MYST Q2 #3: Memento (2000)

MYST Q2 #3: Memento (2000)

Memento (2000) was a film that we watched in class and when we weren't able to watch the whole thing, I really wanted to see the rest. Memento (2000) is directed by Christopher Nolan who is also known for The Dark Night (2008), The Dark Night Rises(2012), and Inception(2010). Inception is one of my favorite movies and I can really tell that the director was the same for both films because they are the same in the fact that the ending leave you to figure out what really happened. Memento (2000) is about a man named Leonard (Guy Pearce) who suffers from short term memory loss. He is on a misson to find the man who raped and killed his wife. But since he cannot remember, he uses pictures, notes, and tattoos to remember very important information. I loved this movie and I would give it 5 out of 5 stars.

This movie was so confusing at the beginning. I was so lost but then, it clicked and I understood. The weird thing about this movie was that it plays in reverse. The movie starts off where it should end and it ends where it should start. After a few scenes, I caught on. Each different scene, goes farther and farther back into the storyline. I thought this is one of the coolest ways to make a movie. There is no other movie that I have ever seen that does this, so it is different and I think that is why I really liked it.

Another thing that was different about this movie was that it was separated info different sections. The film would alternate between the actual movie and a scene that showed Leonard (Guy Pearce) talking on the phone. The scene that showed Leonard talking on the phone was also in black and white while the rest of the movie was in color. Another thing that I found interesting and thought was really ironic in the film was that during the movie Leonard says that he does not like talking to people on the phone. But in the film, there is a good amount of time that shows him in his motel room talking on the phone. I don’t know what that means. But I thought it was really ironic.

I really liked this movie and I recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys thrilling movies with some mystery to it. Like I said, I thought this movie was like Inception (2010) in the fact that I was confused at the end and I needed to talk to my friends and family to discuss what we just watched. I give this movie 5 out of 5 stars and recommend that everyone sees it. 

MYST Q2 #2: The Unquiet(2008)

The Unquiet(2008)

This movie was a Lifetime Movie made in 2008 and directed by Bill Corcoran. Bill Corcoran is also known for Tribulation Force(2002) and Quints(2000). Quints (2000)was a Disney Channel Movie about a family who is surprised with quintuplets and was one of my favorites when I was little. This was one of those movies that my friends and I found on Demand and decided to watch. This was a movie about a woman named Julie Bishop (played by Cara Buono) who wants to investigate an old abandoned prison. During her investigation, she finds out that her ex-husband, Tom (played by Chris William Martin) is also doing some kind of documentary of the prison. They decide to team up together and find information. During their filming process they are frightened by sounds and voices they hear and things they see move that they know they shouldn't  I really did not like this movie at all and I do not recommend anyone to see it. I would give it 1 star out of 5.

This movie had some really different things than from an ordinary film. One thing that was different was that at some points in the film it was filmed through a video camera. Since the characters in the film were making a documentary, it fit that the audience saw through the video camera. But the bad side of seeing through a video camera is that it was really shakey and the camera was on a slanted angle some of the time. This made me a little dizzy and I really didn't like it. Other than that, the movie had many of the same angles and shots that other films have including full body shots, close ups, and a crane shot.

Since it was a Lifetime Movie, I really was not expecting anything special. I personally thought that the acting was really bad. It looked as if the actors and actresses were trying to make some parts look fake. The part I am thinking of was when the lady who reads energies is reading one and a demon comes insider of her. It looks so fake it was funny.

All in all, I really did not like this film at all. If you like films that are cheesy and fake, this would be a great film for you to watch. But other than that, I did not lioke it and would not recommend this movie to anyone. 

1975 Film

Bluebird

Story: The film we invented is going to be based on a true story. In the 1950’s the CIA began a secret research procedure known as MK Ultra. This secret operation was experimenting with mind control.  There were many code names for this operation and one of them was Bluebird. That is where we got the title from. Frank Olson(played by Michel Piccoli) was a man who worked for the CIA. At a time in his career, he became a security risk. One day he “mysteriously” jumped from his hotel window. After this terrible event, Frank’s brother (Jack Nicholson) and wife (Faye Dunaway) become very interested to find out what was going on and why. As the movie goes on, the story gets deeper and deeper into the mystery of what this secret mission is and what happened to Frank Olson.

Studio and Producer: The studio we chose for our film is United Artists. We chose this studio because they played a big part in MGM’s downfall. United Artists took over the sales of MGM when MGM fell. Therefore they were on top of the list of studios that were doing well while other studios were on the bottom of the list. The director we chose is Milos Forman. We chose Milos because he had previously done other work with UA. And finally, we chose our cinematographer to be Gordan Willis who also did The Godfather. We want to focus on the cinematography so we decided to do a cinematographer who was well known.

Cast/Crew: The main cast of actors we decided to put in our film includes Jack Palance, Michel Piccoli, and Jack Nicholson. We chose these actors specifically for each different part that they are playing in Bluebird. Jack Palance is known to be the scary bad guy in the previous films he has been in. In our film, Palance will be playing the head “bad” guy of the CIA. Michel Piccoli will be playing the main character, Frank Olson who works for the CIA. Jack Nicholson will be playing Frank Olson’s brother who becomes involved after Olson dies. Finally, Faye Dunaway will play the brother’s wife.

MPAA Rating: We chose to rate this movie R. This movie is rated R because it has adult content that is not good for children to see and also because this film is about something that actually happened. We want mature audiences to see what happened in some prisons from the 1950’s to the late 1970’s.

 70’s American Film Characteristics:  We had two main characteristics of 70’s film. One was anti-government. In our film, we showed the actual events that took place sometime in the history of the United States. The government let these things happen and by showing the public these events, some people might be mad at the government for allowing this to happen. Our film is also an escape for the audience. This film lets the audience think about other things that have happened in the past and forget about the current issues going on in the time.

Blending Genres: The two genres that we are blending for this film are crime and drama. 

Formal Film Study 2

Formal Film Study on Best Picture Winners

This time around for my Formal Film Study, I decided to do something very different. Instead of researching a certain genre or director, I chose to research the winners of the Academy Award for Best Picture movies from the last three years. These movies included, The Hurt Locker(2008)directed by Kathryn Bigelow and  won in 2009, The King’s Speech(2010) directed by Tom Hooper and won in 2010, and The Artist(2011) directed by Michel Hazanavicius won in 2011. I had never seen any of these films, so I was very excited to watch these movies.

All of these movies were very different in their own way.  The Hurt Locker was a very intense war movie that had my heart beating all the way through. The King’s Speech was a movie that I felt like I was a part of and The Artist was a movie that I really enjoyed even though I thought I definitely would not.

The styles of these movies are different. In The Hurt Locker, the cinematography is very shakey. It is as if someone is holding the camera the whole movie running away from the bombs, following the bad guys, and looking around to make sure the area is safe. The movie is mostly from a third person point of view but there are a few times when the camera switches to make it a first person point of view. For example, when the Sergent William James puts on the bomb suit, it switches to his point of view looking out of the eye hole and you can hear his breathing and his steps. Another time in the film the third person point of view changes to first person point of view when a soldier is looking through the scope of his gun looking for any threats in the area. It shows the scope so it looks like the person watching the movie is looking through the scope.

In The King’s Speech the most part of the movie is in third person but in the opening scene when he attempts to give the speech, he is so nervous and the camera switches to first person point of view and it shows the microphone right in his face and the entire crowd. There was one thing in this movie that I saw as a recurring view. The Duke of York has a speech impediment and needs to go to speech therapy. In the office, many times, the camera shows the Duke sitting on the couch on the way left side of the frame and the empty wall on the rest of the frame. I’m sure that this was done purposefully, but I could not figure out the meaning of it.

In The Artist was completely different than any other movie that has been made in a very long time. This movie was not just in black and white, but it was also a silent film. I was really skeptical about watching it at first but in the end I liked it. It started off exactly like the other silent movies that we had watched in class with the credits starting in the beginning of the movie. One thing that I noticed about this silent film was that when the actors talked, I could read their lips sometimes so I knew what they were saying. In the other silent films I have seen in class, I do not remember being able to read the characters lips. Since I was able to in The Artist, I had more of an idea on what was going on. I also noticed that the lighting was really important and played a role in how the crowd is supposed to feel in the film (like how the actors face emotions help feel what the mood is).

 Not all of these movies were big when they came out. When the review people started giving the films good reviews saying they could possibly be candidates for the Best Picture, then they became even more popular. This is especially true with The Artist. When this movie came out, it was very small. After people started to see it and talk about it, then it started to become very popular. Since all of these movies were Best Picture winners, they are very popular and will always be remembered in film history.

I did find one overarching “discovery” about these three films. I believe in order to be a winner of the Academy Award Best Picture of the Year, the films needs some specific qualities.  I think that the Best Picture films from 2009, 2010, and 2011 needed to have great actors, an easy but intriguing plot to follow and relate able characters.  All of these movies I thought had fantastic actors. These amazing actors portrayed characters that were so relate able I felt like I was either part of the plot or there in the scene. In The King’s Speech, the Duke of York has a speech problem that he needs to work through. 

While watching this movie, I felt so sorry for the Duke. He tried so hard to work past his issues but still had some struggles. In The Hurt Locker, whenever the main character Sergeant William James (played by Jeremy Renner) went in to detonate bombs, my heart was beating and I was actually scared to see what was going to come next. I could not even imagine what it is like to have to do that in real life. In The Artist, I actually felt like I was in the studio watching the film being filmed. With these qualities a film (these films) are really amazing films and I am glad they won Best Picture awards. 

MYST Q2 #1 Tower Heist

For the first movies in your spare time project, I decided to watch the movie Tower Heist.  Tower Heist (2011) was directed by Brett Ratner who also directed the movie Horrible Bosses (2011). There were also many famous actors in Tower Heist. Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, and Matthew Broderick were just some of the actors that I recognized. Ben Stiller has been in so many things and I actually watched another movie from for a MYST with him in it. But whenever Eddie Murphy spoke, I could only picture the donkey from Shrek (2001). I really liked this movie though and I would definitely recommend it to anyone who likes action and also comedies because this movie had both action and comedy parts.

This movie is about a very wealthy man, Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda), who gets caught up in a money problem and is in deep trouble. He took money from his innocent employees and the employees want to get their money back. The leader of the employees is Josh Kovaks (Ben Stiller). He devises a plan to rob Arthur Shaw and get the money back to all the employees.

In the very first scene, there is parallelism because it shows Arthur Shaw and Josh Kovaks getting ready for work. They go back and forth switching from looking at Arthur to looking at Josh. One of them puts on their shirt and then they switch to the other guy and they show him putting on his shirt. This continues showing them getting dressed and during this they show a game on the computer of chess going back and forth that is also them playing against each other.  In the movie there were also many different shots. One shot that I noticed was a long shot that was also walking with Josh. There were also mid shots, full body shots, and close ups. There were also many shots that took place in cars.

In the end, there was one shot where four employees who were going against Arthur were on one side of the truck and Arthur was on the other side of the truck. This was a composition shot because it showed the group of four people who went against Arthur and then Arthur on the other side. All in all, I really liked this movie. I thought it was funny and it was also kind of an action movie. I would give this movie  5 stars out of 5 because I really liked this movie.

 

MYST #3 Obsessed (2009)

For another one of my MYST projects, I decided to watch the movie Obsessed (2009) directed by Steve Shill. The director Steve Shill I know from the television series ER that was on television form 1994 to 2009. My parents always watched this show and when I was old enough, I started to watch it too. This was my favorite television show and I would watch it religiously. Steve Shill is also a director of the popular television series, Law and Order.

This movie is about a family with a husband, Derek (Idris Elba), and wife, Sharon (Beyoncé Knowles), and their little baby. They just moved into a new house and are very excited to get started with their new lives. When Derek goes to work there is a new temporary worker, Lisa (Ali Larter) who begins to start drama. The plot thickens as Lisa spreads rumors and starts to be “obsessed” with Derek.

While watching Obsessed, I noticed a few things that stuck out to me.  The camera angles were one thing that I noticed repeatedly. There were many different camera angles in this movie. One that I noticed that was used a lot was the camera angles that are straight on and from the shoulders up. This was used a lot when the characters were talking to each other.  Another shot I noticed was the close up angles. These angles were used when the scenes were suspenseful and creepy.

The lighting of this movie was not anything special. Most of the lighting was natural light. A lot of the scenes took place using natural sunlight to light up the rooms. There was one scene that took place at night that I thought was different. Since it was a night scene, most of the screen was dark. But to have light in this scene to see what was happening, a blue tinted light was used. It looked fake to me because it was so blue, but I think they just needed to have some light in the scene so the audience was able to see what was happening.

There was one scene that I saw composition in. When Derek and Sharon were talking in Derek’s office, Lisa walks in on their conversation. Derek is sitting on the left side of the screen and Sharon is sitting on the right side in the foreground. There is an empty space between them in the background until Lisa walks in the door and she stands right between them. I thought that was cool how they planned that out to have it look like Lisa was splitting them down the middle.

Overall, I thought this movie was so creepy. Lisa goes beyond what is normal and it is scary. I really liked Beyoncé in this movie. This was the first movie that I had seen her in. I would give this movie 3 stars out of 5. It was action packed but really creepy the things Lisa did to try and be with Derek.

Film Group Project

Our movie starts out with a murder in an apartment building in London. At this time, the main characters (Bela Lugosi and MaeClarke) who are newlyweds have just moved into their new apartment on floor 13 upon recommendation of a friend (Eric Blore). After Mae Clarke is very suspicious of her husband being the killer, the actual killer, Eric Blore strikes again and kills yet another innocent person.

The director of this film is James Whale. James Whale is an English film director who is best remembered for his horror movies. His most famous movies are Frankenstein (1931) and The Old Dark House (1932). In 1931, James Whale signed a five year contract with Universal Studio.

This film we created is a suspense and horror film. We decided to choose a horror film for this time period because this was around the time of the Great Depression. Many people who went to the movies at this time went because it “provided an effective escape to audiences tiring of their Great Depression” stress (Horror Film History).  The audience wanted to see things that would take their minds off the reality of their lives.

The studio we have picked is Universal Studio. We chose Universal because in 1935 it was known for their work on horror films. Universal “made its name with horror pictures of this time” (Horror Film History).  This studio is not one of the “big guys” rather, it was part of the Little Three including Columbia and United Artists. Therefore, this is a smaller scale movie on a smaller budget.

We picked our cast very carefully. The main actor is Bela Lugosi. Bela Lugosi has had previously smaller roles in films of this time even though he was signed with Universal. We decided to take a chance and give him a big part. The main actress is Mae Clarke. Mae Clarke is a very famous actress of this time. We chose her to be in our film because we want to focus on her discovery of who her husband really is and who he might be. The supporting actor of this movie is Eric Blore.  Eric Blore was a “nobody”. We chose him to be the bad guy in our film because we don’t want the audience to think he is the bad guy. Everything in the film will lead to the audience thinking that Bella Lugosi is the bad guy, but in the end, it’s the guy who no one will suspect who is the actual killer.

The Hayes code played a part in what we could and could not put in our film. The Hayes Code has many specific rules that include no murder or profanity. Since we made a horror film, we had to take into consideration both of these rules. We can and did not show any brutal murders. Most of the “killing” scenes need to be inferred. Since we did not show anything murderous, we did not give anyone any ideas on how to kill. There is no bad profanity in our film either. This makes it more accepted for everyone.

If I had to do this film project on my own, I would change a few things. One thing I would change is the supporting actor. Right now we have Eric Blore as our supporting actor because he was not well known at all and we think the audience will not suspect him as the killer. I think we should cast a female as the supporting actress because I have a feeling that a female would be even less suspicious in this type of film.

MYST #2 Zoolander (2001)

Zoolander (2001) has many popular actors. Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, and Will Ferrell were the few that I knew as soon as I saw them. Ben Stiller not only stars in this movie but he also directed it. For some reason I could not stop thinking about how Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson played together in Night at the Museum (2006) directed by Shawn Levy. This movie was completely different than Night at the Museum, but the two actors together brought back memories of the other film. This movie was a little on the stupid side in my opinion, but it was funny at certain parts. Over all, I would give this movie 2 stars.

Most of this film had the same kind of shots and angles. The most used shot was definitely the medium shot. Most of the movie was shot from the waist up. Of course there were some other shots, but this was the one most used. Other shots and angles I noticed were full body, close ups, shoulder up shots, low angle shots (looking up at character) and shots walking with the characters. Whenever I see the shots walking with the characters, I look for the track in the background that the camera rolls on (like the video we saw in class). I also noticed that the lighting was always very strong. There was not very many times when there were low light scenes. Most scenes looked as if they had natural light and they were filmed outside. Finally, I noticed some composition in this film. In one scene in particular, Owen Wilson is on the right side of the screen in the foreground and Ben Stiller is in the background on the left side. The screen is very balanced, but I thought it was cool how I actually noticed composition in a film.

All in all, I thought Zoolander (2001) was a weird movie. Ben Stiller talked in such a strange way, that I felt like I was becoming less intelligent listening to him talk. Even though there were a few parts where I laughed, it was because there was a stupid joke or someone did something stupid. I think this movie is for people who enjoy dumb comedy films such as Blades of Glory (2007) or Balls of Fury (2007). 

Formal Film Study: Steven Spielberg

      For my first Formal Film Study, I decided to study the great director, Steven Spielberg. Steven Spielberg is very famous in the film industry and is well known for all of his work. There were three films of Spielberg’s that I decided to watch for my project. I watched the movies The Color Purple (1985), Catch Me If You Can (2002), and Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981).  These movies were very different from one another, but in my opinion, were all good films.

     There were some shots and angles that were used in all three of the movies. All three movies had some kind of close up shot at some point in the movie. Usually there were close ups when it was an important part of the movie. For example, in The Color Purple when the main character, Celie, finds out her sister has been writing letters to her for years, the camera zooms onto her face. I think this is done so the viewer can see all the emotion and hopefully feel what the character in the movie was feeling. In Catch Me If You Can, when the main character Frank is told there has been a death in his family, the camera moves in close to his eyes. He begins to cry and there is a lot of emotion displayed in just his eyes. Finally, in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, just before there was an extremely suspenseful part, there is a close up of Indiana Jones. Close ups are used in the three films to show emotion.

     Between these three films, the only one that really used special effects was Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. This was an action and adventure movie, so special effects were needed to make the movie stand out. The special effects in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark were pretty good. Since it is a little older than the other action films that I have seen today, I thought they were pretty good for the time. Even though it has only been about 30 years since this movie came out, there are so many new technological advances that are used in films today. Towards the end of the movie, when the huge ghost came out, I thought that looked really fake. You could totally tell that it was not real. Other than that the special effects were good for the movie. Also, I thought this movie was very violent for a PG rated movie.

     The sound of these films was very important. The music in the background honestly made the films what they were. In The Color Purple, there were a lot of different kinds of music in the background. This music worked with the time period and made it seem like a more realistic time period. In the film Catch Me If You Can, the background music was older. There was classical and jazz music playing. I do not know the exact reasoning behind this, but it really worked for this movie. Finally in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark the sound is very powerful. The music tells what is happening and it gets louder with suspense. If there were no words, you could tell what parts were suspenseful. You could also tell which guys were the “good guys” and which guys were the “bad guys”. Finally, it has the famous Indiana Jones music that is known everywhere.

     One thing that I liked about all of these movies is how realistic the characters were. I think it is really important in movies that the viewer can relate or feel exactly what the main character feels. In these movies I connected with the main character. In The Color Purple, the characters Celie and Nettie are sisters who get separated. I have a sister and I would be lost without her. I could not even imagine what the girls had to go through. Their emotions seemed so real. In Catch Me If You Can, Frank rips people off like no other. He lies his way through his life and becomes successful until he gets caught. I just thought it was amazing how he could come up with lies in the moment when he needed to and het got away with them.  Then in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones is prepared for anything and everything.  There is not one time when he cannot do something because he isn’t prepared.

     All in all, in these three movies there were a few things that really stuck out. The soundtrack was really important to these films. They played a huge role, almost as if a separate character. The shots and angles also were important because they showed emotion and set the scene. Finally, I could relate to all the main characters in the movies. I really liked this because I could enjoy the movies more if I could personally relate to the characters in the movie.

MYST POST #1: Taken Back: Finding Haley (2012)

      Taken Back: Finding Haley (2012) is a Lifetime Movie Network (LMN) movie. This movie was about a mother, Karen (Moira Kelly), who is completely obsessed about finding her lost daughter. Even though I thought this movie was really overdramatic and creepy, it was an ok movie. There were parts in the movie where I was actually laughing because I was like, “Is she really doing this right now?” . Other than that, this was supposed to be based on a real story, so the director, Mark Jean, couldn’t change the story line too much. 

       This was on over the weekend and I didn’t have much to do so I decided to watch it. Because this was a LMN movie, I was not expecting too much. In the past, I have seen many Lifetime movies. Most of the Lifetime movies I have seen have not had the greatest actors and actresses such as in, Girl, Positive and The Good Guy. This movie though, I thought had tolerable actors and actresses. The main actress, Moira Kelly, I thought did a pretty good job playing her part. She was very into the role and when she was crying it seemed like she actually meant it.

      The cinematic aspects of this film were pretty good in my opinion. There were many different kinds of shots and angles presented in this film. At one very dramatic time there was an extreme close up. I thought this made the scene so much more dramatic. The lighting and sound I thought also played a huge role in this film. When the scene was sad and the main character was crying, the light was dark behind her, but her eyes looked as if they were highlighted.  The background music was important as well. When the scene was happy and positive, the background music was fast and carnival like showing everything was fine… until, all of a sudden it stops and something is wrong in the movie. I thought that was really cool.

     I think people who really like Lifetime movies would like this movie because it is dramatic and full of Lifetime suspense. If you have nothing better to do, this is one of those movies that you would watch. It is nothing special, but it was watchable.  I would give it 2.5 stars.  

Review of the Reviews

     The Help is one of my favorite and one of the best movies that I have seen in the past few years. Getting the choice to pick any movie that I have ever seen to do for this project, I decided on The Help. I found one positive review and one negative review for this movie. Now it is my turn to be the critic on two reviews. 

     The positive review is from the New Orleans Times. The author, Mike Scott, is very organized in what he has to say about the The Help. He starts off the review with an overview of the film and what it is about. Then, he goes into talking about the main and supporting characters and their role in the film. The tone of this review seems to be very positive because he does not have many bad things to say. The author mainly focuses on the plot and stars of the movie. He also brought up the fact that this is a movie based off a book and a historical time period. He thinks that the history part of the movie is "soft" compared to what really happened. 

     The negative review is from Slant Magazine. This author, Andrew Schenker, I believe jumps around a little in his review. He starts off talking about something that happens during the middle of the movie, then starts talking about the historical part of the movie. Since this is a negative review, the tone feels heavy and more serious. He uses some different words that I have never heard I believe so he can get his point across that he didn't like the movie. This author focuses mainly on the historical information in the movie, but says that the movie was not all bad because it had good acting. 

  

   One point that I agreed with from the New Orleans Times is that in the film it, "open their own eyes and think a little bit more in-depth about what they've heretofore dismissed as "the color situation"  (New Orleans). In this case, the author is talking about the characters in the film but I think that this movie opened my eyes to what happen in the past. It showed how people were treated in the 1960's.  One thing I agreed with from the negative review is that, "The Help is almost always more successful relating black experience than either white brutality or magnanimity" (Slant). I think this is saying that the movie did a better job displaying what happened to the African Americans during this time, rather than what was going on with the whites. 

   If I had never seen this film and I had to choose which review was more convincing, I would believe the positive review from the New Orleans Times. I really liked how Mike Scott gave a summary of the movie without giving too much away. I also really liked how he talked about the historical references that this movie showed. This movie was not just a movie for enjoyment, but a movie that was able to demonstrate to us what the world was like at one time. 

   If I was to write a review on The Help, I would definitely make it a positive review. One thing that I would include about the movie would be the great actresses who played the characters. I think the director, Tate Taylor, did a really great job picking which actresses played which part. I thought they were chosen very well. Another thing I would include in my review would be that I enjoyed how it had a historical side to the film. Seeing how our world was not too long ago is very interesting and this is what I would write my review about.