Returning....

Just a heads up that I will be returning to this blog to review more movies and films soon.

MYST POST #7: Pacific Rim

Seeing how i nearly praised this movie in my Godzilla (2014) review, I decided to discuss Del Toro's Pacific Rim which was released in 2013 by Warner Bros and Legendary Pictures (coincidentally the same studios that distributed Godzilla 2014). The creation of Pacific Rim was actually very complicating. A man named Travis Beacham conceived the idea of Pacific Rim while walking on a beach. There he imagined a giant robot and monster battling it out, however, the movie originally went by a different name. Travis Beacham's Killing on Carnival Row was to then be directed by Del Toro back in 2006. It was only later that Beacham also thought of the idea of 2 pilots in the robot, and wondered "what happens when one of those people dies?" Legendary then announced the new title Pacific Rim, and then the film continued development. When approached again to work on the project, Del Toro said that he would work on the project only if his latest project, At the Mountains of Madness (an adaptation of HP Lovecraft's work) was cancelled. After the movie's production began to fail due to budget and rating restrictions, Del Toro turned to Pacific Rim.

To really bring out the monstrous size of the Kaiju Del Toro decided to shoot many of the shots from below the Kaiju. The scene above features a Kaiju busting through buildings and debris while attacking a city. The shot is clearly at a lower angle, and the buildings can serve as a scale as to how big the creature really is. There is also a scene where a Kaiju named Leatherback rises up from the see into a sky down pouring with rain, followed by an enormous roar. The scene was purposely shot from below to bring out the true size of the beast. Del Toro's main inspiration for these kinds of shots throughout the film was from Francisco Goya's The Colossus, wanting to achieve the same "sense of awe" from the painting.
Industrial Light & Magic was chosen to do the film's effects. Del Toro specifically stated that he wanted to distance this film from other blockbusters. He said that he felt that the movie "'needs to be theatrical, operatic, romantic.' We used a lot of words not usually associated with high-tech blockbusters … We went for a very, very, very, very saturated color palette for the battle for Hong Kong. I kept asking John to tap into his inner Mexican and be able to saturate the greens and the purples and the pinks and the oranges." With this unusual style, the film's visuals stood out among other films featured at the time.

MYST POST #6: GODZILLA

Ever since I was little I always enjoyed a nice Godzilla film every now and then. For years I have been waiting for this new movie, which for a while it was called Godzilla 2012. In 2011 I received one of the older scripts for the upcoming movie. While the human characters were fairly bad, many of the concepts and scenes throughout the film of the radioactive carnage from Godzilla was amazing. When I went to see this movie last Thursday at the first showing in IMAX 3D, I was expecting a film filled with epic carnage. The film I got was a bit more what I was fearing.

The Godzilla film from 1998 was loathed by critics and G-fans alike. Everyone disliked the film due to its inaccuracies to the character of Gojira, and its childish plot (however, Godzilla the series, the sequel cartoon series to the movie, was loved by G-fans and critics). When the new Godzilla film was released, it immediately became popular among G-fans. But then the unimaginable happened. The film gained criticism from the most unlikely of things:

These comments are the three main issues of the movie. The first was that it didn't have enough Godzilla in it. The first time he truly appears is halfway into the movie. To be fair, he also appeared halfway in his previous movie. Even so, Godzilla still has more screen time in Final Wars than 2014. The reason could be due to director Gareth Edward being an independent movie maker, so he would naturally use techniques to keep the monster scenes short. The second problem is that the film is a bit boring. I too felt the slumber approach me as I watched this movie. It was only later that I realized why.

In Pacific Rim, there is a variety of different people with different personalities, making the film feel bigger, and all the characters go through some sort of character development. In Godzilla 1998, the characters are shown with huge personalities and sometimes comical personalities, and have gradual character development. In Godzilla 2014, the dialogue and character development was very strong with the father figure, but not so much with anyone else. Once our main character became a young military kid, whose name sounds a heck of a lot like Brony, all sense of character development and any personality for this character is sucked out. The same goes for his wife and child. Heck, most of the adults and all the children in this film had no personality. Without an engaging story behind a character, why should the audience feel sympathy for them? 

In the Pacific Rim film from last year, most of the shots were purposely shot from below the kaiju to make them appear huge. Even in the first American remake of Godzilla used a variety of low angle shots to make the monster seem and feel bigger. Godzilla 2014 didn't use this technique. There are a few good shots that make the Kaiju seem big, but the shots are usually far away from the monsters to show their entirety. There was a scene where a glow from Godzilla became apparent and the camera panned to the left and revealed his fire breath. That shot was worthy of the audience's applause. However, many of the other shots make the monsters seem small. Previous Godzilla films were able to use the low angle technique many times, specifically the original. That is how the illusion of a giant monster can come into play. But as i have said before, this movie chooses more straight forward and simpler shots.  

The final reason is most likely why this film has gained so much praise. We, as humans, fear a changing world. We are always afraid to try something new. This is also why when Pacific Rim came out last year, it did horrible in the American market. Because Godzilla has been around for 60 years and Pacific Rim is brand new, the audience trusts Godzilla more than Pacific Rim. Even then, most of the Godzilla films were only released on video in America and were never released into theaters, making audiences come to the conclusion that 2014 is the best one, without knowing it's only the best out of a few. With that said, it is merely human nature that makes a franchise thrive or fall.

So was this movie bad? I'm not entirely sure. The whole set up of conspiracy theories surrounding Kaiju was freakin epic, and the ending was definitely a classic. I mean, there are many good things I want to say about this film, but the negative out weigh the positive, and I feel that keeping the negative away from the public will only let these negatives live on in Hollywood. Here's to hoping for a better sequel.

Formal Film Study #2: The History of Kong

The Kaiju genre can be seen either as the most underground influential action genre or the most well accepted horror genre. These ideas can be traced to the fact that only recently has hollywood began its destiny to produce bigger budget Kaiju movies, such as Pacific Rim or Godzilla (2014). But most, if not, all of these films would not have even existed without the massive influential push by the King Kong films. The 3 films we will be looking at all have the same name "King Kong". The first came out in 1933, the next in 1976, and the latest in 2005. As for the horrendously beautiful B-movie spectacular "Kong Lives" or "Godzilla vs King Kong", I may mention them here and there, but they can be considered as their own separate films.

Very few zoos throughout America and the world featured apes and primates as the demand to see these amazing creatures grew. So people began to ask and beg Hollywood to start filming the interesting beasts. This was the beginning of a small yet large new age of film.This group of movies was known as Jungle films. Jungle films were a huge success and quickly became very profitable. The problem was that much of the information in these films was not entirely accurate, for Hollywood was more interested in the visuals and ideas than the facts. Beasts in the Jungle from 1913 is largely considered the first of the sub-genre. A lot of trick photography was also used in most of these films. Just as all other genres of movies consisted of a formula, the Jungle films also had their own. The formula was putting sexy woman and primative apes into the movie. This new craze eventually led to the groundbreaking epic that is King Kong from 1933, which also was green lighted by RKO mainly did so because of the idea that "gorillas plus sexy women in peril equals enormous profits"(Erish).

The original film has a very different style from its followers. The film features more basic shots throughout, possibly mainly due to the painstaking work of stop-motion. The style also displayed the island as a cramped and very dense jungle. The shot above gives a perfect example of what most of movie consisted of. The shot makes it clear that the greenery has consumed most of this island, and easily transfers us all into it. The shots also last longer than most films today. They even return to the same shot throughout this battle between Kong and the V. Rex. Another feature that seperates this film from the others is its special effects. All of the creatures, including Kong himself, are featured in black and white stop-motion. However, there are some scenes where Kong is a giant animatronic, which in itself was all the more groundbreaking for its time. This movie's special effects gave practically gave birth to Toho's Godzilla franchise, Gorgo, Jurassic Park and countless other classics.
Overall, the first Kong movie seems as if it was trying to be a big-budget horror film. There are countless shots of Kong stomping on, or even devouring people. There are also numerous shots of people being attacked and even killed by some of the other interesting beasts living on Skull Island. The tribal people alone may terrify the audience with their cannibalistic and sacrificial nature. There is even a deleted scene where spiders devour people. However, the film can also be viewed as an adventure movie. A group of people travel to an island where they must confront numerous creatures to bring back one of their own. Of course, the plot later turns into an obviously insane director who brings Kong to New York and pretty much causes much destruction. This story sounds similar to that of numerous adventure movies from years before.

 Many, if not all, of you have probably not heard of this one; Heck, you've probably heard more of King Kong vs Godzilla than this movie! But I have to review this one, even if it was just made for reasons that even included the infamous sequel "Kong Lives" (which is a fantastic movie, mainly because of Dr Who and MechaKong). The Kong movie from 1976 at first glance seems as if it was made mainly for the lust of the leading actress and the greed of the possible profit that would be received. However, after a quick watch, it honestly wasn't that bad of a film. It was a campy film that was decent at times.
As stated previously, the film's style is more campy than its more revolutionary and famous predecessor. Rather than a dense and mysterious jungle, this film goes for a more B-movie budgeted feel for its numerous jungle scenes. Kong's arms, when holding the main actress throughout the film, were actually huge animatronics. This was done to make it easier for the actress to interact with Kong. The big ape himself was made using state of the art costumes, as well as animatronics. The scene above is a perfect example of what many of the shots of the film were like. The girl and hand were shot in front of a green screen, while Kong in the background was filmed separately. The campy quality of most of the shots also leaks out from this image, specifically with the mask looking face of Kong, and the shades and colors of the background.
Also, many of the famous scenes, such as the Rex's mouth being ripped open, were saved for the sequel, and instead we get a giant snake.

The latest Kong movie that has been released, and that we will be talking about, is Peter Jackson's masterpiece from 2005. The film was what really brought the CGI company Weta Digital, which was also created by Peter Jackson, on the map. This Kong movie is one of the very few remakes that has been considered better than the original. The movie was created by Jackson mainly because he had a huge history with the beast. He remembered crying when he first saw the giant monster fall off the building, and even attempted to remake the film with his Super 8 camera. The film became his life blood and fuel to become a film maker. Universal Pictures began seeing Jackson's work, and immediately became impressed. When given the chance to remake the creature from the black lagoon, Jackson declined and Universal learned of his obsession with Kong. The Kong character was Public Domain at the time, so it was decided a remake would be made. Jackson surprisingly declined the offer to remake Kong, but then decided to immediately sign on because he "quickly became disturbed by the fact that someone else would take it over," (Pryor). 
The film's style was definately reminicent of that of the time period the film takes place in. The cars are vintage, the people's clothes are vintage, even the discrimination of women is made apparent in the movie. One big thing this film did different than the previous ones was that there was no scene where Kong's hand reaches into a building and grabs the main character. Instead, she goes to him to try to calm him down and stop destroying the city.
The scene above shows how artsy many of the shots are throughout the film. Jackson was always concerned with the amount of screen time all the creatures were getting, so he made sure there were many full on views, and that many of the shots lasted longer than many of the previous film's. 

MYST POST #5: Silence of the Llambs

Why haven't I reviewed this movie sooner?! It has everything I like to see in a film: Mystery, Suspense, Horror, and countless artsy shots and scenes. It's also a film that doesn't really follow any cliches or over used gags in horror films. Actually, i'm not entirely sure if this film counts as a horror film, but nonetheless, it is a film that you surely should see at least once in your life. Before I even dive into this review I just want to let you know that I'm not really going to give much of the plot away to you because I believe it's one of those films that would only get ruined if read rather than watched. 

A common camera angle used throughout the film consists of the high angle shot. It is used specifically to symbolize the emotional feelings throughout numerous scenes. For example, the scene where Buffalo Bill looks down upon one of his recent captives is shot with a low angle when focused on Bill, and a high angle on the captive. This symbolizes the emotional struggle the captive is going through as she screams and yells at Bill. The great thing about this type of shot is that it also gives the perspective to the audience that she is deep down in the well.     

There are also numerous brief shots throughout the film that suggest cannibalism when it comes to the killer in the end. It should be no surprise that the whole film surrounds cannibalism anyway, I mean, Hannibal bites off a part of a guy's face during his escape scene! However, a better example of this symbolism can be traced towards the end of the movie where the main character shines a flashlight briefly past a table. In that second, we see numerous doll body parts laying around, even a stuffed alligator with even more doll parts stuffed inside its mouth. Because I like B-movies so much, I'd also like to point out that Roger Corman does in fact have a cameo in this film as a government official.  

MYST POST #4: Starship Troopers 3

Since I reviewed the new Robocop, I decided to also review the third film in the Starship Troopers franchise. This film I like almost as much as the original due to its campy, low-budget yet big scaled, epic scifi feeling it gives. Heck, I may even like it better!! However, review sites like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB are literally split at whether the film is good or not. Half of the reviewers say yes, the others say not so much. This is why I want to review this one rather than the original. This one has more controversy, and boy do I like controversy!

Since most of you probably didn't even know there was a third, let alone a second Starship Troopers, i'll be sure give you a summary of the plot as we discuss this movie. The film takes place years after the original, and possibly ignores the second film, and mainly surrounds the federation learning more and more about the bugs. The film begins by mimicking trench warfare from World War 1. The bugs are surrounding the premises of the electric field guarded trench. We see a few propaganda videos from the Federation, the global government, which features Sky Marshal Anoke singing "A Good Day To Die". This could be a reference to the original film in its self because the director of the original and this one, Paul Verhoeven, stated that the original was supposed to be "playing with fascism or fascist imagery to point out certain aspects of American society... of course, the movie is about 'Let's all go to war and let's all die.'" It is also nice to know that even after centuries of research the government still can't give the military safe armor, for a guy early on gets impaled by one of the shovels given to the troops by the federation to dig up the trenches. This could be done purposely by the government for population control or something, but as it appears in the film, it could have been added just as a joke.

Now I would like to pause here and discuss one of the many lessons this film tries to get across. In a particular scene we are brought to the attention that the Federation is arresting and silencing people from talking against the war. While a hanging occurs on a TV in the bar that Rico and Dick are in (and I swear they called him Dick as a joke), a few redneck looking people talk about how displeased they are with the Feds. Once the people on the TV are hung, the rednecks go crazy and Dick orders Rico to arrest him. This is the scene where Rico realizes how wrong this all may be. Rico tells Dick that he's wasting his time and should spare them, but Dick takes offense to this and ends up arresting Rico as well! This shows how strict and dictator-like this government really is. It can, again, relate back to the first World War, or the Great War. Anyone who spoke against the war was threatened by the government. Even when the war ended, the Red Scare followed, which had people, thought to be communists, being silenced as well. Anyway, this is just one out of many symbolic things in this epic scifi flick!

After Rico is arrested, we further realize that something may be wrong with Sky Marshal Anoke. He is just not acting right. This somehow leads to a crash landing onto a local planet. Later on, Dick is driven to a restricted area (not Area 51 unfortunately) where the Brainbug from the first movie is kept....

Now that's one ugly mother. In fact, the design of the Brainbug was inspired by an anus or female genitalia. The reason was because the creators of the original wanted the Brainbuug to have an offensive face. Exactly why is not really known, but probably just for shock value and laughs. Compared to the original, this Brainbug looks very nasty and even more realistic than his cgi past. Moving on, Dick finds out that the Brainbug was using its telepathic powers against Anoke's, causing him to give in to the Bug's demands. The bug then screams and begins to break out of its poor quality cell until Dick shoots him to pieces with a rifle. With this new info, the audience can assume that something very bad is going to happen to Anoke's crew. It isn't until later, after an attack by an underground bug, that the crew finds out Anoke has Bug Religion. Yes, Bug Religion. Anyway, we find out that the Federation is covering up that Anoke has gone missing to the public. Obviously symbolizing how the news and media cannot always be trusted. We then finally return to Rico, only to find out he's going to be 'hanging around' the execution room. I know, bad jokes. As Rico is hung, his rope breaks and he falls into the pit beneath to find his former friend and commander, Dick. Rico is then sent on a top secret mission to the planet Anoke is on to save the crew. Here is where we see the shadows of the awesome Marauders. Then we cut back to Anoke and his crew.

"You will know the name of God, the one true god - Behemecoatyl. Brain of brains."

—Sky Marshal Anoke.

Probably the best part of this movie is the supposed "God Bug" Behemecoatyl. Yes, you heard that right as well. The bugs ever since day one have apparently been following a religion surrounding one giant huge bug. As ridiculous as this sounds, and probably is, there is a heavy moral behind it. After the destruction of the God Bug species (unless there are more of them, Who knows?), the Federation decides to bring back a religion similar to Christianity to the people to make them even more under control. Think of it like a dictatorship, but instead of worshiping the leader of the govt., you worship a being of higher power. You see, real studies have shown that people of religion can do more things during tests than those without. For example, a scientist once tested students to see which one had religion and which ones didn't. He then put up cups of orange juice and vinegar (bad combination) for the students to drink. Surprisingly, the ones with religion drank more than the ones without. Something similar to that was happening here. The bugs were losing the war at first, but once they gained Bug Religion, they suddenly started winning the war. But the moral of the story isn't that you should be religious, it's more of a "Freedom of Religion" type story. The government only gives people religion for their own needs, not for the people. Heck, the whole war between the bugs and humans started just so the government could have a stable economy! Basically, the whole war going on here is dictator vs dictator, it's just that one is a giant bug. Oh, and if you want to know how big this mortal "God" is....

All in all, Starship Troopers 3 isn't that bad of a film. It relates a lot to the first film, and may even surpass it at times. For the budget this film had, it did freakin awesome! I would highly recommend this movie to those who just love cheesy, yet at times horrific, sci-fi movies. 

Now i'd like to end this review bu acknowledging that they made a fourth one back in 2012. Yes, I did see it. I thought it was- decent. The one major problem was that they left out the propaganda bits!! Why?!?! Oh well, at least we finally got a 4th film.

MYST POST #3: Robocop (2014)

Where do I even begin with the new Robocop? I guess we'll start with a little history and the reviews the film got by critics. Sony pictures announced that they were going to remake the classic all the way back in 2005. But then, according to Bloody Disgusting, production was halted a year later. 2 years after that in 2008, Robocop was mentioned in an MGM press release and was slated to be released in 2010. Then the release date was postponed to 2011. Then, with the success of Avatar, the film was decided to be in 3D. More production went on in 2011 and 2012, but it wasn't until 2013 that the film became official to the public. Especially due to the fact that people were finding out they had already started filming. The reviews of the film were initially negative, but once the film was released more positive reviews began racing out. The reviews are almost at a stalemate with a 49% at Rotten Tomatoes. These means the movie will either be considered a great success or a miserable failure to the viewers.  

With all that out of the way, I might as well just get down to it. 

The film's style is very similar to that of Starship Troopers. Actually, Starship Troopers was directed by the same guy who directed the original Robocop, Paul Verhoeven. This could be just a coincidence of course. Anyway, throughout the film, Samuel Jackson plays a news caster for the Omnicorp company. He shows how much the company really deceives and lies to the public, but in a naturally comedic way. Starship Troopers also has these, though they relate more to Nazi propaganda than just a news reel. The news reels aren't the only thing similar to Starship Troopers, the message is similar as well. The conflict between the Federation and the bugs can relate to that of the US and the middle east. The people in the US are being clear that they don't want the US to continue going out there, but the government does it anyway, possibly for economic reasons. In Robocop, a similar dilemma is present. Heck! The film begins in the middle east! The company Omnicorp is obsessed with selling their robotic troops to governments all over the world. But Americans don't like the idea of robot police roaming the streets. So the company makes 'Robocop' to help convince the people and the government to take down a law in the US banning robotic policemen. Also, because he is part human, the law doesn't 100% apply to Robocop. 

But now was this remake gold or dirt? Well, I like to consider remakes or re-imaginings as their own films. On its own, this movie makes for a fairly decent scifi flick. While the ending of the film felt a bit off, the first 3rd of the film was phenominal. it nearly blew the original away. As for the other 2 thirds. Eh, they were decent. When you sit down and watch the film you can kind of tell when the writers freaked out last year. And yes, the writers, and everyone working on this film, freaked out sometime last year over the film's production. The reason is unknown, but overall what we got was a decent film. It could have been a lot worse. I have seen worse remakes (Black Christmas, King Kong 1976, House of Wax, ect.), so compared to those this film is great. It is one of my favorite remakes of all time, definitely. I believe a sequel might do justice to this film if they can have an army of the ED-209s battle Robocop. Better yet, that Robocop vs Terminator movie that we were promised years ago! Despite what I say everyone has their own taste in cinema films and tv shows. Mine is Scifi/fantasy/horror but yours may be different. But Samuel Jackson has his own opinion on the new Robocop film, and I believe it suits his role from the film quite fine....

1935 movie project - The Beautiful Disaster

The Beautiful Disaster is about how Jean Arthur is a beautiful model always in the media. She lives in the penthouse of the building that the Stooges manage. They are the repair, window washers of the building. The stooges also live in the basement of the building. Once they catch an eye of Arthur though, they then begin to fight for her attention. This type of plot would work well in the 1935 because of all the comedic glory it could bring for the audience at the time. The film would be black and white, but have sound. It would aim for more of a screwball and anarchic type comedy with much slapstick.

The depression was still very strong during 1935 and everyone needed something that could make them smile or laugh. Films were becoming extremely popular specifically with the comedy genre. The character types of the three stooges and Jean Arthur would be suited for a screwball comedy because the other films they were present in did very well at the box office.

Columbia Pictures was chosen as the studio to produce this film because they have been known to distribute countless other screwball comedies with great budgets. Frank Capra also worked for Columbia countless times prior to 1935.

Jean Arthur was chosen as the model in the story because at the time she had been in many famous screwball comedies already. The Three Stooges were chosen because despite being new to the industry at the time they had been rising in popularity very fast and were fantastically great comedians. Frank Capra was chosen for the director seat because one of the most famous comedy films ever made was filmed by him and released the previous year. The film "It happened in one night" lead him to win 5 Oscars, best picture, best director, best leading role, supporting actor, and screenplay. Havlic had worked for Capra before, so he would naturally make for a great editor.

The Hayes Code affected this film in numerous ways. The kissing scenes, if any were to be included, would be very brief. The characters would also never do anything too overly sexual or inappropriate. The Stooges are known solely for the violent acts they perform. While most of these acts would be retained in the film, it would be a bit toned down to fit with the rules of the code. Despite being toned down, the Stooges would still be violent enough to entertain the audiences.

If I were to change anything on this movie it would be the plot and the poster. The plot was too simple to become an actual movie. It felt almost like it could work but that something was missing. The poster we made wasn't as artsy yet funny as I wanted it to be, nor did my group put much effort into it either (due to us starting it only the day before presentation).

MYST POST #2: Citizen Kane

Citizen Kane originally was released to mostly negative reviews due to its subtle political messages. However as the years went by this film became to be known as the best film ever made. This was mainly due to the film's history, how it was shot, and a mixture of many other things. I believe this film was a pretty darn good film for the time and was revolutionary. Even compared to films today this film still has some sort of special quality to it that makes it so great and fun to watch. The film's shots were its specialty. For example....

This is the scene where the reporters are discussing what the meaning is behind Kane's last words "Rosebud." The two projectors are lit from behind the scene giving an interesting yet ominous shadow effect. Due to this effect we are rarely ever to make out Thompon's actual face. Many other character's faces in this scene are also shaded out by the lighting in the room. This was done to help symbolize that they are not exactly the important characters in the story. Heck, most of the characters we see in this scene we never see again. In the particular shot above, Ralston's character is shown higher than Thompson's to show Ralston's authority over the matter. While very simplistic with its message this scene has gained fame for mainly how this subtle message was told rather than the message itself.

Also I should mention this scene, despite it being brief. This scene always disturbed me due to the loud noise and creepy look of the parrot. I mean look at that!! Why would such an odd thing be in this scene? It doesn't seem to add much symbolism. I think Roger Ebert said it best....

The Eyeless Cockatoo. Yes, you can see right through the eyeball of the shrieking cocatoo, in the scene before the big fight between Kane and Susan. It's a mistake.

So even the possibly best film ever does indeed have a mistake. So why would a film with mistakes still possibly be good? Well, many other very famous films also have also had mistakes too, such as Star Wars and Jurassic Park. The reason these films are still loved is because the mistakes clearly have no effect on the plot(unless they're plot holes). The film can still be consistent with or without the mistakes.  

In 1925 one of the most famous books ever written was released. This book is simply known as The Great Gatsby. This book was about a guy who was aimlessly searching for the American Dream of getting the girl he loved using all the money he had. Later on, he learns that she will never live up to the dreams he has had of her for years. Not long after she leaves him, in which he still hopes that she will come back to him. He then unfortunately dies from being shot by an upset husband.
In 1945 Citizen Kane came out and became one of the most famous and well known and respected films in cinema history. This movie was about a guy who was aimlessly searching for the American Dream by getting all the american people to love him using all the money he had. Later on, he learns that he will never be able to get the people to love him because he never understand how to get them to love him. Not long after another guy releases evidence Kane is cheating on his wife the people no longer love him yet he still hopes that they will come back to him. He then unfortunately dies and repeats his famous line "Rosebud."
The similarities between the book and the movie are endless. In fact many people have brought up the suggestion that Kane is similar to that of Gatsby due to the way their lives play out. They both want to achieve love one way or another, but are pushed aside and eventually killed. The character of Daisy can relate to that of the American People. They are both very easily manipulated.
Many film adaptions of the Great Gatsby have also came out since the release of the book. Yet no matter how many film adaptions come out of The Great Gatsby, Citizen Kane always seems to be the superior film. This is because the film only had a similar plot to the book and wasn't based off of it. It had complete freedom.

All in all, I can see how huge and inspiration-ally awesome this film really is. It truly is one of the best films ever made! But the best film ever made? I do not believe in such nonsense. Just as Charles Kane said "I don't think there's one word that can describe a mans life," I don't think there's one movie that can describe cinema.

Sources:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTSktIXJLvDBaJ8LGlafoUD1jbr3YsIL2-jO60U1dLzX1wi2xG4dmZ1g5SSAbQvkRp8JptKlXUxSPBhCEDyfs08nR7Z8UE3pSWB7OEp3g83pPy178j8vYCC7friOzaOxXUD9Bmcl-7-qw/s1600/Poster+-+Citizen+Kane_02.jpg
http://lyoung101.qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/2011/10/09/analysis-project-1-shot-by-shot-breakdown-of-a-scene/
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/a-viewers-companion-to-citizen-kane
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOij9fn7TftbBiXh0HdzvWTnxLzD4ao1CJ3OUK7k7V6cYIhx7xyRXmgkgCZ7phGkHf30ZGKO0i7XThw9qZJI9EIdfB4ev1SGTdNmTmBf_7xa8PB4mNwvgKzkKHTIwZ1-mOrIG_x514fw/s1600/Citizen+Kane_20131123234239.JPG
http://dcairns.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/vlcsnap-2013-11-13-19h35m01s199.png

MYST POST #1: Zero Dark Thirty

I always wanted to watch this movie ever since it was released last year. The film, which was based on a true story, surrounds a CIA operative who spends over 10 years of her life hunting down the terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden. The obvious highlight of the film is when Seal Team 6 arrives to take down Bin Laden.Immediately upon watching the film it became another classic. The end scene was just shot so beautifully. I also enjoy the scene at Area 51 because this is one of the first films to show the place without any aliens! The film provides a more realistic view on exactly what happened while hunting down Bin Laden.

The specific scene I should mention is the end scene when the actual killing of Osama Bin Laden takes place. The scene was shot with first person views through the night vision goggles and interesting views of the soldiers taking out the prey in the building. It may as well be one of the best directed modern war-type scenes since the director's other film, "The Hurt Locker". The lighting was in a tone of greyish-black that gave you enough detail to see what was happening, but also made the scene a bit more ominous and serious. Most war films now in days resemble that of a video game, filled with mindless violence, but this one did not and instead gave us a more realistic view of the Navy Seals in action.

If this film is not your cup of tea there is always that other Bin Laden film with Seal Team 6 called "Seal Team Six: The Raid on Osama Bin Laden" Which focuses more on the Seals rather than the CIA agent. However keep in mind that this film has been better reviewed by critics and focuses more on the story as a whole, but does have a little more focus on one character. The character that just happens to appear through most of the story is the CIA operative who does a great job in her leading role.

Review of the Reviews

For my first ever review on this blog I have decided that the movie Pumpkinhead (1998) would be most suitable for review. After all, it is one of my favorite movies, specifically horror, of all time. The first time I have ever heard of this film was when I accidentally stumbled into this movie's wiki page when I searched up RL Stine's Pumpkinhead episode of the haunting hour online. When I saw the film and it's sequels I thought they were pretty strange and terrifying. So I just forgot about them. Later on, I saw the movie on a live stream with my sister, and at the time I then thought it was just a cheesy horror flick; But as I looked into the film and it's history I immediately fell in love with it. The effects were great, the plot was great, and the actors were pretty good. Despite my praise of the film, it seems it has gained quite surprisingly mixed reviews by critics.

The Washington Post is a very famous news source that has done countless film reviews. However, their opinion of Pumpkinhead was less desirable. Richard Harrington, one of the critics from The Washington Post described the film basically as just your average horror film; Nothing special. He criticizes the writers, Mark Patrick Carducci and Gary Gerani, for creating a predictable and very cliche plot. He even goes as far as to relate the film to Halloween IV, another poorly received horror movie coming out during the year of 1988. However, he does at least mention that the film was "inspired by a poem (by Ed Justin, just in case you're wondering)". Harrington also admits that the effects are very well made. Unfortunately for the movie, he continues by talking about how the awesome effects are wasted on a poor plot, and that it's "not the last horror film inspired by a poem," suggesting it is a cliche back story as well. Overall, the review has a negative overtone towards the film, as if it was just another horror film. One that should be ignored. I believe he talked about the film like this because he is probably not a horror fan, and only judged the film by its cover rather than detail.

 

While the Washington Post's review was pretty negative towards the Pumpkinhead film, Dread Central seemed to be more generous. Johnny Butane started the review off by stating how he always loved the premise of the film, especially the "revenge is never the best course of action," moral. He went on to talk into depth about the plot of the film and the great back story the film had. He ended up giving the film a 4 out of 5, but gave the dvd's special features a 4-1/2 out of 5.

Out of the 2 reviews of course I choose Dread Central's review over the Washington Post's because it has a nicer feel towards the film. The Washington Post sounded almost snotty in the way they talked about the film, as if it was nothing. They described it as "a close relation of Boogeyman," and how the film's "gross-out effects [would] undoubtedly be getting with Halloween IV." But despite how Harrington thought the film was a stupid horror cliche, Butane from Dead Central poses a much more positive look at the film, and the history behind it. He talks about the film's great effects, the style, the making of, even the dvd's special features so thoroughly that it kicks the other reviews butt to the depths of the abyss. So I would pick Dread Central because they are more thorough and kinder toward the film.   

                           

So much in my life wouldn't have happened if I had not seen this film. If I never watched this film with my sister, I would not be the horror fan, or even movie fan I am today. I would have probably sided with the ruder review of the Washington Post to be honest. I would have overlooked this film just as I did when I found it on Wikipedia. I would have thought it was a stupid, non-well done cliche of a movie and not look into it at all. But the Dread Central review does draw more of the reader's attention than the Washington Post. As I have said countless times, Dread Central was just more thorough and descriptive on the film than the opposing review. It also was a light more respectful to the creators of the film. So if I was given these two articles I probably would move towards the Dread Central eventually, and then thus get into the Pumpkinhead franchise as I am now. Basically, the film somehow made me a better person in realizing how people still do judge books by their cover, and how rude people can get when they do it.

If I were to right a one page review on this film, well, let me tell you one page wouldn't be enough. It's sad what happened to this film. The film had to be delayed one year later (1988) because one of the supporting companies went bankrupt. Because of this, the film's popularity and interest among the public went down, and the film is now a lost gem in the horror community.