Monday, May 19, 2014

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+ 




Monday, May 12, 2014

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.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

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




Sunday, March 23, 2014

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



Tuesday, March 11, 2014

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!!








Friday, March 7, 2014

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. 

Monday, February 17, 2014

MYST #1: Safety Not Guaranteed

    
    After browsing Netflix Instant's choice of movies for the day, I came across this one, Safety Not Guaranteed. I had heard about it a little bit when in came out in 2012, and for the most part people seemed to like it. Knowing my interest in movies similar to this, I thought I would probably enjoy it as well and decided to give it a shot. 
    
    After a little bit of introduction to our main character, Darius (Aubrey Plaza), the movie starts in a Seattle magazine's conference room where the boss is asking for ideas for their next big story. One of the writers, Jeff (Jake Johnson) pitches the idea that they should track down a man who wrote a classified ad asking for someone to travel back in time with him, stating that "Safety is not guaranteed," which is where the movie gets it's title. The boss agrees to pursue the story and sends Jeff along with intern Darius and another intern, Arnau (Karan Soni) to the Washington beach town of Ocean View to track down the man from the classified ad. And that's basically the plot: the three of them travel to this town and end up finding the very quirky and possibly insane and possibly and enemy of the US government inventor, Kenneth (Mark Duplass). Darius takes on the responsibility of being his "partner," and, as expected, starts to fall in love with him. 

 The movie chronicles their journey together as well as Arnau's coming-of-age-ish story and reveals Jeff's real reason for wanted to come to Ocean View-- to rekindle a romance with his high school love, Liz. Similar to the Little Miss Sunshine, which was produced by the same people, the movie has a very quirky vibe, but you learn to fall in love with the quirky people and all their weirdness. Each of the four main characters is dealing with their own problems, and in each story there's something to relate to. Darius struggles to get out of her "funk" after her mom died, Arnau is a skinny college nerd too obsessed with grades to have had any adventures, Jeff is worried he'll be alone forever, and Kenneth's only hope is to travel back in time and fix a mistake he made. 



    Although, in completely realistic film, the notion of traveling back in time seems ridiculous at first, Darius begins to believe that Kenneth can really do it, and it also brings her hope of saving her mom from a death she believes is her fault. As Darius begins to believe, the audience does too, and suddenly you're sitting there hoping that he figures it all out and they get to go back and do what they're aiming to do. The director, Colin Trevverow, did a great job of making the characters sincere, which makes the audience love them. Throughout the film, Darius slowly begins to uncover secrets about who Kenneth really is, and he becomes more and more of a complex character.
  
 I think that the people behind this film were trying to make a statement-- that not only is safety not guaranteed in time travel, but in a lot of things-- in love and life and everything in between. Each character shows that through their own personal journey in the movie. Overall, I really liked the simplicity in the storyline because at the same time it was complex enough to be interesting. And, the ending will probably surprise you just as much as it surprised me. 

I'd give it a B+


Friday, January 31, 2014

Review of Reviews

The Spectacular Now

Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 93/100




Positive: http://www.miami.com/039the-spectacular-now039-r-article

Negative: http://nypost.com/2013/08/02/like-a-spectacular-hangover/

    In the first review, which praises the movie, the writer uses a longer format to very vaguely describe the elements and storyline of the film, without giving anything away. It talks about the work of the directors and writers, and includes information about how the film was adapted from a novel. I like that it talks about the style and performance of the actors who play the main characters, Shailene Woodley and Miles Teller. This review says that they both gave outstanding performances, which would definitely make someone want to watch the movie. The reviewer focused on how the film seems like it would be a cliché teenage love story, but it actually defies expectations and takes surprising turns which you would not normally find in a film with this kind of storyline. This review also references the movies that the people involved in it had been involved in previously, and compares it to the other film that the writers wrote, 500 Days of Summer.

    The second review, the negative one, mainly criticizes the movie for its portrayal of alcoholism and basically saying that it doesn't have any consequences and is okay for teenagers. This is a shorter review that mainly criticizes that one aspect of the movie with little focus on anything else. It's more streamlined, which helps the reader understand the main flaw of the movie. It also talks about the main actress, Shailene Woodley, and her past work as well as what she's starring in in the near future, which also helps the reader understand the movie. 

     The first reviewer says, "But hardly anything in The Spectacular Now plays out the way you expect," which I completely agreed with. One of the things I liked the most about this movie was the very unexpected turns and surprises. When I started watching it, I really thought it was just going to be a normal teenage love story, but it really shocked me in how it strayed away from that typical plot. Although my first impression of the movie after I watched it was that I didn't love it, I did respect that it wasn't too cliché. The second reviewer says, "It struggled to find anything to say beyond bringing us the news about alcoholism destroying lives," which I also agree with. I think that it showed a lot of scenes about how Sutter's alcoholism was destroying his life, but the problem was never really resolved, and it didn't seem like he was suffering any consequences. 

    I'd probably say that the positive review is more convincing, just because it is longer and gives more details about the actors' performance and the plot, which gives a lot more insight into the movie rather than just criticizing the alcoholism. The positive one talks about how the actors complimented each other and how their performances helped move the plotline along. This review would've convinced me that this was a good movie, and I would've watched it because I like Shailene Woodley and Miles Teller. I also liked that it mentioned the director and writers, where the negative one did not. 

    I'm still not 100% positive about how I felt about the movie. When I first finished watching it, I thought that I didn't like it because it didn't really resolve any of the issues presented earlier in the movie. The more I thought about it after, I began to like it better and respect it for the more artistic side to it that really was saying something about our society. It would be hard for me to write a review because I have such mixed feelings about it. There were certain parts that I really hated, and there were some parts that were better. 

    
    However, if I did have to write a review, I would make sure to include criticisms about the alcoholism, like the negative reviewer did, but I wouldn't be as critical about it. I think it was interesting that this aspect was included, because it was saying something about our society. I would also comment on the damaging relationship between main characters.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Film Intro Survey

1) What is the first movie that made an impression on you?
The first movie I remember watching is Signs, because my brother made me watch it when I was really young and I was terrified of the aliens in it.

2) What are 3-4 of your favorite genres?
Drama, Romantic Comedy, Indie/Arthouse, Action/Adventure

3) What are 3-4 of your least favorite genres?
Historical, Foreign, Western, Silent

4) What are your five favorite films?
Freedom Writers, Remember the Titans, The Great Gatsby, The Blind Side, August Rush

5) List three characteristics of what you consider to be a good movie.
Unpredictable, some sort of meaning behind it, ending that makes you think about it

6) What are some of your least favorite movies?
I don't like comedies with strange humor like Blades of Glory or Napoleon Dynamite

7) List three characteristics of what you consider to be a bad movie.
Attempted humor that's not funny, completely unrealistic situations, bad acting

8) If you have any favorite directors, list them:
Francis Lawrence, Boaz Yakin, Richard LaGravenese, John Hughes

9) If you have any favorite actors/actresses, list them:
Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, Freddie Highmore, Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Watson, Lily Collins

10) List three films you consider important for people to see:
Blackfish, Won't Back Down, Dead Poets Society

11) What's your oldest favorite film?
Arsenic and Old Lace, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

12) What's the best movie you've seen that's been released in the last 2 years?
The Great Gatsby

13) What are the next five films on your queue?
American Hustle, The Wolf of Wall Street, Saving Mr. Banks, Frozen, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas