Raging Bull

Rarely sit through a movie that i don't like. Unfortunately Raging Bull was one of those movies. Though im told that i have to like it just cause Scorsese or Deniro or whatever but i just didn't enjoy it. The problem was that i had no sympathy for any of the characters in the film and i think thats the most important part of a good story. As far as film quality goes it isn't too bad but its just not a movie for me.

Do The Right Thing

Do The Right Thing is a very loud and in your face film and set Spike Lee up for a long career are racially charged films. Overall i quite liked the film and while there are some specific complaints that i have it still warrants praise, especially for its complex and controversial subject matter.

The film starts out quite simple, simply showing life in New York in a black neighborhood. For a large part of the film I had trouble finding any particularly coherent plot. Normally I would immediately be put off by this in a film but I think Lee makes it work. His honest portrayal of communities like this one overshadows the lack a specific plot. Later on though, different character dynamics begin to take prominence and the point of the film becomes clearer.

The acting in the film plays a large part in making to film seem real and all the actors played their parts well. I’m especially impressed by Spike Lee’s ability to write, direct, and act in his films, especially at his young.
The deeper messages of the film are especially interesting though many things in the plot don’t seem to get resolved. This is another thing that normally would cause me to not like a film but I think it fits the subject matter. Spike Lee doesn’t try to bring unrealistic closure to the issues being dealt with.

I thought Do The Right Thing was a very good movie and deserves the acclaim it has been given and the place of cultural significance it has.

Apocalypse Now anylitical

Apocalypse Now is an intensely visual film. The shots were filmed with many different things in mind such as lighting, color and framing. With those basic cinematographic concepts, the filmmakers created a great cinematic experience.

The film has a wide variety of shots ranging from extreme close-ups to broad crane shots. The long shots, like the helicopter attack, were stunning. The point o view went from seeing the helicopters flying across the sky to views from the helicopters looking down at the fighting. Together, the scene really makes you feel like your experiencing the fight first hand.

I also noticed that different sections of the film were dominated by different colors. The beginning o the film had an unsaturated green and yellow ting to it which I felt invoked an uncomfortable feeling. Some scenes, like ones in the forest had strong blue colors to them. The overall mood of the film changed as the colors did.

Coupled with the colors was the lighting, especially in the second half of the film. When the main characters arrive at the last army outpost the lighting is so dark that it is hard to see. This actually works very well for that scene because it makes look as horrible as it is supposed to feel. Also, the initial lack of lighting on Colonel Kurtz helps to extend the tension already built up on his character.

Apocalypse Now is a perfect study in good cinematography showing how all the elements make or break a good shot.

The Horror: an Apocalypse Now review.

Where could I possible start with this movie. First of all i don't think my head has stopped spinning. Apocalypse Now is an odd movie to say the least and nothing like i have ever seen. It was strange, disturbing, violent, seemingly immoral, and guess what, i loved it. From the very first scene it becomes obvious this isn't your typical war movie. The farther in you go the more it plays out like a psychological horror film. Francis Ford Coppola achieves this style many different ways. Everything from Martin sheen's inner monologue, to the films striking cinematography to its intense plotting works cohesively to bring this films intensity and brilliance

In a large sense, it is an extremely artistic film. The entire movie is immensely visual and surreal. The filmmakers used a fascinating array of colors and textures in their shots. The camera gets everything from sweeping shots of helicopters flying over the Vietnamese landscape to ominous close-ups of men covered in shadow.
Another striking component to the film is its foreboding soundtrack. I usually find that music play an extremely important role in the quality of the film and Apocalypse now doesn't disappoint.

The sensual aspects a film can only take you so far unless the subject matter holds your attention as well. As if the effect this film has on your senses isn't commanding enough, Apocalypse Now's effect on the mind takes it to an entirely new level. I left the film utterly confused on the moral message of the film but i think that was more or less intentional. So many of the actions of the different characters are appalling but Coppola brings you so deep into the world of the Vietnam war that it is hard condemn them.

Apocalypse Now is an extremely representational film. I think the only way for a film to even come close to conveying the horrors of the Vietnam war is to show it with a surreal darkness. Apocalypse Now does its job phenomenally and holds your attention long after the film is over. As it turns out, Marlon Brando's famous quote encapsulates the essence of this film exquisitely.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly analytical entry

The most striking element of the film The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is most certainly the cinematography. The majority of the film is shot from the perspective of Jean-Dominique Bauby's eye. This creates some very interesting and dynamic shots. I found the first couple scenes particularly interesting. When the film begins, Mr. Bauby's eye slowly opens and looks around the room. The Camera is extremely out of focus and blurry. It immediately draws you deep into the film. As people begin to take notice of Mr. Bauby's awakening the shallow focus becomes more obvious. People's faces are blurry until they move as close as possible to the camera. As the film progresses, the depth of field progressively become deeper. As Mr. Bauby's vision becomes clearer, so do ours. The attention to realism and detail in the film is the most important part of it. The purpose of the attention to detail is clear; the film invites us to become fully immersed in the experience of Jean-Dominique.

Later in the film we are kicked out of Jean-Dominique Bauby's perspective rather abruptly. The cinematographer makes some really unique stylistic choices throughout the film. For example, the scene in which Mr. Bauby is driving in his convertible soon before his stroke, the camera moves often and abnormally. Sometimes the camera focuses upward at the sky and the tops of buildings from inside the car. While many different symbols and other things can be inferred from this stylistic choice, it at the very least sets the film apart from the norm.

As with any film, a combination of cinematography, directing, and editing make a film work or fail but “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly’s” cinematography creates a unique and intriguing feel to the film that draws you in and never lets go, even when it kicks you out.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

I found The diving bell and the butterfly to be a very beautiful film. They made many artistic choices that i really enjoyed. The film is mostly told from the eye of Jean-do Bauby which creates really interesting shots. Bauby's inner monologue provides both humor and heartbreak that, along with the cinematography, really draw you into the film. The film is completely in french which i really enjoyed because i am studying it. Also, it sets a nice mood to the film. Though it seemed to drag on at times i still really liked the artsy style of the film and would certainly recommend it.

Psycho Remake

Almost, no one likes it when movies are remade. Especially, movies held in such high regard as Psycho. I say almost because I think I’m one of the few (and the proud), who enjoyed Gus Van Sant’s version more than the original. Not to say that he made everything in the film better but many of the fundamental flaws that I discovered in the original film were rectified by the new cast’s interpretations of their characters.
My biggest problem with Hitchcock’s is that the characters didn’t seem believable in many ways. Ironically, Norman Bates, with his highly unusual condition, was the most believable character in the film. In the remake, different characters interactions and reactions seemed more natural and less melodramatic. Most importantly, it was easier to understand Marion’s motivation throughout the film. Though this took away from the sense of fear Marion had in the original, it seemed unnaturally intense in Hitchcock’s version.
Vince Vaughn’s portrayal of Norman was both positive and negative. He lacked the handsome, timid quality that Anthony Perkins had but was significantly more intimidating. In and of itself, Vince did an acceptable job at playing Norman and in his defense; Anthony set the bar quite high. I might be “that guy”, you know, the one critic who liked the movie no one else did, but I’m okay with that because I think Gus Van Sant deserves more credit than he most likely received.