Beasts of the Southern Wild is a touching film about a young girl, Hush Puppy, and her father living in a forgotten section of southern coastline: "the Bathtub". Directed by Benh Zeitlin and starring screen newcomers Quvenzhane Wallis and Dwight Henry , the film explores the strained father and daughter relationship that is imposed upon by health issues, harsh living requirements, and impending danger of large boar like beasts.
This film was unlike anything I have ever seen The world that the director and designers created hearkened to present day yet imaginatively could be mildly futuristic. Even more interesting, was the lack of large budget and necessity of resourcefulness shown.
The movie seemed to have an underlying agenda that at times seemed blatantly overt. This message was one of being aware that your involvement with the environment will have lasting effect for generations to come. Ice caps melting and flash flooding were interesting ploys to convey this. However, from a directorial standpoint, it is important to have some take-away for the audience or the audience will be pissed at the ending. (no spoilers) Especially if the ending doesn't sastify the audience expectations. At least a takeaway will be a positive aspect of a film.
Ultimately, I enjoyed the movie and was told an intriguing story with compelling characters. Though, the compelling characters didn't resolve some issues that I had. But then again I think that this type of movies should end with remorseful tearful hugs with a sun setting slowly behind them. It doesn't! (minor spoiler)
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Friday, February 1, 2013
"Perfidy" Review
Have you ever seen a movie that was so confusing and frustratingly
unsatisfying that you wanted nothing more than to destroy the monitor? Perfidy
was that type of movie for me.
We are first introduced to the main character sitting in a
train. This introduction takes place after a painfully long stationary shot of
a country road in winter time. The man gazes out at the snow on the moving ground.
The next shot is the man exiting the train and going to a pay phone clutching a
small piece of paper in his hand. The audience then is given another painfully
long stationary shot of a hotel in winter.
Finally, a car moves into frame and we can then understand that the main
character is going to the hotel.
The above action, though only taking a few lines on this
blog, took almost 25 minutes to show on film. I trust that you can appreciate my
personal frustration that was mounting with each passing moment.
Before I continue, I suppose I should play “Devil’s
Advocate” and say that it was presented to me, via Netflix, to be a
mystery/foreign film. That tells me that
I might not understand everything or even appreciate it. However, on the other
side of that coin: everything was in English and the “mystery” was simply that
some guy (with a slight accent) shot his former gay lover. Sorry, spoiler alert. But trust me; I just saved your very sanity.
In between the excruciatingly long stationary shots were
some scenes of interest. One scene started out by the man staring into the lens
of the camera lip syncing. But, he mouthed the words to the song-
in its entirety. Another scene that stared out interesting was the
transformation of the man into a dapper looking gentleman. However, this became
exhausting as we actually watched him shave and cut his hair. Yes, you guessed
it: he did it slowly.
Finally, as the credits rolled, I unclenched my jaw and
cracked my knuckles while releasing an audible exhale. The experience was over.
Much like staying awake through extensive dental work, I was now assured that
the end had finally come. Perhaps, if the pace or tempo had picked up more or
if the stationary shots had been edited to be shorter, it may have been
enjoyable. But it wasn't and I am left with more wasted time drained from my
very life force.
My next movie is going to have to be a comedy or I may just
do bodily harm to a family of mannequins.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
The Tudors [Series-Review]
Are you interested in a historical drama? Maybe you are looking for political intrigue or a social commentary? Perhaps you're looking for sex and partial nudity. Yeah, that last one seems to sell this series for a lot of perve...people. That's right... people.
For me, I began watching The Tudors for the simple historical aspect of it. As well as the attention to detail in set design and costuming- what can I say, I'm a theatrical conoseur. It all just jumps off the page of history in all its variant hues and textures. I can appreciate that.
Created by Michael Hirst and staring a cavalcade of actors including Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Henry Cavill,, Natalie Dormer, Peter O'Toole and Maria Doyle Kennedy (to name a few). The show was on air for 4 seasons on Showtime and had somewhat of a rotating door of talent. I mean we are talking about a time and setting where average life expectancy was 40's and 50's. That coupled with the bloodlust of government officials with personal agendas and you understand why a handful of characters made it from season to season. (That's as close as I get to a spoiler, I promise)
The story follows English King Henry the eighth as he sought to marry women who could give him a male heir to the throne. Those of you familiar with history know that this pursuit lasted for quite some time. This show details that pursuit. (That's as close as I get to a spoiler, I promise)
After watching the first episode I began feeling for certain characters and developed certain expectations. Expectations in a historical drama are readily disappointing. I mean, history books can only be open to so much interpretation. They already written. When a person is recorded as dying, there isn't wiggle room to accommodate interpretation. He dead. This was especially true as I watched on into the second season. (That's as close as I get to a spoiler, I promise) Being a fan of history and the richness it can offer us, I knew about certain things. Some I anticipated, but others I wished that I had somehow been confused or mistaken about my memory of history. The other thing I felt was that the portrayal of Henry the VIII, was accurate, and made me dislike the character. His relatability and likability faded as the series continued. He was a whinny, tantrum throwing, horn ball so and so who abused his power every opportunity given him. It's usually not a good sign when you are praying for the main character assassination in the 4th episode of a 4 year series.
Technically speaking, the acting was top notch. However, the CG palace shots at the beginning of most season 1 episodes lacked a certain air of realism. Couldn't pin point it but something was a miss. Then there was the boobs. No, I don't mean silly folk who do dumb things. I mean actual boobs. There was at least one shot of woman's breasts in every episode. I haven't seen that many racks since I was shopping for shelving at Ikea. Not complaining necessarily, I just think that the angle and intent could have been more tasteful and not so "soft porn". I guess that why the channel is called SHOWTIME.
Ultimately, I am captivated by the series, so far, and am still watching it. So don't ruin it for me.
4 out of 5 stars- (likely to change- once I've completed the series)
For me, I began watching The Tudors for the simple historical aspect of it. As well as the attention to detail in set design and costuming- what can I say, I'm a theatrical conoseur. It all just jumps off the page of history in all its variant hues and textures. I can appreciate that.
Created by Michael Hirst and staring a cavalcade of actors including Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Henry Cavill,, Natalie Dormer, Peter O'Toole and Maria Doyle Kennedy (to name a few). The show was on air for 4 seasons on Showtime and had somewhat of a rotating door of talent. I mean we are talking about a time and setting where average life expectancy was 40's and 50's. That coupled with the bloodlust of government officials with personal agendas and you understand why a handful of characters made it from season to season. (That's as close as I get to a spoiler, I promise)
The story follows English King Henry the eighth as he sought to marry women who could give him a male heir to the throne. Those of you familiar with history know that this pursuit lasted for quite some time. This show details that pursuit. (That's as close as I get to a spoiler, I promise)
After watching the first episode I began feeling for certain characters and developed certain expectations. Expectations in a historical drama are readily disappointing. I mean, history books can only be open to so much interpretation. They already written. When a person is recorded as dying, there isn't wiggle room to accommodate interpretation. He dead. This was especially true as I watched on into the second season. (That's as close as I get to a spoiler, I promise) Being a fan of history and the richness it can offer us, I knew about certain things. Some I anticipated, but others I wished that I had somehow been confused or mistaken about my memory of history. The other thing I felt was that the portrayal of Henry the VIII, was accurate, and made me dislike the character. His relatability and likability faded as the series continued. He was a whinny, tantrum throwing, horn ball so and so who abused his power every opportunity given him. It's usually not a good sign when you are praying for the main character assassination in the 4th episode of a 4 year series.
Technically speaking, the acting was top notch. However, the CG palace shots at the beginning of most season 1 episodes lacked a certain air of realism. Couldn't pin point it but something was a miss. Then there was the boobs. No, I don't mean silly folk who do dumb things. I mean actual boobs. There was at least one shot of woman's breasts in every episode. I haven't seen that many racks since I was shopping for shelving at Ikea. Not complaining necessarily, I just think that the angle and intent could have been more tasteful and not so "soft porn". I guess that why the channel is called SHOWTIME.
Ultimately, I am captivated by the series, so far, and am still watching it. So don't ruin it for me.
4 out of 5 stars- (likely to change- once I've completed the series)
Patrik, Age 1.5 [Review]
The adoption process is difficult for everyone who decides to undertake it. The longing to start a family. The waiting for a call. The anticipation of what will your baby/child look like. The reviewing of paperwork. The integration of a child into your live(s). All these ideas are expounded upon and develop into a heartfelt story about a family to be. The conflict rises out of the fact the couple looking to adopt are gay and the "child" they were given is a 15 year old homophobic delinquent. The other conflict for me is that they spoke Swedish. Small in comparison to the movie as a whole, but still I cherished the subtitles all the more.
Directed by Ella Lemhagen, and staring Gustaf Sarsgard, Torkel Petersson, and Tom Ljungman(Swedish names if ever I heard any), we are thrown into the happy life trying to be built in the Swedish suburbs. The picturesque white picket fence and the quaint dwellings with manicured lawns aren't just the American dream. After dealing with some minor harassment from adoption officials they are told they have no babies for them to adopt and are sent away dejected. However, they later receive a letter saying that there is one boy who can be adopted: Patrik, Age 1.5. Ecstatic, they finish preparations to his room and await their would be son. In walks Patrik, a juvenile delinquent whose last choice is live with "homos" (even if he has to live on the streets) It is later revealed that a typographical error occurred (1.5 rather than 15- just incase you couldn't figure that out), by this point the couple have reluctantly welcomed the boy into their home, after removing all the knives, and having put considerable strain on their relationship.
The characters are brilliantly acted and are relatable as well as "real". That is, you feel for them and develop certain expectations and are put through an emotional roller coaster of sorts before being given some form of resolution. It is also the type of film that makes you examine your own personal opinions on life issues such as homosexuality and adoption. The only distraction for me was the choice in set design/decoration. The walls were covered in wallpaper with a busy pattern. It showed up on film and made me want to look at it rather that the actors and the Swedish subtitles being shown at the bottom of the page. Maybe busy wallpaper is big in gay Swedish households, who knows?
Likewise distracting were a few scenes that seemed like they were occurring in front of a green screen. This was true with the "jogging" scenes. The actor(s) jogging appeared very boldly colored compared to his background but as he ran I think it became more aware it was a lighting/costume choice.
Ultimately, I enjoyed this movie (though, I wished they could have dubbed some English speaking actors voices). My attention was diverted a lot since I had to read the subtitles, but it became more effortless, I suppose, as the movies continued. I would give this film 4.5 stars out of 5. No, I'm not homophobic, I am just lazy and didn't feel like reading during a movie. :)
Directed by Ella Lemhagen, and staring Gustaf Sarsgard, Torkel Petersson, and Tom Ljungman(Swedish names if ever I heard any), we are thrown into the happy life trying to be built in the Swedish suburbs. The picturesque white picket fence and the quaint dwellings with manicured lawns aren't just the American dream. After dealing with some minor harassment from adoption officials they are told they have no babies for them to adopt and are sent away dejected. However, they later receive a letter saying that there is one boy who can be adopted: Patrik, Age 1.5. Ecstatic, they finish preparations to his room and await their would be son. In walks Patrik, a juvenile delinquent whose last choice is live with "homos" (even if he has to live on the streets) It is later revealed that a typographical error occurred (1.5 rather than 15- just incase you couldn't figure that out), by this point the couple have reluctantly welcomed the boy into their home, after removing all the knives, and having put considerable strain on their relationship.
The characters are brilliantly acted and are relatable as well as "real". That is, you feel for them and develop certain expectations and are put through an emotional roller coaster of sorts before being given some form of resolution. It is also the type of film that makes you examine your own personal opinions on life issues such as homosexuality and adoption. The only distraction for me was the choice in set design/decoration. The walls were covered in wallpaper with a busy pattern. It showed up on film and made me want to look at it rather that the actors and the Swedish subtitles being shown at the bottom of the page. Maybe busy wallpaper is big in gay Swedish households, who knows?
Likewise distracting were a few scenes that seemed like they were occurring in front of a green screen. This was true with the "jogging" scenes. The actor(s) jogging appeared very boldly colored compared to his background but as he ran I think it became more aware it was a lighting/costume choice.
Ultimately, I enjoyed this movie (though, I wished they could have dubbed some English speaking actors voices). My attention was diverted a lot since I had to read the subtitles, but it became more effortless, I suppose, as the movies continued. I would give this film 4.5 stars out of 5. No, I'm not homophobic, I am just lazy and didn't feel like reading during a movie. :)
Fantastic Flesh: The Art of Makeup Efx [Review]
Zombies, aliens, and monsters -oh, my!
Oh the world of special effects makeup. You can be aged, look younger, look dead or diseased, you can even look like the opposite sex. Not to mention the gruesome effects that can be made by latex and prosthetics. I appreciate the process, but still cant will myself to watch gory movies (as discussed in my review of Tales of the Crypt: Ritual). This is very interesting considering I am an aspiring special effects makeup artist (among other things) with an aversion to gore.
This documentary into the industry of special effects was directed by Kevin VanHook. It details the great effects and techniques as well as the artists who created them. Movies such as Planet of the Apes, Chronicles of Narnia, Lord of the Rings, The Exercist, and Scream and the special effects makeup that contributed to their success is discussed. Quentin Terentino discusses the importance of special effects in his movies, most notably the Kill Bill films. Other directors and writers discuss their inspiration and reliance of makeup effects.
The style of the film is documentary and so doesn't depend on a specific formula of story telling or filming. The interviewees are faced off center and are looking away from the camera, but beyond they the style of story telling is pretty haphazard. That is, they discuss a variety of films and styles with out drawing a correlation or connection on from the other.
I would ultimately give it 2.75 stars out of 5. I would have liked there to have been more of a method to the movies discussed. I also thought that it would have been beneficial to do a make up efx reel in high speed. Kind of like what a lot of makeover shows do. Instead, we were shown stills from movies or clips of the actual movie and not the application of the special effects makeup. It's like filming a comedy where no one laughs. At some point the mark was missed.
Oh the world of special effects makeup. You can be aged, look younger, look dead or diseased, you can even look like the opposite sex. Not to mention the gruesome effects that can be made by latex and prosthetics. I appreciate the process, but still cant will myself to watch gory movies (as discussed in my review of Tales of the Crypt: Ritual). This is very interesting considering I am an aspiring special effects makeup artist (among other things) with an aversion to gore.
This documentary into the industry of special effects was directed by Kevin VanHook. It details the great effects and techniques as well as the artists who created them. Movies such as Planet of the Apes, Chronicles of Narnia, Lord of the Rings, The Exercist, and Scream and the special effects makeup that contributed to their success is discussed. Quentin Terentino discusses the importance of special effects in his movies, most notably the Kill Bill films. Other directors and writers discuss their inspiration and reliance of makeup effects.
The style of the film is documentary and so doesn't depend on a specific formula of story telling or filming. The interviewees are faced off center and are looking away from the camera, but beyond they the style of story telling is pretty haphazard. That is, they discuss a variety of films and styles with out drawing a correlation or connection on from the other.
I would ultimately give it 2.75 stars out of 5. I would have liked there to have been more of a method to the movies discussed. I also thought that it would have been beneficial to do a make up efx reel in high speed. Kind of like what a lot of makeover shows do. Instead, we were shown stills from movies or clips of the actual movie and not the application of the special effects makeup. It's like filming a comedy where no one laughs. At some point the mark was missed.
High Anxiety [Review]
Imagine birds flying ominously overhead in large droves, seeing the shadow of a man beyond your shower curtain, feeling like you are being watched, trying to understand peculiar people secluded with you, are all concepts that have made Albert Hitchcock's classic films memorable and terrifying. Mel Brooks, comedic writer, actor, director, and producer, delivers a delightfully funny parody of many Hitchcock classics in the film High Anxiety. Starring Harvey Korman, Madeline Kahn, Cloris Leachman, and Mel Brooks himself, Brooks directs the satirical genius of this film.
The premise for the film is centered on a psychiatrist who is deathly afraid of heights. He finds himself in route to an institute full of mysterious people and patients to manage after the demise of the former manager. He later meets the daughter of one of the patients and is told of a diabolical plot (insert dramatic music). He must unravel the mystery and save his patient before it is too late (re-insert dramatic music). He must do it all while dodging pigeon droppings (insert anti-climactic music).
Brooks style of parody pays homage to the master of terror while still promoting the ridiculous plot development of the movie. The characters are stereotypical of Hitchcock films but each have their own interesting Mel Brooks quirk. Cloris Leachman's character, for instance, is a strict 'by the books nurse' with an affinity for bondage.
Technically the movie lends itself the the shot sytles of Hitchcock while even poking fun at them. An example of this is when the camera slowly zooms into the dining area where all the characters are talking. When I say "zooms into" that is exactly what happens, the glass window shatters and the camera pulls back.
Ultimately, the movie was a fun roast of Hitchcock. If you are easily offended, or are a hardcore Hitchcock enthusiast, you might not enjoy the movie for what it is (aja: a Parody). However, if you are a fan of Mel Brooks witty satirical style of storytelling- you will most likely enjoy this film.
The premise for the film is centered on a psychiatrist who is deathly afraid of heights. He finds himself in route to an institute full of mysterious people and patients to manage after the demise of the former manager. He later meets the daughter of one of the patients and is told of a diabolical plot (insert dramatic music). He must unravel the mystery and save his patient before it is too late (re-insert dramatic music). He must do it all while dodging pigeon droppings (insert anti-climactic music).
Brooks style of parody pays homage to the master of terror while still promoting the ridiculous plot development of the movie. The characters are stereotypical of Hitchcock films but each have their own interesting Mel Brooks quirk. Cloris Leachman's character, for instance, is a strict 'by the books nurse' with an affinity for bondage.
Technically the movie lends itself the the shot sytles of Hitchcock while even poking fun at them. An example of this is when the camera slowly zooms into the dining area where all the characters are talking. When I say "zooms into" that is exactly what happens, the glass window shatters and the camera pulls back.
Ultimately, the movie was a fun roast of Hitchcock. If you are easily offended, or are a hardcore Hitchcock enthusiast, you might not enjoy the movie for what it is (aja: a Parody). However, if you are a fan of Mel Brooks witty satirical style of storytelling- you will most likely enjoy this film.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Tales from the Crypt: Ritual [Review]
Continuing my theme of movies with colons in their titles, Tales from the Crypt: Ritual was an interesting horror/thriller with surprises and some horrific scenes that involved the tightened closing of my eyes. This film, starring Tim Curry, Jennifer Grey, and Craig Sheffer, was supposed to be part of the anthology of Tales of the Crypt movies but was marketed as its own independent film and later released in its rightful place of Tales of the Crypt Horrors.
This film follows a Dr. who, after having her license revoked, receives a job in Jamaica tending to a man with a type of brain tumor that is difficult to pronounce. (What medical condition isn't?) The patient believes he is haunted by some evil force brought on my local voodoo and that is causing his hallucinations and erratic behavior.
Like other horror films, there are characters that you know are going to die some horrible death. And like other films certain elements are predictable. However, what makes this horror/thriller a relative success (in my mind) is that there are still fresh elements of surprise that keep you on the edge of your seat and makes you wish you drank less before sitting down to watch it. I speak as though I am a connoisseur of Horror flicks, but am not. This genre is at the lower end of my preference list.
Another thing that made this movie enjoyable were the limitations or selected moments of gore. Gore is the main reason I typically dislike Horror flicks. Even though I know the blood is fake and the skin slapping against the wall isn't actual human flesh, I still have little stomach for it. This movie had "those" scenes but was more focused of mystery and suspense as the mode of storytelling.
Technically speaking, the special effects (the bread and butter of horror films) was pretty good when my eyes were open. The transitions were quick and seamless to prohibit audience members boredom and disinterest. Likewise, the acting was pretty good. A few supporting actors could probably stand to be coached on the Jamaican dialect, but were still watchable.
Ultimately, I would give this a 3.75 out of 5 stars. The ending brought the story full circle and left me satisfied, or I would have just given it a 3 star rating. (Take note Hollywood) I was also disappointed that the scary looking skeleton puppet thing didn't appear at any time. not even in the credits. I mena he is an icon of the Crypt franchise, but alas, I will survive.
This film follows a Dr. who, after having her license revoked, receives a job in Jamaica tending to a man with a type of brain tumor that is difficult to pronounce. (What medical condition isn't?) The patient believes he is haunted by some evil force brought on my local voodoo and that is causing his hallucinations and erratic behavior.
Like other horror films, there are characters that you know are going to die some horrible death. And like other films certain elements are predictable. However, what makes this horror/thriller a relative success (in my mind) is that there are still fresh elements of surprise that keep you on the edge of your seat and makes you wish you drank less before sitting down to watch it. I speak as though I am a connoisseur of Horror flicks, but am not. This genre is at the lower end of my preference list.
Another thing that made this movie enjoyable were the limitations or selected moments of gore. Gore is the main reason I typically dislike Horror flicks. Even though I know the blood is fake and the skin slapping against the wall isn't actual human flesh, I still have little stomach for it. This movie had "those" scenes but was more focused of mystery and suspense as the mode of storytelling.
Technically speaking, the special effects (the bread and butter of horror films) was pretty good when my eyes were open. The transitions were quick and seamless to prohibit audience members boredom and disinterest. Likewise, the acting was pretty good. A few supporting actors could probably stand to be coached on the Jamaican dialect, but were still watchable.
Ultimately, I would give this a 3.75 out of 5 stars. The ending brought the story full circle and left me satisfied, or I would have just given it a 3 star rating. (Take note Hollywood) I was also disappointed that the scary looking skeleton puppet thing didn't appear at any time. not even in the credits. I mena he is an icon of the Crypt franchise, but alas, I will survive.
Xanadu: The Musical [Review]
Do you remember skating arenas? I do. I loved skating around to the loud catchy tunes and flashing lights of my hometown arena.Though, I never did master the whole skating backwards thing. If you share in my nostalgic sentiment then Xanadu, staring Olivia Newton John, Gene Kelly, and Micheal Beck, might be a worthwhile treat for you to watch.
Directed by Robert Greenwald, Xanadu's plot involves a down on his luck graphic artist (Beck) meeting a muse (Newton John) who inspires him to open up a club/ roller skating arena. However, they fall in love and are forbidden to be together (since she's a muse and he is a mortal). Yep, this is the big conflict of the film.
This film, set and recorded in the 80's offer a look back at the big hair and leotards that left their mark on the decade. The cast plays their respective roles well. Gene Kelly, dance legend extraordinaire, is amazing as the would be owner of Xanadu. I waited anxiously for the time when he would dance/tap. Its like watching a Julia Roberts moving waiting for her big teeth smile and laugh. Audience members have their expectations. Getting back to Gene; he tapped as gracefully and agile as ever along side Olivia Newton John. Olivia, who originally hails from Australia, did little to mask her accent. But it worked since she was this mysterious muse.
The transitions and film angles seemed in keeping with the theme of a roller skating movie. That is glowing lights were used to outline the actors as various intervals and the transitions, which were cool at the time, remind me of the trial version of Powerpoint 1997. (A bit of a back handed compliment if ever there was one)
Ultimately, musicals are meant to entertain and make you feel good. Which this movie did. Thankfully, the cheesiness normally associated with musicals was minimized in characterization and just seemed more amplified in the "lets find something glitzy for Gene Kelly to put on" scene. I would give this film a 4 out of 5 stars. (this is based on the fact that its production value was much higher 20+ years ago and that it had Gene Kelly in it) Now to go buy some skates.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Wallace and Gromit: Loaf and Death [Review]
This quaint little Brittish clay-mation import hearkens to days of animation using only clay figures. Other clay mation films are most popular around Christmas time with the likes of Rudolph, Frosty, Jack Frost, and The Little Drummer boy. The painstaking detail of capturing each movement as a still and then stringing them together in an animated sequence is remarkable to say the least. This installment within the series, Wallace and Gromit: Loaf and Death, stars the voice talents of Peter Sallis and is directed by Nick Park.
The basic plot of this film is following the mysterious murders of 12 local bakers, Gromit (Wallace's Dog) finds himself suspicious of the new love interest known previously as the Bake-O-Lite Girl and seeks to investigate her. Wallace being the ever naive and unassuming baker/inventor knows only that he is in love.
When watching any film one has certain assumptions and aspirations of what will happen. This film, though totally different from what I normally watch, still left me thinking "What do I want to happen?" My answer was one of a happy ending. All to often films seek out shocking endings that leave audience members ultimately dissatisfied. This film did not. The pudgy figures march their way right along the simple plot filled with some dramatic moments and a few iconic British tongue in cheek periods.
As mentioned before clay-mation is a remarkable style of film making. It requires the film creators to be concise and not have unnecessary scenes that don't serve the plot. It demands that only movements that are crucial to the story being told should be done. Though, film making now is more easily completed using computers, it is still painstaking work. I actually noticed a few times when I could see finger prints in the clay and they seemed to move along with the figure.
If rating this film on a 5 star system I would definitely give it a 4.5 at least. It's a cute little story with an endearing style of telling it. It is family friendly and not long at all clocking in at 29minutes. Though it is a film in a series, I didn't feel as though I was missing out on anything by not viewing the other films in the series.
The basic plot of this film is following the mysterious murders of 12 local bakers, Gromit (Wallace's Dog) finds himself suspicious of the new love interest known previously as the Bake-O-Lite Girl and seeks to investigate her. Wallace being the ever naive and unassuming baker/inventor knows only that he is in love.
When watching any film one has certain assumptions and aspirations of what will happen. This film, though totally different from what I normally watch, still left me thinking "What do I want to happen?" My answer was one of a happy ending. All to often films seek out shocking endings that leave audience members ultimately dissatisfied. This film did not. The pudgy figures march their way right along the simple plot filled with some dramatic moments and a few iconic British tongue in cheek periods.
As mentioned before clay-mation is a remarkable style of film making. It requires the film creators to be concise and not have unnecessary scenes that don't serve the plot. It demands that only movements that are crucial to the story being told should be done. Though, film making now is more easily completed using computers, it is still painstaking work. I actually noticed a few times when I could see finger prints in the clay and they seemed to move along with the figure.
If rating this film on a 5 star system I would definitely give it a 4.5 at least. It's a cute little story with an endearing style of telling it. It is family friendly and not long at all clocking in at 29minutes. Though it is a film in a series, I didn't feel as though I was missing out on anything by not viewing the other films in the series.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Media Survey
Media is all around us seeking to influence us. At times it can seem very entertaining and have a subtle message. Others are overt and practically scream their message. Over the past week I have logged my "media exposure" and will discuss it below.
I also found it interesting that websites themselves have advertisements in the forms of banners and links. Everyone is striving for business and to promote their opinion,service, or product. Even while working on Wednesday, I encountered a lot of ads. My job requires we use an online scheduling system. Along the sides and bottom of the webpage are constantly changing banners and ads.
As mentioned I don't have cable. I do a lot of entertainment viewing on Hulu, Netflix, and Youtube. Hulu and Youtube have really been pushing for commercials prior to video viewing. Their services are free after all and require some way of generating revenue. The interesting thing though is the lack of correlation that one ad will have with the video being viewed.
Ultimately, advertisements seek to inform people of what is available or what others think. Charities and political organizations have been promoting themselves respectively. I myself am looking for ways to promote a small business venture. In an almost completely networked world, where might we find ourselves in the next few years? Only time will tell. Wanna buy a costume from me?
- Saturday: Piddled on facebook for 2 hrs. (games, chat, etc.)
- Worked on Business Website for 2hrs.
- Sunday:Piddled on facebook for 2 hrs. (games, chat, etc.)
- Monday: Piddled on facebook for 2 hrs. (chat)
- Listened to Pandora online radio- 1 hr.
- Worked on Business Website for 1hr.
- Was on Youtube for 2 hrs.
- Listened to car radio on way home. (NPR)
- Tuesday: You tubed this morning for about 30minutes
- Piddled on facebook for 1 hr. (chat)
- Listened to the radio on my way to school (NPR)
- Also saw several billboards.
- Wednesday: Work Online (Banners)- 7hrs
- Thursday: Youtubed 3 hrs (researching)
- Friday: Listened to car Radio- 1hr
I also found it interesting that websites themselves have advertisements in the forms of banners and links. Everyone is striving for business and to promote their opinion,service, or product. Even while working on Wednesday, I encountered a lot of ads. My job requires we use an online scheduling system. Along the sides and bottom of the webpage are constantly changing banners and ads.
As mentioned I don't have cable. I do a lot of entertainment viewing on Hulu, Netflix, and Youtube. Hulu and Youtube have really been pushing for commercials prior to video viewing. Their services are free after all and require some way of generating revenue. The interesting thing though is the lack of correlation that one ad will have with the video being viewed.
Ultimately, advertisements seek to inform people of what is available or what others think. Charities and political organizations have been promoting themselves respectively. I myself am looking for ways to promote a small business venture. In an almost completely networked world, where might we find ourselves in the next few years? Only time will tell. Wanna buy a costume from me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)