MYST Post #6: Ride Along

This movie has been on my list of movies to watch since it's come out to theaters. The trailer looked interesting and I mean, who doesn't love Kevin Hart? This movie is about this guy named Ben Barber, played by Kevin Hart, who is trying to obtains his girlfriend's brother's, James Payton played by Ice Cube, blessing to marry his sister. Ben goes on a "ride along" with James, who is a cop, in order to prove that he is worthy of his sister and can protect her. On the ride along, Ben gets assigned to deal with annoying crimes/citizens known as case 126's. Ben fails at all these tasks until he realizes that some of them were set up by James so that he would fail. By the end of the night, Ben and James get involved in a huge crime that changes both their lives. This movie overall was decent in that it has some humor scattered around, but the overall plot was a tad bit boring.

In my opinion, the actors for each part, for the main characters at least, fit their other roles in this movie very well. Kevin Hart is known to be quite the comedian. He does stand up comedy, but also plays the role of the "love-maker" and comedian in movies, such as in Think Like A Man. He brings the humor out in the audience, which is perfect for Ride Along since it is a comedy movie mixed with action. Ice Cube is another actor that I think fits his role nicely. He usually stars in gangster or crime fighting movies such as Boyz n the Hood. In Ride Along, he plays James who is the tough guy cop who thinks that he is the boss of everyone and is able to protect everyone, especially his sister. He gets involved in situation that end in gun shootings or hand to hand combat which seem to really be his "thing." Finally, another one of the main characters that seem to fit her role by looking at her previous roles is Tika Sumpter. She comes off as the girl who goes for the money and is always in need of help. Another time she played a role like this other than in Ride Along is in the tv show "Gossip Girl." Her name was Raina Thorpe and she had a short affair with Chuck Bass who is very rich and powerful. She was very deceitful in the relationship because she wanted Chuck's money. That is something that is a little different in Ride Along in that she wants her and Ben's relationship to go on to the next level since she loves him.

One of my favorite scenes from the movie that actually made me laugh out loud was the one where Ben is still a high school security guard of the lunch room. The scene starts with a extreme long shot of the school while the bell rings in the background. This is used to show the setting of the next couple minutes of the movie. It then moves on to a medium shot of Ben talking to the lunch lady about how rough his life is. This shot is used to show any hand motions he uses and to see the outfits so that we know who they are. The scene then switches to a long shot for the rest of it. A long shot is used to show the entire lunch room as Ben goes through it telling people to stop dancing on the table and fighting (best part: look at gif). The final part is of Ben doing a "kick move" across the lunch table in order to chase this kid named Ramon. The long shot is used to show the action of Ben and the students and to see everything that is going on around him. It doesn't limit what we see which is helpful so that we feel like we're a part of the lunchroom, too.

The movie as a whole contained various types of cinematic elements including shots, music, and effects. The sound effects were very on point with the explosions and gunshots especially. As mentioned from the previous paragraph, long shots were also prevalent. They were used mainly for full body action shots which are very common in an action movie. The use of low angle was also seen especially during the arguments between Ben and James. This is used to show how Ben is inferious in James' eyes. Another noticeable technique they used is a very dark toned movie which makes sense since it's a movie about a ride along with a policeman. It also involves a lot of gunshots so the darkness works for that. The music was also what some people would consider "ghetto" or throwbacks. For the most part, the music fit the scenes as background music and sometimes it even adds a bit of humor to it.

All in all, this movie was only decent in my opinion. It wasn't as comedic as I hoped it would be and the plot seemed similar and expected. I give Ride Along 3.8/5 stars for this reason and the fact that the dialogue could have been a bit more interesting.

MYST Post #5: Frozen

There's been a lot of talk about this movie both before and after the Oscars ceremony. I've always wanted to see the movie in its entirety, but never had the chance to until this weekend at the 24 hour relay. It was one of the movies they played at midnight on the football field while everyone was cuddling and balled up to stay warm. This movie is about this girl named Elsa that has these magical ice/snow powers that she tries to hide by wearing gloves. She eventually gets out of hand and puts a curse on the entire town so that they have an eternal winter unless she switches it back. Instead, Elsa runs away causing her sister, Anna, to go after her and try to get her to come back. Anna encounters may obstacles with a guy she met on the road, Kristoff and his reindeer Sven. These include getting healed by a bunch of trolls, being thrown out of the castle, fighting off an ice monster, and even death. Overall, I really enjoyed this movie even though it was animated. It's like a classic Disney princess movie, except that it doesn't end in the girl getting with her prince charming.


The actors in this movie, in my opinion, aren't as well known as the ones in the other movies I have reviewed on this blog. One of my favorites in this movie is Idina Menzel. Her voice is so magnificent and powerful. In addition to starring in Frozen as Elsa, she played a role in Enchanted and the tv show "Glee". In both of these, she starred in a role that involved singing and being in charge. This reflects in Frozen because she is the reason for the cold weather and is technically the queen of the town. Kristen Ball and Josh Grad are the other two more main characters in this movie. Kristen Ball, as seen in her role as Anna in Frozen too, plays more of the girly roles where she falls in love and can sometimes be ditzy. An example is the movie When in Rome. Josh Grad, in comparison to the other two, is more of a minor character; this is something he does in most movies. For the role he played in The Internship, people would barely realize he starred in it as the guy behind the recruitment of the interns. He portrays someone who is ultimately a genius in this movie. In contrast, Grad's role in Frozen is of that of Olaf, the snowman. In this one, he isn't portrayed as a smart person, but in fact of a happy go lucky snowman who doesn't realize that he will melt in the summer. Overall, I was pretty happy with the cast choices and of the characters in the movie in general.

The scene I chose to talk about in this post is one that stayed in my mind for a while now. It's the scene in the very beginning of the movie where we are first revealed Elsa's powers when Elsa and Anna play in the big room in the middle of the night. (They are still children in this scene.) The scene starts off with an extreme long shot of the big ballroom to start off with the setting. It then alternates between medium shots and close-ups of Elsa's hand forming snow and the expressions on Anna's face to the girls holding hands and spinning in circles. There is then a low angle shot of when Elsa throws the ball of snow in the air to start a snowfall. This is used so that we see the snow in the same perspective as Anna and Elsa. It then switches to a high angle so that we can see the girls dancing around and having lots of fun from a bird's eye view. This allows us to see how small they are in comparison to the room and to see all of their actions. The scene then alternates between long shots and close-ups. The long shots are used to show any actions Anna and Elsa are doing that usually involve more than one body part, such as building Olaf (my favorite character in the entire movie). Close-ups are used in order to show their facial expressions or an action coming from a specific body part like Elsa's foot causing the entire floor to turn into an ice skating rink.

Considering the fact that this is an animated movie and it's mostly made using a computer, the special effects are a lot easier to handle and make compared to others. An example of this is with that scene I talked about in the previous paragraph. They are able to alternate between different shots very easily since it is drawn out and done through a computer. The soundtrack, more specifically the singing of Idina Menzel, is amazing. The songs are very catchy and a little different than the usual Disney movies. The tone of the voice-overs also match what you would expect, meaning they chose the actors to play these characters very well. Last but not least, most of the movie had a blueish tint to it. This works perfectly with the movie because it is about an ice princess and winter, which in most people's minds are blue and white. Overall, the cinematography and effects of the movie were great, probably most due to the fact that it was done by a computer so slightly easier to alternate between things.

The movie as a whole met my expectations for how it would be after listening to so many people rant on how it was so good. I do agree to it being one of my favorite animated movie as it is different from the classic plot lines of the older movies. I give Frozen a 4.4/5 stars because I think that it is a classic that everyone should watch at one point in their life.

Formal Film Study #2: Oscar Winners for Visual Effects and Cinematography

For my film study this quarter, I decided to focus on the last three Oscar winners for visual effects and cinematography. The last 3 Oscar winners were Hugo (2012), Life of Pi (2013), and Gravity (2014).  I chose this topic because I thought it would be interesting to see how the special effects have developed throughout the years. Considering these movies were released so close together, there was no drastic change, although, small changes were definitely evident. I enjoyed watching these movies greatly, however, I sometimes questioned the fact of whether or not these movies were made solely to focus on the special effects rather than the story-line because it seemed like that for some, especially Gravity.

The biggest similarity, of course, is that these three movies have magnificent special effects. However, these effects seem to detract from the importance of having a good plot line. Although these movies were unique, as in their ideas haven't been done in the past, the plot was lacking especially compared to their effects. The cinematography of each was very well crafted. Each of the shots and aspects of the movie made the audience feel as if they were a part of the movie. In Hugo, the sounds of clocks and the scenes of the screws and dials made us feel as if we were experiencing the works of a clock from the inside alongside Hugo Cabret. The panning in and out and the quick movements between shots made the us feel as if a lot was going on at once and made us overwhelmed. In Life of Pi, the audience would feel as if they were on the boat to survival alongside Pi Patel. The shaky movements of the camera during storms and the underwater shots looking up into the sky added to the effect of being isolated and the feeling that death could be just around the corner. The death thoughts and views from Life of Pi by the audience is similar to what they might feel with Gravity, too. The fast paced shots of satellites exploding and Ryan Stone bumping into everything possible in space brings us to the feeling that Ryan is going to die and so are we because we feel as if we're in the movie in space, too. But as I was saying before, these movies still lacked a story-line. The main example would be Gravity. Going into the movie, I though that the space crash scene would only be part of the movie and they would show Sandra Bullock being back on Earth. However, the entire movie consisted of her struggling in space to return back to Earth. I thought that a movie about such a topic did not deserve to be so long; the visual effects were the only thing that kept me watching.

Other than the fact that there was a lack of a plot, but great visual effects, these movies showed other similarities. In a way, these three movies were about survival. Hugo was about a little boy who tries to get through life without getting caught with having no parents while also trying to repair something that reminds him about his father. Life of Pi was about a guy who recalls an experience he had where he was stranded on a lifeboat by himself after the sinking of another boat and tries to get back to land and survive. Gravity was about an astronaut, who used to be a doctor, trying to survive a debris crash that ruined her last spacecraft and get back to Earth safely while being the only one to survive. In addition, these three movies portrayed the struggles of life that some people don't know about, like an astronaut's life. On a broader spectrum, these movies portray the same message: to never give up no matter how hard and difficult it may be. Because of this, the endings of the movies were quite predictable in that everything worked out and no one died after a long journey.

Now I am going to analyze each movie separately.

Hugo: Hugo Cabret lost his parents at a very young age. His alcoholic uncle ends up taking him in to live with him in a clock tower and taught him how to keep all the clocks running at the train station. While maintaining the clocks, Hugo is trying to fix an automaton that him and his father were working on previously. He says it is the last thing he has of his father. He meets a girl named Isabelle whom he goes on adventures with that usually defy the rules of her Papa Georges. They find out that Papa Georges used to actually be a famous movie producer and try to get him to come back to good terms with that. They also found out that he was the one who created the automaton in the first place. When they eventually do, Hugo gets very excited and tries to show Georges Melies that his stuff was saved when he gets caught by the train inspector and almost gets brought to an orphanage. Papa Georges comes just in time to claim that Hugo is his and takes him under his wing for the rest of his life. This movie was probably one of the most fast paced movies of the three. It consisted of mostly dark colors that reminded me of the insides of a clock (very brown and rusty colored). It also related back to the feelings during the movie, which were at most times sad or adventurous but scary. A couple times during the movie the movie was bright which reflected the fact that everyone was happy. These scenes consisted of when the inspector got together with the girl he's always liked and at the end with the party. This movie was also more relatable in that it wasn't about an astronaut in space or being stranded in the ocean. This is more down to Earth in that some people could say that they were also almost thrown into an orphanage or how some people always go on risky adventures. The shots that this movie consisted were also very cool and different than most. The panning used throughout caught my eye in that it was used to detect a lot of the movement in the movie, whether is is running through the clock tower or during a party. It is also used mostly to show the actions of many characters during that scene, so that it allows the audience to feel like they are in the movie and are able to experience everything, too. Another main cinematic technique that stood out to me was the fading techniques used to transition from one scene to another. One specific time that they used this was when they would fade from a shot of the clockworks to a night shot of the city from a distance. This transitioned very well in that they both had a central circle and lines coming out of it. This allows for a smooth transition from scene to scene so that they movie doesn't seem choppy or abrupt with its story-line.
Jeff Beck from Examiner.com says that "Scorsese is a master storyteller and one of the best directors working today. He doesn't need a gimmick like 3-D to prove this. His films speak more than enough for themselves and 'Hugo' is no exception" (Rotten Tomatoes). I agree with Beck in that Hugo was a great movie with great effects that doesn't necessarily need to be shown in 3-D. Scorsese has made a vast amount of award-winning movies, and Hugo was definitely one of them. Scorsese is able to brings lot of his movie to life, which shows how talented he truly is and that there is no end to what he is capable of.

Life of Pi: A journalist comes to India in hopes to find Pi Patel because someone told him that Pi had a story that would make him believe in God. Pi starts off with a whole back story as to how he got his name and what his family is life. He then delves into his past memory to come up with a story that was a life changer for him. He was on his way to North America (Canada, I think) with his family for a better life when all of a sudden a big storm makes the boat sink. He was one of the only ones awake to be able to escape and leave on a lifeboat. He ends up being in the middle of nowhere for 227 days at sea with a live tiger which he has to befriend. He had to encounter many obstacles, including having to find food and fighting off sea creatures. Pi eventually makes it to a beach in Mexico which he gets found and carried to the hospital. Japanese reporters fly over to hear his story, but they don't believe him. The movie ends with Pi giving the journalist the documents and says he can do whatever he wants with the story. This movie, based of a book, is made up of many bright colors throughout. This reflects the events that occur in that most of the movie is about a life at sea during the day in which it is sunny, and also the tiger has a very vibrant orange-ish color to it. The movie has a very heart pounding feeling to it, since it is about the survival of a teenage boy in the middle of nowhere living with a tiger for 227 days. This movie uses many different effects; One of the effects was something similar to fading in and out in which 1 subject from a previous scene would stay a bit longer and overlap with the next scene so that it looked like there was something just floating there. This is a different transition than what most movies have, but it adds to the effect of the questioning audience as to whether or not Pi will survive. It adds some suspense to the movie and a feeling of being uncomfortable since it's such a weird shot. There were also multiple occasions where they used underwater shots, whether Pi was actually underwater or a view of him treading water at the top from the bottom. These shots are also different, but in a good way. It shows how clear and pure the water can be, but it also adds to the sense of how underwater creatures view him like sharks. It allows us to see Pi in a different perspective, one you wouldn't think would matter that much.
"Everywhere you look there are images of beguiling beauty: a mirror-like sea reflecting golden clouds; a sudden swarm of flying fish; an island bristling with meerkats; and a breaching whale glowing with bioluminescents as it leaps out of the water," (Rotten Tomatoes) said Jason Best from Movie talk. This statement by Best shows just how complicated the story-line of Life of Pi was. There were many layers behind the story that had to be planned out and executed well. The fact that Lee was able to execute so many effects using green screen and other technologies shows how great his ability and knowledge of the movie industry and his audience is. He is able to conjure up a movie that is interesting and different enough for the audience to enjoy AND win an Oscar.

Gravity: Ryan Stone is a doctor who decided to take her time off to become an astronaut. While she is up there, there was a satellite that crashed that started a chain reaction, so debris was flying very fast through the air. It ended up hitting the spaceship which she was in, causing many to die to their mode of transportation back to Earth to be gone. Stone and Matt Kowalski were the only ones to survive, but it ends up only being Stone at the end. The worst that could happen at every scenario when Stone gets to it happens, which constantly delays her travel back to Earth. She encounters many obstacles (shocker) before getting back to Earth and at one point she almost gave up. The movie ends with her getting back to Earth and walking on shore, showing that she is getting used to Earth's gravity once again. This movie was made up of very contrasting colors between the white suits of the astronauts and the dark sky around them and the brightly colored Earth. In my opinion, the movie was too dragged out because it consisted solely of her being trapped in space the entire time. I was hoping for some land back on Earth action, which I got maybe three minutes of at the end. Despite this, the types of shots and sound effects used were off the charts. One of the more specific shots that sticks to my mind was one where the camera could follow her movement through the spacecraft from behind her feet so that it looked like she wasn't moving, just the objects around her were. This shot made the movie seem very trippy and added to the effect of there being no gravity in space. The fact that she is floating from the very start and "isn't moving" throughout the scene seems totally normal in our brains even though it really isn't. Another thing I mentioned as being wonderful were the sound effects. The sounds of spaceships exploding and the gasps for air and the sounds of Ryan running into every object possible gives us the sense that we're right there with her. It makes the audience feel like they are close to her and can hear everything that is going on themselves.
The statement, "This is a story about people floating through space and Alfonso Cuaron's feature brilliantly contrives to make the viewer feel similarly untethered, to often thrilling effect. This is surely the closest cinema comes to the three-dimensional virtual abseiling," (Rotten Tomatoes) by Jonathan Romney from Sight and Sound shows that the visual effects for Gravity are fantastic. However, as Romney kind of hinted at, there is not much to the plot of the movie. The entire movie consists of scenes where Ryan Stone is floating in space and bumping into objects. She struggled the entire movie from start to end. Some people might even say that they would rather have Matt Kowalski, played by George Clooney, to stay alive and play the rest of the movie because he would have known what he was doing and is a better actor.

Although these movies had their own way of being great with the cinematography, they still shared some similarities with their shots. One of these includes the long shot. These shots were used to show the setting of new scenes and the landscape. All three movies were held in completely different locations (Hugo was in Paris, Life of Pi was in India and the ocean, Gravity was in space) but they all shared a kind of beauty especially in the way they were portrayed and shown. Another shot that was used universally was the classic close-up shots. They were used to show emotions, like the tears of Hugo, and detail, like of the tiger in Life of Pi. Another similarity between the movies were that they were made by foreign directors, except for Hugo. This gives the movie a more unique perspective since they are able to come up with different ideas and aren't stuck in a bubble of the same ideas.

Overall, I thought that these movies were very good even beyond the aspect of their special effects. They definitely deservingly won their Oscars. I learned a lot about the ways that movies get created and how important the effects are to becoming a good, award-winning movie.

MYST Post #4: Delivery Man

This movie kind of stood out to me when I first saw the trailer for it a couple months back. With many people's obsessions over the recent finale of "How I Met Your Mother," in which Cobie Smulders stars in, and my liking for Vince Vaughn, I decided to finally watch this movie. It is about this guy, named David Wozniak, who is played by Vince Vaughn, who donated his sperm over 900 times in order to earn money about two decades ago. One day, a guy comes back to tell him that there was a mistake in the past and that he is now the father of 533 kids and 142 of them want to find out who their biological dad is and are filing lawsuits on it. In addition to this, Wozniak is in huge debt to a mob and also the father of another child in which his girlfriend refuses to let him be the father of because of his instability. Throughout the movie, he tries to make something of his life in which he finally discovers what he is capable of and how he can affect the lives of many. I thought this movie was very unique with its storyline, however, it wasn't as amusing as I hoped and was pretty predictable.

As I mentioned before, one of the main reasons I finally decided to watch this movie was because of the cast. If you hadn't noticed with my other post on The Internship, I'm a fan of Vince Vaughn and his comedic work. He plays a similar role in this movie, compared to his others, in that in most of them, he plays a character that is confused with what he should do with this life and seems to always have relationship problems. Cobie Smulders was another star or actor that caused me to watch this movie. She stars in "How I Met Your Mother" as the more responsible one of the group that was not part of the original group. She is the more serious one when it comes down to it and in some way, she seems to always have a guy that wants her. This is similar to the role in Delivery Man in that she plays this cop that is about to have Wozniak's baby. She is always calm and very serious when it comes to the future and about doing the right thing. Last but not least, Chris Patt, playing Brett the best friend, was another star that caught my attention. His role in "Parks and Recreation" is a bit different. In "Parks and Recreation," he was known as the guy that didn't have any responsibility skills and did everything on impulse. In Delivery Man, Patt plays a guy who has kids and is trying to tell David what he should do about the kids situation. This difference allowed me to be able to see the talent Chris Patt had in that he could play such different roles. The stars for this movie were the main thing that caught my eye and caused me to watch this movie, and I'm glad it did because I thought the casting for this movie was great. Most actors played their usual roles and if they didn't, they were able to execute them very nicely and show their talent.

The one scene that I remember the best is the one where Brett, played by Chris Patt, talks to David Wozniak, played by Vince Vaughn, about wanting kids. The scene starts off with a long shot of them having their conversation outside in Brett's backyard in the nighttime. We first see one of Brett's son walking towards the sandbox. This type of shot is used so that we could see everything occurring in the scene with both the kid and the two guys talking at the same time. It then cuts to a medium shot of Brett yelling at his kid to not sleep in the sandbox, but he does so regardless. This allows us to focus more on the details of Brett's face and emotion toward his child and the fact that he is holding another kid in his arms. The next part consists of mostly medium shots and jump shots for the actual conversation between David and Brett. This is used so that we are able to follow the conversation and see who's talking. It also allows us to feel as if we're right there with them in the conversation because we see everything that the other "non-speaker" at the time sees. Next, Brett's daughter walks in and just starts smacking his face and saying "daddy" repeatedly. This is personally my favorite part in the entire movie because I thought it was just so funny and in a way it reminded me of myself. Throughout this scene, the use of half dark and half light lighting is given off with the lamp in the background of the scene. It allows the scene to seem natural, but still adds a hint of mysteriousness while still being light enough as to not being scary. This scene was also kind of ironic in that David was saying how he wanted kids because he wanted order in his life and he thought this was beautiful even though Brett, who has kids, was drowning with dealing with them and questions his definition of "order."

If based solely on cinematic effects, this movie would definitely be lacking in it and be towards the bottom of most lists. The movie consisted of the usual medium shots for most of the movie, but included a couple of close-ups scattered around in order to show detail and add dramatic effect. One use of close-up was for when Emma, the girlfriend played by Colbie Smulders, grabbed David's hand during the family dinner. There were also the occasional long shots in order to show the scenery and location of the movie, or specific scene sometimes, like a view of the city or the park and sky. There was also the use of the classic panning a lot in which it follows the movement of one of the characters in a way so that it is like we are in the movie watching them. Another way Ken Scott, the director, made us feel included in the movie was the use of a shaky camera for the car scenes. It made it seem as if we were in the car with David feeling the same movements he did. Throughout the entire movie, it seemed as if only natural lighting was used. Most of the scenes were filmed outside in the daylight or inside with the light shining through the windows. This allowed for the movie to seem more realistic and relatable as to how events would seem or occur in everyday life.

Although I enjoyed the cast very much, the plot and cinematic effects of Delivery Man were lacking in their own ways. I was a little disappointed when the movie ended because I thought that the movie would get better, but it didn't. The overall movie wasn't very amusing, causing me to give it a 3.3/5 stars because of its great cast and occasional "laugh out lout" moments.

MYST Post #3: Now You See Me

During my rental of The Internship, I also rented Now You See Me along with it because they said that I would get $.50 discount; I’m a huge fan of discounts. This movie is about these four magicians who are brought together to perform three main acts as “the four horsemen.” These acts include robbing a bank (the Crédit Républicain), transferring money from Tressler’s bank account to the audience, and framing Thaddeus with money from stolen money from a safe. While all these are happening, the FBI and Interpol are trying to be one step ahead of them so that they can arrest them, but instead the four horsemen always seem to be one step ahead and always get away. In the end, we find out that the FBI agent turns out to be the fifth horsemen and he was the one who wrote the blueprints for everything that should have occurred; the four horsemen were just there to execute them. He needed them so that he could get revenge for his father, known as Lionel Strike. The movie as a whole was very intriguing and attention-grabbing. I felt like I was consumed in the movie the entire time and felt myself trying to figure out how each act was done along with the FBI and Interpol. I thought that the movie was executed very well and had many special effects that worked well with the movie.

The actors, in my opinion, are a bit more low key in this movie than ones in the past movies that I have reviewed, especially the ones that play the four main characters. Dave Franco is also known for being in the movie 21 Jump Street in which he plays a similar role. This movie and Now You See Me are more on the daring side of films. They are very action-packed and have dare-devil scenes in which he participates in like car chases and car crashes. Jesse Eisenberg is another actor that plays a similar role from past movies like The Social Network. In both of the movies, he plays kind of the nerdier guy that talks mostly about facts and in a nervous kind of way (kind of fast). Isla Fisher plays a strong independent woman in this movie. She is the only woman of the four horsemen and has to make sure to hold the fort when others disagree. She is the sly and deceiving female that gets others to do what she wants. This is very different than other roles she has starred in like Confessions of a Shopaholic, Wedding Crashers, and The Great Gatsby. In those movies, she plays a very ditzy and annoying girl who does whatever she wants with her life. She is mostly obsessed with finding the “perfect guy.” As you can tell, the actors were mainly chosen for this movie because it matches their personality and appearance, but as for Isla Fisher, it allowed her to see how talented she really is on how she can play such different roles.

Out of the three movies that I have reviewed on this blog, I would say that Now You See Me has the best cinematography. This movie had the best mixture of lighting, shots, and angles throughout the movie. The entire used mostly dark lighting because it is essentially a movie about magic and how secretive each of their acts for the show is. The movie also used the stereotypical bright lighting for any bank heists. As for angles, Louis Leterrier, the director, used not only direct angles, but many high and low angle shots to show inferiority and superiority. This was specifically evident during the interrogation scenes which I'll talk about later. Throughout the movie, Leterrier used many different shots to get the actions across. One of this includes panning. This allows the audience to see everything that is occurring both in the surroundings and to the characters. An example of this was in the end when the are standing in the center of New York City in Times Square. It helps to make the audience member feel like they are there with them and can see everything they see. In addition, Leterrier used other shots to make the audience feel like they were there like with the car chase scene. There was the use of a shaky camera to go along with the car movements to make it seem like we were in the car with the FBI agent and Interpol woman chasing Dave Franco's character, Jack. Overall, the cinematography throughout the movie was fantastic, especially the many special effects used for the three shows that the four horsemen had.

The one scene I would like to pinpoint and and specifically talk about in this movie would be the interrogation scene towards the beginning. This was after the first act from the four horsemen in which they robbed a French bank. The four of them were taken into questioning in which there was this one part where the movie kept switching between the questioning of J. Daniel, played by Jesse Eisenberg, and Merritt, played by Woody Harrelson. This speedy flipping back and forth enabled the audience to see both conversations and how each was manipulating the minds of the FBI agent and Interpol woman. In the interrogation scenes, the use of low angle and high angle shots were strongly evident. Low angle was primarily used when it was showing the FBI agent to show that he was superior and had the power in his hands. On the other hand, high angle was usually used when it showed one of the horsemen to show how they were inferior at the time because they were "in trouble" and in questioning. There was also the use of medium shots and close-ups to show the expressions of the other when one of the horsemen would be talking. In addition, there were jump shots between the person talking and the others to see the facial expression and reactions to what was being said, especially when the suspects seem to be trying to confuse the FBI and Interpol so that they would be released. There were also many smaller shots that I noticed that helped to add suspense and reality to the movie such as including some behind the shoulder shots and a high angle as if looking right through the security cameras. The use of zoom was also evident in J. Daniel's interrogation when he switches the handcuffs to the FBI agent and asks the Interpol woman, Alma, if there was something wrong with her soda. The camera zooms into her hand shaking the soda and zooms right back out to when she pours it. This adds some detail as to what is going on for the audience. Last but not least, oblique angle was also incorporated at the end of J. Daniel's interrogation. This is used to show that there is something off about the current situation which fit perfectly with the scene where J. Daniel was grabbing the phone. Later on, we find out that he actually switched the phones and gave back a bugged one.

Louis Leterrier created a movie that I enjoyed very much. He spent a lot of time, or so it seems, to make the movie intriguing and his cinematography and special effects were out of this world. It might just be that I am biased, as I have always loved the concept of "magic," but I thought that this movie deserved 4.7/5 stars.

MYST Post #2: The Internship

Originally, my intention was not to watch this movie. I was planning to watch The Lego Movie in theaters, but I read the schedule wrong and ended up renting The Internship from RedBox instead. I decided to choose this movie because I started it a while back, but never had the chance to finish it. This movie is about two guys who used to work in sales until their company shut down. With very little education and skills, they did not know what to do with the rest of their lives. One of the characters, Billy played by Vince Vaughn, looked up a Google internship opportunity for them that could lead to future jobs. Although they had a random team that didn't get along at first and didn't have much knowledge, they ended up winning the competitions and earning jobs at Google through teamwork and their creativity and uniqueness. Overall, I enjoyed the movie very much and was glad I finally finished it. It was very witty and the kind of humor I enjoy, but it was a bit predictable except for the slight twist in the end.

This movie included many well-known actors, like Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, but as well as some random actors, like Tobit Raphael. The director, Shawn Levy, chose all the actors in the movie because they all fit into their parts in some way. Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson star in Wedding Crashers together as two men who, as the title of the movie says, like to crash weddings because their own love life is going down the drain. They bring the comedy aspect to both movies and work very well together. They are able to perform well together because they have similar personalities. Rose Byrne is another actor that has a similar role in both the movies The Internship and Bridesmaids. In Bridesmaids, she plays the friend who is very self-motivated and has to make sure everything is perfect for the wedding since she has nothing better to do with her life. In The Internship, she is a very goal-oriented person who works for Google and does nothing for herself to make herself happy, like having a relationship. In both movies, she plays the role of a women who cares more about other things than herself, which distracts her from the fact that she isn't happy the way she is. For some of the other characters, instead of being chosen for other roles they played in other movies, they were chosen based on their real life situations. Dylan O'Brien recently turned 21 before the movie was filmed, so he was chosen because he could now participate in the scenes that involved strip clubs and alcohol. This also means that he is apart of the generation of technology, so he is portrayed as a guy that is always on his phone. Tobit Raphael and Josh Brener, some less known actors, attended UCLA and Harvard, respectively, recently. Raphael, being from UCLA, was able to relate to the pressure he was put under and being "that guy that had a rough childhood." Brener came from Harvard, so he was used to being pushed and a kind of "nerdy" guy. He is also a huge fan of Harry Potter, so the one scene with the game was actually improvised from the knowledge he had. The Internship contained many characters that were well-known and not, but they were all chosen because they fit the part, not just for their name.

In my opinion, one of the best scenes of the movie would be when the group of them - Billy, Nick, Stuart, Neha, Yo Yo, and Lyle played by Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson, Dylan O'Brien, Tiya Sircar, Tobit Raphael, and Josh Brener respectively - were trying to come up an app that would earn the most revenue. The scene starts off with medium shots of Billy, Neha, and Stuart. This allows the audience to see the hand motions that they are using such as fidgeting and using their phone to look up information. Then the camera starts to pan as Yo Yo walks from one side to the other saying that they should brainstorm ideas by looking up information like past apps that were popular and see if there is a connection between them. This sparks up an idea for Billy in which he starts to describe his "exchange-o-gram" idea. During his explanation, Levy uses many jump shots in order to show all the characters and their reactions to this idea. A lot of times, it shows interjections from the other team members with how they claim that this is the same idea as Instagram, which Billy refuses to accept. There are also interjections, mostly from Lyle, about how Billy says "on the line"when he should be saying "online." (This "online" versus "on the line" scene is my favorite part in the movie and it actually made me laugh out loud non-stop.) These quick shots allow us to see all sides of the characters rather than focusing on just the speaker. The scene ends by a far shot that shows the entire team huddled together, showing that they are trying very hard to make a successful app and win the competition.

The Internship used a variety of angles and shots, but it was still mainly medium shots and close-ups. Since most of the time they are sitting down, medium shots were used to show any upper body movement in the head and arms. Close-ups were also used to show the emotions and expressions of the character when another character was talking. They would usually be faces of disgust/disagreement or of confusion since most of the characters didn't understand what Billy and Nick were talking about since they were so "old-school." There were also many uses of jump shots and panning throughout the movie to show the multitude of characters and the actions of each in the scenes. This helped the audience to understand everything that was going on and allowed them to feel as if they were right there inside the movie with the characters. In the movie, there was also one specific instance of slow motion that I noticed and that stuck inside my head. It was used when Yo Yo was taking his first shot of alcohol. This effect was added to add a sense of intrigue with how Yo Yo would react to drinking it. The close-up and slow motion shot was able to let the audience see Yo Yo wince in pain, but then scream out of excitement. Lastly, the movie had a lot of improvisation especially with the characters that Vince Vaughn, Dylan O'Brien, and Josh Brener played. They got so into their parts that they started to make up their own lines, which made the movie more realistic as to how one would act in such situations. They also improvised to make the lines be more of what they would actually say in real life if it happened to them.

This movie, The Internship, exceeded my expectations in the cast that they hired and in the screenplay. It was filled with my kind of humor and incorporated many types of cinematic elements that made the movie flow well, therefore, deserving a 4.4/5 stars in my book. I was happy to be able to finally finish this movie, although I would still like to see The Lego Movie. Maybe I'll actually read the schedule right next time.

Formal Film Study: Spike Jonze

For this film study, I decided to take a closer look at some of the movies Spike Jonze either directed or wrote the screenplay for. These movies included Where the Wild Things Are, Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa, and Her. I chose to watch Where the Wild Things Are because I knew that it was based off a children's book and it sounded like it would be a cute movie that I would enjoy; I turned out to be correct and it ended up being my favorite of the three movies. I decided to also watch Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa because when I watched the trailer, it seemed that it would be a classic comedy movie and I am a huge fan of comedies. Lastly, Her was on my list of movies to watch by Spike Jonze because it came out recently to theaters and I have been hearing mixed reviews about it; I was hoping to get my own thoughts on it. Since these movies were created only a couple years apart, the cinematography in them were quite similar and they all had classic endings, but the ideas and the storylines behind them were pretty different. Some would say that they require more thinking and are more developed, while others would say that they get more obscure.

Although these movies are not exactly related in any way, they kind of have a pattern as to the order that they came out. As I mentioned before, there are two ways to look at them: more obscure versus more required thinking. Let us start with the obscure aspect of it. For the movie Where the Wild Things Are, from 2009, Spike Jonze directed a movie that was meant for young children to see. It showed how a child's imagination ran wild and how it helped him to befriend a bunch of wild animals that became very close to him. Since it is based off a children's story, the plot of the movie made sense and also how it was very low key as to nearly no violence and profanity. The next two movies, Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa and Her, came out in the same year, 2013. In Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa, Grandpa Irving goes to bars and bingo places and starts yelling out obscenities. This shows how the level of obscurity has increased because no one would expect the grandpa to be so profane. One specific scene that shows this is when he walks into a black bar and all of a sudden decides to start stripping and flailing his genitals around. In Her, the main character, Theodore, falls in love with an operating system. He becomes so attached to it that they when she dies for a couple minutes, he freaks out and starts running about trying to get her back. This movie is even more obscure compared to the other two because a man fell in love with an inanimate object. Not only this, but Theodore and the operating system, Samantha, pretend to be two humans beings being together in the world. At one point, they get a random girl to take Samantha's human form while Samantha speaks to Theodore through an earpiece. For the deeper thinking aspect to the order of these movies, Where the Wild Things Are and Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa do not require much of it. What you see happening in the movie is what it is. As for Her, there is more logic behind the creation and meaning of the movie. By having Theodore fall in love with his OS, it shows how technology has taken over society and have made some people a bit crazy. This movie causes people to have to think more while watching it and realize what is going on than compared to Jonze's previous movies.

Other than the progression of obscurity or meaning in Spike Jonze's movies, he also included classic endings to them. For Where the Wild Things Are, the little kid, Max, ran away from his family, but through his journey he realized how important his family was to him and came back and hugged his mom. This is the classic storybook ending to a children's movie or book, always ending on a good note. For Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa, the movie ends with Grandpa Irving realizing how much he would miss his grandson, so he decided to drive back and bring him back with him again. This is another classic ending in which someone the character did not realize how much someone meant to them until they lost that person. For Her, the movie ended with the OS being disabled because the technology company realized how it was affecting society negatively. Although this is not a very classic ending since the movie is so different, it was one that was kind of predicted because it falls under the movies in which the character loses something they cannot have. What I have also noticed in a couple of Jonze's movies is that they relate to his real life in a way. A big example would be with the movie Her. Jonze used to be married to Sofia Coppola, another director, but they got divorced because they had different thoughts on their future. Afterwards, he dated many other women but nothing has gotten too serious it seems like. Spike Jonze's life relates to the movie Her, which he directed, because Theodore, from the movie, was also divorced because of difference outlooks on life and how devoted he was to a real relationship. Then he fell in love with the OS, Samantha, which also did not work out since she had to be shut down. This is kind of a unique way of subtly portraying his own life.

Now I am going to focus on each movie separately.

Where the Wild Things Are: This movie is about a boy named Max who ran away from his family because they did not support him and kept saying that there was something wrong with him. He sailed across the ocean to a random island where there are "wild things" living there and becomes the king of the land. While trying to help them stay together as a family, he realizes how much he misses his own and decides to sail back. He came back with an open mind and love for his family. This movie is a fantasy drama film that captures the message that family is an important aspect everyone needs in their life even if you dislike them. Since it is based off of a children's book, it has a sense of naivete coming from the child. He makes abrupt decisions and automatically assumes that his family does not love him. When he gets to the island, he uses his imagination to get out of all the traps and tricks them to making him king. The movie is made with computer generated images (CGI) mixed in with a bunch of live action, which is different from other movies Jonze has made. The CGI is used so that he can create the fantasy world without spending a ton of money on costumes and make-up to make the characters seem animal-like. The mixture of CGI with live action helps us to give a feel of what is imaginative and what is the real world. It helps to show how strong one's imagination can be and how it can change our perspective on the world. Jonze also used a lot of extreme long shots in the movie, more than his others at least, to show the setting and everything that is going on. A couple of the scenes where he used this that stood out to me where the shots of Max on his journey out at sea and also when the "wild things" and Max were building their fortress. The shots helped to make it seem like we were there with them looking at it in their perspective.
The statement, "Jonze has created a world in which even 'wild things' can be full of personality and fun to be around" (Rotten Tomatoes) by Jeff Beck from Examiner.com shows how much others, both critics and the audience, enjoyed the movie. It shows how skilled Jonze is at making us feel close to something unusual and how well he can capture our interest. I agree with Beck's statement in that Spike Jonze did a wonderful job of making a movie out of a classic children's book for many to enjoy.

Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa: Grandpa Irving and Billy are on a road trip to drop Billy off in South Carolina to live with his dad because his mom was put in jail again for doing drugs. Throughout the trip, Grandpa Irving stops at many places, like bars and hotels, telling Billy to stay in the car and wait for him because he is about to go in and talk to some ladies. He also constantly calls Billy a "cockblock." During the entire trip, Grandpa Irving teaches Billy lots of profane things an eight-year-old should not know about and also makes a fool of himself while trying to get women. When they finally get to South Carolina and he drops Billy off, Grandpa Irving realizes how much he misses Billy and comes back to get him and tells him that he is not a cockblock anymore. This movie was filmed in a way that made it seem like it was a reality television show. It was essentially a hidden camera run movie in order to capture the true reactions of people toward the obscenities done by the grandpa and grandson. The film was made purely for laughs and to see how far a grandpa and grandson can go and get away with it. The ultimate message, if it had to have one, of this movie would be that its best to keep those that you love closer to you because you do not know what you have until it is gone. Grandpa Irving did not realize how much Billy meant to him until they were no longer together and he regretted leaving him with his terrible dad so he felt the need to go and take him back. Overall, I think the one thing I do have to give this movie props for is for costumes. They were able to make Johnny Knoxville, who played Grandpa Irving, look completely different and old. He no longer looked like himself, instead he looked like a real 86-year-old grandpa. Even the people put in the movie from the hidden cameras were not able to tell.
Linda Barnard from the Toronto Star said that, "Like the lime-green bingo dabber contents Irving drinks down to the horror of his seatmates, it's an acquired taste" (Rotten Tomatoes). I agree with Barnard because I was not a very big fan of this movie, however, there are people out there who like this kind of humor. I thought that it was very crude and obscure since the jokes were mainly coming from the grandpa, but others who enjoy dry humor and adult humor would like this movie.

Her: Theodore, the main character, works at a company that writes love notes to a person from their loved ones. Through doing this job, he realizes how lonely he is after his recent divorce. He started up this new operating system that is personalized to work well with their owner and ends up falling in love with it. They do everything together. They have even tried making it so that they can have a physical relationship together with someone else pretending to be the OS. Eventually Samantha, the OS, has to be disabled and Theodore is once again feeling alone. From this movie, I think that there are many messages that Jonze is trying to portray. One of them is to not depend on inanimate objects so much because you will most likely end up getting disappointed. Another message would be portraying the negative view on technology and how it is taking over modern day society. Throughout this movie, many different types of lighting and shots are used. For example, the lighting in this movie matched the emotions and feelings of the characters a lot of the time. When Theodore and Samantha were happy, the screen was very bright and sunny. When they were sad and talking about things that were bothering them or secrets, the lighting was a lot darker, especially the scenes of Theodore's room right before he is sleeping with the lights turned off so you only see a hint of his face. Also, the movie was sometimes put in the perspective and view of how Samantha would see it. In one of the scenes, the camera was all shaky because we were seeing it from Samantha's view from inside of Theodore's pocket when he was walking or running. These effects help us to feel more like we are with them inside the movie and it allows us to feel and see things from their point of view. Another detail that really stood out to me during this movie was the soundtrack. Most of the songs played were by Arcade Fire, whom I am a big fan of, and I thought that they fit the mood of the movie very well.
"It's an odd, sad love story, combining with a meditation on technology as an accelerator of social loneliness. Not a small part of it seems to be an allegory of lonely guys and their fear of women" (Rotten Tomatoes) said Liam Lacey from Globe and Mail. I agree with Lacey in that it indeed is an odd love story that talks about how technology is slowly making us become more lonely and isolated because we depend so much on it. Many people lose the ability to communicate in person with emotion because technology eliminates the ability to know the genuine thoughts and feelings of one another. However, I feel that this movie might have a deeper meaning to it that what is shown. This movie to me was mediocre mostly because I am not used to the idea of one falling in love with their computer. But overall, the movie was nicely filmed and directed and the dialogue would be just how I would think it to be.

Although these movies are quite different, there are some shots that were similar between them. All three of these movies used close-up shots in order to portray any emotions and feelings the characters had. This way we could see and understand them and be able to notice subtle details like tears. There were also the use of quick shots to be able to show all that is going on at that moment. This allows us to be able to not only focus on one specific event at a time, but to also be able to see the surroundings to make it seem like we are there and can see everything that they see too. Last but not least, full body shots were used for most of the action shots to show what every part of the character's body is doing: arms, legs, head, etc.

Overall, I thought that these three films showed a lot about what Spike Jonze is capable of. He does not solely focus on one type of movie, but in fact can direct and write a wide variety of movies. This makes him unique and is the reason why he is such a well-liked director.

1935 Movie Project: Sabotage and Salvation

My group and I wanted to create a movie that had a comedic side to it in order to lift the spirits of the people during the Great Depression. The comedy in the movie would contrast with the seriousness of the plot, while also containing a heartfelt ending so that the audience would feel more at peace with the movie.

The movie is about these two people who are married, but the wife is not too happy with the marriage. She is sneaking around the house and going on dates, making the husband very suspicious. The husband runs around asking her friends to see if they know anything and follows here everywhere. He is finally able to confirm the fact that she is cheating on him. Instead of confronting her at first, however, he decides that he would sabotage all the dates that she goes on with this other man (i.e.: dressing up as their waiter and spilling drinks all over them). Eventually the wife catches on that it is her husband doing all the sabotage and they talk it out. The movie ends happily with the couple working things out and having a successful marriage because she realized again why she fell in love with him in the first place.

Because this movie has so many scenes and different ambiances that we are trying to create, we thought that going with Warner Brothers would be our best bet. This studio is known to be more dialogue-oriented which is helpful for our film because it will help the audience to understand what is going on. The dialogue will help to express the emotions of the characters and to lose some of the confusion of what might be happening during each scene. Warner Brothers is also known for using a realistic style and targeting social issues. The main issue we are trying to get across to the audience is the concept of gender equality. It shows that women are also capable of doing things outside of just being a housewife. They also have expectations that they hope to have met and they can also pull tricks out of their sleeves. Also, during this time period the thought of a divorce is a bit iffy to the audience. With the ending we included, we hoped that this would show that marriage has a strong bond that can overcome any obstacle that comes in its way.

This movie would be a black and white film in order to focus more on the cinematography and editing of the film. We will incorporate quick cuts so to help the audience stay engaged and to help make the pacing of the movie seem fast. It will be most evident during the sabotaging scenes because it allows the audience to see all the actions taking place at the time with the wife on the date and how the husband is going to sabotage them.

For this film, we chose Ray Enright to be the director and Conrad A. Nervig to be the editor. We chose Enright because he works with Warner Brothers and he is known for making fast-paced style movies. Nervig also won an Academy Award which appeals to us because it means that he is good at what he does. Our two main stars would be Myrna Loy, who plays the wife, and James Cagney, who plays the husband. We chose Cagney because he is known to be very energetic and humorous. Loy usually plays exotic roles since she looks foreign which will help to ease some of the tension of the audience because it will make them think that American women would never cheat. Cary Grant would be the guy that Mryna cheats with; he was chosen mostly because he is known for his dashing good looks.

Through the making of this movie, the Hays Code does not completely prohibit us from shooting many scenes. The main thing that might be frowned upon, however, is the fact that a woman is cheating on her husband; therefore, she is being an unfaithful person. This leads to the thought of having an unsuccessful marriage, which might get us in trouble since it portrays the wrong ideas to the audience. However, we do make sure we do not violate this code completely by not including kissing scenes or any other scenes that gives a sense of sexual tension between two people.

Overall, I do not disagree with any of the decisions that we made for this movie. We decided most of the details as a group, so I am happy with our choices.

MYST Post #1: We're the Millers

I decided to rent this movie from a nearby RedBox so I had a reason to snuggle up by the fire and watch tv during the "blizzard" today. I've wanted to watch this movie for a long time now, ever since my friend saw it in theaters and said that it was hilarious. This movie is about a guy who is in huge debt to one of his friends and is forced to participate in an illegal international drug smuggling mission. He has this brilliant idea of pretending to be a family, the Miller family, in an RV with some of the people who live in his building. He makes it through the border, but only because of pure luck. However, during the trip back in the US, he isn't as lucky and has to encounters many obstacles like having to face a guy that is trying to steal the drugs back and his "son" getting bit by a tarantula. Overall, I thought the movie was very funny, but unfortunately, it was quite predictable.

The first thing that caught my eye was the mass amount of famous television and movie stars that were all present in the movie: Jennifer Aniston, Emma Roberts, Ed Helms, Nick Offerman, etc. For the most part, the roles that these stars played portrayed their personality well and matched many of their previous roles. For example, Jennifer Aniston is probably best known for playing the role of Rachel in the television series "Friends." In "Friends," Jennifer plays a 20-30 year old women who lives an ordinary life in New York City with a bunch of her best friends. She is portrayed as a nice and genuine girl who basically gets every guys she wants. In We're the Millers, Aniston plays a 40 year old stripper who is just scraping by with her money situation. She is a tough-lover who is bossy but understands and cares for her "family." Like in "Friends," she is able to get most of the men to like her because, well, she's a stripper. In addition, Nick Offerman stars as Ron Swanson in "Parks and Recreation" as a tough-love kind of guy that likes to do everything himself. He fights for what he believes and seems like he doesn't care, but he actually cares deeply about the ones he loves, as shown in both We're the Millers and in "Parks and Recreation." He also has that bushy mustache in both the movie and the show. Ed Helms is another guy who shows up in many movies and television shows, one of them being "The Office" in which he plays a similar role of being the jokester or the funny guy of the office/movie. All in all, the stars were a near perfect match for the roles that they played in the movie.

One of my favorite scenes from the movie has to be the scene where Kenny, played by Will Poulter, kisses his "sister", Emma Roberts, and "mom", Jennifer Aniston, in order to practice so that he doesn't screw up when he tries to actually kiss a girl. The entire scene is made up of medium shots and close-ups that alternate to either show the kisses and facial expressions, or to show the action between the people. The scene starts off with Casey Miller, the sister, offering to teach Kenny how to kiss. (I thought the dialogue during this scene was perfect and hilarious; it portrayed what I would think a conversation between people teaching each other how to kiss would be.) She makes comments on the kiss so that he knows what he is doing right and wrong. The very first kiss was a medium shot in which Casey said it was good but needed more tongue. The second one was a close-up which helped to show the fact that Kenny was trying too hard and used too much tongue, making Casey wince. Eventually the parents walked in on them and instantly knew that Casey was trying to help. The mom, named Rose played by Jennifer Aniston, sits down and asks to see how well Kenny kisses since they found out that he's never kissed anyone before. On another close-up shot, it shows Rose showing Kenny a trick that will make his kissing even better. This trick made Kenny's eyes bulge out out of pleasure, of course. As he alternates between his mom and sister, the girl he was trying to impress, Melissa, walks in on them and screams. The close-up of her face and his face turning red shows their changing emotions, something you couldn't see as well in a medium or long shot.

If I were to base the movie solely on its cinematic effects, I think that We're the Millers would not earn too high of a rating. Most of the movie contained many of the same shots:close-up, medium shot, and long shots. Close-ups were mostly used to show emotions that the characters were having or they helped add some comedic effect as to what the characters said. Medium shots were primarily for any small actions that took place such as when the other mom fondled Rose's breasts or with any fighting scenes between the bad guys and the family. Finally, long shots and extreme long shots were used to show the setting of the scene and whenever the RV would be on screen driving down the road. Different lighting techniques and color techniques were another plus in the movie. During any violent scenes or of scenes in Mexico when they were getting the drugs, the screen would be all dark and solemn. The clothes they wore would usually be a dark color and the background was usually a grey, brown, or army green color. However, whenever there was a scene when the entire family was together, the colors were very bright and colorful, which fit in with the emotion. When they were together they would usually be happy or scared, but the most important part is that they were together and they enjoyed each others' company. Although there was a good variety of lighting and shots throughout the movie, angles was an aspect that the movie lacked. The entire movie was mostly straight on shots of the characters with no variety at all.

By looking at the movie as a whole, We're the Millers met my standards. The movie had a lot of humor as well as dry humor, which made me actually laugh out loud multiple times. I would give this movie a 4.1/5 stars because it was classic comedy, but it was very predictable.

Review of the Reviews

Positive Review:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303932504579253683274985194?mod=WSJ_ArtsEnt_LifestyleArtEnt_6

Negative Review:
http://nypost.com/2013/12/10/american-hustle-is-a-polyester-filled-mess/

After hearing so much about it the past couple weeks, I finally went to see American Hustle in theaters this past weekend. I was intrigued to see the movie that earned the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress – Motion Picture and was not let down. It had an attention-grabbing plot line that flowed well throughout the movie along with properly dressed characters. However, the movie was at times drawn out too much and the acting was questionable at times, so I can understand why some people might not have enjoyed it as much.

Overall, American Hustle earned a solid rating for its screenplay and characters. For example, I chose to analyze a review written by Joe Morgenstern from the Wall Street Journal. His review was formatted so that he started with his thoughts about the movie and then went on to describe each character thoroughly. The tone of this review was one that was contemptuous and straightforward, with a hint of humor, while also using direct quotes as a way to prove his points. An example is when Morgenstern described Christian Bale, who played Irving in the movie, as “flabby” in his review but referred back to Sydney, played by Amy Adams, who said that Irving was “not necessarily in good shape” in the movie. Other than this description of Irving, Joe Morgenstern described all the other characters by using a very eccentric choice of word like “quick-witted floozy” to describe Jennifer Lawrence’s role as Rosalyn. By categorizing the movie as a comedy and drama, it was evident that Morgenstern was pleased with the outcome of American Hustle.

In contrast, a review by Kyle Smith from the New York Post categorized the movie as “sort of a mob thriller” and “in part a con-job movie”. Smith clearly portrays the fact that he was not too appreciative of the movie in both the content of it and some of its acting. The tone of Smith’s review was one that was more sarcastic, critical, and condescending compared to Morgenstern’s review. Kyle Smith makes many sarcastic comments like his comment about the hair styles of the characters and his comments about their personalities. He formatted his review so that it went chronologically with what occurred in the movie. While describing the events of the movie, Smith criticizes it by saying that there are “too many movies” about con artists and that the director of the movie is in some “strange, loopy bliss.” Seeing the way Kyle Smith talks about the characters, the director, and the movie as a whole, one can see that he disapproves of how the movie was made.

However, both movie reviews did have some common aspects as to how they were written. In between the parentheses of the two reviews, the writers included additional side notes, or comments, that were not completely necessary but helped the reader to see what their real thoughts were and maybe even learn some new information. Both reviews also focused mainly on explaining the plot and the characters in American Hustle. They made sure to elaborate on their thoughts of what each star’s role was in the movie and whether or not they thought they fit their role. Though the tone of each review was different, each had their own way of incorporating humor. Morgenstern’s review showed humor through some of the ways she described the movie and how much she seemed to fawn over it. In Smith’s review, he used sarcasm and satire as a form of humor. Many references were also made in both of the reviews, both historical and ones to other films. In Smith’s review, he referenced many more movies than in Morgenstern’s. Both commented on the fact that Bradley Cooper starred in Silver Linings Playbook and that he did a splendid job in it. Both also added a tidbit about how American Hustle was based off of an FBI scam in the 1970s called Abscam. So despite the differences of opinion and tone in the two reviews, both had some similar ideas on what should be included in their reviews and what is the most important.

Of the many points that I agree with in Morgenstern’s review, there was one point that I wholeheartedly agree with the most without a doubt. It was the comment he made about Jennifer Lawrence’s ability to act and her humor. He said that, “Comedy seems to come naturally to her, though so far there's no sign of anything in acting that doesn't” (Morgenstern). I agree with this because I think that Jennifer Lawrence is a very talented person and actress. She starred in both American Hustle as a ditsy wife that had a terrible relationship with her husband and in the Hunger Games series as a girl who is fighting to keep her and her partner, Peeta, alive and to properly represent her district. These two roles are completely different and Lawrence plays both roles very well. This shows that she is fit for any role and that nothing can hold her back. She is also portrayed as a comedic person through interviews on television and her stories that she tells. Although I agree with Morgenstern’s view of the movie more, Smith made a good point about American Hustle in his review. He said that, "There's a fake sheik in there somewhere, too, and you may remember, if barely, the underlying true story of the '70s "Abscam" plot that led to the conviction of several congressmen and a senator. But that part of the story      the one part that matters!      interests Russell the least" (Smith). I agree with this statement about the movie because although this movie is supposed to represent the 1970s Abscam that occurred, it focused primarily on the characters and their lives rather than the actual conning.

I think that the positive review by Joe Morgenstern was the more convincing review of the two. His comments and opinions on the movie seemed much more professional than those of Kyle Smith. Smith's review seemed to come from a very bitter person's point of view. He mainly just found different ways to make fun of the movie rather than giving constructive criticism for it. On the other hand, Morgenstern's multitude of eccentric words made his review stick in your mind more and made you more intrigued to continue reading. His review would have made a larger impact on whether or not I would have wanted to see the movie.

If I were to write a review on a movie that I have recently watched, I would consider inputting multiple key points. First of all, I would make sure to include my opinion of the movie, of course. This means that I would add whether or not I thought the actors were fit for their roles and if the cinematography was well done. I would also be sure to include some direct quotes to support any arguments I would be trying to make. References would also play a big role, whether it is a historical reference or a reference to other films and stars. This could affect whether or not the reader wants to watch it, based off of if they are interested in the topic or not. Something I would make sure I did not have, however, is an excessive amount of sarcasm. I would surely have a couple of sarcastic comments, but not much more because I would want my review to be handled seriously. And last but not least, I would be sure to include what my overall rating is out of 5 stars so it is easy to see my opinion of the movie at a quick glance if needed.