MYST Post #5: Taken 2

Going into Taken 2 I didn't expect much, in fact, I didn't expect anything.  The original Taken was a poor excuse for the aging Liam Neeson to give audiences a reminder that he can still "kick ass", even though we all know what a joke that is.  Usually I'd give some background information and try and work my way into my review but this movie doesn't even deserve that kind of recognition.  If it were possible, I'd ask Comcast to give me the 6 bucks I wasted on this money making excuse for a movie but I can't and I guess I deserve it for even wanting to watch it in the first place.  

The old adage that you're only as good as your weakest link rings true yet again and this time it starts right at the top.  Olivier Megaton, the same guy who directed Transporter 3 and Colombiana, is notorious for producing terrible films.  In fact, Transporter 3 received 36% on rotten tomatoes and Colombiana received a 26% but I guess if you're into those cliche action movies, this is the guy for you.

That being said, this movie does have some really cool action scenes.  It's obvious that Megaton knows how to overload our visual senses with a lot of violence and adrenaline.  One of my favorite scenes is the one linked above, in which Neeson helps his daughter locate his position.  It's actually really interesting how Megaton manipulates overhead shots, long shots, closeups, dutch angles and a ton of other cinematic elements to make the audience feel the suspense of his daughter.  Within this scene alone we see the vastness of the setting.  It's clear that Taken 2 had a huge budget to be able to shoot and use such a big part of Istanbul.

In the end, Taken 2 is a horrible excuse for a film and just continues to remind me of the deteriorating direction film is taking.  Taken 2 is entertaining and gives us the action fix we need every once and a while and that's all it delivers.  The plot is extremely dry and simply a remake of the original, the action is fluid but unrealistic, and the acting is nothing special.  Taken 2 deserves a 5 out of 10, and while that does seem a bit critical but like most sequels, it's deserving.

1975 Film: Let's Take a Trip

1. Let's Take a Trip follows the journey of a band, and their manager, en route from California to upstate New York for their first big gig at Woodstock.  This feature film begins with the band receiving an initial payment of $10,000 in gratuity for accepting the gig at Woodstock and in essence follows the band's decision to blow all of it on drugs.  The movie culminates with the final gig at Woodstock and an eventual falling out between band members shortly after.  More importantly though, the movie serves as a commentary on the youth movement and counter culture at the time.  We wanted to go with a very indie, almost cult classic type feel to the film and I think that is very apparent with the shock value we bring with the heavy drug influence and sex/rock and roll appeal.  I honestly believe this film would be successful because it calls on the whole rock and roll culture, and it brings a lot of the same elements Easy Rider brought out in film, especially during the 70s, a time where audiences really wanted to be pushed.

2. I'm not really sure what genre this film constitutes as, we really blended a couple genres together.  Like I mentioned earlier, the film sort of follows the adventures of this band on their way to their performance, but we incorporate a lot of action and drama to build the tension between the characters.  In other respects, we wanted to get the feel of almost a documentary type film to show the realism of the plot, but also crime and corruption factor in.

3. We chose United Artists as our major studio/distributing force because they best fit the style of film we wanted to put out.  It's a film that really challenges conventional roles and at this time UA was known for really pushing the button, in fact they released over 100 X rated films at the time, so we figured it'd be appropriate to go with them.  The great thing about UA was that we could have the independence we wanted, but still be able to sell a major market film, and that was ultimately what sold us.

4. For this film, we chose Milos Forman as our director, and the main reasoning for that was simply his familiarity with Jack Nicholson, one of our main actors.  Forman directed, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and has had several films released through UA- it was a natural fit.  Warren Beatty stars in the film along side Nicholson, and we chose him for his role in Bonnie and Clyde, and his ability to act as an anti-hero.  Both leads are extremely versatile actors and can act as the unconventional protagonists.  We decided to focus on sound, and aside from the obvious reason that the film follows a band, we figured that we'd ride the bandwagon of releasing the soundtrack before the film release to publicize the film as well as promote artists at the time.
5. We've decided to make Let's Take a Trip an R-rated film, and the reason for this is because we wanted to really hit the audience hard with the shock value that drugs, sex, and violence can bring.  It's also R-rated because a lot of the scenes involve really touchy subjects, like the Vietnam War and such, and the commentary isn't appropriate for anyone under 17.  We've blurred the lines of good and evil, and we lead the audience to falling for both characters.  It's a very auteur vision film, and much of it features commentary on society at the time I could see it as an iconic 70s film.
6. The only thing I would change about our film is that I'd want it to be more of an event film.  Like as in we really advertise it and hype the film up a lot.  Maybe even switch from UA to MGM or 20th Century Fox.  I feel like even though it's really out there, this film could do really well.

Formal Film Studies #2 - Joseph Gordon-Levitt

When we think of the great actors/actresses of our time period, many people wouldn’t put Joseph Gordon-Levitt in that category.  To be honest, I didn’t think I would’ve either, but the more I see him work the more I appreciate his talent, and I think it starts with the direction the industry is going.  I guess my interest in him was sparked while watching (500) Days of Summer with my sister.  So I figured I'd do my formal film study on him as I was getting bored of the director theme and wanted to do something different.

Having already seen The Dark Night Rises, and Inception I decided to watch Brick, Looper and Premium Rush - 3 very different films that show a very versatile Gordon-Levitt.  And the thing is, all 3 of these films received very different reception.  Brick: a very indie, neo-noir, heavy auteur commentary style movie received an 80% on Rotten Tomatoes and is now often viewed as a modern day cult classic.  Premium Rush received a 76% but audience gave it a mere 62% and from what I had heard before watching was that it was a waste of time, dry plot, and had a weird theme of bikes that a lot of people felt was lame.  Looper is the widely appreciated sci-fi thriller action film that everyone seemed to like with a ton of violence and of course featuring the original killing machine himself, Bruce Willis. It received a whopping 93% and audience reception was right up there with it.

The thing is, there's much more than meets the eye when it comes to Levitt... Once a child prodigy, he starred in Beethoven and Angel's in the Outfield and even voiced a character in Treasure Island.  And while that's all great and wonderful, Levitt did what not many child prodigy's can do: last.  Not just last, but develop into someone versatile, unlike the Olsen twins or Lindsey Lohan or Shiaf Labouf, he's been able to transform his career.

That same versatility has made him so successful and in fact one of the most sought out actors in the business.  Just recently it was announced that a film, Don Jon, was going to be released this coming October, directed by Levitt, in which he also plays the main character.  The point is, this guy is mad talented and always brings something new to the table.

Finally, now that I covered all that other boring background stuff I can really get down to what really matters... how he feels on screen.  It's not to say that Levitt is a method actor, because in reality no one is these days, except Daniel Day-Lewis, and maybe the late deceased Heath Ledger, maybe.  But there's parts of what Levitt does on screen that seem so genuine and so real that I can believe he's the real actor.  For starters, Levitt tries to do as much of the film as he possibly can, or is physically allowed to.  In Premium Rush, he suffered 30 stitches in training for that movie, and was actually fit enough to do all that riding.  Granted the studio wouldn't let him do everything, but he told vanity fair, “I had to be able to do it all day, every day. I didn’t want the film crew waiting for me to catch my breath.” and there's something to be said about that intensity that resonates through the film.

That same intensity shines bright in Looper and even stronger in Brick as these films challenge the bounds of society and definitely bring neo-noir and auteur commentary styles into play.  I found it interesting that in both films, Rian Johnson was the director and called on Levitt to handle the load of these very complex protagonists.  Also, oddly enough Noah Segan stars in both films and I think this is just a testament to how those around Levitt perform better and trust that he will provide an interesting performance.

In the end, the thing that makes Joseph Gordon-Levitt such a good actor in my opinion is that he knows what he's good at but always tries to push the limits.  In Brick, he plays a teenage boy caught up in this whole underground drug scene, in Looper he plays a trained assassin, in Premium Rush he plays a mail carrier, in Inception he plays a genius on a team with Leonardo DiCaprio.  These are all different roles and yet they all feel so natural and almost charming in their own respects.  And even though I only briefly explained the movies, I can assure you that Levitt steals the show in all 3.

MYST Post #4: Les Aventures de Rabbi Jacob

To be honest, I don't really know what possessed me to watch this film, and maybe that's what made my experience so much better.  I have never particularly been interested in foreign films, and in broader terms I haven't really branched out into the indie scene either, but as I've gotten older my tastes have widened and I can appreciate the different cultures and their artistic values.

Okay, I'm kidding I know exactly why I watched this movie - I was forced to... As part of this diversifying of curriculum we have in our wonderful district 86 classes, my french teacher decided to show us famous and in many cases, very controversial films just east of the Atlantic.  And as it turns out, this film doesn't shy away from it's fair share of satirical commentary.

Being of french diccent, as well as a having taken french for more years than I can count on 2 hands, I consider myself very much a local frenchman and figured this movie was worth a watch in french with no subtitles, and in an environment I could actually focus in and not do other homework during class, my basement.

So as I watched on, I noticed 2 main things.  The first being that this movie is actually funny as hell, and the second being that the acting in foreign films, no matter how big the budget, looks much more natural than in their American counterparts... Let me explain.  As I watched on, I saw how you could really get the Autour feel, and even the actors didn't seem to be acting, just doing.  I don't know if I'm preaching to deaf ears, and I guess the fact that I don't know how to back this up makes me look absurd, but even in the movie "Breathless" I could get the feel of the "cool" french culture.  I imagine an American rendition of the film looking forced and awkward but I guess that's why there isn't one.

Back to the movie, which basically follows the transformation of a racist factory owner, Victor Pivert, and the crazy events that change him into a man who is loving of all cultures.  One of my favorite scenes includes Pivert walking into an abandon factory and falling into a giant tub of gum extract.  The scene basically follows slapstick elements and eventually culminates with him crudely insulting the Muslim assassins.

In the end, I wish I knew more about the actors and the director to be able to see just how this movie ranks in comparison to other french films, but I think Gerard Oury did a fantastic job.  The thing that makes this film so successful in my mind is that it doesn't do anything spectacular in cinematography it's just a comedy with a funny commentary on the problems with racism in our society.  IMDb gave it a 7.2 and in my opinion it deserves an 8.0 - definitely worth watching, and an entertaining enough movie to really get you hooked on foreign films.

MYST POST #3: Oz the Great and Powerful

I really don't know what possessed me to see this movie, but I'm glad I did.  It'd been forever since the last time I actually went to the theatre and saw a movie and there's still a special feeling when you actually go.  I managed to score a cheap deal for IMAX tickets and with the whole magical world of Oz theme going it really made for a cool visual experience.  I've always been kind of familiar with Oz but I'm not really sure if this was supposed to be a rendition of the Wizard of Oz, or a separate thing?  Who really knows these days when it comes to Disney productions...

Oz holds it's own in the box office, and I believe it's currently the #1 movie out there, but as we discussed in class, these first few months of the year don't really offer much to work with.  It's hard to picture James Franco and Mila Kunis playing such out of character roles, but after a while it seems to come together and I really don't think anyone could've played Oz the way Franco did.  I hadn't heard much of Sam Raimi since the Spiderman movies and frankly, he'd seemed to have fallen off the map for me, I didn't even bother to see Spiderman 3.  I think it's interesting though that he tried to work Franco away from his character in Spiderman and into Oz.  That being said, there's aspects of it that you can tell transferred over, and there's this running motif of greed and hunger for power that works away in the background of Franco's character.

I think where Disney really invested a lot of time, and where it really paid the dividends was in cinematography and editing.  I honestly haven't seen a movie start off in black and white and turn to color and it really reminded me of the technicolor and wide-screen developments of the late 50s we've been studying.  It adds a nice touch to parallel reality and the old world as how it changes to color when we reach Oz.  This movie is full of dutch angles and really experiments with how far we can push the camera because it is part animated but part reality, unlike other films, it's just really out there and it challenges the viewers to follow along.  Granted, it is a 3D production, and it's obvious they're do as much crazy stuff as they can to get people to come watch, but hey, I'm not complaining.

In regards to the thing that stood out to me most was just the stylistic choices of Raimi.  I chose to link the waterfall scene because I think it epitomizes the movie into a short 50 seconds.  The feel of Oz is this super trippy mystical wonderland, like what we have always associated with it in our minds, and as much as we try and focus on the plot, it's so easy to get caught up in this long continuous editing of vast sweeping long shots that showcase how wild Oz really can be.

IMDb gave Oz the Great and Powerful a 6.9, but I'd have to disagree with this.  In my opinion, Oz deserves an 8.5 or maybe even higher.  I generally don't dip my toes into these types of films but I have to say I'm really impressed.  Mila and Franco really pulled the acting along and made up for where the animated characters could not... not to mention the amazing graphics and unique editing/play on color, I'd say this movie definitely deserves a view and a trip to the theatre, the IMAX really does make a difference.

MYST POST #2: Skyfall

In honor of spring break and the end of 3rd quarter, I figured I'd catch up on a ton of movies I was too lazy to see when they came out.  That being said, I was pretty excited to see Skyfall, and maybe that was due to my love of the Bond series or maybe just the fact that there was a ton of hype surrounding this film.  I read somewhere that this was one of the best Bond movies of all time, and while it was damn good, I'd have to politely disagree.

I guess going into this movie I didn't really know what to expect, and as I clicked the purchase button on my On Demand, I wondered if maybe I should see Argo or Zero Dark Thirty instead.  Daniel Craig is what?  45 years old now, and it seems like the series is aging once again, and who knows what direction the series is going in, but fear not, Skyfall got a 7.8 on IMDb and I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment.

The thing about Skyfall is that it represents exactly what I was mentioning above with this sort of aging performance of Bond.  Judi Dench was fantastic in her final "hoorah" as M, and that's what saves the film from being an extremely dull repeat Bond.  Director Sam Mendes does a decent job keeping the audience on it's heels but at times we know exactly what's going to happen next.  Oh of course, he's going to escape, oh he wanted us to capture him - I don't know, it just seemed like your cliche bad guy tricks good guy.  I know I'm gonna contradict myself here, but at times Skyfall showed moments of greatness.  The whole concept of this cyber warfare was insane, it was almost mixing in this sci-fi aspect, and the beautiful old DB5 Aston Martin was a delicate touch that kept me on the edge of my seat at least.

The thing that intrigued me most about Skyfall was this opening credit montage.  I've always been captivated by these montages, it's like the Bond trademark but this one was especially unique.  It flows seemingly from the moment he falls down the waterfall into this ultra-saturated, almost cartoon-like figures walking around as if they're characters in the movie.  It's just the weirdest thing I've ever seen but I loved every second of it.

Skyfall excelled in the field of cinematography and editing, you could really tell it was a high budget film.  There's long, sweeping overhead - birds eye view shots that really show you the vast geography or amazing sets they were able to develop.  Like any other Bond movie, the special effects are ridiculous, the final 20 minutes of the film had to have been perfect on the first shot as they literally ripped the mansion in half and we see the helicopter and vast destruction of it all.  It just fit the whole over the top style of these type of films perfectly.

Skyfall was interesting enough for me to say it was worth the $5 rental but there's still parts missing in the bigger picture.  I can't quiet put my finger on it but it just seems like the series is coming to a close and that's just an inevitable part of the puzzle.  That being said, the special effects and overall plot line was fairly intriguing and I'd definitely recommend Skyfall to anyone looking for a good 2+ hours spent.   I'd give the film an overall 8.0.

1935 Film - Romeo & Juliet

1. Synopsis of your story: In creating this movie we wanted to take the classic Romeo & Juliet tale and give it a twist according to the times of the 30s.  Aware of the situation with the Great Depression, as well as strong dislike from the banks/social class struggle, we wanted to make our film a commentary on that.  Romeo is the son of a failing movie theatre owner, and unlike his father, represents the post-depression era and wants to move on with his life.  His father on the other hand, resents all wealth, especially bank owners, as they refused to give him money to repair his theatre and give him a chance to draw in customers.  Juliet is a young, wealthy girl who is very much indifferent about the whole situation and that leads to why she is able to fall in love with Romeo.  As a character foil, her father resents the poor, and thinks that movies are just a waste of time, only scum waste their time at the theatre, and refuses to give a loan to Romeo's dad.  The story proceeds to pit love against society and in the end is ultimately neither pro- or anti- bank rather just a tale of forbidden love.

2. Genre: We wanted to produce a Romantic-Drama, to pit society against love and see what it could bring in the box office.  We wanted to see how a big budget Romantic-Drama would fair.

3. Studio: We chose MGM as our studio, and we chose it for the simple reason that we wanted this to be a big-budget, highly anticipated film.  We needed a star powered crew for Romeo & Juliet as the 2 protagonists are the main focus, and no other studio gives us that opportunity like MGM does.

4. Cast and Crew: For this production, we chose all MGM affiliated personas, we didn't wan to overextend our reach and potentially have to trade up or buy the rights to any other person.  Our director is Victor Flemming, he's one of the best around at the time, and he knows how to handle big budget films.  Only a year before Romeo & Juliet, he directed Treasure Island, and as Eric said earlier, knows how to handle adapted screenplay and classic films.  In regards to actors, we casted Jeanette MacDonald as Juliet and Robert Montgomery as Romeo.  Both these performers have been in a number of big films and are just pleasing to look at on screen.
5. Hays Code & Technology: Obviously the original version of Romeo & Juliet has some scenes of extreme violence and sexuality, but in keeping politically correct with the time period, we have chosen to keep it clean and abide by the Hays Code, we will not show any scenes of the two lovers sleeping together and will avoid scenes of violence, by mentioning them through dialogue as if they're happening in parallel time. Instead of having both characters commit suicide, we will have them live happily ever after and while this does take a way from the shock factor of the film, it will help us give across a better moral message.  As a technological advancement, we've decided to use technicolor but only at the point where Romeo & Juliet make their first eye contact, to act as symbolism of the freedom love gives our characters.  We thought it'd make for a very interesting and unique touch.
6. Disagreements. For the most part, all 3 of us really liked the plot line and didn't disagree at all, but the big thing that bothered me was that I would've rather made it an indie film.  I wanted to use someone like United Artists and really make a glaring commentary on the situation between wealthy and poor as well as corruption and banks.  Also I thought it'd be interesting to attack the Hays Code and make a film more like the original, driven by sex, anger, violence.  Sure we wouldn't have gotten the vote from those big investors, but oh well.