"Remember, always do the right thing"

The movie Do The Right Thing by Spike Lee brought up many good points in what it means to "do the right thing". After watching the interview of Spike Lee talking about the movie, i found it most interesting that multiple times he told viewers to do the right thing, but people don't listen. Even in the movie, people didn't listen in doing the right thing. The cops didn't do the right thing by killing Radio Raheem. And the kids who were part of the riot didn't do the right thing either. He shoes that neither side ended up doing the right thing, which is what caused both catastrophe's. This continues on to the viewer. After watching the movie, people still decide not to do the right thing, even though it is shown to them what the wrong thing is. For example, the writing ranting about Sal's place being burned, but forgot about Radio's death. And vice versa, the people who focus only on Radio's death, but forget the other tragedy, not only in destroying Sal's place, but also in creating more problems int he community for people to even get angrier about. So in the end, these decisions that people make, will either contribute to reconciliation or to destruction.

The Battle

The critic writing for New York Magazine had a few interesting points. One thing that was interesting was how Yacef was basically trying to relive actual experiences he had when the actual battle was going on. This is good to know because it give the viewer a little more confidence in the sense that the director had a good source to know the actual events. But on the other hand, Mr. Yacef was part of the FLN, which would give the viewer reason to believe that many of the sense are biased towards the FLN because the main source of information came from an FLN leader. Also, i think one aspect the critic missed was perspective that since Mr. Yacef was an FLN leader it helped the movie lean more towards the FLN side. Which when I saw the movie thoguth the story had a more biased towards the FLN than the French, mainly because they were the "underdogs" in the story, and almost every story favors the "underdog." But I'm sure that Mr. Yacef had some influence in creating the slight bias. But overall the director did a very good job in creating a more neutral movie in just trying to the tell the story from both sides.

"Now who shall I kill next....." I mean... Memento

I thought the movie Memento was a very puzzling movie, and it made the viewer think a lot about the movie and about memory in general. I was not expecting much out of this movie at all, but i was pleasantly surprised by the presentation of the film and plot of the film. I thought the twist at the end was a very surprising and interesting twist at that same time. I would like to talk about his choice at the end of the movie. He chooses who is John G. and doesn't believe that there is only one John G. By choosing who John G. is, he then manipulated himself so he can figure out the puzzle and kill the man, knowing before hand that death of the man will be the final result. I think that is very interesting, because it can relay back into real life and out own choices. People choose to do certain things, which they may know will hurt them later on, but choose to do it anyways. Lenny knew that he was eventually going to kill the man, or at least try to, which if caught would be a very hurtful thing to him, especially with his memory condition. I think the aspect of choice was brought up subtly but in a good way as a side not to think about.

"Kiss Me So I Can Have A Box Of Fire Please"

The movie Kiss Me Deadly was a very interesting movie. The random occurrence events for the main character was very odd. He happened to run into a girl who had discovered the plan for some sort of nuclear power. The girl was an ordinary girl but she had the knowledge of some of the most important information in the world. That in itself is very odd. Some other things that made the movie very odd was the random people that would show up into the movie and the audience would not even know who they were. One of the guys for example is the man who had the glowing box in his locker. I had no clue who that guy was the whole time, but it was some random guy who happened to have this nuclear power stored away in his gym locker, seems kind of odd. The whole movie to me was odd, but not necessarily in a bad way. I think the oddity of this movie made it interesting. Even though the nuclear energy stored in a box didn't make much sense at all, the concepts of the plot were interesting and complex, which I think made the movie more interesting than i thought it would be. Just like all movies, it had it good times and it bad times.

Double Trouble

I thought the movie Double Indemnity was a very interesting movie. I liked how it portrayed all of the classic features of a film noir, with the low key lighting, the narrative, and the talk like he was a detective. I think this movie brought out the essence of film noir. But after the movie was done, i wasn't satisfied with the ending. We had seen the whole movie that he was an evil guy, who was trying to manipulate people and an insurance system to try and gain a lot of money, and a girl. But in the end he decides to make a drastic choice. If he would've been following down the same path has he had been throughout the whole movie, then in the end he would've blamed the whole thing on Zachetti, and gotten away with the murder. But, he decides to send Zachetti off to fix his relationship and in the end will bring the downfall of his own life. This seems very odd to me because the author decided to almost completely change the main, deceitful character in the end. But why? Was he trying to get a message across, or was it just part of the movie? I personally think it was both. I think he was trying to get the message across of what happens when you try to cover-up two murders. But I also think that he wanted to add some kind of twist on the end of the movie, to give the audience something to think about. And i think the director did a great job at portraying both. And, in the end I think that film noir teaches us a lesson, whether it means to or not. So, I stand by with my comment that Double Indemnity is the essence of film noir.

Groundhog's Day

Groundhog's Day is a very interesting movie in many different ways. The one aspect I want to point out comes in the plot. Phil (Bill Murry) started the movie as a very angry, arrogant, jerk. (Yes that does sound harsh) But in the middle of the movie he starts to have a change in heart. I think this is due to an epiphany. His epiphany came when he spent the day with Rita and she "observed" him and how he had everything timed down to the second. After his day with Rita he saw something that changed him, and that something was hope. Hope for a life of love, hope for a life full of joy and hope for living life to the fullest. The next day he started to read literature and play the piano. I think this was the start of his new path. With this hope he had he found out that life is more than about getting the girl, making lots of money, being famous and excelling for selfish reasons. He learned to truly enjoy something, to appreciate the meaning behind these "hobbies" and learn of the wonderful gifts they posses. One example is playing the piano. After a while the viewer could tell that he was getting more into it and actually enjoyed playing the piano instead of playing the piano for selfish reasons. Especially in the jazz scene at the party when he was rocking out on the piano, the way Bill Murray acted was that in the same sort of true enjoyment, and life followed. This movie on top of the funny comedy and good filming, had a message to it. The message was not a purposeful message, but one that comes naturally through the story. And that message is to be taken however the viewer decides to take it.

Bring Up Baby

First off I want to say that Bringing Up Baby is a crazy movie. It seems so stressful at times, but everything is resolved in the end.... somehow. I think the stressfulness and craziness of the movie is what makes a screwball comedy. For example, the jail scene at the end. Too many things for my mind to comprehend were happening at once. The aunt of Susan was yelling at the sheriff, David was trying to get the sheriff's attention. The police men are chasing after Susan because she just escaped from jail. Mr Applegate is trying to tell the sheriff that he shouldn't bee in jail. And then the zoo men come into the scene and tell the sheriff they lost a leopard. With all this stuff happening one would think that the outcome couldn't be a good one. Well that would be a wrong assumption. After a little while Baby ( one of the leopards) come into the room and everyone freaks out. Then Susan comes into the room dragging the dangerous leopard by a string and everyone runs for cover. This creates more chaos. But by the end everyone comes out of the situation unharmed, physically that is. David is worn out from the experience he had all day and ends up falling in love with Susan which is quite odd. Overall the movie seemed very stressful at times with a rare chance of everything coming out okay. But not until the end is everything explained. For example, when David is at the house of Susan's aunt and Susan tells her aunt that David is actually Mr. Bone who just had a nervous breakdown. Just telling Susan's aunt this does not set up for a good situation. But somehow everything comes out okay in the end. Which I think is the essence of a screwball comedy.

"Once Upon a Time........"

The movie Once Upon a time in the West was an interesting movie. It started out with a long scene, and I happened to be gone when Harmonica came and killed the three men. Besides what Harmonica did, i thought the movie started out very slow. Which I found interesting, because a typical "western" movie will start out with the reason for revenge. Not part of the revenge act itself. I would have to say that I liked the mystery within the plot. Especially with Harmonica. The scene in the bar when Cheyenne comes into the bar, and there is a creepy guy in the corner playing the Harmonica. I thought it was a very different, but interesting way to introduce a main character. This style of introducing a character is very different than the classic western. The classic western, like in My Darling Clementine, had the hero riding in on Horseback to come save the day. A very noble entrance for a noble hero. But in Once Upon a time in the West the second entrance of the main character is just as questionable as the first. We don't know right away if he is a good or a bad guy. And even when we do find out he is "good", he really has bad motives for his good nature. He is driven by revenge, like most westerns, but in this movie the revenge is so strong that the character devotes a whole life to it. Where as a classic western has the main character urged on to do certain things by revenge, but never consumed by revenge. Overall, I thought Once Upon a Time in the West had a very different style than most westerns I have seen, and I took a liking to the new style of western. A more mysterious and darker story, with a little hope.

Journal #3

The movie the Raiders of the Lost Ark was directed by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. Even though the movie had star directors, it also had a star composer, John Williams. John Williams composed music for many of the old famous movies, such as Star Wars, E.T, Jaws and all of the Indiana Jones Movies. Raiders of the Lost Ark happens to be one of the famous Indiana Jones movies. I think John Williams did exceptionally good in composing music for this movie, particularly because the theme is widely recognized, more so than some of his other famous movies.
The movie the Raiders of the Lost Ark had it's score written during the movie. John Williams wanted to base his music off of what was happening in the movie. He didn't want to have the movie be based off of what he had determined as the melody. Also, George Lucas and John Williams had worked together before, so they weren't new with each other. They both worked in the production of the Star Wars trilogy that came out in the 1970's. came out in 1981, so Mr. Lucas and Mr. Williams had quite a bit of experience with each other. This past experience helped in the creation of the music for the movie. Overall the score for Raiders of the Lost Ark wasn't too hard to accomplish, considering the men who organized it were and still are the elite of what they do.
On the other hand, the score for Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the most original scores says Mr. Panton in his review about Raiders of the Lost Ark. He says that it is described as Indiana Jones music, and nothing else. Meaning that Raiders of the Lost Ark has it's own originality and sticks out among other scores. Also, Mr. Zucaro agrees that Indiana Jones music is original and great in his review of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Overall the Raiders March as many call the theme to the movie, is one of the most recognizable themes around the world. John Williams created another score that is known through the world, along with Star Wars and Jaws. But the music in the actual movie seems like it relates to lost of Mr. Williams other stuff. For example, the love dispute between Indy and Marion. The theme sounds almost identical to the love theme for Leia and Han Solo in the movie Star Wars, except that Harrison Ford is not with Princess Leia in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Also, the sounds being made int opening in the jungle sound similar to the sounds in the Jungle during Star Wars: Return of the Jedi with the Ewoks (little bear guys). Although there is great similarity, the similarity has a purpose. The music is all by the same composer. So he is going to naturally take a theme and modify it a little is he cannot think of a certain theme to come up with. Also, it can give the view links between movies he has done. The links are equivalent to an alliteration in a piece of writing. So overall, John Williams has been praised again for another great soundtrack to a movie.
The music in Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of John Williams famous works. He creates a march theme for Indy in the movie that gets stuck in peoples head. This creates for a tune that is remembered by many people, and played throughout the nation. But even though John Williams created a great masterpiece of art, he still had to use some of his themes from other movies such as Star Wars to come up with themes in this movie. But overall John Williams did a fantastic job in creating music for Raiders of the Lost Ark and his music made the movie that much more enjoyable. Especially when Indy was saving the day.

O my Darling, O my Darling, OOOO My Darling Clementine

The movie My Darling Clementine was what I expected to be the classic western. And now i am seeing that most westerns are based off of this classic western. One particular scene that seemed like the epitamy of a western was the scene when Wyatt Earp first came to the town and captured the drunken man who was firing randomly. This is the epitamy of a western because it describes the hero as a man who no man can match, and risks his life for others. This scene showed that no man can match him, because literally no man in the town would go to try and stop the drunk man. But Wyatt Earp did. He also put his life at danger for some strangers he didn't know at all, and his excuse is he wanted a peaceful shave.
Another important factor of the western My Dear Clementine is the love story. The hero always falls in love with some beautiful lady who sweeps him off his feet. As we saw at the end of the movie Wyatt Earp hardly could hold his own ground when saying good buy to Clementine because he was blushing so much. The hero who seems unbeatable to any man always has a weakness to women. In this movie that was the case. Wyatt did have a weakness for women, specifically one woman. Usually the weakness only occurs to the one woman the hero loves. This love battle makes the viewer want to be the hero in the movie. The movie My Darling Clementine, the aspect of a true "western hero" is the main focus of the movie. The movie is a classic western.

Last Words of Citizen Kane

First I would like to comment on the last words of Kane. He could buy everything he wanted, shown by scanning over all of his possessions, but the one thing that he could not buy and didn't own was the fun of a childhood and the love of his parents. His last word wasn't necessarily trying to describe him, but he was simply stating what caused him to become the man he was, and that was the lack of childhood.
Secondly I would like to comment on the cinematography, specifically the camera angles during the film. Throughout the whole film, Kane was depicted as a very powerful man. Much of this was due to the acting by Orson Wells, but also the camera angles. Whenever Kane would talk to someone, especially Susan, the director(Orson Wells) would put Kane at a low angle and the person he is talking to at a high angle. This gave the illusion that Kane was very powerful. Even in his weakest moment (when he lost the election), the whole scene was filmed at a low angle perspective. Also at the opera house, the camera would shoot the audience at either a high or mid angle shot, but the camera showed Kane at low angle. I think was done to try and make Kane look very powerful, but eventually expose his weakness. Also, when showing Kane and Susan in the mansion, the director either had Susan sitting or kneeling most of the time. This could be to show that she was not as powerful as Kane or they would've just done that. But i think it shows that Susan was taken back by Kane's power that she was always portrayed as weak(compared to Kane). But at the end she it filmed at the same height as Kane, and that is when she decided to leave him. This shows that she eventually got the courage to stand up to his power. But the camera still shot Kane at a low angle, even when he was destroying things. Maybe it was done to show that Kane was trying to keep his image, or that they had done it the whole movie. Overall I think Orson Wells and his crew did a very nice job with the cinematography.

Movie Review of "Rear Window"

The movie Rear Window was directed by Alfred Hitchcock. It stars James Stewart as J.B. Jeffrey's and Grace Kelly as J.B's girlfriend. This movie is another one of Alfred Hitchcock's classics.
The movie starts with introducing the main character. The scene that opens the movie sets tone for the whole movie. It is almost a tracking shot, but adds crane and pan movements. It surveys the whole apartment complex from the rear window of J.B's apartment. This opening shot creates a good visual of the only thing the viewer will see the whole movie.
Another aspect that made the movie very interesting was the detective story line. Throughout the whole movie the viewer never knows more than J.B Jeffrey's(James Stewart). This keeps the audience in suspense for most of the movie. But it really adds to the suspense in the last scene when J.B Jeffrey's is confronted by the killer. Hitchcock does a wonderful job keeping the audience on the edge of their seats.
The cinematic elements were well done in the movie, but the plot is what really gave the viewer interest. It is about J.B Jeffery's (James Stewart) who is a photographer. He broke his leg and nothing to do except watch the people in the apartments across the way through his rear window. One night he notices the wife of a man across the backyard has gone missing. Then he sees lots of very suspicious activity going on in his apartment. He starts to suspect this man of murdering his wife, but he can't prove it. On top of the gripping storyline; the main character is also in conflict with himself on whether he should marry his girlfriend, who is played by Grace Kelly.
The plot of the movie gives the audience much to think about, but one thing that is hard to notice but is amazing is the fact that Alfred Hitchcock uses only diegetic sounds(sounds that the characters in the movie can hear). All of the background music is played from a man, who is a composer, in his studio apartment kiddy-corner to J.B Jeffery's. That means the characters in the movie hear all of the suspense music, along with the sad music. There is even a motif that the composer plays for J.B Jeffery's and his girlfriend, it is kind of "their song".
Although there are many good aspects of the movie Rear Window, some things take away from the movie experience. One of the things that was disappointing to view was the slowness of the movie. The beginning seemed slow when starting the plot. Once the conflict was established the movie was outstanding, but some of the scenes in between with just J.B and his girlfriend arguing could've been used better. This slowness int he beginning of the movie could leave many viewers with a dissatisfied feeling after watching the movie. But overall Hitchcock did a great job, so it wasn't too much of a big deal.
Lastly, I would like to say that Alfred Hitchcock did a tremendous job in creating a film that only takes place in one area to become exciting and suspenseful. Hitchcock and the actors did a great job in creating a classic movie that will be talked about for many years. Some films in the future may even be based off this classic movie, Rear Window.

The Phantom of the Opera

The most recent movie I saw was Phantom of the Opera. The Phantom of the Opera is a great story by itself, but never seeing the play before I was impressed with he movie. The movie, even though it was not presented on a stage infront of a live audience, captured many aspects of being on a stage. Another great aspect of the movie was the singing. Even thoguh the actors did the singing in a studio, and mouthed the words in the movie, the sound they produced was phenomenal. I have listened to a recording of Phantom of the Opera on Broadway, and it was very comparable to the movie. The singers did a great job, and brought the music from the stage into the home of a person. Overall the movie was good, and the music was phenomenal.

Critique the Critic

Critique the Critic

The writer Kenneth Turan from the Los Angeles Times wrote about the movie Transformers directed by Michael Bay. He wrote about how the movie was a big advertisement and the screenwriters just wanted to use their technology to make cool actions figures come to life on the screen. His critique of the movie is at the site, Transformers Review. I would have to greatly disagree with Kenneth Turan on the statements he used in his review. Mr. Turan talks about how the whole movie revolved around the Transformers fighting and there was no other story involved in the movie,

“Unfortunately, though he has a way with CGI toys and action set pieces, director Bay does not have a noticeable fit for making human beings come to life. “Transformers’ “ multiple earthling story lines are tedious and oddly lifeless, doing little besides marking time until those big toys fill the screen.”

In the movie Transformers there is much more that goes on than the “big toys” filling the screen. The story starts with a teenage boy, which seems to be almost a joke, but as the story progresses more than just battles emerge. The audience discovers the past behind the huge block in Area 51 and why the Transformers have come to Earth. This discovery is what keeps the audience engaged in the movie, not the action. Although the action does help with engaging the audience, I felt like discovering who the Transformers were through the story of the teenager engaged me in the story. Also, in Mr. Turan’s critique he mentioned the movie as a big advertisement so Hasbro could make more money on the once popular Transformer toys. I think this is false because Hasbro would’ve made the movie more focused on the life of the Transformers on Earth instead of their past. I say this because focusing more on what the Transformers can do will naturally allow the audience’s mind wander. This wandering sets their imagination into effect of what they could do if they had a Transformer. Since the story was focused on more on the teenager and the Transformer’s past, instead of their current abilities, then I would buy into the claim of the movie being an advertisement. Also, in the end of the movie Shi Lebluff destroys Megatron and not Optimus Prime. If Hasbro really wanted their product to succeed beyond the movie, then they would allow Optimus Prime to be stronger, giving the audience more reason to belief the good can defeat the bad through power. But that is not how life works, so Michael Bay put in a real life aspect instead of making the story lifeless into the most crucial part of the movie. Although the movie helped Hasbro tremendously, I felt like the movie was made for a different reason than a total advertisement. Lastly, Mr. Turan states in his article that many of the corny lines in the movie come from the commercials or the cartoons in the 80s. This is true, but he also adds that it takes away from the movie. I would have to completely disagree. I think that the corny line that everyone is familiar with allows the audience to relate the movie directly to their lives. And, the corny lines bring up good memories of playing with Transformers and having a fun time. In Mr. Turan’s critique of Transformers, he makes some very good points. I would have to agree with some of the points, but the main ones I disagree with are the ones that talk about the reasons behind the movie. Overall I felt the movie was good, and this review is opposite of my opinion of the movie.

Rawr

Optimus Prime has been activated