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.