Glory at Sea Critique

1) Provide a brief description of the film.
The film is about a group of people who were recently victims of a terrible storm, which resulted in a flood, and multiple deaths of family members and friends came about.  It all started with a man who tried to built a boat, after having lost his girlfriend, whom all we know about her is her name, Tess.  The man begins building the boat, and has a slow start, but eventually, town members come join him, providing their most precious treasures to the effort of building the boat.  The boat gets built, and the group sales off, with all those who built it.  They sale into the night and till the next day.  Out of nowhere, the man who began building the boat in the first place jumps in the water and starts searching for his drowned girlfriend.  At the same time, the boat begins to crumble, and everyone but the Reverend fall into the water.  The ending scene is all the people who built the boat embrace their loved ones.


2) What is the overall tone or mood of the film?
The overall mood in the beginning is a sense of curiosity and hope.  No one has any idea why they are building a boat, they built it because they felt something that they "just knew" needed to be done.  Towards the end, a sense of closure, happiness, and relief is the dominant theme as we see our protagonists finding hope again.


3) How does the dialog influence the film?
Dialogue wasn't common.  It helped greatly because actions are much more powerful than words, so watching was more enjoyable.  The lack of dialogue also let the viewer find their interpretation of the film, most importantly the ending because the ending is abstract, and with no dialogue as a guideline, makes the viewer think.


4) In what ways does the cinematography affect the film?
The cinematography was interesting. I felt like I was watching a cross between an actual hollywood film and a home movie.  It wasn't too believable or realistic, but it gave about a "imaginative or dream-like" feeling to it, making it incredibly enjoyable.


5) What scene or part of a scene do you like the best? Why?
My favorite scene was the one where everyone fell into the water and then began embracing their lost loved ones.  It brought a sense of closure, and allowed the characters to say good-bye, one last time.  Personally, I thought the people died in the crashing of the boat, but they died with their family and friends and lovers, and they died together, so they are in a much better place.


6) What is your opinion of the film?

Great film.  It brought back those memories of making forts out of pillows from the couch and the imagination that came along with it.  The film contained a great metaphor for getting back on your feet after a disaster or hardship, and provided a colorful method on how to bounce back, even though it may not be the best option to take.

New Boy Critique

1) Provide a brief description of the film.
The film was about a young black boy, Joseph, who recently enrolled in a new school.  At the school he is bullied by a boy throughout the class, but the teacher ignores it.  Occasionally, the film flashes back to Joseph's past life in Africa, where his father was teacher and Joseph was a good student.  However, we learn that Joseph's father was murdered by militants.  During recess, back in the present, milk is thrown at Joseph and the other boy's attempt to start a fight.  However, Joseph stands stall and stares down the bully, acting without violence.  The teacher then has a talk with the three boys, only to be interrupted by a young girl named Hazel.  Hazel tries to tell the teacher that the boys had been bullying Joseph and Joseph did nothing wrong.  But the teacher dismisses Hazel, and Hazel talks back, causing the class and the three boys, including Joseph and the bully, to laugh together at the problems Hazel is causing.


2) What is the overall tone or mood of the film?
The beginning starts with a somewhat isolated and afraid feeling.  It progresses into resentment for the bully and sympathy for Joseph.  While watching the flashbacks and seeing Joseph's past life, we understand what Joseph went through, adding even more to the sympathetic mood towards Joseph.  The film ends on a happy note, where we see Joseph and the bully can now relate, and hopefully coincide together in the future.


3) How does the dialog influence the film?
Dialogue affected greatly.  When in the new school, Joseph rarely talks.  He is quiet and the only people talking are those around him.  However, when we see the flashbacks, he is talking and smiling quite a lot.  This shows he once was comfortable, and understand why he is quite.  At the end, we see Joseph smile and speak.  The mere fact Joseph spoke showed he was comfortable with the situation and can find joy in life, even with the loss of his father.


4) In what ways does the cinematography affect the film?
The cinematography was not a major factor.  Some shots of the teacher yelling at the student, where a students head was one corner of the shot, made it feel like as if the audience were the students sitting in the rows.  Other than that, nothing jumped out.


5) What scene or part of a scene do you like the best? Why?
My favorite scene was where the bully was trying to fight Joseph at recess.  We had just seen that Joseph's father was killed, and now the bully is trying to pick a fight with Joseph.  Yet Joseph stands tall and looks the bully in the eye.  He looked at him with the look of "Yeah, I've seen stuff you will never ever see."  The stare was empowering and stopped the bully in his attempt to start a fight.


6) What is your opinion of the film?
I liked it.  It's not something I would watch again.  But it was a interesting story, one that people should see, but not more than once.  I had a problem with the ending as it was cliché and did not seem logical.  Somehow, the students magically became friends and the racist bully was nice.  Just wasn't believable for me.  However, I do recommend it as it does show the effects of events going in Sierra Leone and militants rising against their governments in Africa.

10 Minutes Critique

1) Provide a brief description of the film.

The film was about, at first, a man looking to get his photographs made, however, it then cuts to a young boy, named Memo, in Bosnia, who is the middle of a war.  It starts out with him going to retrieve water, and walking through the compound he lives in.  We see that the area is war torn and run down, with tired soldiers and people struggling for food.  When the boy finally gets to the truck for water and bread, where people are scrambling, their compound comes under fire and people rush for safety.  The boy, Memo, makes his way back to his own apartment where is family was staying to find them slain by gunfire.

2) What is the overall tone or mood of the film?

The tone of it was sad, but it also was critical of life in the western world, where safety is taken for granted.  The way of presenting how it takes 10 minutes to produce some photos and in a place like Bosnia, 10 minutes could change your life.

3) How does the dialog influence the film?

The dialogue was not very influential as I thought it would be.  But the film did not need it at all as the cinematography, and the idea of putting two completely different events in the same time frame was powerful enough.  In fact, even if a little more dialogue was put in the film, it would have ruined it.

4) In what ways does the cinematography affect the film?

The best I have ever seen.  The camera basically follows the boy the whole duration of the film and is one complete shot.  It flowed perfectly and added to the already great idea of comparing western world to places where life and death is a daily struggle.  The transitions were great as well, going from clock to clock.

5) What scene or part of a scene do you like the best? Why?

My favorite was just Memo, the boy, walking to get water.  The flowing and panning of the camera was great.  It felt like the audience was strolling along with Memo, on the trip to get water.

6) What is your opinion of the film?

My new second favorite short film.  Right alongside, "Chief", this film brings to light something that has been put in the back, poorly lit area of society's mind.  I would watch it again just to see the camera angle and watch how the shots flow in harmony with the boy.  Great film, everyone should see it.

Film Review #3

Dog Day Afternoon


1) Provide a description of the film. Discuss the plot and characters and how they influenced the film. Was the plot line or character development more important? Why?


The plot of the movie was about 3 men who go in to rob a bank. The robbers aren't very coordinated, as one bails when they first enter the bank.  Sonny (Al Pacino) attempts to quickly move along the robbery so he and his remaining partner, Sal, can make a quick get away.  However, the cops are called and arrive upon scene.  The robbery turns into a hostage situation and the whole area becomes a side show on the local news.  With the police surrounding Sonny and Sal, Sonny attempts to negotiate his way out of the situation and escape prison.  The character development was very important.  Sonny at first just seems like some low life robbing a bank and his partner Sal seems the same.  However, over time we learn more about Sonny and Sal and learn they, too, are citizens of the world like you and me.  We end up feeling pity for them in the end as we know that they never meant to hurt anyone.  They were just in a bad spot and needed some help.


2) Think critically about how the film was shot, directed, use of lighting, etc. What do you think was effective in the making of the film? What took away or could have been done differently to enhance the film?
The cinematography was great.  Since the movie was shot at one very small scene.  The director and cinematographer had to get creative and they did.  My personal favorite shots were the ones outside the bank, looking at the amassed crowds that surrounded the tiny bank that Sonny and Sal were held up in.


3) What is you overall opinion of the film? Would you recommend it? Why/why not?
I think the film is a great view into the dark side of the media.  It shows how a very serious and critical situation like a hostage and bank robbery situation and turn it into a story about "crazy and homosexual" people are on a rampage for their beliefs.  I highly recommend this film because it is very well done and the acting by Al Pacino is one for the ages.

Noodles

Film Review #2

Gangs of New York by Martin Scorsese

1) Provide a description of the film.  Discuss the plot and characters and how they influenced the film.  Was the plot line or character development more important? Why?
Set in the 1860s New York, the movie was about Amsterdam Vallon, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, who, when he was a boy, saw his father, Priest Vallon, killed by Bill Cutting, a.k.a. "The Butcher", in a gang war between foreigners and the natives.  After his death, Amsterdam went on to to grow up and 16 years later, returns to the same area his father was killed, known as the Five Points, to avenge his father's death, all the while the tensions of the Civil War are taking place and politics are in everyone's best interest.  This time, he goes undercover and works for Bill Cutting, only to attempt to kill him in the end.
 
The characters are what made the movie.  The plot was somewhat original, but basically the stock "His father was killed, the son wants revenge" sort of deal.  Amsterdam shows his growth as he learns the ways of his father, ironically, taught to him by his enemy, Bill Cutting.  In the end, Amsterdam becomes what his father was when Priest was leader of the "Dead Rabbits", Priest and Amsterdam Vallon's gang of foreigners.  Bill Cutting shows his growth from being young to growing older and looking desperately to find somewhere to pass his ideals on, which he does in Amsterdam.

2) Think critically about how the film was shot, directed, use of lighting, etc.  What do you think was effectively in making of the film?  What took away or could have been done differently to enhance the film?
The film was shot in a cartoonish way.  The characters were all dressed in a very vibrant clothes and large top hats.  Along with lighting with a yellowish tint and a set that looks almost like a stage on broadway.  Scorsese also uses a moving camera angle where it is the same shot, but rotates the view so the viewer doesn't get sick from the constant switching of camera angles.  Personally, I felt I was in the matrix when watching it, but it only added to the sense of tension and action.


3) What is your overall opinion of the film?  Would you recommend it?  Why/why not?
Overall, I would recommend it over and over.  It is a terrific film, one that has never been done before.  Gang movies have been done, but not in this major turning point of America's history where everything was changing.  The basic plot line is unoriginal, but the characters and setting are so refreshing, the plot line doesn't matter as much as the characters of Bill Cutting and Amsterdam Vallon and their next moves.

1) Describe one of Chaplin's films.
The film "Kids Auto Race at Venice" is a short silent film about a character, The Tramp, who fights for the attention of the camera, which is trying to film the auto race.  It mainly is shot from a still angle and the changing of angles is scarce.  Mostly one angle is used.


2) What do you notice about the style or directing of the film?
There was no very notable directing or stylistic characteristics, only the fact the Chaplin's "The Tramp" was being his usual self with his mischievous ways and exaggerated movements.  There were some scene edits, where the clip wasn't just one, whole, long scene but other than that, the film was


3) How do you think these traits relate to the silent film era?
One trait is it was shot from a still angle, just like Melies films.  It was black and white, had no sounds other than the orchestra background music.  Also, the characters are using exaggerated movements, which make up for the lack of sound and dialogue and gives the viewer and idea of what is going on.


4) What similar characteristics are you seeing in the silent films we have seen so far (Lumiere Brothers, Melies, Chaplin, Keaton)?
So far I see lots of exaggerated movements from the characters, along with some sort of slap-stick humor.  All are black and white, with either a piano or orchestra playing in the background some beat that corresponds to the action in the film.