For this blog Post I will be writing on Tropic Thunder.  I was thrilled when Dan told our class that we would be watching this movie.  It has got to be one of my top 50 favorite movies of all time.  I think that this film’s use of satire is genius.  It uses satire to point out so many things that are wrong with modern day Hollywood.  There are two particular things that I want to point out that this movie does really well.  The first thing is how the film’s use of Robert Downey Jr. and Brandon Jackson to point out stereotypical black representation in the majority of Hollywood films.  Robert Downey Jr.’s character, Kirk Lazarus, is used throughout the film by director, Ben Stiller, to question the stereotypical black man often portrayed by hollywood.  He is loud, outspoken, and is often times caught using “hip” terms and slang and metaphor to communicate to his fellow cast members.  Lazarus, being a white actor portraying a black man allows for the audience to easily identify when Lazarus is trying to “act black” when he begins sentences with “A yes uh” and when he talks about collard greens.  Brandon Jackson also does a great job of pointing out this stereotypical black role used by Hollywood.  Throughout the movie, Jackson’s Character, a overly masculine, womanizing, rapper named “Alpa Chino”.  At the beginning of the film, Stiller introduces Jackson surrounded by booty shaking woman, rapping, and selling his new beverage “booty sweat”.  I think that Stiller uses Jackson’s character as a second example to point out, in a comedic way, how Hollywood portrays black men.

Throughout the film, Jackson’s character is often stopping Lazarus and questioning the “black” remarks he makes during the film.  Chino’s questioning allows the audience to see that a “real” black man is frustrated by how Lazarus thinks he should act when portraying a black character.  Later in the film,  Stiller uses Chino again to point out the black male stereotype.  During the scene around the fire,  Chino is found out to be gay.  When questioned by the other characters, he tries to deny his queer sexuality.  I think that this part of the film, Stiller is showing how a black character does not have to to be straight and hyper masculine.  The other characters reaction of sheer shock upon finding out Chino’s sexuality further highlights to the audience what is expected out of a black character in a Hollywood film.

The second part of this film that I want to point out is the “full retard” scene.  I don’t agree with the way this scene was worded, but I agree with what Lazarus was telling Speedman in the film.  I think that when an actor tries to act as a mentally ill person, it makes it really hard for the audience to watch and sympathize with the actor.  I think that it almost feels as if the actor is making fun of people that are mentally ill.  Lazarus points out the movie, “I am Sam”  and Sean Penn as going “full retard”. In the film the Rain Man, Dustin Hoffman plays an man that seems to have autism.  The difference between “Rain Man” and “I am Sam” is that Dustin Hoffman, in “Rain Man”, highlights a attribute of his character, his strong memory and ability to count cards.  This makes Dustin Hoffman’s role into his ability to tell a story to an audience about a person’s magnificent gift and how they use that gift to fight the everyday struggles that come with being mentally disabled.

Being French, I thought it might be interesting if I posted a review of a French movie that I like. So, first of fall, I have to say that I am not a fan of the modern french cinema. For me, the golden age of the french cinema is the New Wave (please watch Breathless by Jean-Luc Godard). It took me some time to think about a french movie realeased after 1990 that I like but I did it. There is a new generation, trying to give french cinema its quality back. This generation is represented particularly by two talented young female directors : Maiwenn and Valérie Donzelli.

The movie that I chose is called La Guerre Est Déclarée (Declaration of War) by Valérie Donzelli.

Romeo and Juliette (by chosing these names she shows a desire to make the story universal) met at the party and it is love at first sight. Shortly afterwards, they have a child together and will discover that he has cancer. The two main characters are played by Valérie Donzelli and Jérémie Elkaim, whom co-written the screenplay. This story is actually theirs.

This is first and foremost, a love story. It is the story of a couple’s struggle against their child’s illness. It is a very touchy subject but Valérie Donzelli succeeds in making a deeply moving and gracious movie. The strenght of the movie is to never play with the suspence of the child’s possible death. In fact we know from the beggining that he survives. But this does not make the movie less heartrending.

The movie is really audacious because even if it deals with a very touchy topic, the director decided to give an important place to humour, poesy, theater and music. This could have been totally bad taste but this is actually the beauty of the movie. The poesy, theater and music add an oneiric side to the realism of the movie.

I love how the music has an important role in the movie. Sometimes, the music even replace the characters’ voices. When the news of the child’s cancer is told to each member of the family, Vivaldi’s 4 seasons is played over their voices. Everything is alway right and of good taste, the music is here to sublime the  emotions in each scene and it works wonderfuly. The soundtrack is just amazing.

I also love that the director dares to mix drama and humour. For example there is a scene in the movie in which the two main characters have to sleep in the hospital, the night before their child’s  first operation. They began to talk about what could go wrong and what they fear. This scene could have been really serious and hard to handle but the humour changes everything. It finishes with them agreeing that the worst would be that their child will end up « blind, deaf, mute, dwarf, gay, black and that he’ll vote far-right »

This is a movie with a seduction of high intelligence. Watch it, you will shed quality tears.

Here is the imdb link :  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1931470/

If you are interested in watching more french movies like that, you should watch Polisse by Maiwenn : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JXIWSP3axIV

Summer begins the season for the action packed blockbusters, which is now among us. The most recent film that opened up in theaters this weekend was X-Men: Days of Future Past which is the 5th installment for the Marvel X-Men films, but it is the sequel to the prequel X-Men: First Class. (Confusing, I know.) So far out of all of the X-Men films, I would consider it the best one out of the previous five. I highly recommend that people go see this especially if you are a fan of superhero films. It follows the typical Hollywood blockbuster model by using A-list actors, visual effects, a lot of action scenes, as well as saturation booking and a lot of advertising. The film also presents a darker, more serious tone than the previous X-Men film, which makes it stand out from the others because it allows the audience to connect with the characters on a deeper level than in the other more fun-filled X-Men films. Days of Future Past still has the light-hearted humor to keep the film fun.
One thing that stood out to me, as far as form goes, was the cinematography of the film. Action films are known for their fast pacing and quick edits, but the cinematography seemed to have accelerated the momentum of the film. The camera was constantly moving. The camera was always panning in one direction or another, zooming in or out, and would change views and angles quite frequently. The audience is already trying to keep up with the action sequences and the quick shots, but then they have to keep up with camera and where it is guiding their view next. Even during the scenes where two people are talking, the camera would pan slightly to the right to move the person slightly to the right of the screen, then cut to the second person in the conversation and would do the same thing. One scene I remember in particular was in the beginning when it takes places in the dystopian future. The camera is trying to display the desolate world that the humans and mutants are a part of now by focusing on the rubble in a destroyed city. The camera slowly plans, but it pans in two different directions in one shot. The camera pans in what can be described as a backwards ‘L’ shape: it slowly goes from top to bottom, but only by a few degrees then pans right to left while focusing on someone’s feet and following them as they walk across the rubble. This shot stood out to me because it is not very often that the camera moves in different directions in one shot, but it is only an example of how the camera moved and kept moving throughout the film to enhanced the action scenes and added motion to the scenes without action. The cinematography kept the audience (at least me) engaged and alert throughout the film.
In X-Men: Days of Future Past, develops the characters that have been in the films since the beginning even more as well as the new group of characters from the first prequel. More is at stake for the lives of mutants in this film. I definitely recommend that people go to find out.

Link: https://blogs.uoregon.edu/eng110spring2014/

Side Effects is a new crime-filled thriller released February 8, 2013. It stars a couple of Hollywood’s heartthrobs, with Channing Tatum and Jude Law, and the star of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Rooney Mara, along with Catherine Zeta-Jones. This film has so many twists and turns it almost seems as though it was made to be a metaphysical detective film, meaning that questions are only answered with more questions, and it continually stumps the viewer. While watching it, you may think you have all the right answers, but at the end you may have it all wrong.

This is a film that makes the viewer have to really think to try to figure out what is going on and what the character’s motives are. You never know what is real and what is fake (Having a background with how stocks work can help you too.) It is Rated R for nudity, violence, and language and the run time is 106 minutes.

Side Effects is a film about a woman, Emily Taylor, who’s world is turned upside down when she begins to take a drug prescribed by her psychiatrist that has “unexpected side effects” . The movie is about Emily Taylor, a young woman who becomes severely depressed when her husband is taken to prison, and even after he returns. She goes through suicide attempts and emotional breakdowns. She is prescribed Ablixa, a new anti-depressant that has just hit the market. The side effects of the drug lead Emily to do an unforgivable deed in a “sleepwalking” state and sent to a mental hospital. Dr. Banks, Emily’s psychiatrist, takes the fall for the incident and his practice begins to crumble, even though he is not responsible for the drug. But there is a twist that the doctor will soon find out.

Steven Soderbergh creates a twist-filled plot that deals with several morally ambiguous characters all revolving around one horrible incident. He seems to convey quiet chaos with his frequent close-ups, and shifting in-and-out of focus throughout the screen, he draws attention to many small, but important details.The real strength of this film is how it is presented. Information is released one by one at different times, and we are kept waiting through interviews, court hearings, false trails, and many psychiatrist visits until, finally, everything comes together at the end.

I did not want to give away a lot of the plot because this movie is so interesting and one small detail could ruin a part of the film, but i recommend everyone to see this movie! You definitely won’t regret it, and it has become one of my favorites.

Released on May 9, Neighbors stars Zac Efron, Seth Rogan, Dave Franco and Rose Byrne. The film has lead to theaters across the country being filled with people laughing hysterically — some consider it to be very similar to films such as Superbad and Borat in terms of it’s humor. Although many people find the film to be quite comical, some find parts of it to be very disturbing.

This film is R-rated due to it’s consistent profanity, vulgarity, nudity, and excessive drug and alcohol references. The ideal audience for this film is people ranging in age from 17-25-years-old. This is definitely not a movie you would take your little brother or grandma to.  The type of humor is designed to relate to college-aged individuals, while some older adults may find it to be funny, too.

Neighbors is the story of a young couple, the Radners (played by Seth Rogan and Rose Byrne) and their newborn baby just moving into their first home in a suburban neighborhood. To their surprise, a fraternity purchases the house next door. As imaginable, a variety of frat-related stereotypes cause many issues for the Radners and their infant. Routine partying, marijuana smoke, loud music, half-naked girls, and used condoms in the from yard are just a few of the nuisances that the Radner family encounter.

As new parents, the Radners are struggling with trying to remain hip and young, but still get sleep and keep their daughter safe. The film turns into a war between the fraternity brothers and the Radner family — who can make the other’s lives more miserable?

Aesthetically, the film does an excellent job of portraying the ideal frat house. It uses props such as giant Greek letters, beer kegs, large speakers, giant bongs, hot girls, and copious amounts of alcohol to do this. Each of the fraternity members are dressed in the standard frat-bro attire of pastel-colored shorts cut off just above the knee, mid-calf cut socks, Vans, and a tight, preppy shirt of some kind.

With regard to the Radners, it is easy for the audience to understand that they are a young couple trying to remain cool. The film does this by portraying them as serious with regard to their baby and their jobs, but wild in terms of their risqué intimacy and not-so-nonshalant marijuana use.

One aspect of the editing that really stands out in this film is how the camera is used to portray the parties through the lens of a drunk and/or stoned person. I don’t know what the method is called, but the camera would film in slow-motion and sort of skim the crowd of the party in a drunken gaze that one may find themselves in from time to time.

Although this film may be very funny, it is not very impressive in regard to the narrative structure. It’s predictable and anticlimactic. Some people may find the use of humor in this film to be offensive.

All in all, this film does a great job of portraying the conflict between the college Greek community and other members of society. The editing techniques used in this film add to the humor and make the film more interesting than the standard frat film. A lot of the disputes illustrated in this film are very likely to happen in real life, however certain parts of the film seem very unrealistic. If you’re looking for a good laugh with friends, this film is a great option.

The film Watermelon Women is a film that was one of the first of its time. The film is classified as an “Indie” film because it was independently funded and was a very low budget film. Cheryl is both the main character and the film director. Cheryl is on a journey to become a film maker but the only problem is that she doesn’t know what she wants to make a movie about. She is an African American woman that is lesbian living in Philadelphia and she realizes that there are no movies about women like her. When this movie was made there had been barely any African American actors and actresses appearing in films, so once Cheryl finds a movie she rents from the movie rental store she works at that has this African American women in it named The Watermelon Women she latches on to this lady and decides to make a movie about her. Once she finds out that the actress is also a lesbian Cheryl sees herself in her. She finds herself in media and finds someone that is very similar to her. Cheryl starts to get obsessed over finding out more about The Watermelon Women that she starts to lose relationships in her personal life. her friend Tamara calls her out for not being satisfied with who she is and wanting to be someone else. Her love interest is a more masculine and tries to act African American and I think that’s one of the reasons Cheryl is attracted to her. She’s uncertain about her life style. This journey that Cheryl takes to find out who The Watermelon Women is can be looked at as her trying to find her true identity. Cheryl is confused about her identity because African Americans or LGBT people were not represented in American film industry at that time. Cheryl uses cinema in a way to create and validate her personal identity. At the end of the movie we find out that The Watermelon Women was never a real person. The Watermelon Women was made out of Cheryl’s imagination so that validates that Cheryl was trying to make a point that African American LGBT were not present in the film industry. She was also using this film project as a way to understand herself better. Cheryl learns to accept who she is and learns that it is important to embrace your differences. The director Cheryl Dunye brings awareness to the changing times of having African American lesbians in the film industry. She creates a name for herself for making an Indie film that caused awareness to its viewers.

Look no farther when searching for the perfect afternoon filled with a profane stuffed animal and Marky Mark. Seth MacFarlane expresses some of his comedic mastermind in the film “Ted.” When searching for a film to review, I unexpectedly came across this film. I had watched it once before and did not think it was anything special, but paid little attention to any detail compared to how I am now able to watch films with some analytical tools in my belt. This second go-around leaves me with the title of this… “Ted, the type of movie you could watch when you are in almost any situation, any emotional status, and looking for a movie that gives you satisfaction in every aspect.”

My main point when thinking this movie is a fantastic escape from 106 minutes of one’s life is that it is an incredible journey of a talking teddy bear. There is nothing simpler than an drug using, sex-addict, talking, teddy bear that has the ability to speak… in the voice of the notorious Peter Griffin. But, considering this is to analyze why it is a good movie and having a talking teddy bear does not bear (no pun intended) a whole lot of credibility, lets move to my next point.

“Ted” follows a roadmap that is clear as a blue-sky day. Now, knowing where a movie is going to go, five minutes before it shows what you guessed, is usually not an enjoyable experience. However, that is why I think “Ted” is in a class of it’s own. The irresponsible actions left me with a love-hate relationship for the relationship between the two main characters. Watching the story unfold took me through an emotional journey that hit harder than Flash Gordon when he saves the world again and again. Feeling satisfied when the characters end up living happily ever was a large feat when considering the level of predictability that the plot possessed. The cinematography added to this emotional comedy through utilizing the various properties of frame sizes and using stability vs. not. Emotions were raised when close shots would really show the expression of John and Ted. Since the teddy bear was animated, his facial movements were also very animated and really reached out on an emotional level.

The next point of brilliance that this film possesses is how it reaches out to every single viewer in a different way. I re-watched it with a group of four friends and all of us had times where we would be laughing like we never have, at a time where no one else thought it was funny. I think that movies can take a turn for the worse when their scripts are too generic and the scenes are too bland. “Ted” allowed people to find a scene enjoyable in their own unique way. I believe the writing allowed for consistent humor that covered a wide variety of topics- these references resonate on a personal level differently and I really enjoyed that aspect.

The simplistic glory of this film left me more than content and I feel like it may never make it to the top list of my favorite movies, but it still holds a warm place in my heart when it comes to clever comedies. I am also a bit bias because I think Mark Wahlberg is the man… but still an enjoyable flick, fan or not.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2140373/?ref_=rvi_tt

A film that I recently saw was Disney’s Saving Mr. Banks, directed by John Lee Hancock and starring Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks. Originally, I thought the film was simply going to be about the making of the Disney classic Mary Poppins. However, by the end of Saving Mr. Banks it is clear to the audience that there was more behind both films than a simply children’s story. The film really stuck with me and I think that warrants an analysis of it on the blog for this class! Plus I’m a huge Emma Thompson fan.

Saving Mr. Banks tells the story of how Walt Disney (played by Tom Hanks) got the rights to produce Mary Poppins, which originally was a British book series written by P.J. Travers (played by Emma Thompson). It took Disney twenty years to get the rights from Travers, who only agreed because she needed the money. However, she insists on being part of the screen writing process before she hands him over the rights. Through flashbacks to Travers’ childhood, we learn that she did not have an easy childhood. Her father had a hard time holding down his jobs as bank manager because of his alcoholism, which he tried his best to hide from his children. It’s made clear to the audience that Mary Poppins is in fact based on Travers’ aunt, who comes to help her family.

One major theme that I notice while watching Saving Mr. Banks, and also realized is a central theme in Mary Poppins as well, is the role of the bank. Banks are generally seen in society as being large corporations that screw people over. Travers’ father works for a bank and there are flashbacks throughout the movie that show him at the bank and at company gatherings. In both of these instances, he humiliates himself because he is drunk and in turn breaks promises to his family. In Mary Poppins, Travers made the family the Banks family. Mary Poppins comes to rescue them because they are a disconnected family, especially in regards to the father figure Mr. Banks. During the film, Mr. Banks consistently chooses work over his family, in particular, not mending his children’s kites when they are broken. By the end of the film, he denounces his job at the bank, fixes the kites, and sings “Let’s Go Fly a Kite.”

I think without central themes like this, that tie into both stories, Saving Mr. Banks would not have been as effective. By showing the audience the real struggles that went into both the book and movie versions of Mary Poppins, it allows us to find a whole new meaning in a classic kids movie. I had previously disregarded Mary Poppins as just that. Thanks to Saving Mr. Banks, I now have a new appreciation for the real life struggles of these people.