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.