Boyhood

Boyhood, Directed by Richard Linklater, depicts the childhood and adolescence of Mason Evans, Jr. (Coltrane) from ages six to eighteen as he grows up in Texas with divorced parents (Arquette and Hawke). The biggest thing that Boyhood, has going for it, is that it was filmed through 13 years. It started filming in 2002 and ended in 2013. We follow the same actor through his childhood to his adolescent years and then on into college. Now thats very impressive for two reasons: Interest and actors. A lot of directors probably would've just dropped the project halfway through because they had a new idea they wanted to pursue and they needed to make time for it or they just lost interest in trying to tell this story. The other big thing was the actors. The whole film has the same lead in childhood through college. This could've have very easily backfired with the kids growing up and not being good actors. One of the older actors being in an accident and passing or away or just losing interest. Anyway that's not what we're here to talk about. What we're here to talk about is the editing that shows the audience the life of Mason Evans, Jr.

Now of course a big aspect in this film is the editing between scenes. When they were filming this movie they probably filmed a lot of footage with these actors once a year, but obviously not everything makes it in. We don't see a small scene for every year of his life. So we may go from 6th to 8th or to 9th. Now your not able to what year he's in for every scene there a lot where you just assume he hasn't aged much and that'll most likely be it. However because of this you need to make sure every scene counts!

Lets talk about the second husband: Bill. In the scene when the whole family goes out after the newlyweds return from there Honeymoon, Bill snaps at his son, Randy, for playing 20 questions. Nothing huge here. We just see that Bill has rules for his kids. Next time we see him, he's teaching Mason and Randy to play golf. Bill doesn't snap or yell at the two boys but he really urges them to keep trying even though they are clearly not interested. Okay, still good: We see he wants his kids to do work. What's next? He makes Mason get a buzzcut because he dislikes his long hair. Okay... so he's one of those more uptight parents? Alright. Then the next scene he gets upset because all those kids don't finish there chores and while he's warning there kids about doing their work he's getting drink. We can't be 100% sure it's alcohol but it's definitely not water or juice. He also makes his wife, masons mother, Olivia back him up. Alright, he's really strict and he likes drinkinnnnnn... Oh wait. Since there's no main goal in this film, each scene has something small that will continued to be built up even if by the end it's not important.

Also the time lapses can sometimes go right into each other. For example, when we first meet Bill, he's still Olivia's professor and they're only flirting at this point. Bill then offers the idea that his kids along with Mason and his sister Samantha should have a play date. The scene later ends and our next scene opens with Mason, Samantha and the other kids playing on a trampoline. Oh is the playdate happening? The kids run inside and greet Bill and Olivia walking in the door carrying luggage and we see a big Welcome back sign. Oh, they got married! There are a lot of those were we think it's starting off at the next day but in reality it's been a year or so. Which will force you to pay attention.

I remember a lot of older movies in the past would do these huge times lapse and throughout the film too. Actually I watched a film the exact same week as I did "Boyhood". It was called "How the West was Won" and I watched it in U.S. History. This Film had a lot of the time skips throughout. Sadly they were placed with those slowly fade away transitions in between scenes. They never do say what year it is or who's story we're following: We just we have to figure it out for ourselves.

Live. Die. Repeat.: Edge of Tomorrow MYST

I'm a huge fan of action sci-fi flicks. "Guardians of the Galaxy" is actually my favorite movie to watch. However as far as action movies go I have never seen any of the "Mission Impossible" movies. In fact I had not seen any of Tom Cruise's movies until recently when I watched "Edge of Tomorrow"  (Also marketed with tag-line LIVE. DIE. REPEAT.) The film starring Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt,  takes place in a future where Earth is invaded by an alien race. Major William Cage (Cruise), a public relations officer with no combat experience, is forced by his superiors to join a landing operation against the aliens. Though Cage is killed in combat, he finds himself in a time loop that sends him back to the day preceding the battle every time he dies. Cage teams up with Special Forces warrior Rita Vrataski (Blunt) to improve his fighting skills through the repeated days, seeking a way to defeat the extraterrestrial invaders.

When I was a little kid and wasn't into movies as much, the response to the question, "Name a famous actor." was always the same: Tom Cruise. Whether you like him or not he's undoubtedly one of the most popular actors of all time. Like, Tom Cruise was the default skin for the action hero. So as I got older and more invested with movies, I always placed Tom Cruise in this section of cliche action actors so I never was interested in any of his movies. As continued to grow older I found out Tom Cruise was rumored to be a "weird guy" due to stuff like his outburst on "Oprah" on he loves Katie Holmes. (Also I find it funny he's labeled weird but when Jennifer Lawrence does this kind of stuff she's called "quirky") Also I knew people freaked out him being a scientologist and the only I knew about that was that it was unusual. Actually just recently I read up on what scientology and now I don't think I want to promote anything else with Tom Cruise or John Travolta from here-on-in. This will be (probably) the only time I bring this up so don't worry.

I think this is the first time in a serious action movie where I saw the main lead actually say no to being a hero. I've seen it in comedies and other stuff, but this is the first time the lead says no like a jerk, it's basically "Yeah thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather be where it's safe" I know other films have done this sort of before but this time it seemed really different and unique. Cruise's selfishness is only in the movie for so long and it doesn't grow on anyones nerves.

Now lets talk about the biggest thing in the film: The living. The Dying. And the Repeating. First a little bit of background. How Cruise gets this ability is he killed an elite alien member, whose species were connected to some Chrono-thing that would allow them to start the day over if they died giving the aliens an advantage in the war. However when Cruise kills the creature, he ingests some of its blood and gains the ability. ( Confusing. I know. Just go with it) Anyways during his loops he discovers that Emily Blunt's character had the ability as well but lost it when she got a blood transfusion. Like mentioned earlier, the movie is mostly repeating the day, getting farther and farther each time. It's a great way to see Cruise's character develop throughout the story. In fact this story is able to put the audience in the shoes of Cruise and Blunts character. In one scene, Blunts character wants to keep going but Cruise wants to stop and rest but we then discover Cruise doesn't want to continue because Blunt never makes it past that point in time no matter what. So we're in the dark as much as Blunt was even though Cruise was our eyes and ears. There's another instance where this happens but I won't give it away.

The aliens in this movie are... okay. Not much is known about them and their design is...okay. This movie doesn't focus that much time on them besides shooting them. There aren't that many other huge characters in this film or at least none that deserve much attention. (Bill Paxton is in this. If that means anything to anyone.) The CGI is good. Which reminds me, they never clarify what year this movie takes place. We only see the advance technologies in the military camps and the technology they have in the civilian areas are the same as we have now.

Overall, Edge of Tomorrow is a fun, action packed, sci-fi film that's ORIGINAL. (Okay it's loosely based off a japanese novel). If you're in the mood for mindless action but also good story and characters, definitely check this movie out.
EDGE OF TOMORROW: 8/10

Short Term !2

It's sad to say that most movies now-a-days films have a predictable formula. Whether it be romance, horror, action or chick-flick, almost all the movies now have been seen. That doesn't make them bad but a lot of audiences have been wanting to sick their teeth into something where they are unable to predict the out come. That's where Short Term 12 comes in. This film features Brie Larsen as Grace-the lead character who is in charge of guiding the at-risk teens in the foster home in which she and her fiancee, Mason, work. Grace has a bit of a troubled past like the kids she looks after and she's managed to keep it down and in the past until a young girl with problems similar to the ones she's trying to hide checks into the facility. This girl is named Jayden and she is the typical angsty teen, but the subtle hints she leaves Grace about her troubled home life causes Grace to sit back and examine her own situation that she's tried to push away for years.
I believe the best thing this movie has going for it is it's use of camera work. The camera here wouldn't use any tripod or stabilizer so the camera movement makes you, the viewer, standing there with characters moving. We instantly realize this with the opening which involves one of the inhabitants of Shot Term 12 trying to make a break for it. The running feels real due to the camera adopting a hand-held motion. The camera movement also works when there is nothing really going on in the scene. For example, the scene where Jayden is trying to explain to Grace, through symbolism, about her abusive father. It's never too ditsracting and somehow never unnoticable but in a good way.
One film that didn't use shakey cam well was "Hunger Games"

This entire movie makes me want to throw up into my popcorn. It tries to simulate the fast shakey movement of an action see so it comes out all blurry but surprise, surprise, we actually want to see the action sequences.

MYST #3: MAD MAX: Fury Road "Mario Kart from Hell"

The role Mel Gibson was too "mad" to play.

From the director that brought you colorful, family friendly films such as Happy Feet and Babe: Pig in the City. . . Comes a masterpiece of hand-crafted, death and destruction that takes place in HELL on Earth! 

. . .wait a minute . . .?

MAD MAX: Fury Road

The fourth installment in the Mad Max franchise directed by George Miller, the film is set in a future desert wasteland where gasoline and water are scarce commodities. It follows Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy), who joins forces with Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) to flee from cult leader Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne) and his army in an armoured tanker truck, which leads to a lengthy road battle. The film also features Nicholas Hoult, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Riley Keough, Zoë Kravitz, Abbey Lee, and Courtney Eaton.

This movie had a lot of build-up to it. With todays films being wall-to-wall CGI, this film uses much for practical effects and realistic shots. However, before I talk about this I'll walk through the story because, honestly, there's not that much. Another thing I would like to mention is that I haven't watched any of the other Mad Max films; I've only seen Fury Road so I am not aware if this is a sequel or reboot.

Our main "Hero" is Max Rockatansky, portrayed by Tom Hardy, who some of you may know as Bane from 'The Dark Knight Rises'.  Max is a silent loner who. . . who. . . honestly there's not much known about his backstory.
So our "other" main protagonist is Imperator Furiosa: played Charlize Theron. Theron was rogue member of the villain, Immortan Joe's, army but she helped his five wives-selected for breeding-escape! Hardy and Theron team up, along with an albino ravager played by Nicholas Holt,  to take the wives to a location called the "Green Place". . . but then they decided to turn around and defeat the villain and free all his slaves. . . THE END 

The film is so simple, yet still so complex to understand.

Now there are 2 aspects of the film that some audience members are displeased with: 1) There's not a lot of explanation and 2) Max doesn't feel like the lead.

The first issue Is correct; Fury Road doesn't go into a lot of detail.  Like I said earlier, Max has hallucinations but we're never explained what they mean. We don't know if we're seeing family, friends or random people he happen to have met. Another huge example is the Guitar Guy . . .

He's a member of the villains army, but he hardly does any fighting. All he does is play that flamethrower guitar. Granted it's one of the most awesome, WTF, testosterone filled- thing i've ever seen in my life, but what the heck is his purpose?
I have a way of looking at it: A lazy film gives you a blank page; something you've seen a million times and a film trying too hard gives you too much where you can't make it out. Fury Road, however, is a like a connect-the-dots. It doesn't give you all the information but it lets you see it for what it is. It allows the viewer to become more engaged because you can connect-the-dots.

Now to address the 2nd issue: Max, surprisingly, doesn't feel like the lead in "Mad Max". Max doesn't have much dialogue and the reasoning for the plot to happen seems more like it's for Charlize Theron's character. This issue I can easily address. I have researched (Happy Feet, Babe: Pig in the City) that in many of Georges Millers films, the lead is probably the most boring character--by comparison. That's because the main character of his films are the audiences eyes and ears. What Max is afraid of, we are afraid of. What he is surprised by, we are surprised by.

Definitely the best part about this entire film was the action. All the use of practical effects and lack of CGI was great breath of Fresh air. Just like the original Mad Max, lets hope this film is the beginning to a series of movies that are able to simulate realistic action.

MEMENTO

If you're a person who doesn't have trust issues, then clearly you've never seen the movie 'Memento'. From the moment the film begins, the audience is completely lost.  We begin at the ending which transitions to the beginning in the next scene and after that scene we begin at the endings beginning that we saw in the beginning. Confused yet? Well have fun. Now while editing to this movie is very strange and confusing, the film wouldn't have been the same without it. Don't I won't leave you with just that vague explanation: Each new colored scene ends where the scene before began. In other words, each new scene is chronologically one step before the scene it follows. To make things more complicated, mixed into these colored scenes, are black and white sequences of (chronologically) the first scene. If this movie was shot from beginning to end, the first b&w scene would be the first scene in the movie. Now another reason this style of editing makes the film so fascinating is the plot twist that takes place at the end of the movie. Or should I say the middle of the film

You might be asking why anyone, ever would want to watch a film like this? It's all very confusing but I think that it gives the viewer a sense of how the main character feels. Lenard can't make new memories so whenever his train of thought starts over again, he's disoriented and lost. That's what it's goal was. To make the audience feel lost and disoriented. As your watching the film you never know which characters are lying or if their story has just been distorted. Now granted part of the plot twist is very confusing and even you prepared for the editing style, you'll still be very confused.

Now while I haven't seen this film, I have heard a lot (and seen clips) about the style of 'Inception' Both films move you along the story at a smooth(ish) pace. And through the whole film you have no idea if everything happening is real or just in the main characters head.

Formal Film Study: Joss Whedon Sci-Fi

The three films of his I have chosen to look at are, Dr. Horribles Sing-Along Blog, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Serenity!

(DISCLAIMER: I was sadly distracted and realized that Dr. Horrible was first released as a TV Series and it was cut into episodes. However in my defense when I found it online it was labeled as one big TV movie.)

The first thing I immediately noticed after watching all of these movies, was that each film carried one similar message: that message being, "Technology is dangerous!" Whedon skillfully uses modern technology to advance plot lines and tell a compelling story, and not just for the sake of showing viewers something shiny. A theme running through Whedon’s shows and movies is that technology is to be used cautiously. In Dr. Horrible, this theme is portrayed on a very literal level. Dr. Horrible video blogs about his criminal plans, and as “the L.A.P.D and Captain Hammer are among [Dr. Horrible’s] viewers,” his plans are foiled. Even more disastrous is Dr. Horrible’s use of rays, of both the “Freeze” and “Death” varieties. Initially appearing just to be comic-fun-after all the Freeze ray is powered by "Wonderfloniam"- this technology ultimately results in the death of (SPOILERS).

In Avengers: Age of Ultron, the premise is how futurist, co-leader, Tony Stark a.k.a Ironman, finds a power a source and tries to create A.I. (Artificial Intelligence). The experiment results in him creating the villainous robot Ultron, who want's to provide eternal peace for humanity. However, he believes the only way to find piece is in humanity's extinction. Without giving too much away, one of Ultrons attributes is that he is able to hack into the web and access all types of surveillance. This is mostly where the message of technology being dangers fits in (aside from the fact that a piece of technology wants to destroy the planet). During an interview, Marc Ruffalo (The Hulk) had this to say to the Wall Street Journal


"It's not a coincidence, I don't feel, with this giant surveillance state and this sort of explosion of technology, and now with artificial intelligence — that this movie comes out around this very moment where you have people like Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking coming out with a warning letter to the world that we should cease and desist further development of artificial intelligence so we can really understand what it is we're creating with fear that it will come to destroy all mankind.
 -a month later, Avengers: Age of Ultron is coming out, where you have the direct manifestation and nightmarish specter of Ultron and all of the collected knowledge of mankind and the ability to be everywhere at once, hits the market, hits the populace." - Mark Ruffalo

But Ultron as a villain wasn't just born out of super-intelligent AI paranoia fueled by dire "AI will end us" Ultron-5 was depicted as "The Living Automation" in Marvel comic Avengers #55. In fact, mankind has long been afraid of technological singularity (robot uprising). Anyone remember "Skynet"?

A powerful example that technology can be dangerous lesson comes from the movie Serenity, based on the canceled -too early series, Firefly. I would like to mention that no shot better captures Whedon's juxtaposition of old and new than the title credits of Firefly that shows a horse galloping on dry, desert land, while a space ship soars overhead. The basic description of Firefly and Serenity is the series is set in the year 2517, after the arrival of humans in a new star system and follows the adventures of the renegade crew of "Serenity", a "Firefly-class" spaceship. The ensemble cast portrays the nine characters who live on Serenity. The show explores the lives of a group of people who fought on the losing side of a civil war and others who now make a living on the fringe of society, as part of the pioneer culture that exists on the fringes of their star system. In this future, the only two surviving superpowers, the United States and China, fused to form the central federal government, called the Alliance, resulting in the fusion of the two cultures. 

In the Film Serenity, it is revealed that a government’s secret technology that was designed to keep a planet’s population calm (releasing substance in the atmosphere) unexpectedly resulted in the entire population either dying of apathy (including not wanting to eat) or, for a small percentage, turning them into rage-filled cannibalistic creatures (reavers). This isn't only trying inform the audience of the dangers of investing in sciences and technologies that we still don't fully understand but that we shouldn't be afraid to question our government.

According to Whedon's vision, "nothing will change in the future: technology will advance, but we will still have the same political, moral, and ethical problems as today"

Speaking of advanced technologies, both Age of Ultron and Serenity, required the aid of a lot of CGI and special effects, but Dr. Horrible had an extremely limited budget. In fact, they could only afford to do a lot of scenes in one take so they had to make sure that everything went completely as planned.  The reason for the small budget was because Whedon and his writing team came up with musical during the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike. The idea was to create something small and inexpensive, yet professionally done, in a way that would circumvent the issues that were being protested during the strike.

Theres something I noticed about Joss Whedon movies: He likes to kill off his main characters. I don't just mean he kills off a side-character or a villain, Whedon prefers to kill off someone in the main cast. This is so common killing off members of his central cast has almost become standard operating procedure.  Also he kills these characters without any build-up or warning. In Dr. Horrible the main love interest, Penny (Felicia Day) was killed in a quite depressing way. In the film Age of Ultron we lost a new Avenger! Pietro Maximoff a.k.a. Quicksilver (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and the most upsetting (to me) was Wash (Alan Tudyk) in the film Serenity. Actual two people were killed in that film, Wash and Shepherd Book (Ron Glass). Although each is killed in an impersonal and seemingly random way (sliced in half, hit by stray bullet, and impaled by wooden missile, respectively), their passing serve to remind us that death is an inevitable part of life. While we would like to believe that the good guys will always walk away and live to fight another day, Whedon reminds us that casualties occur on both sides in a war.

Now while all these similarities are well and good, I was thinking about what connected these films on a larger directing level. I tried to think what element of all these films 100% guarantees these are Joss Whedon branded movies. Was it the stories? No, Age of Ultron has so many characters that they steal the focus. Was it the size? No, no it can't be the size, I mean look at Dr. Horrible they had such close knit cast of characters. . .

Then I realized it. The strongest element in all of Joss Whedon's productions. The Characters! It's Joss Whedons special ability; his superpower! Whedon has a great talent of writing and developing characters! No matter the size, no matter the diversity, Whedon is able to connect these characters together on a larger level. Even though there are so many big names in a film like Avengers, you care for each and every character and you want to see them all make it through the ordeal. When he kills off characters, it's not for shock value, it's to help you realize that you could relate these characters and that you shouldn't be taking them for granted. Think about it! Fans get infuriated when we lose a character because we love them so much!  None of his characters are cardboard cut outs, they definitely aren't stereotypes. They are human beings (aliens, robots, vampires what have you). I'll will remember these characters whether they're alive or dead.

Citizen Kane

If you were to ask one hundred critics what they thought the best movie in the world was. . . they'd definitely give different responses. However, some of them might have the same opinion and say that, the greatest movie of all time is 'Citizen Kane'. While you're able to agree o disagree, there's no doubt about it that Kane brought forth cinematic elements that were ahead of it's time.

One of these key film elements that is utilized quite well is the lighting. Orson Welles definitely thought everything through when he was creating his masterpiece. The most notable example was how the main reporter, Thompson, is mostly kept in the shadows. Throughout the entire film all we can really see is his silhouette. Orson Welles used this technique as a way to make sure the audience doesn't perceive Thompson as our main focus. Thompson at the very least is the audiences eyes and ears. We learn about the main focus, Kane, through him.

Another scene in the film that is visually striking is after his wife performs terribly in the opera. Kane then stands up and claps his hands. Again the use of shadow is very significant. At first he claps his hands like everyone else out of respect to the performer but when he stands up and continues clapping, he’s alone and covered in a shadow. The use of shadow here is very expressive in that it shows that Kane’s standing ovation does not matter for he is alone when it comes to his opinion.

One scene, however, that doesn't work with the lighting is the scene where Kane's fiance has decided to divorce him and leave. Kane is then alone in her bedroom when all of a sudden he has a huge fit of rage. The scene seemed too bright and blaring. I think it need to be dimmed down and put in the shadows more. It would've made the seem appear more dramatic and distraught.

The lighting in this was heavily to portray dominance from other characters. Often times, the shadow of one person was used to overcast a weaker character or the more dominant character would be shadowed to give him more mystery. Throughout the film we used the lighting to indicate the moods. All the sets of Xanadu are shot very shadowy to emphasize its empty state and large scale.