs of M*A*S*H). To me, these shows created an atmosphere that made you care about the characters and their actions. M*A*S*H went on for 11 seasons from 1972 to 1983 (Longest running un-soap opera or un-animated shows until this year when NCIS decided to run for a 12th seasons. The show was centered on the Korean War and the show lasted 8 years longer than the actually war. It was one of the only shows to be this successful while only keeping 2 of its original cast members all the way through the series. The series finale actually received more viewers than the super-bowl that year (1983) and 30 seconds of air time during the series finale was $450,000 while 30 seconds during the super-bowl was only $400,000. Its historical accuracy and ability to mix comedy, drama, and romance makes it one of the most famous shows in U.S. history. (The first five seasons are on Netflix, you should give it a watch).
West Wing (1999-2005) was the show that inspired my major here at Davis and hopefully my career path in politics. The show is centered on the Administration of President Bartlet. The accuracy and popularity of the 7 year series inspired them to make an episode where real life Presidents, Chief of Staffs, and Staffers visited and showed how accurate the show was and tell stories never told before about politics. The T.V. set where the show was filmed was so accurate to the real White House that tours were rarely given and the set was guarded at all times. The show has inspired many poli. sci. majors and started the current craze of political drama shows like Scandal, House of Cards, and Madam Secretary (Even though West Wing was a Dramedy). And I promise that I loved the series before they added the main actor of M*A*S*H as a cast member on West Wing. (Here is a funny clip of a Thanksgiving episode of West Wing).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQsvcs9IB8A
It’s funny how much some series can affect us. They can shape your thoughts, help us choose a career path, and help us relax and fantasize about something better than reality (in least you are into reality T.V., then there is no cure for you). So I would like to end it by asking you, what series means the most to you and why?
The U.S series of Wilfred which was on F.X and starred Elijah Wood and dog suited Jason Gann was a T.V series which left a lasting imprint in my mind. Each episode began by delivering a quote with a key term which became the theme of the episode (which I thought was very clever) and as the series progressed, it went deeper and deeper into the unstable psychological mindset of the main character. It was a real mental show which made me really think about the deep questions of life and what truly is and what isn't. It also changed my view of dogs as I now imagine how each one I see would be like if they were humans (the main characters largest psychological problem was that he saw his dog (the costar) as a human when nobody else did). It was a very interesting show.
I recently watched City of God a film released in 2002. The story was adapted from the 1997 novel City of God, which takes place in Brazil in the Cidade de Deus suburb of Rio de Janerio between the end of the 1960s, and the beginning of the 1980s. The tagline of the movie is “if you run, the beast catches you; if you stay, the beast eats you.” Through a combination of cinematic skill and a captivating story, I kept watching the whole film even when having other things to tend. I felt that the film held similarities to the 1979 film The Warriors due to gang violence, cinematography, directing and editing. Many of the scenes in the City of God had taken a blue tint and many different angles that indicated City of God to be a film where everything is cold. During scenes where people were killing or an important person was in danger the color tints changed to red. I really enjoyed the director’s choices because it supported the dismal tone in City of God. I enjoyed the third person omniscient story telling because it gave me many of character’s perspectives. The film took many different people’s stories and put them together to connect everyone in the end of the film. I may be bias but films that use a third person omniscient point of view always seem to be good. I think that it allows the director to move freely through time and space while choosing what information to give out. There is a lot to say about this film but I don’t think I could put it all down in one blog post but I would recommend that this is a film that should be watched.
I too really like third person perspective movies. It reminds me of those books where each chapter is written from a different characters point of view. I think viewing a movie from third person allows you to be more objective in your interpretation of events. When everything is seen through a specific character it is easy for viewers to get wrapped up in that persons emotional experience.
Also, I like that tagline so much that I think I may watch this movie just because of that.
This weekend, I was enticed by ideas of the struggle for freedom and revolution and so went about watching to epic movies about that. The films which I watched were Braveheart and the Patriot, both of which happened to star Mel Gibson.
Braveheart is an epic war drama covering the fight and struggle of Sir William Wallace (Mel Gibson) and his band of Scotsman during their war for independence from the oppressive English on the British Isles. The Patriot takes place in the southern theater of the American Revolution and covers the role of Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson) as he leads the South Carolina Militia in a fight for independence from the British Empire.
These two Mel Gibson staring movies share many similarities. Both star a man who's lost a love one, have a war for the cause of freedom, have a charismatic character who rallies the weak to fight and beat the odds against the strong, show various atrocities, and both appeal to the idea of hope despite when the main character suffers a tragic lost. They also show a great deal of long landscapes shots which really brings a beautiful natural realism too the movies despite the many historical inaccuracies. Being war films, both films have brutal but epic combat scenes which depicts a horrific yet stunning cinematic and artistic view on war and what comes with it.
Even though these movies are fairly similar in formula, I do enjoy watching both of them and If you happen to enjoy semi-historical war movies. Then I recommend watching Braveheart and The Patriot.
Both of these movies are noted as "good battle movies," but I think there is so much more to the battle scenes than just blood and thrill -- besides the battle scenes of Transformers. I enjoy both Braveheart and The Patriot, and agree they have intense battle scenes, but what makes the battles intriguing to me is the development of the story that leads to the showdown. I think that viewers need to first care about the characters that are obliterating each other -- this is why I personally do not think opening with a long-winded battle scene does not work often, I do not care enough about the characters yet to care how the battle ends. On the other side of the coin, opening with battles can also set a thrilling pace for the movie, and can also be visually interesting. Battles are used to show the protagonist's and supporting characters motives, and are used to show their character and how they respond. Viewers want a hero that they can cheer for, and feel the pain of. All "good battle scenes" should include a goal, conflict, and disaster, followed by scene sequels, and both Braveheart and The Patriot do this effectively.
I would like to dedicate this blog post to a specific genre of television program that I find myself watching with increasing fervor, crime shows. I have been decently obsessed with law and order since age 10. I thought my love for the show gave me more in common with the elderly than my peers. It was not until I moved away to college, and the invention of Netflix of course, that I realized how many different crime shows there are and how wide of a viewer following they have. The most recent series I have watched is called Black List, it follows a FBI investigator who teams up with an infamous felon to catch high profile criminals. Pretty standard crime drama story line, and yet I watched all 22 episodes. Since we know that media companies cater to viewer demands it is clear that the fascination with the murder/detective/forensic evidence story lines are of interest to television watchers. So the question I ask is why? What about this topic is so captivating? I have a couple different explanations. One being a natural human curiosity. Simply put, people want to see other people doing things they would never do. It’s creepy and disturbing but also fascinating. Another reason is because it is a fairly predictable “good always triumphs over evil” story, which people like to see. Many of these shows, including Black List, simply solve a new case every episode. The bad people are punished and we can walk away from the episode feeling like justice has somewhat been served.
I have to also admit my liking of crime and FBI shows. I started even younger than 10. I remember watching the last seasons of the 'X-Files' in early Elementary school. I didn't really know what was going on, I was too young, but I found them interesting. In middle school and high school it was 'Bones'. Now I am watching 'Haven' on Netflix which is like 'X-files' meetings the town of Mayberry. It focusing more on Supernatural abilities in a town and less of alien life like 'X-files' but still has that crime show feel as the two main characters are police in this small town and solve a new case every episode, serving justice and saving the town if not the world.
I too have wondered many times why people are so intrigued by crime investigation shows. An extremely large proportion of the crime investigation shows are very basic and cookie cutter formatted, yet people love them! I too will admit that I watch, or used to watch a few of them myself. I think you are on to something with human curiosity theory because that is one reason I watch crime investigation shows.
Sometimes it takes something bad to make you appreciate what's good. Right? Well, today I beg anyone reading this to watch, or at least research, the 2003 film "The Room." Strange name, right? Artsy-sounding, huh? Oh boy, are you in for a surprise. The fact of the matter is that "The Room" is an independent (and yet also fairly big-budget) film by nationality-unidentifiable amateur director Tommy Wiseau. He originally started the project as a 600-page book that never saw the light of day, then as a play with the same result, and finally.... as a nearly-two-hour drama film. That's right. It's NOT supposed to be funny. And yet, in a bizarre way, it's about the funniest thing I've ever watched. Plot summary? It's about a normal guy with a girlfriend who cheats on him, and the development of their relationship, while a billion subplots appear left and right only to be abandoned immediately thereafter. Tommy Wiseau is not only the director and writer and producer, but also the main character. The other actors do what they can given Wiseau's script. Oh, and don't feel bad about watching it. The film's become a cult phenomenon, and ol' Tommy has taken his bizarre internet success in stride. my sister's friend actually met him at a screening )occasionally, the film is still screened!). Yet, it's a bizarre little project, and in a way, it's a work of art. No, I don't mean like the Mona Lisa. I mean like the works of art that are basically juts blocks and splashes of color, the type you'd see in an ULTRA-modern art museum. It's fascinating. The internet critic known as the Nostalgia Critic does a concise and very funny summary of the film on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsgIq7cxhJkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsgIq7cxhJk Additionally, you can watch several scenes in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYRydundnt8 The whole thing is very funny, interesting, and bizarre. It's everything that a film shouldn't be, and yet fantastic in its own right. If you have time, at least look into it. Heck, check the Wkipedia page. It truly is a work of art. In its own way.
Wow. I would firstly like to note that this is quite the interesting find. It certainly gives new meaning to something being so bad, it's good. I am not exactly sure if I would have the time to watch something so painful, although I am curious just to see how terrible it really is. The Nostalgia Critic video was great. Hilarious, especially its references to "Back to the Future" and his full honesty with the film. I appreciated his defense at the end that if anything, the film was consistent to the end in its terribleness. I would agree that this film is like one of those "ULTRA-modern arts". It really is quite something out there. Thanks for sharing!
I find it interesting how sometimes really bizarre movies like "The Room" can end up having a cult following. In the past -- before I even new about "The Room" -- my friends would reference it constantly. I kinda felt left out because I had no idea what "The Room" was. But after watching the Nostalgia Critic video and learning more about the film I feel like I'm apart of something: a "fandom" for a bad movie. And now I too can annoy my friends and family by constantly shouting "YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA!!!"
I have seen clips from "The Room" and I agree with your assessment that the film is hilariously bizarre. I know that its cult following comes from its label as one of the best terrible movies made. I'm considering watching it all the way through to really get a better appreciation for its "artistic" elements.
WARNING: Contains spoilers if you are not caught up with the midseason premiere of season 5 of “The Walking Dead” (also, I am sorry if misquoted anything, feel free to correct me and give me your opinion on this as fellow Walking Dead fanatics).
“The high cost of living.” states Tyreese, quoting his father.
Dealing with life and death could not be more simplified than as the high cost of living. And this is exactly what Tyreese must face in his last moments: reality. Season 9, episode 5 of “The Walking Dead”, titled “What Happened and What’s Going On”, takes on a bit of an artistic twist in covering the final moments of one of our dear characters’ end of the journey.
If you have never seen nor heard of “The Walking Dead”, it is a post-apocalyptic television series following a group of survivors in this overrun world full of zombies. At the heart of it all, it is observing humanity under a different set of circumstances, bringing up the question of ethics and society and the overall state of mankind.
Specifically in this midseason premiere, a majority of the episode is spent on Tyreese’s final moments alive (I’ll save you the gory details as to how his death was inevitable). What was most interesting was that the directors choice in filming it through Tyreese’s viewpoint, unlike most of the other episodes which put the audience as a spectator of the scenes, told in third person versus first person. Perhaps it was the heavy loss of blood, or his memory of his father’s words that he had to face the facts eventually and process reality–understanding that there always existed the good, the bad, and the ugly–that Tyreese began to hallucinate himself speaking to characters who had come to pass in previous episodes. He envisioned both friend and foe, representing a time of peace and content that he was free of this dark world, but also fear of not doing his duty, not doing enough with his time on earth. It was a great episode, leaving me both saddened by the loss of Tyreese, but appreciative of the directors and writers taking time to make such art. There was a lot of meaning in those moments Tyrese hallucinated seeing friends and enemies because his character so greatly struggled with what was right and wrong to do now in this changed world. It meant much more to him than simply allowing the past actors to make appearances one more time. I would also like to note the cinematography, where the opening scenes were that of blood dripping and shoveling dirt. It initially appeared to be referencing the death of Beth, which occurred in the midseason finale, but actually it turned out to be in connection to the end of the episode when Tyreese was buried.
I would definitely recommend this show to anyone willing to commit to strong attachment to characters, although only to have them ripped away more often than not, and if you have an overall interest in shows that truly question the state of humanity. Tyreese’s last moments alive were a time for him to process what he had survived, to come to terms with the high cost of living in his world; however, what does this say about the high cost of living in our world?
While I do like the show, I have to disagree with statement about having characters ripped away. There are over a dozen people in the group currently, and there are so much that several characters go through several episodes without any lines. In order for an apocalyptic show to be successful there must be this constant sense of danger. This includes a healthy cycling of characters. For example, in the first half of the season only two characters ended up dying from the main group, however there are countless times where walkers come within inches of biting someone. This gives characters apparent plot armor as well as stripping away any agency from the walkers. Tyrese's death can hardly be attributed to the walker as he was distracted. Plot armor is the worst thing to have in a setting such as The Walking Dead. What would refresh the show would be to have walkers, not raiders, cull a significant portion of the group, hopefully during the season finale next week.
Since coming to Davis I haven't had much chance to see a lot of movies -- often times I don't even know what movies are out in theaters. But recently I decided to go see a movie at the local Regal Cinemas to see the movie "Kingsman: The Secret Service", and I have to say that I'm so glad that I did. It was one of the best movies that I've ever seen in my life. It was funny, suspenseful, dramatic, and the action scenes were amazing. There was one fight scene that lasted for several minutes and it seemed so fluid, almost like it was a single shot. It isn't your typical spy movie, the characters in the movie make an almost fourth-wall breaking nod to this fact when one of the heroes references a spy movie cliche and the villain responds by saying "This isn't that kind of movie". Overall "Kingsman: The Secret Service" was probably the best movie that I've seen in the past few years, and I highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it already.
I recently decided to dive into the world of Joss Whedon’s “Firefly”, well aware of the supposed emotional turmoil the tragically short series would provide. I am on the eighth episode and have yet to be disappointed. While the jokes and fight scenes get pretty corny, the overarching plotline and the character relationships are compelling and engaging. For those of you not familiar with the show, “Firefly” is essentially the Wild West in Outer Space set in the distant future. The show is centered on a band of outlaws who once fought against the evil interplanetary dictatorship of the Alliance. These outlaws travel around the edge of civilized space in a ship named “Serenity” and are led by the brave and noble Captain Malcolm Reynolds. The crew takes on different jobs with questionable morality, and inevitably falls into various dangerous and/or humorous situations. One of the most interesting things about the show for me is the culture depicted in this futuristic universe. All of the characters seem to be fluent in both English and Chinese, and certain costumes and sets also reflect Asian influences. I interpreted this to mean that in our time, American and Chinese culture fused instead of one dominating the other. I think that is a very interesting social implication laying in the background of the show. Overall, I think “Firefly” is a great, fun, science fiction show. I am quickly becoming emotionally attached to the characters and I have really fallen in love with the show’s aesthetic. I’m already heartbroken that there isn’t another season.
I personally found myself quite surprised over how much I liked AMC's newest show, "Better Call Saul". I was never very deep into the Breaking Bad universe as by the time I got into it, the plot had already advanced considerably. However if one judges it as its own independent show, its quite good. The main reason I love it is that it doesn't try to be pretentious in what it wants to be. I'm am so tired of traditional lawyer shows where the protagonist is "the defense attorney who will represent the innocent when no one else will" or "the prosecutor who will use every legal tool and trick in the trade to bring justice". Such show foundations are so old and unrealistic. However, this show proudly displays a lawyer that is not a good guy. Formerly a con man, currently a mediocre lawyer, Jimmy will rekindle his retired tricks to cheat his way into winning. What's particularly great about this show is that at his heart, Jimmy is truly a nice guy just trying to get what he deserves. He was a con man, but he's no evil villain. However, after the audience gets a taste of what he's capable of, you feel this desire to egg him on. You want him to turn sleazy and evil, and it feels amazing. Much in the same way "Mad Men" was so appealing, "Better Call Saul" gives the audience the hope of vicariously being an asshole, and it's so empowering. Added with great cinematography, witty dialogue, multi-dimensional characters, and a macabre humor, "Better Call Saul" starts off season one with tremendous force.
Way back in jr. high I used to watch one show religiously after school every day. It was called "That 70's Show", and it was the one of the most hilarious television shows I have seen to date. The series was a comedy that followed the life of six high school students with a love for weed. At the time I didn't know exactly what weed was or how it worked except that it made people laugh and act funny. Nonetheless that was all I needed to know to understand the humor, which created a fun viewing experience for me. One of my favorite lines that every fan of the show knows is Kelso’s “BURN!” which he would say every time one of the teens was insulted. After reminiscing about the show, and comparing it to the current topic in the primary materials about the public’s opinion on silent and sound films, I realized that many of the reasons people didn’t like sound at first are legitimate arguments. Some people argued that sound took away from the quality of the acting in films, and although that may be true, there are other aspects that sound brings to the table. One such aspect is how word are spoken, rather than read on the screen. Some examples of this the use of sarcasm, tone, and figurative language.
I am quite the fan of action movies; when I saw the preview of The Equalizer, the movie instantly earned a spot on my movie list. Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) finds that performing one "good deed" sent him back to a habit/lifestyle that he thought was behind him. Although this story is often the plot for many of the thriller/action movies today, The Equalizer's tone of a blue-color world contrasted with a shadowy Noir underworld kept me intrigued.
ReplyDeleteThis movie was released in September of 2014, and was first a crime drama on television, but I have yet to see the television show. An aspect of the movie that stood out to me was that this Hollywood film did not use romantic love as a factor in this movie. From trends I have noticed, romantic love is very much included because it represents our popular culture, and is very much a Hollywood trait. Another noticeable aspect of the movie was the level of violence -- every shot was very graphic and often off-putting (in my opinion).
Visually speaking, this film has a dark and moody feel -- lots of tones of blues were used in the output visual. An interesting visual element the director added was his arrangement of slow-motion sequences, meant to represent a time-precision combat style. The idea was very similar to Sherlock Holmes, but was unique in its own way -- there was an added story aspect to it, that is all I will say.
I find it interesting that you noted the lack of a romantic plot or subplot; like you, I've noticed that so many movies tend to make romance almost mandatory (and I don't just mean recent movies of course - this seems to trace back to the beginning of the twentieth century). I think that producers back movies with romance subplots in their scripts because the romantic genre is sort of "all-appealing" in terms of audience. An unfortunate side effect of this seems to be that it also ends up making the movies less unique - and in many cases the subplot seems roughly stuck in, distracting from the genre. This is especially apparent in action movies. Some of my favorite exceptions, though, are movies such as Jaws, Jurassic Park, Terminator 2 (which tries to focus on a love of a different kind), and War of the Worlds.
DeleteFor this blog entry, I wanted to dedicate it to that one or few T.V. series out there that we love and live by. The series that you never miss one episode, know most of the episodes and lines by heart, and even when the series has ended, you still find yourself thinking about the characters’ future, making up a future for the characters. I have a few shows like this: M*A*S*H…and…West Wing. I grew up watching these shows (re-runs of M*A*S*H). To me, these shows created an atmosphere that made you care about the characters and their actions. M*A*S*H went on for 11 seasons from 1972 to 1983 (Longest running un-soap opera or un-animated shows until this year when NCIS decided to run for a 12th seasons. The show was centered on the Korean War and the show lasted 8 years longer than the actually war. It was one of the only shows to be this successful while only keeping 2 of its original cast members all the way through the series. The series finale actually received more viewers than the super-bowl that year (1983) and 30 seconds of air time during the series finale was $450,000 while 30 seconds during the super-bowl was only $400,000. Its historical accuracy and ability to mix comedy, drama, and romance makes it one of the most famous shows in U.S. history. (The first five seasons are on Netflix, you should give it a watch).
ReplyDeleteWest Wing (1999-2005) was the show that inspired my major here at Davis and hopefully my career path in politics. The show is centered on the Administration of President Bartlet. The accuracy and popularity of the 7 year series inspired them to make an episode where real life Presidents, Chief of Staffs, and Staffers visited and showed how accurate the show was and tell stories never told before about politics. The T.V. set where the show was filmed was so accurate to the real White House that tours were rarely given and the set was guarded at all times. The show has inspired many poli. sci. majors and started the current craze of political drama shows like Scandal, House of Cards, and Madam Secretary (Even though West Wing was a Dramedy). And I promise that I loved the series before they added the main actor of M*A*S*H as a cast member on West Wing. (Here is a funny clip of a Thanksgiving episode of West Wing).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQsvcs9IB8A
It’s funny how much some series can affect us. They can shape your thoughts, help us choose a career path, and help us relax and fantasize about something better than reality (in least you are into reality T.V., then there is no cure for you). So I would like to end it by asking you, what series means the most to you and why?
The U.S series of Wilfred which was on F.X and starred Elijah Wood and dog suited Jason Gann was a T.V series which left a lasting imprint in my mind. Each episode began by delivering a quote with a key term which became the theme of the episode (which I thought was very clever) and as the series progressed, it went deeper and deeper into the unstable psychological mindset of the main character. It was a real mental show which made me really think about the deep questions of life and what truly is and what isn't. It also changed my view of dogs as I now imagine how each one I see would be like if they were humans (the main characters largest psychological problem was that he saw his dog (the costar) as a human when nobody else did). It was a very interesting show.
DeleteI recently watched City of God a film released in 2002. The story was adapted from the 1997 novel City of God, which takes place in Brazil in the Cidade de Deus suburb of Rio de Janerio between the end of the 1960s, and the beginning of the 1980s. The tagline of the movie is “if you run, the beast catches you; if you stay, the beast eats you.”
ReplyDeleteThrough a combination of cinematic skill and a captivating story, I kept watching the whole film even when having other things to tend. I felt that the film held similarities to the 1979 film The Warriors due to gang violence, cinematography, directing and editing. Many of the scenes in the City of God had taken a blue tint and many different angles that indicated City of God to be a film where everything is cold. During scenes where people were killing or an important person was in danger the color tints changed to red. I really enjoyed the director’s choices because it supported the dismal tone in City of God.
I enjoyed the third person omniscient story telling because it gave me many of character’s perspectives. The film took many different people’s stories and put them together to connect everyone in the end of the film. I may be bias but films that use a third person omniscient point of view always seem to be good. I think that it allows the director to move freely through time and space while choosing what information to give out.
There is a lot to say about this film but I don’t think I could put it all down in one blog post but I would recommend that this is a film that should be watched.
I too really like third person perspective movies. It reminds me of those books where each chapter is written from a different characters point of view. I think viewing a movie from third person allows you to be more objective in your interpretation of events. When everything is seen through a specific character it is easy for viewers to get wrapped up in that persons emotional experience.
DeleteAlso, I like that tagline so much that I think I may watch this movie just because of that.
This weekend, I was enticed by ideas of the struggle for freedom and revolution and so went about watching to epic movies about that. The films which I watched were Braveheart and the Patriot, both of which happened to star Mel Gibson.
ReplyDeleteBraveheart is an epic war drama covering the fight and struggle of Sir William Wallace (Mel Gibson) and his band of Scotsman during their war for independence from the oppressive English on the British Isles. The Patriot takes place in the southern theater of the American Revolution and covers the role of Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson) as he leads the South Carolina Militia in a fight for independence from the British Empire.
These two Mel Gibson staring movies share many similarities. Both star a man who's lost a love one, have a war for the cause of freedom, have a charismatic character who rallies the weak to fight and beat the odds against the strong, show various atrocities, and both appeal to the idea of hope despite when the main character suffers a tragic lost. They also show a great deal of long landscapes shots which really brings a beautiful natural realism too the movies despite the many historical inaccuracies. Being war films, both films have brutal but epic combat scenes which depicts a horrific yet stunning cinematic and artistic view on war and what comes with it.
Even though these movies are fairly similar in formula, I do enjoy watching both of them and If you happen to enjoy semi-historical war movies. Then I recommend watching Braveheart and The Patriot.
Both of these movies are noted as "good battle movies," but I think there is so much more to the battle scenes than just blood and thrill -- besides the battle scenes of Transformers. I enjoy both Braveheart and The Patriot, and agree they have intense battle scenes, but what makes the battles intriguing to me is the development of the story that leads to the showdown. I think that viewers need to first care about the characters that are obliterating each other -- this is why I personally do not think opening with a long-winded battle scene does not work often, I do not care enough about the characters yet to care how the battle ends. On the other side of the coin, opening with battles can also set a thrilling pace for the movie, and can also be visually interesting.
DeleteBattles are used to show the protagonist's and supporting characters motives, and are used to show their character and how they respond. Viewers want a hero that they can cheer for, and feel the pain of. All "good battle scenes" should include a goal, conflict, and disaster, followed by scene sequels, and both Braveheart and The Patriot do this effectively.
I would like to dedicate this blog post to a specific genre of television program that I find myself watching with increasing fervor, crime shows. I have been decently obsessed with law and order since age 10. I thought my love for the show gave me more in common with the elderly than my peers. It was not until I moved away to college, and the invention of Netflix of course, that I realized how many different crime shows there are and how wide of a viewer following they have. The most recent series I have watched is called Black List, it follows a FBI investigator who teams up with an infamous felon to catch high profile criminals. Pretty standard crime drama story line, and yet I watched all 22 episodes.
ReplyDeleteSince we know that media companies cater to viewer demands it is clear that the fascination with the murder/detective/forensic evidence story lines are of interest to television watchers. So the question I ask is why? What about this topic is so captivating? I have a couple different explanations. One being a natural human curiosity. Simply put, people want to see other people doing things they would never do. It’s creepy and disturbing but also fascinating. Another reason is because it is a fairly predictable “good always triumphs over evil” story, which people like to see. Many of these shows, including Black List, simply solve a new case every episode. The bad people are punished and we can walk away from the episode feeling like justice has somewhat been served.
I have to also admit my liking of crime and FBI shows. I started even younger than 10. I remember watching the last seasons of the 'X-Files' in early Elementary school. I didn't really know what was going on, I was too young, but I found them interesting. In middle school and high school it was 'Bones'. Now I am watching 'Haven' on Netflix which is like 'X-files' meetings the town of Mayberry. It focusing more on Supernatural abilities in a town and less of alien life like 'X-files' but still has that crime show feel as the two main characters are police in this small town and solve a new case every episode, serving justice and saving the town if not the world.
DeleteI too have wondered many times why people are so intrigued by crime investigation shows. An extremely large proportion of the crime investigation shows are very basic and cookie cutter formatted, yet people love them! I too will admit that I watch, or used to watch a few of them myself. I think you are on to something with human curiosity theory because that is one reason I watch crime investigation shows.
DeleteSometimes it takes something bad to make you appreciate what's good.
ReplyDeleteRight?
Well, today I beg anyone reading this to watch, or at least research, the 2003 film "The Room." Strange name, right? Artsy-sounding, huh? Oh boy, are you in for a surprise.
The fact of the matter is that "The Room" is an independent (and yet also fairly big-budget) film by nationality-unidentifiable amateur director Tommy Wiseau. He originally started the project as a 600-page book that never saw the light of day, then as a play with the same result, and finally.... as a nearly-two-hour drama film.
That's right. It's NOT supposed to be funny. And yet, in a bizarre way, it's about the funniest thing I've ever watched.
Plot summary? It's about a normal guy with a girlfriend who cheats on him, and the development of their relationship, while a billion subplots appear left and right only to be abandoned immediately thereafter. Tommy Wiseau is not only the director and writer and producer, but also the main character. The other actors do what they can given Wiseau's script.
Oh, and don't feel bad about watching it. The film's become a cult phenomenon, and ol' Tommy has taken his bizarre internet success in stride. my sister's friend actually met him at a screening )occasionally, the film is still screened!).
Yet, it's a bizarre little project, and in a way, it's a work of art.
No, I don't mean like the Mona Lisa.
I mean like the works of art that are basically juts blocks and splashes of color, the type you'd see in an ULTRA-modern art museum. It's fascinating.
The internet critic known as the Nostalgia Critic does a concise and very funny summary of the film on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsgIq7cxhJkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsgIq7cxhJk
Additionally, you can watch several scenes in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYRydundnt8
The whole thing is very funny, interesting, and bizarre. It's everything that a film shouldn't be, and yet fantastic in its own right. If you have time, at least look into it. Heck, check the Wkipedia page. It truly is a work of art.
In its own way.
Wow. I would firstly like to note that this is quite the interesting find. It certainly gives new meaning to something being so bad, it's good. I am not exactly sure if I would have the time to watch something so painful, although I am curious just to see how terrible it really is. The Nostalgia Critic video was great. Hilarious, especially its references to "Back to the Future" and his full honesty with the film. I appreciated his defense at the end that if anything, the film was consistent to the end in its terribleness. I would agree that this film is like one of those "ULTRA-modern arts". It really is quite something out there. Thanks for sharing!
DeleteI find it interesting how sometimes really bizarre movies like "The Room" can end up having a cult following. In the past -- before I even new about "The Room" -- my friends would reference it constantly. I kinda felt left out because I had no idea what "The Room" was. But after watching the Nostalgia Critic video and learning more about the film I feel like I'm apart of something: a "fandom" for a bad movie. And now I too can annoy my friends and family by constantly shouting "YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA!!!"
DeleteI have seen clips from "The Room" and I agree with your assessment that the film is hilariously bizarre. I know that its cult following comes from its label as one of the best terrible movies made. I'm considering watching it all the way through to really get a better appreciation for its "artistic" elements.
DeleteWARNING: Contains spoilers if you are not caught up with the midseason premiere of season 5 of “The Walking Dead” (also, I am sorry if misquoted anything, feel free to correct me and give me your opinion on this as fellow Walking Dead fanatics).
ReplyDelete“The high cost of living.” states Tyreese, quoting his father.
Dealing with life and death could not be more simplified than as the high cost of living. And this is exactly what Tyreese must face in his last moments: reality. Season 9, episode 5 of “The Walking Dead”, titled “What Happened and What’s Going On”, takes on a bit of an artistic twist in covering the final moments of one of our dear characters’ end of the journey.
If you have never seen nor heard of “The Walking Dead”, it is a post-apocalyptic television series following a group of survivors in this overrun world full of zombies. At the heart of it all, it is observing humanity under a different set of circumstances, bringing up the question of ethics and society and the overall state of mankind.
Specifically in this midseason premiere, a majority of the episode is spent on Tyreese’s final moments alive (I’ll save you the gory details as to how his death was inevitable). What was most interesting was that the directors choice in filming it through Tyreese’s viewpoint, unlike most of the other episodes which put the audience as a spectator of the scenes, told in third person versus first person. Perhaps it was the heavy loss of blood, or his memory of his father’s words that he had to face the facts eventually and process reality–understanding that there always existed the good, the bad, and the ugly–that Tyreese began to hallucinate himself speaking to characters who had come to pass in previous episodes. He envisioned both friend and foe, representing a time of peace and content that he was free of this dark world, but also fear of not doing his duty, not doing enough with his time on earth. It was a great episode, leaving me both saddened by the loss of Tyreese, but appreciative of the directors and writers taking time to make such art. There was a lot of meaning in those moments Tyrese hallucinated seeing friends and enemies because his character so greatly struggled with what was right and wrong to do now in this changed world. It meant much more to him than simply allowing the past actors to make appearances one more time. I would also like to note the cinematography, where the opening scenes were that of blood dripping and shoveling dirt. It initially appeared to be referencing the death of Beth, which occurred in the midseason finale, but actually it turned out to be in connection to the end of the episode when Tyreese was buried.
I would definitely recommend this show to anyone willing to commit to strong attachment to characters, although only to have them ripped away more often than not, and if you have an overall interest in shows that truly question the state of humanity. Tyreese’s last moments alive were a time for him to process what he had survived, to come to terms with the high cost of living in his world; however, what does this say about the high cost of living in our world?
While I do like the show, I have to disagree with statement about having characters ripped away. There are over a dozen people in the group currently, and there are so much that several characters go through several episodes without any lines. In order for an apocalyptic show to be successful there must be this constant sense of danger. This includes a healthy cycling of characters. For example, in the first half of the season only two characters ended up dying from the main group, however there are countless times where walkers come within inches of biting someone. This gives characters apparent plot armor as well as stripping away any agency from the walkers. Tyrese's death can hardly be attributed to the walker as he was distracted. Plot armor is the worst thing to have in a setting such as The Walking Dead. What would refresh the show would be to have walkers, not raiders, cull a significant portion of the group, hopefully during the season finale next week.
DeleteSince coming to Davis I haven't had much chance to see a lot of movies -- often times I don't even know what movies are out in theaters. But recently I decided to go see a movie at the local Regal Cinemas to see the movie "Kingsman: The Secret Service", and I have to say that I'm so glad that I did. It was one of the best movies that I've ever seen in my life. It was funny, suspenseful, dramatic, and the action scenes were amazing. There was one fight scene that lasted for several minutes and it seemed so fluid, almost like it was a single shot. It isn't your typical spy movie, the characters in the movie make an almost fourth-wall breaking nod to this fact when one of the heroes references a spy movie cliche and the villain responds by saying "This isn't that kind of movie". Overall "Kingsman: The Secret Service" was probably the best movie that I've seen in the past few years, and I highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it already.
ReplyDeleteI recently decided to dive into the world of Joss Whedon’s “Firefly”, well aware of the supposed emotional turmoil the tragically short series would provide. I am on the eighth episode and have yet to be disappointed. While the jokes and fight scenes get pretty corny, the overarching plotline and the character relationships are compelling and engaging.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you not familiar with the show, “Firefly” is essentially the Wild West in Outer Space set in the distant future. The show is centered on a band of outlaws who once fought against the evil interplanetary dictatorship of the Alliance. These outlaws travel around the edge of civilized space in a ship named “Serenity” and are led by the brave and noble Captain Malcolm Reynolds. The crew takes on different jobs with questionable morality, and inevitably falls into various dangerous and/or humorous situations.
One of the most interesting things about the show for me is the culture depicted in this futuristic universe. All of the characters seem to be fluent in both English and Chinese, and certain costumes and sets also reflect Asian influences. I interpreted this to mean that in our time, American and Chinese culture fused instead of one dominating the other. I think that is a very interesting social implication laying in the background of the show.
Overall, I think “Firefly” is a great, fun, science fiction show. I am quickly becoming emotionally attached to the characters and I have really fallen in love with the show’s aesthetic. I’m already heartbroken that there isn’t another season.
I personally found myself quite surprised over how much I liked AMC's newest show, "Better Call Saul". I was never very deep into the Breaking Bad universe as by the time I got into it, the plot had already advanced considerably. However if one judges it as its own independent show, its quite good. The main reason I love it is that it doesn't try to be pretentious in what it wants to be. I'm am so tired of traditional lawyer shows where the protagonist is "the defense attorney who will represent the innocent when no one else will" or "the prosecutor who will use every legal tool and trick in the trade to bring justice". Such show foundations are so old and unrealistic. However, this show proudly displays a lawyer that is not a good guy. Formerly a con man, currently a mediocre lawyer, Jimmy will rekindle his retired tricks to cheat his way into winning. What's particularly great about this show is that at his heart, Jimmy is truly a nice guy just trying to get what he deserves. He was a con man, but he's no evil villain. However, after the audience gets a taste of what he's capable of, you feel this desire to egg him on. You want him to turn sleazy and evil, and it feels amazing. Much in the same way "Mad Men" was so appealing, "Better Call Saul" gives the audience the hope of vicariously being an asshole, and it's so empowering. Added with great cinematography, witty dialogue, multi-dimensional characters, and a macabre humor, "Better Call Saul" starts off season one with tremendous force.
ReplyDeleteWay back in jr. high I used to watch one show religiously after school every day. It was called "That 70's Show", and it was the one of the most hilarious television shows I have seen to date. The series was a comedy that followed the life of six high school students with a love for weed. At the time I didn't know exactly what weed was or how it worked except that it made people laugh and act funny. Nonetheless that was all I needed to know to understand the humor, which created a fun viewing experience for me. One of my favorite lines that every fan of the show knows is Kelso’s “BURN!” which he would say every time one of the teens was insulted.
ReplyDeleteAfter reminiscing about the show, and comparing it to the current topic in the primary materials about the public’s opinion on silent and sound films, I realized that many of the reasons people didn’t like sound at first are legitimate arguments. Some people argued that sound took away from the quality of the acting in films, and although that may be true, there are other aspects that sound brings to the table. One such aspect is how word are spoken, rather than read on the screen. Some examples of this the use of sarcasm, tone, and figurative language.