Do the Right Thing, eh?

Buggin' Out here basically results in the death of one of his comrades because of his incredibly obstinate nature and desire to pick fights in general.

As he showed with a white biker who accidentally ran over his shoes yet apologized or it, Buggin' Out insists on picking fights with all the whites around him.

Buggin' Out also sparks an argument with Sal because there aren't any blacks on his wall of famous Italian-Americans. It's Sal's shop and Sal has the right to do anything he wants in his shop. If I recall correctly, Italian-Americans are almost completely white, as Italy played almost no part in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Telling Sal to have a correct percentage of black people on the wall is telling him to model his wall after the racial makeup of the country, but race is only one aspect of a person. That's like calling Sal discriminatory for not having the correct number of people above 5'10", the correct number of people with chicken pox, or the correct number of people with health insurance. The entire concept is absurd.

The Battle of Algiers

I read this review for The Battle of Algiers.

The author makes a good point in that we are facing the same situation in Iraq as the French faced in Algeria in the 50s. The enemy cannot be beaten if they can't be found with ethical means. That's why resistance groups are so potent despite their lack of resources, skills, or strength. They fight dirty, kill civilians, but are protected by the fact that nations can't make any low blows. That's like a midget with a minigun vs. an 8 foot tall, 500 pound guy with a plastic spoon and both arms tied behind his back by the UN.

My opinion is this. If you're going to fight a war with rubber bullets, you might as well not fight the war at all. Either pull out or do what needs to be done to win. Otherwise, you're just getting people killed and wasting money.

Momento

I really found Momento to be a great movie. Not only was it interesting and gripping, it actually had a good plot. It genuinely had me confused even at the end of the movie but I couldn't help but really want to find out the truth.

Frankly, I think Teddy was telling the truth. He may have been fishy or suspicious, but he was actually Leonard's ally the whole time yet never really betrayed him. He also gave the audience and Leonard an explanation that really tied everything together, however imperfectly. Then again, nothing's perfect.

Kiss Me Deadly, damnit!

What a terrible movie.

Christina, or whatever her name was, was hideous and she sounded like she was sexually aroused during the opening credits. What kind of impression did the director think that was going to give? Certainly not a positive one.

Her roommate was irritating. Her voice was nasal and she was annoying as hell. At least she turned evil in the end and died, but the flame "special effects" were abysmal.

Now, why did they have to kill Nick off? He was the coolest character in the entire movie. When he died, I stopped really paying attention to the movie, because there was no longer any "va va voom!" to keep me interested.

What the hell is up with a nuke in a box? If I recall, it's one explosion and then radioactive decay sets in. There's no way there is a continued source of radioactive energy, and even if there was one, it wouldn't fit inside a small, wood box. The box would be made of lead... and whoever saw it would get severe burns all over their body and get radiation sickness as their bodies slowly but surely shut down from internal damage. They wouldn't start screaming and stand there as a flame is superimposed in front of them. Honestly.

Double Indemnity!?

Double Indemnity wasn't that great of a movie, but it had a decent plot. At least it had murder, sex, and money, but there weren't enough stereotypical thugsters like the one on the left here. Therefore, it can at best be a decent movie.

Although Phyllis was a complete and utter whore, she added spunk to the movie and at least dies at the end, also causing the death of the other scumbag main character, Walter Neff.

Anyway, I can't help but wonder why film noir loves those lined shades. It doesn't really give an effect, it just distracts the viewer from who happens to be getting murdered at any given point in time. Film noir would have far more spunk if people got murdered in pitch-black rooms, so the viewer would have NO idea what the hell's going on until the movie's over. They'd be confused, but movies are usually considered good if the audience is left wondering what the hell just happened.

Groundhog's day was actually a good movie, but it made even less sense than this picture.

How is it physically possible to relive the same day over and over again? Which run-through of the day will other people remember? They would have so many recollections of the day their heads would most likely implode.
Time is linear. There is no way to slow down or speed up time, much less reverse it. There are so many logical fallacies on Groundhog's Day that it really detracts from the movie.
Also, what is preventing Phil from staying up until 6:00 am? If he does, then what? Does the universe collapse into a tiny dot of superheated matter? Does his existence split into two?
Last but not least, even if this was possible, why does he remember the day and no other people do? Memory is a physical thing, a mapped-out set of circuits in the brain. Why don't those get reversed to their previous state? Why are all the other peoples' minds wiped clean but not Phil's? Everyone else would also remember that day and are stuck in it, but Phil is the object of attention.

Case in point: What the hell?

Bringing up Baby

No, not that kind of leopard. Anyway, Susan needs to die. She is so incredibly annoying, I want to rip off one of more of her limbs. Probably the least used and least needed one, her head.

Anyway, Bringing up Baby was a rather mediocre movie with an incredibly stupid title. What the hell kind of name for a leopard is Baby? Ugh.

I wouldn't have minded the movie, as it had decent supporting actors, a good actor for the paleontologist (Whatever his name is), and I found the constable particularly humorous. It also had decent slapstick humor and a pretty good "plot", but I just found Susan to be incredibly annoying and it completely ruined what could have been a very good movie.

Westerns, eh!?

Westerns are wrong. So wrong. Honestly, they're all the same. The main character's name may be Billy Bob, Billy Joe, Joey Bob, Joey Bill, or any other combination of stereotypical characters and names. He's always a virtuous guy who gets the chick in the end, defeats the bad guy in the final gunfight, etc. etc.
The Indians were not just random guys on horses running around slaughtering the innocent settlers. They weren't stupid. Any Indian tribes who had any contact with whites used guns. They didn't use bows and arrows up to 1900. They also didn't start scalping people. Believe it or not, that was a European practice they picked up. Yes, there were skirmishes, but not all Indians were warriors. There were probably more Indian women and children slaughtered by American militia than the other way around. Honestly.
Not to mention the women. There are either a whore or a "damsel in distress", or both. I sincerely doubt every single woman in the West during that time period fell into one or both of those categories.
Then again, people remember their history as they want to remember it. Many people deny the Holocaust never happened, we don't want to think about expansion or slavery, Germany doesn't want to remember their atrocities in WWII, Turkey refuses to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Stalin rewrote history with himself as the triumphant hero. The list goes on. Then again, the winners write the history books.

Finding 'Finding Nemo'!

Directed by Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich, Finding Nemo is a family comedy starring a fish. More specifically, that fish's name is Marlin.

After losing Coral, his "mate"/"wife" and all but one of their eggs to a vicious barracuda, Marlin names the surviving egg "Nemo", one of Coral's favorite names. Years later, he takes Nemo to his first day at school and embarrasses him in front of his classmates. Defying his father, Nemo swims out away from the reef into the open ocean and is instantly swept up by a boat and sent off to Sydney, Australia.

Marlin then embarks on a quest to find his son, slowly working his way toward his objective with his companion, Dory, a blue tang with short-term memory loss. The two fish encounter many obstacles along the way, including sharks, whales, and, of course, a lack of direction. They meet friends along the way though, most important of which being a group of hippie turtles who accompany them in the final stretch to Sydney.

Meanwhile, Nemo and his fellow fish in a dentist's office plot their escape before they are destroyed by the dentist's demonic daughter. Fortunately, one of their numerous plans succeeds, and they escape into the open ocean. What a surprise! A happy ending!

Finding nemo easily achieved the feat of highest grossing opening weekend for an animated feature, raking in $70,000,000. Totaling over $850 million, it, as of March '04, is one of the top ten highest-grossing films ever.

Finding Nemo also sports a colorful cast. Playing the part of Marlin is Albert Brooks. Born into a Jewish family in Beverly Hills, California, in 1947, he had relatively famous parents and siblings, setting him up for a celebrity lifestyle. Brooks originally went to Carnegie Tech in Pittsburgh, but dropped out to pursue a career in stand-up comedy. He later directed six short skits for Saturday Night Live and directed many fairly unsuccessful films. He then began voice acting for various films, Finding Nemo being by far his most successful. Brooks also played the main antagonist in The Simpsons Movie in '07.

Playing the part of Dory is Ellen DeGeneres, another stand up comedian. Born in Metairie, Louisiana, DeGeneres graduated from Atlanta High School, and majored in communications at the University of New Orleans. She, after stints as a waitress, clothes seller, house painter, hostess, bartender, dancer, and oyster shucker, finally became a stand up comedian. Working her way up to well-known comedies such as "The Tonight Show", DeGeneres later hosted the popular sitcom "Ellen". During the sitcom, she "came out of the closet" and made it public that she was a lesbian, while her character in Ellen did the same. After the coming out episode, the show began to falter and was canceled after four seasons. She then returned to stand-up comedy and later became a talk show host. Later, she hosted the failed "The Ellen Show", and turned to voice acting and played the part of Dory in Finding Nemo.

Overall, Finding Nemo is a fascinating movie with a very colorful cast behind it despite first appearances.

How to get killed in My Darling Clementine.

Now Doc Holliday, the wasted badass, dying dude here, knows how to get killed in the gunfight in My Darling Clementine. Or does he?

When a guy dies in a gunfight in real life, there's a bunch of blood where he got shot, he's screaming for his mother for 10 minutes as he dies, and he dies slowly, violently, and agonizingly. Body parts may be blown off, too.

In My Darling Clementine, almost everybody gets killed, Doc Holliday, Wyatt's brother, and the Clantons. When they take a pistol to the face or a shotgun to the back, what do they do? They go "oof", slouch over, and are silent. No screaming, no blood, and all the body parts are completely intact. Honestly. Even Doc Holliday, one of the most important characters, is about to die after being shot and valiantly blows away one of the Clantons. Then, what does he do? He drapes himself over the fence and dies silently. I don't know if it was some sort of censorship going on there or trying to protect the kids. All I do know is that if you show someone dying in a movie, at least do it right.

Lighting, depth of field, and focus in Citizen Kane

Orson Welles' Citizen Kane is widely regarded as the best film of all time, mostly due to his integration of all the aspects of film-making into the movie. Most important of these, however, are lighting and Welles' use of the deep-focus and telephoto lenses.

Lighting contributes a lot to the "feel" of Citizen Kane. The main characters, Kane and the reporter guy trying to find out what Rosebud is, are both often in shadow, giving us the sense that they are not the standard, virtuous heroes. Maybe they have altruistic motives.

Welles uses the telephoto lens in several key scenes. When Kane is signing away the majority of his newspaper empire, he walks to the window. The windows do not seem too large at first, but as he walks to them he seems to be dwarfed by them once next to them. The same effect is given in the fireplace scene with Susan Alexander.

The deep focus lens is used to great effect in the scene in which Kane's mother gives him to Thatcher to look over. He is playing happily in the background and we can see him through the window while his parents and Thatcher are in the foreground. Normally Kane would be very blurry due to being in the background, but Welles wants us to pay some attention to him despite him being in the background, as the background is equally important as the foreground in that scene.

The Bridge on the River Kwai

This rather lengthy film depicting a deadly battle of wills and unconscious betrayal sparked my interest upon seeing a review in which the author states that the entire movie is based on madness. Frankly, I don't agree with this, but it was interesting nonetheless.

Directed by David Lean and starring William Holden and Alec Guinness, The Bridge on the River Kwai focuses on the story of the stubborn and honorable British prisoner of war, Colonel Nicholson. He is at first in disagreement with the Japanese commander of the labor camp, Colonel Saito, over the issue of violating the Geneva Convention and forcing officers to perform manual labor. After many near-death experiences, Nicholson refuses to give in and Saito allows him to take over construction of the bridge.

Determined to show the Japanese what British soldiers can do, Nicholson directs a better bridge than the Japanese could ever accomplish and unwittingly switches to the Japanese side. Eventually foiling a sabotage attempt by his countrymen, Colonel Nicholson is mortally wounded and, realizing his wrongs with the well-known quote, "What have I done!?", falls on the detonator, destroying the bridge and the Japanese supply train crossing it at the time. In the aftermath of the explosion, Nicholson's medic, Major Clipton, exclaims "Madness... Madness!", in one of the most famous film quotes of all time. The film ends with slow zooming out, several corpses in the river, and an ironic happy tune playing in the background, giving the movie a sense of irony and loose ends.

Colonel Nicholson's internal struggle is really what stood out in The Bridge on the River Kwai in that it pitted his military training and foolhardy courage against an equally stubborn yet violent man. This leads to him staring death in the face at several points in the movie, yet he does it unflinchingly. He is all too human around his men, but does not fear death like normal people do. However, he puts his men first and supports the enemy in order to prevent chaos and keep his soldiers occupied and productive.

However, while most commanders willingly create faulty projects for forced labor, Nicholson wants to show the Japanese up and create a perfect, sturdy bridge. This leads to him attempting to protect his mens' work and eventually siding with the enemy. He put his men first, yet betrayed them in the end, even leading to the deaths of several of his countrymen and allies.

David Lean directs The Bridge on the River Kwai with a sort of unique, silent mastery. Except for the movie's famed Colonel Bogey March, it is mostly quiet except for the sounds of dialogue and nature. This makes the explosions and gunshots all the more important and shocking in comparison to the general silence.

Overall, David Lean's classic, The Bridge on the River Kwai, is truly a masterpiece, combing internal struggle, betrayal, and even contrast of sounds to impact the audience. I can now understand why it rates in Roger Ebert's list of greatest movies of all time. I would rate The Bridge on the River Kwai to be an 88 out of 100.

Mr. Bean is back with more class than ever!

I somewhat recently went to the movies to go see Mr. Bean's Holiday Movie. Rather excited to see if he could match his past stupidity, I had high expectations for this movie. It met them, and more. When you combine one such as Mr. Bean and a snobby country like France, you can't go wrong.

The opening scene of Mr. Bean's Holiday Movie starts with Mr. Bean in a raffle for tickets to France. Reading his winning number upside down, he throws it away in disgust. It lands on a toy train and circles back to him, but right side up this time, and he jumps on it in glee and wins the raffle. At that point, I knew it was going to be a great movie. From dumping escargot into purses to walking across a highway in an outhouse, Bean has his old classic tricks but some new ones to boot. The entire movie is truly hilarious, but the end does turn out rather stale. Kinda the standard storybook ending, but maybe that's some sort of Bean-style irony.

Incompetent Critics Abound!

Stephen Holden's opinion on The 13th Warrior seems to be split. He acknowledges the excitement and amusement to be had from this bloodbath of a movie, but also admits that it has a rather shallow plot. I agree with his review at the New York Times on the whole, but I must give the movie more credit.

John McTiernan, the director, obviously did not pay much attention to the plot of the film nearly as much as he did to the sets, costumes, and props. The audience, as far asI can see, is merely meant to be shocked half the time and fascinated yet confused the other half. This prevents the audience from forming criticisms of the movie, as they are too caught up in the moment. The fascination is upheld by a rather fragile stereotype of Norse warriors and culture. Again, the audience is too caught up in the bloodbath to begin to criticize the plot. Stephen Holden does not realize this, however, and bashes the movie for its plot when the purpose of the movie is obviously not supposed to have a deeply intriguing mystery that forces the audience to question the basis of their existence. For this, he gives the movie a rank of 50%; very mediocre. This is because it did not excel in what he wanted it to excel, despite that it never intended to in the first place. He calls the movie bland and the intense gore and battles - the heart of the movie - too obnoxious to allow the plot to shine through:

"Beneath the roars and growls and surging fanfares, there's a tale to be told, although I dare you to piece it together given the monosyllabic screenplay, much of which is swallowed up by the engulfing noise."

Despite this rather shallow but amusing plot lie some rather clever and amusing bits of movie-making. For example, when Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan, played by Antonio Banderas, stays the first night with the Norse warriors, he does not understand their language. He sits to the side of their merrymaking, slowly learning their language and McTiernan shows this to us by halting the subtitles and making the Norse warriors' voices slowly turn to English. This scene is not from Ahmed's point of view, but we also grow to understand the language alongside him. A very interesting and clever sequence, and McTiernan should be given credit for it. However, Holden merely dismisses this as a bland sequence:

"In these early scenes, the movie makes much of the fact that Ahmed, who speaks English, can't understand the language of his fellow warriors. But once he masters it, presto: everyone suddenly speaks English, and Banderas, with his heavy Spanish accent, becomes the movie's least articulate character."

All in all, I don't consider The 13th Warrior to necessarily be an epic, stunningly well-made movie, but it does what it is meant to do. It shocks and intrigues the audience, captivating them, making them ignore the shallowness of the plot. Having some clever sequences and overall being a well-made movie, I would personally rate The 13th Warrior to be about a 75. Stephen Holden ignores the purpose of the movie, and that is why his review is unjustly critical.

Pimp my Blog!

Today, I was rather bored and done with APUSH, so I decided to pimp my blog. If you have no idea who the hell Knowlton is or was, just check out my links section. I'll probably add more stuff soon and host another episode of Pimp my Blog.

Yo!

Yeah, can't really think of anything to say quite yet.