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.

1930's Film PROJECT

During the years 1924-1930 , Sir Malcolm Campbell broke nine land-speed records. Also the Chevrolet 1935 master Deluxe was introduced and Germany had introduced the Volkswagon. While the use of Cars increased, the state of fascism did as well. Now Campbell was rumored to be a fascist but it was never proven. So my idea is to base a character of Sir Malcolm Campbell who is the poster boy for automobiles. The people will love him and will practically do anything he says, which is buy more cars. The government will control all gas and other resources necessary to take care of any car which means the people completely reliant on the government and can never question it. Now of course we'll have to say that this movie takes a little in the future the government officials are not the same in 1935 so it won't look like were bad mouthing any specific official. Also fascism itself will not be mentioned at all but it will be symbolize through the necessities of having an automobile.

The studio I decided to go with was Paramount Studios. I choose them because they had more connections to great Directors and Writers who could easily adapt this idea to the big screen. I was thinking about choosing Warner Bros. Studios but due to them mainly focusing on low budget films it wouldn't work as well with the films need for a boat load Model-T's, race cars and other automobiles.

My choice to play the lead character based on Sir Malcolm Campbell is Gary Cooper. I chose Cooper because first off, he has this very likable and trusting face which is what you need for a poster-boy. This character needs to be suave and charming for people to trust and like him. The Director I have chosen for this project is Howard Hawks. The main reason I look to him to direct this film is because of the movie Scarface (1932). Like my story, it sneaks in a disguised bio of a real life person: Al Capone! 

Now the category I want to highlight in this film is the cinematography. There could be a lot of great shots of 1st person driving or some (Extreme) high angle shots. The man I want in charge of cinematography is Bert Glennon. Granted he mostly does work for Television, but I can see this film working the same way as television movie. Bert Glennon has more experience than a large number of Directors.
The movie, I believe, should start out in brighter Technicolor. Later, as the film progresses the bright colors become more and more darker, but not however to the point of black and white. This would be to simulate how all the advances in automobiles might appear to good, but as time goes on, America's path grows evermore darker.

Looking over the Hays Code ,I don't believe there would be anything in my film that would be restricting by this. There darker tones to the film, but no sex scenes or murder.

Overall, this is my idea for the 1930s. I believe it would be very interesting development to connect something so mundane as car, to the idea of fascism.

MYST #2: Kingsman: The Secret Service (First Structured MYST)

From Matthew Vaughn: The English, action director who's not Edgar Wright, comes a James Bond movie with more cursing, blood and style in an action/spy/comedy/parody/satire that left audiences saying, "Man, I did not expect that movie to be as good as it was!"

KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE

I don't know how Matthew Vaughn does it. He has released so many astonishing films that no one thought would be as successful as they were.  For example: 'Kick-Ass' and 'X-Men: First Class'. To me, he seems like the Anti - Shyamalan; whereas people hope his films turn out good but they don't.



The film revolves around our main character, Gary "Eggsy" Unwin played by Taron Egerton. Eggsy is your average London tough guy who's also a trained Marine, parkour expert, pick-pocket and stunt driver. Eggsy's father died during a raid in the Middle East, who was a probationary secret agent. Feeling guilty his colleague, Harry Hart (played by Colin Firth), code-named "Galahad", delivers a bravery medal to the agent's widow, and her young son, Gary "Eggsy", saying that if they ever need help, they should call the phone number on the back of the medal and deliver a coded message. 17 years later, Eggsy calls the number asking Galahad to get him out trouble. Galahad then offers Eggsy a chance to do something greater and be apart of The Kingsman, a secret intelligence agency. While Eggsy undergoes training, The Kingsman are out to stop an insane, charismatic, entrepreneur named Richmond Valentine played by Samuel L. Jackson.

 First off, I love how the Kingsman are organized. There are seemingly 9 field agents or "Knights", each code-named after a fabled knight of the round table (i.e. Agent Lancelot, Agent Galahad, etc.), lead by "Arthur" who is played by Michael Caine. When any Agent dies, their spot becomes vacant and the remaining 8 Agents each nominate a candidate to fill position. The 8 candidates go through training overseen by senior Kingsman/ Ops co-ordinator  named Merlin (Mark Strong). Isn't that great code name and the perfect role for it?

Another element I thought was done well was the cinematography during most of the fight sequences. The particular scene I'll be talking about is a fight in a pub consisting of Colin Firth and drunk thugs who bully Taron Egerton. The fight begins with Firth hooking a rum a glass with the handle of his umbrella and lets it fly towards one of the thugs. When the glass flies, you're moving with it when it leaves and when it hits the brute. Granted the fight scenes are shaky-cam but Matthew Vaughn is one of the few directors who can use shaky-cam well. Also an interesting thing I noticed is that when Colin Firth's character had a fight scene, it feels more smooth and flowing and when Taron Egerton's character has a fight scene, it's a little more clunky; simulating the differen't levels of experience each character has.

The comic book action mixes perfectly with the comic book plot, almost as if it was based off a comic book. . . Oh wait it was. There's a fun fact. Actually what's interesting it about it is that the film takes a ballsy move and badmouths the entire U.S. Senate by making them all in league with the villain, including Obama.

I should probably explain what makes this film considered a "satire". Throughout the film, the ensemble likes to point out that this movie is not 'James Bond'. They have lines such as. . .

"I always thought the old Bond films were only as good as the villain."

or

"Is this the part where you say some really bad pun?"

"This ain't that kind of movie bruh."

Frankly I'm not a huge fan of the Bond films so I never really think about them,  but this was a "smidge" annoying,

Taron Egerton , does a great job holding his character together who could've easily been portrayed as obnoxious, bratty and downright unlikeable. Also, this is Egerton's second film debut so I can't really compare this role to anything else he's done, but bottom line we're probably going to see a lot more of him

Colin Firth plays senior Kingsman: Harry Hart. a.k.a Galahad. Definitely an interesting role to see Firth in. I have not viewed any of his other films but I am aware of stellar performance in 'The King's Speech'. Firth plays Galahad with aloofness crowned with a kick-ass bite.

Samuel L. Jackson plays Richmond Valentine, a young-at-heart billionaire genius who gets queazy at the sight blood with a 2nd graders lisp. His master plan is so evil and so complex I dare not be able to explain it. Jackson plays Valentine with spunk and fire. Granted the lisp is a bit annoying at moments, it's interesting to see Jackson play a more comedic character than a complex veteran.

Overall Kingsman is definitely a fun ride to go on and I recommend anyone who's a fan of action films goes and see it.

KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE (8.9/10)

Review of Reviews

AMAZING, MARVELOUS, STUPENDOUS, COLOSSUS, TREMENDOUS, GIGANTIC, ASTOUNDING, UNBELIEVABLE, SPECTACULAR, PHENOMENAL..... and it's good, too.

Dir. Edgar Wright's third installation to the Cornetto Trilogy, The Worlds End is undoubtedly one of the funniest comedies to ever hit theaters. The characters are enjoyable (again), the setting is great (again), the effects are cheap but stylish (again) and the jokes are too many to count (again). I'm actually at a loss of words, I wish had more than a paragraph to write it. If you have not seen this film. . . NAY if you have not seen any of the Cornetto films: drop what you're doing and watch them.

I have read two reviews, a positive one from the New Yorker and the other from the Newark Star Ledger. I must put my bias away and look at both of these reviews equally. Lets see how the enjoyed or hated "THE WORLDS END"

I'll begin with the negative review from the 'Newark Star Ledger'. The review isn't that lengthy, in fact I really couldn't find any negative reviews that were. The critic here isn't trying to make this review a poetic look into how we perceive movies or comedies, he keeps it a slow pace and makes it easy to follow. This critic seems to be not a fan of the comedic stylings of co-writer/lead Simon Pegg, who has been the protagonist in the other Cornetto films. The critic finds Peggs performance as annoying and childish as his last performance. Which is strange seeing as how Peggs last performance was as an action hero cop. The reviewer liked to focus on how nothing was a surprise and that it was very dull and predictable and tries to compare it to other disaster movies that came out around the same time such as This is the End. However he does still appreciate the work put in by Edgar Wright and acknowledges his geek/fanboy background. Overall the review is harmless and not very deep. It just seems to be that this critic wasn't as huge of geek for this movie.

Now for the positive review from the 'New Yorker'. This review is longer which is no surprise for a positive review. He immediately opens up by letting us realize he's a clear fan of the first 2 Edgar Wright films and he enjoys this one just as much. This critic tends to use a lot more more references for his review which gives it a much more child-like/bubbly feel. Although while this review seems more childlike exciting, he still uses metaphors that you don't hear everyday. The critic takes time to point why this story about adults going through a mid-life crisis is funnier than when someone like Adam Sandler does it in Grown Ups 2. Like all movies, the Critic does take the time to bring up some downhill moments or flaws that every movie has but like the movie says, "Thats what makes it normal." All in all this is a compelling review that brings out the fun of the movie

"If you have watched and rewatched “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz,” poring over them as if they were medieval manuscripts, you will know what to expect—or, at least, to hope for—from 'The World’s End'". That was a quote from the 'New Yorker' review. You can't truly appreciate this quote unless you've seen these movies. The reason I enjoyed it so much because It is 100% accurate. I will watch these movies over and over again because there so much entertainment value in it that it's extremely hard not to enjoy. I'm glad that critic is able to relate to the audience which makes it a lot more easier to connect to the review. Wright understands the pleasure of a good fantasy film. A few of his touches — like the open-mouthed horror with which the robots greet humans — are nice lifts from other films. 'This was from the 'Newark Star Ledger'. I'm glad that even when fans are not satisfied by the film they still admit that Wright is creative mind that makes worlds just filled with whimsy and wonder.

Now If I had never seen this movie I would definitely go with the review from the 'New Yorker'. The negative review doesn't go into much detail. Also review doesn't go into "whiny" territory but it just seems to me like a kid who wasn't happy with his McDonald's meal. As well, it's very short, so the point comes across almost radically and it's hard to grab onto what he's trying to get across. The NYT review gets more into if and makes references to the film which feels more engaging. I realize that a positive review would naturally make those references but I have seen negative reviews do it as well in the hopes of teasing the film. I felt the negative review didn't have to be more intellectual sounding but it should've elaborated more. Furthermore the negative review didn't even seem to think it was an awful film, he just thought it was a meh film. The NYT review seemed like a kid the day after Christmas talking about his favorite toy he got and it's just so much fun to see that little kid enjoy his new toy. 

Now I'm very new at writing movie reviews and i might be very bad at it. No one has told me yet about how good I am at transferring my thoughts to word. Hopefully this class will assist me in getting better at it. Now when I do write reviews I usually focus on my favorite part of the movie which is usually the characters but it can be other things.  I love analyzing character emotions motives, actions and sometimes look (depending on what kind of movie it is).I will try my best to cover all grounds: story, setting, cinematography and all that jazz. Now one could argue that unless you mention all those factors, it could be considered an unfair review. Now I would have to disagree with that because I believe you should critique whatever impacted you the most: like if the characters were written great or, heck, if they were written terribly. Whatever makes this movie memorable to is what you discuss and share with audience because it is, after all, your  opinion

MYST#1: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Beam yourself up into 132 minutes of action, adventure, mystery and a crap-ton of lens flares in this sequel to the highly praised reboot of the 1960s Television Series.

Now I never watched the original TV series or any of its movies and now after seeing both these flicks I'm still not interested. Luckily, thanks to J.J. Abrams, you don't need to have any knowledge of the original series to get invested with either films.

The Team is back: Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zoe Saldanna), Bones (Karl Urban), Scotty (Simon Pegg), plus new characters such as Carol Marcus (Alice Eve) and John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). Sadly with all these characters some have to be pushed aside like, Sulu (John Cho) and Chekov (Anton Yelchin).  I'll give brief descriptions of the main characters because I do believe these characters really make the movie.

Chris Pine does a good job of playing Captain Kirk again. We can see him pay homage to original actor, William Shatner, by hamming it up but mildly and also putting enough of himself in the role to make it his own.

Zachary Quinto should get an award for his portrayal of Spock. He plays an alien who doesn't emote yet somehow his presence gives off respect, loyalty, trustworthiness and lovingness. Speaking of which, the romance. between Spock and Saldanna's character is cute, believable and not shoved down our throats or contrived.

Sadly the only character who didn't leave a huge impact was Zoe Saldanna's role. Her acting and portrayal was fine but it felt like she only did one thing, which was speak cling-on (or however you spell it)

Benedict Cumberbatch plays *SPOILERS*.  John Harrison is just a fictitious role conjured up to hide his true identity. Although only "Trekkies" (as the fans call themselves) will known Cumberbatch's character and people not familiar with franchise might recognize the name but won't be a %100 sure. I can at least say his acting is sharp, strict and to the point. He demands so much fear and respect and Im not sure he allows his face to twitch while holding that frown constantly through the entire movie.

Now remember when I said some characters were pushed aside? Well some were brought up more like Simon Pegg's portrayal of the enginer Scotty who, In my opinion, almost stole the show with his performance. He puts so much time and energy into this character you think, "Oh that must be how the actor normally is in reality." I could go on about him but I want to get to my favorite character...

Now remember when I said some characters were pushed aside, again? While not the most, Karl Urbans performance as Dr. "Bones" McCoy was reduced due to the large number of characters which I thought was rather disappointing. In fact I believed he deserved more screen time in first film as well. Karl plays Bones as a man of experience and morality. A man of aggression but still believes in the peaceful route. A young grump.  I've always seen Spock and Bones as the two angels on Kirks shoulders each telling him how to handle the situation. Off-topic but after seeing Urbans performance I immediately thought Hollywood should've looked at him to be the new Batman instead of Ben Affleck.

Into Darkness is mostly CG, but there are also a good amount of hand-built sets to go along with it. Also the CG is done quit well. I can tell they're not in space, but it's not attention-stealing bad. The make-up director should also be congratulated, showing us a whole variety of creative creatures who do look real.

Just as TV's original Trek boldly went where '60s civics classes had gone before, Star Trek: Into Darkness, tackles issues with a contemporary ring. There's a suicide bombing, drones and some chatter about genetic engineering.

Director Abrams is working with a script that touches about every touchstone from the original series so you'll understand why I can't give too much away. If you're looking for a good popcorn movie too watch, pick up the first film from 2009 and if you liked it, then go ahead and view Into Darkness. I guarantee you won't be disappointed,

Film Intro Survey

1. The first movie that made a strong impression on me was Iron Man. I really got into looking up movie facts and releases dates and leaked footage after I saw Iron Man.

2. My favorite movie Genres are Comedy, action/adventure, mystery/thriller.

3. My least favorite movie Genres are Romance, Found-Footage and Musical (Musical Movies)

4. 5 of my favorite movies (in no order): Guardians of the Galaxy, Nightcrawler, Hot Fuzz, Django Unchained and Snow Piercer

5. 3 characteristics that I believe make a good movie: Interesting Characters, Strong Dialogue, Keeps you Guessing.

6. Some of my least favorite movies: Mamma Mia, Jupiter Ascending, Transformers 2-4 and anything made by Adam Sandler

7. Characteristics that make a bad movie are Convoluted and Unnecessary Plot Twists, Uninterested Actors and Crew Members, poor writing and Cardboard characters.

8. My favorite directors are J.J. Abrams, Joss Whedon and Edgar Wright.

9.  Some of my Favorite Actors and Actresses: Chris Pratt, Robert Downey Jr., Simon Pegg, Christoph Waltz, Zoe Saldanna, Neil Patrick Harris, Charlize Theron.

10. 3 films students in film class need to see are: Captain Phillips, Airplane (A comedic Classic), Nightcrawler (Just a really really really good movie)

11. 3 Movies anyone should see: The Room (It's so bad it's entertaining), New Hope, Animal House

12. The best movie I've seen in the past two years is Nightcrawler

13. The next five films on my queue are: Zodiac, Kingsman: Secret Service, Interstellar, Birdman, The Godfather.