Film - An Endless Journey

Shoot the Piano Player

2007-03-02T01:33:00.000-06:00

As I continue to watch French New Wave movies, I seem to only continue to grow in love for them. I really do find these types of movies to be very interesting and unique. I can definitely see why so many people have admired these movies over the years; the one thing I can't seem to figure out is why the French New Wave movement didn't last longer. Shoot the Piano Player only helped the above come more true. In a great attempt to take extremely unique thing and bring them together resulted in a great movie for cinema of all times.

I must say while I wasn't disappointed in Shoot the Piano Player, The 400 Blows was a better movie to me. With both by Truffaut, though, you aren't bound to go in a wrong direction. Again, it was hard for me to find something that truly irritated me or that I didn't like. A few things I found interesting about the movie were centered around the characters and their development. I like how the camera really gives a true form of the development of the characters, each playing a crucial role in the story. No, it doesn't necessarily show them developing from one type of person to another but it certainly shows us how they affect the story and develop within the story, especially Charlie. And then while we see him develop through the camera, we see him develop (and express himself) through his piano. It's almost like a triple effect. While mentioning Charlie, I think he (Charles Aznavour) did an excellent job in playing his role and acting, along with the several other actors and actresses in the film.

Without knowing this movie was a French New Wave movie, I would've probably guessed it was one by the way the movie was directed and put out to the audience. I clearly saw many aspects of what a French New Wave movie is all about: expression through the camera and film on a topic close and dear to the director. We see the total expression of many things through Shoot the Piano Player. The main point I saw and got from it was a clear show of the relationships of a human's life, in this case to his art, significant others, family, and all the relationships he endured and had to accomplish things within. When researching the movie a little, I found what I thought I would - the explanation for the movie stated as one which a man hides from his crazy life by doing the only thing he knows how to do, which allows him to escape the past. I don't think the movie completely shows us about how we, as people, can be affected and fall into what Charlie did in the movie. I think it also opens up the other side of the view as we can see what being the people influencing others is like, sometimes good and sometimes bad. This was certainly an eye opener for all stages of our personal and daily lives.

In a way, I wish we could spend the rest of the year on the French New Wave unit, especially Truffaut, but I look forward to seeing some other types of movies, as long as they compare in greatness to Shoot the Piano Player and other French New Wave movies.

-Kevin

The 400 Blows

2007-02-19T22:09:00.000-06:00

After watching The 400 Blows, in French, Les Quatre Cent Coups, I can now see why many consider it one of the best French New Wave movies ever made. Although black and white, it only added to the film more. The fact that the language was French also made the film unique, as it wasn't in the typical English and sound we are used to hearing nowadays.

I really couldn't find one thing that I disliked about The 400 Blows, and that is not usual for me. Everything seemed to fall in line. The cast was great; sure, you could say the acting was a little melodramatic but then again, it is hard to find acting back in the day that isn't melodramatic. I thought that the director did an excellent job of taking this simple storyline of a child who misbehaves a lot and turning it into a grand movie. This is something we see a lot of today – children misbehaving, and we really never think anything of it. We just blow it off as one of those un-disciplined children, but The 400 Blows shows no discipline at its best. At the same time, though, the movie makes you feel sorry for the troublesome kid, encouraging you to almost egg him on to continue to do more bad stuff. That is where the movie suckered me in. While I knew that the boy was doing wrong and saw that side of the story, I wanted to see him succeed to see what was to gappen next, both in his crime and in his punishment. To be able to do that to a viewer takes a really well-focused film, and I think The 400 Blows fits into that category perfectly. Along with the above, I also shockingly enjoyed the film in French. I think it added to the effect the movie put across. I typically do not like to read subtitles, as I’d rather focus on the movie totally, but it was neat in this case.

A French New Wave movie is a movie in which the director expresses their thoughts, usually dealing with something happening in society at the current time, through the camera to put a thought in the mind of the viewer. There is no question that The 400 Blows falls under this category. After researching the movie because I found it interesting and wanted to learn a little more, I found that this was Francois Truffaut’s, the director, type of film autobiography. This movie was his expression of many events of his life. As well, this was the movie that not only opened up French New Wave cinema to the rest of society but actually fueled the era itself. I also found it pretty interesting that the title actually means raising hell as a French idiomatic expression.

If the movies we keep watching in this French New Wave unit continue to compare to The 400 Blows, I think I will truly like this set of movies. It’s through movies like these that my whole opinion on older movies takes a drastic turn and change.

-Kevin

Seven (Se7en)

2007-01-28T22:55:00.000-06:00

This movie is one of those movies that I don't have any problem writing about and could probably go on days and days about all of the neat things about it. Seven, also known as Se7en, was a very upbeat and intense movie. Combining all of the factors we have been learning throughout last year with an excellent storyline, this movie was one that everyone should see, regardless if he or she is studying film or not.

Maybe it's just me because it is consistent with me for every movie, but once again, I had a hard time getting into the movie in the beginning and figuring out what was going on. I look back at the beginning now and think how in the world did I miss that or not get that. It all connected obviously when I realized the movie was based on the seven deadly sins and murders surrounding the sins. Anyways, as for the storyline, I have to commend the writing and directing cast. This was one of the best storylines I think we have seen on film this year. Taking something the world can really relate to and putting it into context was really neat. Not to mention, the way the storyline was brought across was even better. Once again, this movie had a great set of actors and actresses. From the small parts to the big parts, the whole movie came together very well and was portrayed in excellent to get across a great point.

My favorite thing about Seven was its ability to do something very few modern movies can do. A typical modern movie talks about the same old stories dealing with love and outrageous violence or something of the like, using no sense of good movie technique except for the "Hollywood Way." Seven, on the other hand, went above and beyond that. It applied concepts of movies that have been used in the oldest movies we have seen. It didn't focus on the Hollywood technique but on real film technique. There were quite a few differences I saw but two that I thought were pretty major.

The first that really stuck out to me was that this movie had a theme and storyline that meant something. Instead of focusing on a typical storyline that means nothing at all, Seven portrayed a great theme. Taking the seven deadly sins, something all of us can relate to at some point, and putting them into perspective was a major sign. It even made me kind of think about the things I do that fall under all of those categories; everytime I saw one of the murders and therefore one of the sins, I kind of felt guilty at the same time, knowing some time or another I probably committed that. So, for this reason, the main point is that the storyline and theme had value and wasn't just pure imagination.

The other thing that stuck out to me was Seven's use of technique, especially under the Film Noir category. I saw quite a few similarities to Seven and other movies, but even more under the Film Noir movies. In a typical Film Noir movie, you have a story based in crime, crazy plots and twists to the crimes, a femme fatale (woman causing the downfall of the man), and the story looked at from the criminal's perspective. In each of those facts comes some show in Seven. Seven was a movie based on crime that was definitely crazy and twisted up; this was definitely not your typical murder story nor something we would normally see on the news at night in reference to a murder. I also saw Seven as a movie that we saw from the murder's eyes; we saw his plan unfold and eventually succeed and exactly what his plan was all about. Finally, we also see a mini femme fatale in the young detective himself but also in the young detective's wife. I see the young detective as the femme fatale, except as a man, for the older detective. While the older detective was going through a downtime, when the young detective screws it all up, I see the older detective going down too. At the same time, we see the young detective's wife as the femme fatale because her being caught up with the murder eventually causes the downfall of her husband, who eventually blows away any chance of defeating the criminal.

All in all, I think Seven was an excellent movie to show. I loved it and I think it is a movie that really shows a lot. Not only did it take us on a unique movie ride, but it also did so in a unique way, using things that a typical movie of today rarely uses.

-Kevin

The Big Lebowski

2007-01-22T11:20:00.000-06:00

In a movie that I compare to Bubba Hotep in how absurd it was, The Big Lebowski was an extremely interesting movie, both in entertainment and film style. I really enjoyed it and thought it did a good job in portraying a story through the technique and characters. Also, for a movie that we were to look for similarities between it and The Big Sleep as well as Film Noir, I really had a hard time concentrating on looking for that, being distracted by the movie in general.

There were a lot of neat things about The Big Lebowski. In addition to hearing the many different ways to say the f word, I had a good time experiencing the movie on a whole. I liked the cast a lot and the setting always seemed to fit the movie and what was going on perfectly. What I really liked about this movie was that it didn't have to be too complex of a movie, meaning that we didn't need all these special effects and major actors or actresses to have a quality, modern movie. Other things that were also very solid in The Big Lebowski was its ability to keep the viewer interested, not only in their language and how funny they were acting but the actual story and how the story played out through the characters and therefore from the camera.

While in the Film Noir movie, we watched this movie to compare it to The Big Sleep, which has been said to have quite a few similarities. One of the major similarities was the "mock role" of the general in The Big Sleep to the big Lebowski in the movie. Along with that, the other two characters that mocked each other's role was the Dude and Bogey, especially whenever they are around their bosses, which was the general for Bogey and the big Lebowski for the Dude. I also saw another similarity in the storyline. What I mean by this is not necessairily that the stories matched each other, but more that they both started off with this one goal in mind and eventually it branched out into a bunch of different stories, some fitting and some random. The Big Lebowski, in this case was easier to follow and understand. And of course, both movies left you hanging, wondering what happend here and there and basically everywhere. Anyways, for me, I really only saw a few similarities between the two movies, although I did see a few more similarities between a typical Film Noir movie and The Big Lebowski. This is why you can basically name this movie a modern Film Noir movie, if there is such a thing.

As I mentioned earlier, I did not like the ending. I still have so many unanswered questions - What happend to Jesus? Did they win the bowling tournament? What did they get out of the whole deal? Did they gain any money? Did he get his rug back? Is his room tied together now? Did the Big Lebowski get what was coming for him? Did the guy looking for his money sing like he did in Buffalo '66? So many questions, so little answers...

Regardless, The Big Lebowski was quite a movie to stick into the curriculum. I enjoyed it and thought it was very fitting to what we were discussing because even though I didn't catch numerous similarities in the two movies mentioned above, there were quite a few. This is neat because it is interesting how film is so continious and just keeps growing, but growing out of what started it, including movies like The Big Sleep.

-Kevin

The Big Sleep

2007-01-10T23:34:00.000-06:00

This was an interesting movie to start out the second semester, one that I actually liked in many aspects as well. As we begin the unit on Film Noir, I am excited to see what other movies there are that are considered this type because I liked this type of setting and environment. I like the darkened, paceful, stormy feel during a movie and these movies tend to stay in that style. The Big Sleep was one of those movies. With the whole Film Noir going on, The Big Sleep helped show me not only more about the style but more about film itself.

There was one thing that distracted me a bit, and I hope it is not common in these films. Like most of the viewers of this movie, I could not follow all of the storylines. When I thought I figured out one of them, another one popped into the story and the one I had been trying to figure out was never really solved and stated. This really bothered me because I had a hard time following the movie, but it did allow me to focus on more of what a Film Noir movie is. I easily related this movie and this type of movie to the German Expressionism movies. Like the German Expressionist movies, the storylines were hard to totally figure out and the environment remained the same; it just seemed like these directors had more green to put into the movie. Overall, though, like I mentioned, I like this low-key and black and white style of films, especially when a lot just seems to be fitting perfect.

Obviously, my likes outweighed my dislikes for The Big Sleep. At first, I wasn't a fan and not because it wasn't color but because I couldn't seem to get into the movie and focus on the theme. Once I put interest into it, I realized that what was showing was pretty neat, although the storyline was way out of whack. This is a prime example of a time when I wish directors and writers would've written down about each movie they worked on what exactly everything was all about. While I do like to watch a movie and try to interpret it myself, this movie was nearly impossible to do so. Another thing I realized in these Film Noir movies is there similarity to German Expressionist movies in the introducing of actual film technique. Since these movies were made back then as well when film technique was coming out, it is interesting to see it being used as comparison to later films that we have watched.

There were two things that were without a doubt my favorite. One of them is obvious - the environment and atmosphere of the movie. The way the movie went about was so smooth, excluding the storyline, and the flow was so excellent inside of the surrounding figures and things. The other thing was without a doubt the actors and actresses. These people were great. While they worked around a complex subject, they made the movie that much better. Both Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall were perfect fit for the role that was played. Doing exactly what they needed to do to pull off their part in a Film Noir movie, they are the main reasons, along with the first favorite, that I like these types of movies.

The ending, well, was your typical ending and needed to come before my brain blew up trying to figure out what was exactly going on, but The Big Sleep was a great movie to start off the semester and the Film Noir unit. In regards to a movie I found interesting and actually comical at times, I am curious to see more similar to it in the category.

-Kevin

The 2006 Kimberlys

2006-12-11T18:52:00.000-06:00

I am proud to announce the inaugural year of The Kimberlys®. Having nothing to do with the Oscars, this award show was created to actually give out awards that mean something and don't go to a bunch of rich people who just want to put something else on their accomplishment shelf. These awards go to the brightest of the bright and the best of the best in the film world of all ages and time.

THE 2006 KIMBERLYS

*Nominees are listed with the winner in italics and noted as winner.

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

Anthony Perkins (Psycho)

Max Schreck (Shadow of the Vampire)
Winner: John Malkovich (Shadow of the Vampire)

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

Christina Ricci (Buffalo '66)

Natalie Portman (Garden State)

Winner: Janet Leigh (Psycho)

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

John Russell (Psycho)

Lou Bogue (Shadow of the Vampire)

Winner: Daniel Pearl (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre [1974])

BEST COSTUMES

Shadow of the Vampire
Nosferatu
Winner: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

BEST DIRECTOR

Nicholas Roge

Fritz Lang

Winner: Alfred Hitchcock

BEST FILM EDITING AND USE OF TECHNIQUE

Citizen Kane

Frenzy

Winner: Don't Look Now

BEST SET

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

Nosferatu

Winner: Citizen Kane

BEST MAKEUP

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

Nosferatu

Winner: Shadow of the Vampire

BEST CAST

Shadow of the Vampire

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

Winner: Psycho

BEST STORYLINE

Buffalo '66

Rope

Winner: Frenzy

BEST PICTURE

Buffalo '66 (directed by Vincent Gallo)

Garden State (directed by Zach Braff)

Runner-Up: Don't Look Now (directed by Nicholas Roge)

Winner: Rope (directed by Alfred Hitchcock)

©2006 Fiya Guillory, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
The Kimberlys® is a registered trademark and service mark of Fiya Guillory, Inc.

-Kevin

1st Semester of Film Studies

2006-12-11T18:33:00.000-06:00

I must say that it has been a blast in the first semester of Film Studies. I have learned numerous things about film, things that I never even knew about. It has been a cool half year with a lot of interesting things both in film and in the classroom. The movies have been awesome, the teaching has been great (although this instructor is crazy...), and what I have gotten out of Film Studies is really neat. I look forward to another fun semester of this class come January.

-Kevin

Rope

2006-12-08T15:00:00.000-06:00

I don't think there was a better way to end the year than with the film, Rope. Not only did this movie become my favorite Alfred Hitchcock movie, but it also became one of my favorites from this year of class. Hitchcock once again hits the thumb on the nail with the film and his directing technique within it. He does his name well with a really neat movie.

I think a lot of my liking of this movie came from the fact that it had the simplest storyline of any movie we have seen this year, but it was presented in the most unique way. Hitchcock took a simple murder story and added so many factors to keep the viewer, especially me, very interested. This is contributed to a lot of things he did so perfectly in this movie.

On the contrary, I thought the actors and actresses and the acting fit really well with the movie. I can see where someone would be coming from thinking the acting, especially the two main characters, is a little absurd, but I think that it is done on purpose to overemphasize the absurd thinking they did in their shananigans. So, I thought that they did a good job in playing their suspicious yet high class attitudes. As for the other characters, I thought they fit in just perfect as well. James Stewart did a way better job in Rope than he did in Rear Window. He was very interesting in Rope and really did a good job in keeping the suspense rolling throughout the film. A few other good actors and actresses were Janet and Kenneth, both of whom the storyline relied on in reference to being closely associated in some form with the person killed in the film, David. These two really keep a lot interesting enhancing the story to a higher level. Overall, though, this could be one of Hitchcock's best casts.

This movie was a big leap for Hitchcock in the film world. While it was his first color movie, coming out in 1948, it was also a new technique use for Hitchcock. While he still did use the basic film technique everyone knows about very well, he used this new technique of very few cuts. He filmed and filmed and filmed and stopped rarely. Although this was probably a pain with mistakes and things like that, the film itself looks great all together.

As I stated earlier, this is definitely one of my favorite storylines. Hitchcock uses this simple murder story about two guys strangling a friend so that they can commit the perfect murder and satisfy their intellectual self and lets it branch out into all of these crazy and sick, yet awesome things. The way he did this well was his perfect way of connecting the set with the characters, the characters with each other, and the whole cast with the basic murder storyline. Because of his execution of this, the simple plot was turned into an exciting one.

Although it is deemed as one of Hitchcock's weirder movies, I think it represents him a lot and was obviously a big step for him in many categories of film. Rope was a very well-done and intriguing movie from start to finish that lets one wonder at the next party what the chest in the room contains.

-Kevin

The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

2006-12-05T14:56:00.000-06:00

I have finally figured out my true problem with the German Expressionist movies - it takes me years to figure out what is going on. Once I figure that out, I have no problem and enjoy them. This holds true for the final German Expressionist movie we watched, The Testament of Dr. Mabuse. Although it took me less time to get to the point and direction of this movie, I had a hard time being interested in it until that came somewhere in the middle.

Fritz Lang, director of this movie, was basically what kept me attempting to figure out the movie. With such a popular name, I knew something was there to be seen and something with quality, and although it took me a little while, I eventually got it. Lang seems to be like Hitchcock in the fact that they are big utilizers of the auteur theory. As we discussed in class, Lang's auteur focus seems to be on how the law was so un-effective and dysfunctional. This seemed to be his main motif in his use of the auteur theory and you can easily see this through the The Testament of Dr. Mabuse.

This movie was definitely the best German Expressionist movie we watched because I think that Lang does a better job than Wiene and Marnau in using the resources available during that time. Although they were limited, and maybe resources Lang used weren't accessible by the other two, but Lang seemed to put more into the movie and the result showed it. Even to the point of taking resources out of the picture, Lang seemed to do like some future (then) directors would do - put many storylines together into one story to add to the total effect. With this, Lang gets the better film.

I did like a few things from the movie. As I mentioned, the multi-storyline effect is always really cool. It was neat to see a German Expressionist sound movie since we had watched two silent ones. As well, Lang was understandable through his film. Even though you had to search for it, as you need to in many movies, I could see where he was coming from or trying to get across, or at least what I thought and got out of it. I also thought the acting wasn't half bad, especially considering those times when very few options were probably available.

To end the German Expressionist unit of Film Studies, I think Fritz Lang is a great example of a great expressionist who took it to the full level. He did so through The Testament of Dr. Mabuse and I'm sure he did the same in many other movies.

-Kevin

Shadow of the Vampire

2006-11-14T23:59:00.000-06:00

There are very few movies nowadays that are about movies themselves. In the film world, there aren't many movies I can recall that actually show the viewer things about movies and making them from producing to creating. In 2000, though, Shadow of the Vampire brought forth a very interesting insight about an interesting movie. It wasn't a documentary but played the role as it portrayed the creating and producing of Nosferatu, a 1922 German Expressionist movie.

The single most thing that I loved about Shadow of the Vampire was its effect to make me think I was actually in the rooms when they were directing and preparing this film. I really did feel like I was right next to them watching it happen and not viewing it through a screen. I think this is due to the people (starring in the film) not really having to act. It didn't seem like any of these actors were acting; it was almost like this was really happening and that was exactly how it happend because I noticed little stress on actually having to act. It was just so real and I think that is really neat and has a very nice effect.

Going along with the things I loved about this film, I think it is very cool that they played the role of documentary and explanation but did it in a non-typical way. It wasn't this boring two hour session with a bunch of interviews and clips from the movie. It was a lot more than this. We actually saw the movie being made and not only that, but we were allowed to see what went on in the group and throughout the movie when the scenes weren't being filmed. Sure, this movie described and explained the process of filming Nosferatu to us but did in a creative way that showed us what went on and didn't merely tell us.

Obviously the movie was centered around Nosferatu and its filming but looking into it, you can get more out of than typical interest and entertainment. I was always interested in how people produced films and the difference between that and directing and down the line of positions. This movie, although centered on the un-ethical things that went on throughout the process of filming, really introduced me to how things happen on the scene of a set for filming a movie. Learning about how an actor knows how to feel, think, look like, and exactly how to act was revealed along with how scenes were actually filmed and how the different responsibilities came together to finish the process. It was really neat that we got to see how they actually did and in many ways, do film.

As for the finding out what was actually happening throughout the creation of Nosferatu was really interesting. I never knew any of this went on until I saw this movie. To be honest, I never even heard of this movie until we watched it in class. This contributes to the storyline being an excellent one. You have to give it up to those who played in this movie and there excellence in portraying the point and much more. They were absolutely excellent, as I mentioned earlier, to the fact where it was almost like they weren't acting but it was natural.

Finally, another neat factor of the movie was its portraying of the German Expressionist period. Going into this movie, this is what I was looking for - some type of explanation as to what went on in the German Expressionist period and how things went about at this time. Although it was modernized, no fault of their own being a movie produced in 2000, I think it showed pretty well what went on in that time period and how things that affected that period affected their own movies. It kind of opened me to be more accepting to German Expressionist movies because as I saw through this movie that what they were doing, at that time period, was excellence and couldn't be that much better, it equals what we see nowadays.

Shadow of the Vampire receives my recommendation for not only an excellent informative movie on the filming of famous movie, Nosferatu, but also a great insight into film and the German Expressionist period. With its great flow and excellence acting, the movie came across in a way that is hard to beat.

-Kevin

Nosferatu

2006-11-14T11:05:00.000-06:00

A movie from the German Expressionist Period that I did like, majority wise, was Nosferatu. Although silent and very unnecssairily expanded at some points, the movie had a lot of good quality inside of it. I try to keep reminding myself that these movies were the best that could be made at that time and were excellent for those days, so I attempt to put myself in that position of a viewer and the days of the German Expressionist period.

To get the things that weren't necessairily great out of the way, I'd say your basic answer is the same answer for me. For both German Expressionist movies, I had a hard time keeping myself interested. This is not even fully the fault of the sound missing. I just had a tough time trying to stay interested in the actual story and trying to get something out of it. Again, it took me a while to get on key with the movie and into it fully, but better late than never.

Once again, formulism was very evident in this other German Expressionist movie. You can easily tell that it was a key factor in how the film was portrayed. Along with that came the extensive use of more technique. I assume that I will get this the most of these two movies if anything - a more in depth look at technique and how it affects a movie. What was especially interesting was the use of shawdows in Nosferatu. Being a horror film and having that one big "monster," shawdows really helped give the movie more life. The shawdows play a big part in the story as do all of the technique throughout the film.

The main reason I enjoyed Nosferatu more than The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is the fact that I not only got into Nosferatu more but it was more flowing. It had a better flow to it than The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. While the latter was always being interrupted in a bad way and tone by narration to read and such, Nosferatu didn't seem to have these bad interruptions as the narration to be read came at the right times and gave just enough information but not enough. I think this lies in the director's job to perfect this and to me, Murnau (director of Nosferatu) did a better job than Wiene (director of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari).

So, once again, for a movie that was loved and is commended by many, I can't say it was horrible. Sure, the action, color, sound, and drama is all better nowadays but at the same time, now is 2006 and then was 1922. Even more, I enjoyed this movie because this movie enabled me to enjoy it by unique ways by its tone and its setting.

-Kevin

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

2006-11-10T12:22:00.000-06:00

I find it fairly difficult to write about The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari because I found the movie difficult itself. Needless to say, I wasn't a big fan of the movie, and this was not because of the absence of sound. It was the absence of much more that kept me to having this opinion.

I understand this was a movie of the "German Expressionism" period and that money played a big factor, or rather, the absence of money, but the key was to make an interesting film while using formulism, a technique that allows things to look like a fantasy. There is no doubt this film used technique and that formulism was very evident in it. This formulismn affect is what makes this movie a great source of film technique. That is about the only thing that really kept me interested. I enjoyed seeing more use of technique, especially knowing that this movie along with other movies from this period were the movies that introduced these techniques to the movie world. There were excessive times when technique, which was new to people back then, was used to portray a point perfectly in the movie. As well, it helped me follow the story because I found myself confused sometimes.

The whole movie wasn't bad although a lot of it wasn't that great to me, but there were neat things I found pretty interesting. I like how each scene was given the most attention. Since it wasn't a flowing movie and was interrupted by the narration a lot, each scene seemed like the director, Robert Wiene, spent a lot of time perfecting. It wasn't just these three or four scenes that blew away the movie and toppled over everything else. Another thing I almost found really awesome about The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was the fact that it was made allowing the audience to have a personal interpretation. Made within this era, as expressionism and impressionism played big parts, the movie created a sense where the viewer was able to view the movie and interpret in any way they wanted to. What I found difficult about this was the fact that I couldn't seem to make use of that. I tried, but I really couldn't get anything from this movie. So, although the option was there and I attempted to fulfill it, I never really could.

Even though in the beginning it took some time for me to get into the movie, I did start towards the end. The storyline was very deceiving sometimes and I went crazy everytime the story took a loop and I couldn't figure out what was going on. Realizing what happend now, I think if I watched it again I might be able to realize more things about it instead of always worrying about the generalization of the movie. I did like the ending a lot because I like movies that keep you wondering. It was pretty cool how we are left with the question of whether or not Dr. Caligari is back.

Without a doubt, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari made an impact of cinema and film. It introduced the German Expressionism era, which introduced film technique and many other things to the cinema world. Although it wasn't my favorite, I can't not respect the accomplishments it has put forth. From critic praise to winning awards, this movie has captured many eyes. The things that have come from this movie are endless, ranging from technique to the intro to horror movies. There is a way to dislike the movie but no way to disrespect it.

-Kevin

Don't Look Now

2006-11-05T12:53:00.000-06:00

If it weren't for Buffalo '66 and Garden State, I'd say Don't Look Now was the best movie we have seen this year. It surely does join the two in the category though. This was an excellent movie from beginning to end. There was not a part of the movie that I wasn't into but nor was there a spot when I actually knew exactly what was going on, but this only added to the film being an excellent one. I'm very glad we decided to watch the whole movie and not just the beginning because I really did gain quite a bit from it.

First, though, about the movie. If you know me, you know I love a movie with great actors that really fulfill a character's personality. Don't Look Now had just that in it. That's the first thumbs up for Nicolas Roeg, the director. He had an excellent group of people that helped the viewer see things from each person's point of view. Although this really confused me at times, it was a great thing to concentrate on in the film. Another thing I have to give a thumbs up to him for is how the atmosphere is portrayed in the movie. I love how it completely fits the storyline. If you watch closely, it is never really bright and sunny but most of the time everything seemed to be overcast and muggy. I thought this added to the overall effect of the movie in a great way.

The story itself, or the storyline, is one heck of a quality in this movie. Without a doubt, this is the movie with the best and most original storyline I have seen this year. At this point right now, I'm not sure I truly understand everything but that is the beauty. The movie still has me thinking and wondering. I contribute this to the movie being a ripple effect. It seemed to start off with this one central theme and story and then branched to another, which then branched to another, and the pattern continued all through the movie up to the point where we finally meet the red-hooded figure face-to-face. There was so much going on and so much occuring at once that I really did get tryly lost but I found it fun trying to get back in the know of what was going on in the movie at that certain place and time.

Besides what I thought about Don't Look Now, I gained much from the experience. Even though a given, it is extremely important to mention about the technique used in this film. It had to be some of the best I have ever seen. The mise en scene was incredible and the camera usage was excellent. The lighting in conjunction with the atmosphere was very well done. Along with the numerous amounts of mise en scene, the shots taken were the best. The new technique we were introduced to, match cuts, are an awesome thing and really portrays a lot. I wish more directors would use it because they really guided me through many parts I was lost in. Once again, Mr. Roeg gets another thumbs up.

Another thing I got out of this movie was to see how fear really does affect our lives. Whether we experience death or not, Don't Look Now really displays some of our weaknesses in fear within life that we always seem to deny. We see clearly how people, who in this case because of death, experience fear and how they handle it. In the movie, one lets this fear take over his life while the other trys to improve on the fear that is attempting to take over her life. It is amazing how some of that really relates and reflects some people, even those self-proclaimed "fearless ones."

I truly enjoyed the movie as it combined everything I search for in a film. From the technique and the cast to the storyline and the atmosphere, Don't Look Now probably beats out the majority of American Hollywood films nowadays.

-Kevin

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

2006-10-30T16:28:00.000-06:00

Minus the acting, which was absolutely terrible, this was one of the best movies we watched this year in class. Going along with the whole scary theme in October, this was a true representation. Even though it was in the good 'ol black and white and was made in what seems like ages ago, Night of the Living Dead was an excellent horror film.

Although to a majority of people, especially to "men," this movie wasn't really scary but there were times when you could see and feel the suspense. What I found interesting was that it started right away too. The movi didn't need a buildup like movies nowadays seem to need. The killinh started right away and as well, the scariness and suspense. I really found myself getting that little wondering factor with a little fear every now and then where I sort of waited to see anxiously what was going to happen next and who was going to die next. As I have said in the past, any movie that keeps me wanting more has something good about it.

This movie was one of those movies that you can learn a lot from film use within the techniques this movie portrayed. The two techniques I favored the most that added a lot of quality to the move was the use of lighting and the common use of the tilt shot. Lighting is a key thing in a movie, especially in scary movies and horror films. I think George Romero did an excellent job of making sure that role in these types of films was fulfilled. As well, in many of the films we've watched this year, I haven't seen much use of what seems to be a tilt shot. As the camera shifts from either the left to the right, it bring what seems like a tilt to the overall frame. I thought that was especially neat because it makes you really focus on each picture.

In a technique sense, and maybe it was just me not catching thing, I didn't really see much use of mise en scene. I looked for it because it is one of my favorite things in film. I like to try to figure the meaning of mise en scene in a film out on my own, then hear other people's take on it, and if available, hear about the real meaning or the director's intended meaning. I think this adds special qualities to a movie and I was a little dissapointed that I didn't find much in Night of the Living Dead. Hopefully, I just majorly missed it.

Of course, with the good of a movie comes the bad, and that was surely evident in the acting put forth in this film. I know we are dealing with old time producing and acting in comparison to the high-tech stuff we are used to today, but there have been certainly better acted movies than this even before 1968. I truly don't see how the director accepted that poor excuse for acting. I don't know if these people were trying to overdo it or what, but in the end it was really "absurd."

At the end of the day, I'd say this was more of a pretty neat film than it was an excellent one. Not to say it wasn't good because it was, but it strikes me more as neat and interesting. With a basic storyline turned into an expressive one and a great ending as well as parts that made me laugh (arguments between the white guy and the black guy), Night of the Living Dead is definitely a classic of its own.

-Kevin

Bubba Hotep

2006-10-26T07:50:00.000-05:00

Bubba Hotep – not only does it have an absurd name but it is one of the most absurd movies a person could ever see. The entertainment value on this can’t be measured nor can the depth that it actually hits. Don Coscarelli must’ve had a lot of creativity bottled away somewhere just waiting to be released in this most imaginative film.

There were so many factors in this film that were so neat. They weren’t necessarily things that kept you waiting on the edge of your seat wondering what was going to happen next, rather you expected what was going to happen but you didn’t know how it was going to come across, and usually in the end, the result was a good one. In this movie, things a normal movie would take serious and make maybe the peak or climax of the movie was knocked around in Bubba Hotep.

Another thing that was pretty interesting was that this story wasn’t your typical storyline and didn’t follow this generic format that directors seemed to follow. It was pure originality and did a good job of showing it. It does cause me to think what in the world was going through Coscarelli mind when he put this all together, but that is the beauty of it. Even more in depth, the part of the movie I found the absolute best were the random lines from each character and how in reality, they didn’t fit in at all but in this story the lines were absolutely beautiful. The characters were excellent and these lines were direct examples of parts of their personality.

Speaking of characters, two thumbs goes up for selection of the cast. The short amount of roles played in this film gave the film more of an added overall touch. The men and women did a fantastic job in accomplishing these awkward roles. They spoke, acted, and did everything in every way to ensure they were living up to the character’s role as if it were a real life figure. They really made me feel like they were real sometimes and like I was watching a live show. I tried to view Bubba Hotep from a serious standpoint and a joking standpoint just for fun. What I found odd yet interesting at the same time about this though is that I actually found myself getting into it when I kept it on the serious level. Although the movie was much in a joking manner, for a director and cast to keep me serious for some parts like it was actually happening is pretty exceptional. It was almost like reality was stepping into this thing we knew was un-realistic.

Even more, outside of the funny factor, the movie seemed to portray some messages in it that many could interpret in many ways. In between those funny segments, specifically when we hear “Elvis” narrating, he throws some pretty deep stuff out there about love and telling those you love that you do and life itself. There is nothing wrong with balancing serious and funny in the same movie.

This is definitely one of those movies you want to see time and time again, and while doing so, laugh at the same thing every time you see it. With a “hit-you-in-the-face attitude” full of character, the movie is one to remember.

-Kevin

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

2006-10-17T09:17:00.000-05:00

Maybe it has just been me lately, but for the most part, I was a little dissapointed with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974). I think overall it was a pretty cool and good movie, but I found myself wanting more after I watched the movie. It was almost like something was missing for me in the movie. It certainly sparked a unique interest for future directors in this are and created a great awareness in continuing this series of Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies.

I may be just too picky or it may be me just not getting used to appreciating "older time" movies, but I really can't determine what it is that kind of threw me off course with this movie and left me hanging. I liked it without a doubt, but it seemed like a few things could've given me the impression that the movie just wasn't as much and as good as it could've been. Something I didn't specifically like was once again, the character development. It seemed that everytime I got to figure out a character and/or start to see his/her development, he/she died. I know that this is a murder and horror movie, but it agravated me that everytime I fit something into the story with that character's role and progression, they were taken out of the movie by death.

I can easily find more things about the movie that were enjoyable. The best thing I found was the director's ability to give us little information about the story details (family, relatives, symbolic things) yet just enough to wonder a little about what was going on. The only part of this that I wish he would've given us more information about was of course, the characters. I think Tobe Hoope does a pretty goo job portraying the storyline without putting it all on the screen for us to see. I love when a director makes me think, especially about the story as a whole. He doesn't give too much information away in the beginning, but this raises the affect of figuring out what happens later on in the movie about different questionable things. The ability of Hooper to do this easily keeps me focused and into the movie - its surroundings and the storyline. Once again, I think Hooper executes successfully when he ties it all together towards the later part of the film. We figure out more about the family, the actions of that family, their intentions, their personalities, and especially the big question - why. All of this comes into play as we recognize what has been going on in the film the whole time. This was an excellent factor of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Tobe did start touching a thing I love to see, even though he did it towards the end of the movie. This was getting personal with the characters. We start seeing this when Sally starts to get seriously tormented by the family. To me, I only started recognizing it when they were eating dinner. The fact that he sort of waited til the end to do this in reference to the characters gave me the sense that the characters were a little under developed. We really see the family itself come through both as a group and then the individuals. We start seeing how they function, who they are, how this evil is controlling them, and even to me, I started to see inside of the the three guys.

This family murdered and murdered and murdered and one would most likely wonder why and have no sympathy for the family. I did at first until I stopped to think about it. Sure, they may have been insane and crazy, but who were they really is the true question. The family, as a whole, is a group we could easily see that had problems. The people that make up that family were much more than problems though. Leatherface was an insecure person pressured by his family to do their work of killing. He was never introduced, as it seems, to the world, morals, and the beauty of socializing and other people. Leatherface's brother was probably ADHD and needed attention. The only way of obtaining this attention was through the acceptance of his family. The only way he could obtain acceptance from his family was to do what they were doing - killing. Leatherface's dad or the cook was easily shown as a very very insecure person. He had no idea of himself and knew nothing about a true human beings worth. We easily see this through his actions and words. This ignorance of himself caused him to make others do what he wanted because he was so insecure about himself that he couldn't even commit things he desired to do. How can you not feel sorry for these people - those who aren't introduced to ways to fix personal problems. We, as a society, often have many problems, but through society, we are introduced to paths to fix those problems. This family never had that option it seems. They were always confined to that small town and confined to the one activity of killing. Does this make up for the killing that they commited? In no way, shape, or form does it do that in my opinion, but the matter of the fact is that themselves - their true selves - would most likely not be doing the things they did.

I'd say putting aside that one major dislike of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, this movie was quite a good addition and start to a major series. I think the problem with many though is that they hear the build up of the movie and expect so much more than they saw although so much was given to them already. This is most likely what happend with me.

-Kevin

Rear Window

2006-10-06T07:58:00.000-05:00

For another Alfred Hitchcock movie, Rear Window, I'd have to say I was quite unimpressed, but at the same time I think that at some points, he had some of the best parts of a film from him out of all of the movies I have seen from him. I still haven't figured Hitchcock out completely; it is almost like there is just a key thing missing from me trying to figure out what his total point in all of his movies were. That is the one thing I hate about film - sometimes not being able to compare how I took and interpreted the movie to what the author created the movie in reference to. This seems to be a recurring theme for me in Hitchcock movies.

I think my dissapointment of a lot of the movie stemed from the beginning. I found the beginning to be very "out there" and boring. Rear Window's whole beginning segment is something I really wouldn't had thought to be Hitchcock's work if I hadn't known he directed this film. I didn't see much film technique being used and this hurt the help I rely on to figure out what is going on in the film. It took me until the time he actually decides to do something about this mysterious murder he saw to actually get into the movie and deeply interested. Before that, I was not into the movie, but I tried to be which caused for an even more interest in how the second half of the movie would play out. This second half was where I saw some of Hitchcock's best work (out of what I have seen) to me. There were a few times where I had that thought of how neat he did that or how cool that came across to me, and in return, these parts offered me a more sense of connection with the movie.

The factor that gave me the most dissapointment of the film was the choosing of the cast. This is something I have praised Alfred Hitchcock in all of the movies we have watched that were directed by him. I'd easily say this was not as good as his past choosings. I truly only enjoyed two characters - Lisa, his girlfriend and the woman whose dog was killed. What killed me the most was seeing all of the characters in the movie, specifically the ones who lived in all the sections of the apartments, that were just there. Although there for a reason, I would've loved to see more of the characters in Rear Window either more developed or played by a person who could've done that through their own script and acting. While we got to see many people's lives through the "rear window," we never truly got to see them.

This movie, though, does continue Hitchcock's use of the auteur theory, which briefly suggests that a true film director will have moments, themes, and certain things, all three of which mean something and add to the movie, in every film he/she makes that build up to the end where the voyeur, the viewer is able to see what is happening or has happened behind closed doors. This gives this auteur, the author, a chance to philosphically use his ideas in different ways to produce differnet movies in the same themes and contex. Hitchcock, of course, does this so brilliantly, especially with the three movies we have seen. We see why he does the things he does or for me at many times, I recognize his consistency in doing certain things and attempt to find the meaning of it. This point is evident in Hitchcock's movies because we eventually see what those many little things he put in the movie are all about.

There was something I truly did like about the movie, especially in the second half. That was the way the apartments were portrayed and we could see all of the happenings, lives, and cultures of each apartment. I think that is a really neat effect. While with that, I would've loved to see more development of those apartments, without that, it gave me more of a free mind to create my own. While creating a more developed personality of the people we saw from Jeff's eyes, it allowed me to apply the apartments within the windows to Jeff's own life but also to my life at the same time. Jeff is just like me sitting from behind those windows looking in to others. How did this portraying of all of these apartments relate to life in general, both for Jeff and me? For Jeff, it is perfectly clear. All of the windows that he looks into deal with relationship and romance - something that is lacking in his life with his girlfriend, Lisa. Lisa and he usually cannot seem to connect anymore and are having problems keeping up their relationship. As Jeff looks on, he sees so many different aspects of relationship and romantic life that give him a view of what can happen in his relationship if he decides to actually make it a true relationship. This is what we see from each window:

lonely woman - Jeff sees what it is like to experience loneliness, sort of like what he is going through right now, but in this woman's perspective, it is not because she is not able as she tries and never seems to succeed.
singles dating - Jeff sees what it is like to be able to casually date and be able to find someone a person might connect with.
marriage gone sour - Jeff sees how marriage can go to the wrong direction and what that turn might do to him and his wife

These are a few examples of windows Jeff focuses on that let him learn about something that he realizes is a must in his life - love within a relationship, specifically with Lisa, his girlfriend. He finally comes to grip with the fact that Lisa is the one for him and that even though they might go through some of the things the people he looks on do, he can make it through with her.

So, with all of the detailed things going on in Rear Window, it was hard for me to get into the beginning. I think the problem with me though, was the fact that it was so un-varied in scenes; the shots were all taken basically from Jeff's apartment. I see the need for it to keep the movie on a basis from Jeff's perspective, but it just seemed like there was so much missing from the movie by doing this.

-Kevin

Psycho

2006-09-28T15:17:00.000-05:00

Of the many times I've seen Psycho, there hasn't been once where I didn't recognize something new, realize something was there for a reason (mise en scene), or learn something new about some aspect of the movie. Psycho is one of those played out movies but it never seems to get old. I always try to wonder what is going to happen next in the movie and within the storyline. It is true that many times you can learn from the old, and as always, with Psycho, that is true.

There really are no parts to Psycho that I truly dislike. I'd say the only thing I dislike about Psycho is seeing it so many times. Psycho portrays one of Alfred Hitchcock's best. For me, this is true for many reasons. This movie demonstrates the use of film technique and element to get a point across better than many many movies I've seen and over every movie we have seen in class this year. The lighting, the focus, the shots, the mise en scene, the angles, the editing - all of them Hitchcock used in such a perfect way to produce such an excellent movie. What I found the most interesting was his use of lighting in this film. I have noticed it every time I watch Psycho. I am a big fan of lighting use in a film because it is so neat how the lighting can have such an effect on the movie and the picture being brought to the viewer's eye.

Once again, Hitchcock hits on the nail with the choosing of his actors. Between this movie and Frenzy, I would venture to say these had to be some of the best actors and actresses of their time. They were outstanding. An actor/actress can easily remember a role and the script but to portray the character with emotion and with personality takes work, and it is truly evident they went to this level. Not only that, but the emotions they display only create for a better environment within the storyline and the movie all together.

The storyline is hard to label as horrible too. It is so neat how predictable yet unpredictable the storyline is in Psycho. One mintue you think you know what's going on and the next, you are lost. Hitchcock does an excellent job making sure the storyline does not get off base and stays in a form that the viewer can understand. What is neat, though, is the fact that while he does keep the storyline at a point where a viewer can understand, there is so much more to be discovered about it and the symbolic meanings of the many mise en scences. This makes the viewer have to be focused and to keep a viewer focused in a movie is a key thing.

For a movie that keeps me interested time after time, I'd have to give Psycho two thumbs up yet again. Hitchcock never ceases to fail in anything he produces. I'd love to see something different from him though.

-Kevin

Frenzy

2006-09-25T19:38:00.000-05:00

When we first started watching Frenzy, I was hoping for a different side from Alfred Hitchcock and a different type of movie, and even though I didn't get this necessarily, I did get a pretty good yet another suspensful movie in a different style but with the same theme. I really was hoping for a different perspective from Hitchcock, and while this wasn't the case, he surely didn't do a bad job.

It is really hard to put forth ideas that make Hitchcock sound like anything close to mediocre. There was a part of the movie that I found like this though and that was the end. As I have stated in previous blogs, I think beginnings and ends of movies are pivotal parts, and I think that directors sometimes overlook that fact. In no way am I saying that Hitchcock did this, but I am saying that Hitchcock, in my opinion, did not produce a good ending and could have easily come up with an alternative and better result. This, on a big outlook, was the only thing I had a big problem with.

Another thing that is hard to deny is that Hitchcock does not use good technique and good film elements to include in his film. Not only does he keep storylines that, although in the same contex (mystery, murder, suspense), are different and exciting each time you watch a new movie. Some would think that Psycho would cover everything there is about these types of subjects, but that is certainly not the case. This movie is proof of that. The storyline of this was thrilling and unclear yet interesting and was definitely a different type of story. He followed it well and used all of the techniques he does so perfectly producing an excellent product.

There is something I truly loved within in what I'm guessing was Hitchcock's decision and that is the actors that stared in this movie. I don't think there could have been better people choosen that could have portrayed the actual characters as well as they did. They were excellent. Each of them did a great job of keeping the personality intact with the storyline and each represented something that was key to the movie being the fully developed movie it was.

With the exception of the end, I really did enjoy this movie. It depicted a great storyline with a great cast and an excellent director. Hitchcock comes out on top again with Frenzy as I'd almost venture to say Frenzy could compare in rank to Psycho.

-Kevin

Garden State

2006-09-10T13:41:00.000-05:00

I don't think there has ever been a movie that has confused me yet entertained me at the same level as much as Garden State did. There are things I am still questioning and confused about and as well, there are things I still laugh about and enjoy when I think of the movie. Once again, as was the case when watching Buffalo '66, I found Garden State to be an interestingly random movie as well as a movie that is perfect to get involved in - both the storyline, characters, and the movie as a whole.

I have found that in a lot of movies where the character writes, directs, and acts, it seems to be a very well developed movie. I also find it to be more puzzling to the viewer too. I know both of these have been the case for me. This though makes the movie more interesting - to have to really pay attention to know all of what is going on. In the past two movies we have watched where the character writes, directs, and acts, there has been that personal story put into play both mentally and physically through the script and the acting. That, in my opinion, is certainly what keeps the movie at its best.

There were a few unique things I truly enjoyed about this movie. One of those was the way Braff really didn't follow a set guideline, nor did he follow a story like pattern. Sure, things weren''t neccesairily in some sequential, story form, but the the things that lead up to him realizing what his life and he is all about easily form the basis of the story, without telling the story in some strict form. It's like it doesn't follow some consistent beat or tone but you know what the tone and beat is. Another thing I liked was the way Braff portrayed the characters in the film. He didn't totally form them but for a reason, I think. It seems like he wanted to keep us totally focused by always wanting to know more about each character because in some way, shape, or form, we easily could relate to one or more of those characters and what they were going through. Therefore, by us knowing more, we really started to develop them ourselves, while comparing them to us. This movie overall seemed to be a rare movie of this day and age. You usually don't see these types of movie with quality come out; you only see and hear about the "Hollywood" stuff.

When we were told to watch for similarities between Buffalo '66 and Garden State, I was hoping we weren't going to watch some cheesy movie about some guy finding his way in life or something. While we watched about a guy trying to figure out what was going wrong and ways to fix it, it wasn't the normal get on with things way; it showed a much more in depth focus on the individual and his association with the society and the life he is trying to figure out. This creates for a more appealing storyline and movie in itself.

As always, I was confused on quite a few things. One of those was the need for receiving his mother's jewlery piece at the end. I know his mother's funeral sparked him coming back to realization of life, but I didn't quite get the segment with that. As well, I am still confused on the very beginning scene - Andrew Largeman (Zach Braff) sitting in an airplane that seemed to be going down. I only took it as a reference to his life going down, but in the end, the whole thing just confused me again. I can only see it as the scene in the beginning meaning his life was going down and now at the end, by him not being on the plane, his life is finally at a steady pace and in the shape he wants it to be and knows it should be.

I was quite impressed by Garden State. It was quite a different type of movie but in a very good way. Combining realization of life with dry humor, stupid antics, and craziness surely made this film one to remember.

-Kevin

Buffalo '66

2006-08-31T00:00:00.000-05:00

I find myself starting to laugh again when I start thinking about Buffalo '66 again. Shockingly, though rather not, I didn't seem to find it on the best movies list in our book. It is quite an interesting film. Although it was quite random, it was full of many things that kept me, the viewer, entertained and involved in the movie.

The beginning really sets the tone of the movie well and introduces characters very fully without much confusion, at least to me. Development of characters is a vital thing if a movie is going to succeed, and Gallo did this perfectly. What was interesting about how he did it as well is the fact that he didn't just develop them all in one section; some characters we continually found out above until the very end of the movie. That includes characters we had been seeing the whole movie also. In this case, it was not a bad thing to have a progression of character development because it only kept me wondering what other parts am I missing. As well, not only did he develop his characters well but the settings he created, although not always vibrant and colorful, added to the movie being well portrayed. Settings are major factors in a movie that we ignore sometimes by being too caught up in the action of the movie, but in Buffalo '66, not only were the settings essential to the character development but to the movie development, on a whole, as well.

The storyline was fairly easy to comprehend although it took a big turn at the end. It was sort of a typical storyline for a movie of this matter, but the way the storyline progressed in the movie was not done in your typical way. That is what makes this movie so unique in my opinion. There were many twists and turns that always insured a variety of things in the movie. I'd probably say my favorite aspect of the movie, besides the storyline, was the ability of the movie to keep me laughing (not too much, not too little) about things that normally you wouldn't laugh about. The reason I perceived it as funny was not neccesairily because the actual acts were amusing, but the way Gallo revealed them through the characters personalities was in the utmost funniest fashion. The way that it was done was very neat.

In reference to film techniques, I really didn't see as many in this film from at least the techniques and terms we have learned already. There were new things I recognized such as jumps in times, freezes, and other things that looked like new material. Every now and then I saw an angle that we learned used, but I didn't really see as many in Buffalo '66. Lighting, though, I did see much use of, especially in that it helped out with the development of the settings, which I already mentioned I thought was a big part in the movie. Another thing I noticed was the random focusing on different things throughout the movie. These were focus's in which I sat wondering why that certain object was being focused on instead of the people, who were blurry due to not being focused on. Finally, it seemed as though there was a lot of mise en scene and that certainly was not a bad thing.

As for the ending, I thought it was excellent, even though it tricked me. I truly thought that he had gone through the process of killing the kicker and himself until he was alive again. Until I sorted it out in my mind, I really didn't realize what had happend, but after I did, I thought it was a great way to end the movie. I only wish there was a sequel.

-Kevin

Citizen Kane

2006-08-23T12:10:00.000-05:00

Looking through the course book the other day, Movie Game Book: A Serious Pursuit of Film Trivia, I saw a list in the back of the book. It was a list of the best movies from about 1895 to the present. The first movie on the list was Citizen Kane, which I found a little interesting especially since it is the movie that we are watching and studying to begin the year. I found it interesting that it was the movie we were studying first and that it was number one on the list.

The movie, on a whole, was about a five and a half out of ten in my opinion. Their were parts that made me laugh, parts that made me wonder, parts that made me question, parts that had me totally interested, parts that had me totally lost, and parts that had me totally bored. The funny thing is that my attitude inside the movie changed from scene to scene. Still speaking in reference to the whole movie, I really liked the storyline once I figured it out. I'm not just talking about the whole Rosebud deal either. I didn't figure out what Rosebud meant until the end, but until I found out that the whole movie was centered on that phrase and his death, I was totally lost, confused, and bored. At that point is when I got into the movie more.

Speaking on behalf of Citizen Kane's storyline, I actually thought it was pretty neat both the idea of the storyline as well as how they progressed the movie to fit the storyline. I like mysterious movies where you are trying to figure out something about someone or what they said and things like that. That is what mainly kept me interested in the movie - trying to figure out what Charles Kane's dying words meant. Sometimes I am surprised and then sometimes I already guess what happens. In this case, I was surprised because I was in no way expecting the word to mean what it did. I actually liked it and thought it was pretty neat that it was the center of the whole movie progression - his childhood and him wanting that back. In this case, I thought it was very well done.

Since the storyline was the main part of why I liked the movie, what makes the movie a little low on the rating scale for me is the fact that I completely disliked the beginning. Personally, for me, the most crucial part of a movie is having an excellent beginning, and in my opinion, the movie did not accomplish this. The beginning was very vague and uninteresting and kept me wondering what the heck was going on. When I realized the storyline of the movie, I then started realizing the beginning did not represent the movie as a whole very well.

On a side note, I thought the movie demonstrated the things we covered in the very first class when you lectured about different parts of a film very well. I saw many examples of angles, lighting, movement, focus, and different shots that was talked about at that class. This, in my opinion, is the reason why I think it was a decent movie to start with for this year's class.

Overall, like I said, with the exception of the beginning, the movie was pretty good. A flowing middle and an excellent ending contributed to the movie's success. I can see in some instances why many would think the classic, Citizen Kane, would be one of the best movies out there.

-Kevin

Film Studies 2006-2007

2006-08-23T12:05:00.000-05:00

I actually did not plan on taking this class because I was originally planning on taking other electives. Those electives didn't fit into my schedule which left open a few classes, including Film Studies. Since my Senior schedule seemed to be tough and academically focused enough, I thought why not take a class that seemed neat. So, I decided to take Film Studies.

I am a little uneasy because movies and I are hard to get along. I really have to be into a movie before I can even consider it, but I thought that it would be interesting to take this class and see how my thought process with movies went with the class.

-Kevin