MYST #5: Neighbors

    Over this past weekend, I decided to go old fashioned and go to a real movie theater, pay ten dollars, and see a movie. I can't even remember the last one I saw before this in theaters. Of course, we all probably knew what drew me in. Zac Efron AND Dave Franco. There's a cast for you. I obviously expected this movie to be just like any other of the sort-- funny, maybe stupid at times, unrealistic, etc. It was those things, but I also enjoyed it a lot more than some other movies like it. From what I've heard from friends that have also seen it, people seem to say it was surprisingly better than expected.

    Critics also seem to be responding to it surprisingly well. On rottentomatoes.com, it got a 74%, compared to Zac Efron's last similar "blockbuster" film, That Awkward Moment, which received a hurtfully low 22%. The movie also stars Rose Byrne and Seth Rogen as the neighbors of Efron and Franco, and critics say that their performances are some of the best. I have to agree that they have great chemistry and both do a fantastic job of playing their characters-- they really made me laugh. It actually kind of surprised me that Rose Byrne could be so funny. 

    The plot of the movie is pretty simple. Shortly after Mac (Rogen) and Kelly (Byrne) move into a seemingly perfect house with their new-born baby, they go outside to see moving trucks pulling in. They quickly realize that their new neighbors are a fraternity from the local university. At first, they try to act cool and even party with seniors and President/Vice President duo Teddy (Efron) and Pete (Franco). Soon after, things start to be unbearable as the frat throws parties every night and keep their baby awake, so the couple calls the police (the one thing they said they wouldn't do). From there, the rest of the movie is basically a back and forth of which group can out-prank the other. 

 I think the director did a good job of mixing humor and really storyline and there are actually very interesting and more complex relationships and conflicts. It's definitely no Oscar winner, but it is a major step up from a lot of other "comedies" that continue to be made, especially in summer. Specifically, Teddy and Pete's relationship is more complex than you would expect. You'd think they'd just be classic frat "bros" that only care about how much they can drink and how many girls they can sleep with. But, you can tell that they actually care about each other and take the idea of fraternity and brotherhood seriously. I also feel like there is some criticism of the Greek system, so the movie also makes a bit of a statement.

    I would definitely recommend getting to the theater to see this if you enjoy laugh out loud humor and an attractive cast. 

I give it a B+ 

FORMAL FILM STUDY #2: Best Picture Winners of the 2000s That Were Originally Books

No Country For Old Men (2007), Million Dollar Baby (2004), Slumdog Millionaire( 2008)

    Depending on who you are, hearing that one of your favorite books is going to be turned into a movie can be the best news in the world. There's something special about seeing the characters you pictured in your head in real life, seeing them right there walking and talking in front of your eyes instead of just in your head. It amazes me that so many movies are, whether we know it or not, based on novels. Does it mean that no one can come up with an idea anymore? Or does it mean that the authors' ideas are so good that we have to see them in film format? Do authors hope that their books will be picked up and dragged to Hollywood to become a screenplay? Who knows, really, but I guarantee that an overwhelming number of the movies you've seen are also books.

 Coming from someone who loves a good book, there's always fear that when it becomes a movie the director and producer will screw it up. There's a fear that seeing that story that's been in your head since you turned the last page will be ruined by it becoming a film. The last thing you want is to leave the theater disappointed. But so many of these movies do so well, like the three I focused on, No Country For Old Men, Million Dollar Baby, and Slumdog Millionaire-- all Best Picture winners at the Oscars.

   Somewhat surprisingly, these three movies have a lot of things in common. They're about hardship and overcoming it, unexpected circumstances (and unexpected money), and relationships worth fighting for. In all three, the actors give stellar performances, and maybe that's what makes them so good. Maybe that's what makes them Oscar winners. Or, maybe, they just have really good scripts, which came from some great books. Although I have not read any of the books these movies are based on, I'm sure that the directors did the authors justice. 

    Not only do they include similar stories and good performances, all three movies have stunning cinematography that makes you appreciate the fact that they were taken from words on a page and put on a screen. The feeling you get watching great camerawork simply can't be accomplished when a story is just in text format. Some stories are so important-- like Llewelyn Moss' and Jamal Malik's and Maggie Fitzgerald's-- that they must be seen on the big screen.

     I understand the hesitation in how to feel about turning books into movies. I'm terrified that arguably one of the best young adult books ever written, The Fault in Our Stars, will be ruined by it becoming a "summer blockbuster." But I am also so excited to see Augustus and Hazel's love story in theaters. Look at how well Harry Potter, Divergent, and Hunger Games have done-- they were all the ideas of authors. Books.

 There's something really special in these three movies that simply couldn't have been achieved if they were written as original screenplays instead of adaptations. So next time you're watching the Oscars, pay special attention to the winners. Then see how many of them were novels first. And the surprising small number of hits in the "Original Screenplay" category. All three of these movies are definitely worth the watch.

MYST #4: At Any Price

    If you haven't noticed by now, I'll tell you-- I have a slight obsession with random independent films that have done well at festivals but no one has ever actually seen. Scrolling through the OnDemand picks of the day, I came across this one. I'll be honest, I chose to watch it because Zac Efron is in it, so it can't be horrible, right? Truth be told, it was pretty much just alright. Don't get me wrong, there were some really cool moments, but it was very slow-paced without much action at all. 

     
    With that being said, there were some crazy important messages in this film. It explored numerous themes that almost everyone can relate to. These include: the destruction of the American Dream (similar to all three films we've watched in class), average citizens vs. "the Man," once-traditional family values, the "old days" vs. modern times, morality & guilt, and of course, love, among others. 

    The movie stars Dennis Quaid and Zac Efron, and is directed by Ramin Bahrani, who is considered one of the best current American film directors. It came out in 2012, and was distributed by Sony Classical Entertainment. It appeared at the Toronto and Venice film festivals, along with others. 

   The plot is basically this: a farmer, Henry (Dennis Quaid) has become sort of a big deal selling seeds to smaller farms, but has lots of competition. His oldest son, Grant, once the golden boy of the family, is off on adventures in Argentina. That leaves his younger son, Dean (Zac Efron) to be the one to eventually take over the farm, but he doesn't want it. Instead, he wants to be a racecar driver. There's also Dean's girlfriend, Cadence, who is one of the more interesting characters in the film. OH, and we can't forget that Henry is cheating on his wife and *spoiler alert* Dean cheats on Cadence WITH THE SAME WOMAN. The story is pretty much the family's struggle through the hardship of being a farmer in Iowa, and the dynamics of their relationships with each other and other people. 

    I will admit, I truly admire how raw and real the movie is. I don't doubt that real farming families would feel a deep connection to the film-- it really does tell it like it is. There is no tip-toeing around issues like scandal and even murder, and it doesn't shy away from criticizing modern-day America for what it's become. Dennis Quaid gives an amazing performance, as well. He's the character you want badly to love, but can't help but hate. Multiple critics have called his performance in this film his best ever. 

    As far as the technical stuff, there's some really cool shots in this film that make you think about the content. The cinematographer is a huge fan of long shots with barely visible people-- most of the time juxtaposed with fields upon fields of corn. There's also a pretty interesting color scheme and related, costume plot. Each character always wears very similar out fits, and the whole movie is basically warm outdoor tones like green, orange, pink, and blue. 

    If you like movies about rural farmers in Iowa, then go ahead and give it a shot. However, it really does have some great parts, it might be worth your time if you like that kind of thing. 

I give it a C

MYST #3: Stuck in Love

    This is a movie that came up on my selections on Netflix instant, so I decided to watch it, and I ended up liking this one a lot too! It didn't get very good reviews, but I guess that doesn't really reflect my interests because I always end up liking movies that don't do well in the reviews. This was a very small release, more independent film, so I don't think a lot of people have seen it, but they should. I definitely think it's worth watching if you have a little time to spare. 

    Despite not having great reviews, Stuck in Love was a 2012 Toronto Film Festival official selection and has a star-studded cast including Greg Kinnear, Kirsten Bell, Jennifer Connelly (Academy Award winner), Lily Collins (who I love), Nat Wolff (Naked Brothers Band, anyone?) and Logan Lerman (who I also love).

   It has the appeal of a classic rom-com, but is much more complex. Each character is struggling with their own demons, all which have to do with love, and they all deal with them in different ways. It's a film about family, but also about romance. The characters are kinda weird, but also lovable. Watching it, I just wanted things to work out for all of them. It basically follows a family of writers, and all their love lives. The dad (Kinnear) is still hopelessly in love with their mom, almost to an unhealthy level-- he's often caught at her house uninvited. His daughter Samantha (Lily Collins) has given up on love and is a fan of meaningless one-night stands, until she meets Louis (Logan Lerman). And his high school aged son Rusty (Wolff) is in love with the popular girl, who has a boyfriend. 

    Seeing the three stories unfold simultaneously is really appealing  because you don't get bored with any of them and you're always interested in what's going to happen next. It's also interesting that they're all writers. Their dad makes them keep journals, and always checks to make sure they're writing in them, sometimes overstepping his boundaries and reading entries, which of course makes the kids extremely mad. Even though the three of them are very different, their stories also have common characteristics. 


    The film is directed and written by Josh Boone, who is also directing the highly anticipated The Fault in Our Stars starring Shailene Woodley. I think he did a great job directing this movie, because it steers away from the typical love story and is instead fresh and interesting, and leaves you satisfied at the end (mostly). If you like indy movies that are a little different but also normal enough to be appealing, this is a great one for you.

I give it an A-

MYST #2: August Rush

    I've actually seen this movie before, but not for a very long time so I decided to watch it again and see if I liked it as much as I remember-- and I did. I actually think this might be one of my favorite movies. For some reason they only give it a 37% on Rotten Tomatoes, but I think it deserves a lot more than that.

    It came out in 2007 (and I always underestimate how long ago that was), and stars a young Freddie Highmore (The Art of Getting By), Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, Keri Russell and Robin Williams (randomly). It blends a love story with a coming of age tale, and of course throws in some humor. Basically what happens is this: Louis, a struggling musician, has a whirlwind one-night-stand with Lyla, a violinist, that turns into them liking each other a lot. Of course, Lyla's father hates the idea of her being with a "no-good" guitarist, and tells her to just focus on her violin career. It turns out that Lyla is pregnant, but Louis has no idea as they're unable to make contact again. 

    I don't want to give too much away, but the movie flashes to eleven years later and the now-grown Evan is in a boys home somewhere in the middle of nowhere and Lyla and Louis have no idea he even exists (I guess you'll have to watch to find out why). The story follows his journey as he escapes the home and goes to look for his parents in New York City, guided by his connection to music. Lyla discovers that Evan is out there, and she goes on a journey to find him. During all this, Louis and Lyla can't stop thinking about each other, and are trying to find each other and reconnect. Evan is taught to play guitar by Robin Williams' character, who gives him the stage name "August Rush," and somehow ends up being discovered by a Julliard teacher and studies there. 

     

I know it probably sounds kind of cheesy, but I promise it's worth the watch. There's something so heartwarming about how much Evan loves his parents without even knowing them, and somehow knows they loved him back and didn't just give him away for no reason. He's so hopeful and optimistic, that it makes you be that way, too, if only during the 114 minutes of the movie. Also, the relationship between Lyla and Louis is not so cookie-cutter "romantic." It's different, which makes you root for them even more.

    It was directed by Kirsten Sheridan, who only has about four other credits, but I think she did a great job. There's sort of a magical element to the movie in the way that Evan can "hear" his parents through music he hears through things like electrical wires and high grass, but it's still believable. The viewer doesn't doubt that it's real life. 

  
  I promise, the ending scene will make you cry, but out of happiness. This movie truly is heartwarming and inspiring. 

I give it an A

Formal Film Study: John Hughes Films of the 1980s

    For this formal film study, I chose to focus on movies that were made in the 1980s and directed by John Hughes. I watched The Breakfast Club, Sixteen Candles, and Pretty in Pink. Obviously, these films are all very similar and easily relatable. They also are all what I would consider to be classics, and if someone hasn't seen them already, I would definitely recommend seeing them. 

    These films obviously have almost infinite characteristics in common, including the style. They're filmed with very similar camera styles and look aesthetically the same. The composition, camera style, and cinematography are almost identical. These films came out in the consecutive years of 1984, 85, and 86, which only adds to their similarities. In the film industry of the 80s, people saw the rise of the "blockbuster" film such as Star Wars, James Bond and the Indiana Jones series. Along with this came the popularization of teen comedies, almost singlehandedly due to John Hughes and his style. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_in_film) 

    These films reflect American culture at this time, or seem to. I believe that a lot of people watch these movies today and think that American teens in the eighties acted just like the characters in these movies, which may or may not be true. I'm sure that to some extent they reflected real life, but just as movies today, I'm also sure that it was a glamorized version of what life and high school was really like. 

    In almost all his films, John Hughes used a ton of typical shots that weren't meant to be artsy, but to get his point and the point of the movie across. He seems to be a fan of full shots, long shots and close-ups, with nothing too crazy going on. There were some wide shots to establish the scenes, as well. Occasionally there are close-ups to emphasize the importance of certain objects or parts of people that pertained to a certain scene or part of the plot, such as the birthday candles in the scene where they celebrate Molly Ringwald's birthday. 

   The main thing that I found true in all these movies is that Hughes' was making a statement about society and the stress it puts on cliques and popularity, and how it shouldn't be that way. In all three movies, high school students from different social groups interact and somehow learn that the things like who they hang out with and what they wear don't really matter. I think Hughes was trying to get a message to teens at the time that they should be caring about much more important things. Whether it was through "the criminal, the princess, the brain, the athlete, and the basket case" in The Breakfast Club, Sam Baker and Jack Ryan in Sixteen Candles, or Andie and Blane in Pretty in Pink, Hughes definitely had something to say about the pure unimportance of high school cliques.

     All three movies starred the "princess of 80s movies," Molly Ringwald, and two of the three starred Anthony Michael Hall. Obviously, both of these actors had great chemistry with each other and with John Hughes, and showed a particular knack for playing struggling high school students. Both of these actors also ended up being a part of the ever-so-famous 80s "Brat Pack," alongside Demi Moore, Rob Lowe, and others. 

   Overall, these three movies are truly some of my favorites. If you haven't seen them yet, drop what you're doing and watch them right now!!

1935 Movie Project: The Golddigger

   Our movie stars Jean Harlow and the Marx Brothers, and is produced by MGM Studios. It's called The Golddigger. In the story, Jean Harlow plays a struggling actress who goes to the bank to get more money when she overhears the bank teller telling the Marx Brothers that they've inherited a large sum of money from their grandfather and her and her boyfriend (played by Willam Powell) hatch a plan to make one of them fall in love with her so she gets their money. It is a screwball comedy, so it mixes the genres of slapstick comedy with physical humor and romantic comedy with the relationship between the Marx Brothers and Jean Harlow. In the end, they spend all their money and she doesn't get what she wanted or to become a successful actress. This goes with the Hays Code because it shows her being punished for doing a bad thing and won't show too many romantic scenes or violence. The message is that even without money in the end, The Marx Brothers are still happy, which shows people during the Great Depression that everything was going to turn out okay. 
    This movie is directed by Leo McCarey, who directed Duck Soup. We thought he would have good experience working with the Marx Brothers and this type of movie to make it the most successful it could be. The cinematography would be by Gregg Toland, who at this point has done The Life of A Hollywood Extra and would soon become famous for Citizen Kane. We thought he held promise to create a great movie. We thought that the combination of MGM actors The Marx Brothers, Jean Harlow and William Powell would create great chemistry and make a really good movie that people would want to see. Our movie was inspired by It Happened One Night, the 1934 Academy Award winner for best picture.