Sicko

I was told earlier in the day that I had watched this movie in one of my classes. I came to find out that I had not seen this one specifically. We did watch a documentary, but not Sicko. Sicko, in my opinion, was very interesting in many different ways. One thing that bothered me the most is that it only shows one side. That is one thing that documentaries tend to do. This one was worse than some. Sicko focused on the health care in America. In the article 'Sicko': Heavily Doctored, By Kurt Loder talks about the other side of Michael Moore's documentary. It was a great article because it does talk about the other side, which is more agreeable now, looking back at the movie and then looking at the article. I thought it was very interesting what Loder had mentioned about the Cubans and the foreigners and how they are treated. The foreigners are treated better than the Cubans and that is in their own country. Another thing that stuck in the back of my mind was the Canadians and how they have special transportation for them so they do not have to wait at the border. This transportation can just go straight through and get them to where they are needed to be. The comments at the end of the article are very interesting and some are very touching. There are always going to be some people that believe Moore and some that believe Loder. That is with anything and everything that comes about in this world. The article Out of Focus: How Indie Dogma Undercuts the Documentary by Michael Massing, talks about how “in too many cases, documentaries seem to not include critical information. Or fail to provide important context. Or neglect to follow up interesting leads. Or leave impressions that are never backed up. All in all, something seems to be missing. And, based on my spate of viewing, I think I know what it is: a narrator.” I would have to disagree with this because I feel the filmmaker should stay behind the scenes, and let the subject matter present the facts. The article by Guillermo Perez talks about a young director of documentary films specifically about boys in ballet. This goes to show that it isn't too difficult to make a documentary; you just have to convince your target audience to think about and believe what you want them to, and see exactly what you want them to see. This movie was interesting and gets you thinking. I would like to watch it again so then I can actually see the difference now that I have read the articles and know what is going on more. I simply just watched the movie and did not know what to expect right off the bat. There were some things that got into my head, but now I know not everything is true and that is what Michael Moore is doing is trying to get this into people's heads so they portray it as the truth to others. In the book, it talks about two different types of documentaries. The first one is a thesis documentary and the other is the antithetical type of documentary. I would have to categorize Michael Moore's Sicko into the thesis documentary. I would recommend people watching this movie, but they would have to get everything out of their mind and just watch it and not think that everything is true. I do plan on watching it again and thinking more into the movie and seeing what Michael Moore is actually stating and trying to get to us.

The Matrix

That was the first time I had watched the Matrix. I had seen bits and pieces before from others watching it and really enjoying it. I am not a huge fan of science-fiction movies, but I would have to admit that The Matrix had some pretty interesting scenes that I did not mind. I am not going to say that I really liked the movie, but it was way better than what I had expected. I went in to class thinking that this was going to be one of the not so good movies and I should have just stayed at home. Well I enjoyed the movie; some scenes sticked out more than others, but that happens in most, if not all, movies. After I had previewed the article, it really got me thinking about the religious aspects that were invloved in the movie and how they compared the actors to what they would be like now. I really thought that was interesting how they paralleled the characters like Neo being like Jesus, Morpheus as in John the Baptist, Trinity was compared to Mary Magdalene, and Cypher parallels Judas. That is what really got me thinking about the movie because I would have never thought of it like that. I had religion in the back of my head when we watched the movie but never would have come up with parallels with the characters and people that we think and know of from our religious backgrounds. The article also discusses a litte about the Buddhism and of course the Christianity parallels. In the article, it has a variety of different questions that were asked. I really think they made a lot of sense. It gets you thinking, even though you may know the answer, but you still let your mind wander and think about "how are WE programmed?" In the reading, it mentions that it is very important to go into a movie thinking about certain things. The basic approach is watching the movie, then analyzing it and then evaluating the film. There are questions that you should ask yourself while watching a film. It is very hard to concentrate on the movie and then think about what the sound is like and how this is happening or why it's happening about everything we see and hear. It says that "we must make an effort to become immersed in the reality of the film;" I think that this is why I do not get into science-fiction films. I really have not liked them from the beginning, so I do not take the time to put myself into the film. I go and think that I am not going to like it and ask myself why am I going to watch this. This also connects with the subjective evaluation that the book also talks about briefly. I just have not watched a lot of sci-fi movies. Some people have grown up watching them and liking them. I was never that someone! Going back to the subjective evidence, I have the reaction right off the bat that it was only an okay movie that im glad I watched it, but never will I watch it again. Then I give reasons why. I think too much about why I did not like the film. It should just come to me, but sci-fi movies are sometimes ridiculous and make no sense. That is all in my opinion. So therefore, I would say that it was an alright movie, but I really do not plan to watch it again.

The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight was a good movie for watching it for the first time. I had never watched it before simply because I am not too into those kind of movies. I have not seen the first one either. After watching The Dark Knight I might just have to watch the first one and then watch The Dark Knight again. It was a great movie not just because of the acting but also because of everything else that went on. The acting, cinematography, the directing and all of the above. It was just a really good movie. I am also surprised that I haven't watched that movie because I absolutely love Heath Ledger and his acting in movies. The Dark Knight is now one of my favorite movies that Heath has played in. In the book, Chapter 10, discussed the goal of the actor. "The ultimate goal of any actor should be to make us believe completely in teh reality of the character. If this goal is to be achieved, actors must either develop or be blessed with several talents." I believe that this fits The Dark Knight very well, more so than The Dark Knight, it fits the performace of Heath Ledger as the joker. That was the all time best acting in the movie. The other actors were also great picks to be included in the movie; the acting by the others were also good because they fit the characters quite well. Heath Ledger's performances were phenomenal because he has the ability to be whoever and do whatever. He was a big part, not only to the rest of the cast but the audience could also pick it out. Just by looking at the joker you could not tell it was Ledger. That is a big part of acting also. You never saw him throughout the movie, it was a great acting position for him to play and he fit and accomplished all the tasks well. One of the articles that I have found mentioned that in previous Batman movies the joker was somewhat humorous and would tell jokes and not be as serious and show Batman who he really was. Ledger, on the otherhand, was a gleeful force of nature that loved to tear the world to pieces. This acting in The Dark Knight for Ledger has been the biggest challenge in his career. It all paid off at the end coming from my opinion. The other article that I found talks about how some of the cast of The Dark Knight walked the black carpet and one person was absent from the festivities, but he was present in all their hearts. It also mentions if there should be another Batman movie after having a lot of praise in this film. Due to the fact that the joker was a great antithesis of Batman in this film, The Dark Knight!

Works Cited

Vasques, Sarah. A Golden Globe For Heath Ledger's Performance In "The Dark Knight." Jan. 12, 2009. http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_A_Golden_Globe_For_Heath_Ledgers_Performance_In_The_Dark_Knight_33116.html

Vineyard, Jennifer. 'Dark Knight' Cast, Crew Tout Heath Ledger's Performance, Suggest New Villains At NYC Premiere. Jul 15, 2008. http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1590907/story.jhtml

Slumdog Millionaire

After seeing Slumdog Millionaire I can see how it won those 8 Academy Awards. I really enjoyed the movie. It is a movie that gives us all a taste of India and how it was or possibly still is at times in the slums. The first time I heard about this movie, I had wondered how they were going to make a movie that somewhat mimics Who Wants to be a Millionaire with a kid from India, who supposedly knew everything. Once I saw the movie, it was very touching and heartfelt throughout. Like I mentioned before, it was a great movie. The movie reminded me and possibly others how difficult life can really be and the saying is true that life is not always fair. Living a life like how the boys did in India was unbelieveable. I could not have gone through what they did. The movie really had a touching feeling that I had connected with right from the beginning, the good and the bad times. One thing that I really liked about the movie was that it went back and forth from the game and to his past. Everything that had happened he had remembered to answer his questions. That was quite amazing. The directors did a great job incorporating the game into the movie for Jamal to try and get back to Latika. Throughout the whole movie I had been thinking if it was a total love story, but it turned out to be a love story that was amazing and well done. The motion of the movie was upbeat and quick. It kept my attention through the whole thing; the quickness of the shots and all the action that took place. The music was also really good and caught my attention. So therefore the cinematography of the movie was excellent. I do not normally notice colors that much in movies, but I did pick up that Latika had yellow on quite a bit. It just seemed like it most of the time, like at the train stations for sure she had bright yellow on. I personally believe it was a sign of hope that went along with her character. It was a well-rounded movie and I enjoyed it a lot and so did everyone else that decided to come with me! It is one of my favorite movies that I have went to this year. I can certainly understand how it was nominated for all the awards and how it won those eight.

Amelie

Amelie was a foreign film, which was very outstanding. It had its good parts and some different parts. Amelie, like i had mentioned, it was a foreign film which was French. It was a good well-rounded movie. It kept my attention throughout the movie with all the great colors that was in the movie. It was also a love story, but not a typical love story with the good and the bad. It was like how Amelie was feeling bad but helped others out, which made her happy. The program ojective I believe is that you can help anyone at anytime, without anything in return. Meaning Amelie, who was brought up by her father who did not really help her out at all after her mother had passed away. She was treated not the greatest, so she had the fear of loving others and trusting them. So, she had to work with herself and overcome her fears; she did that by helping other people which made her happy and love who she is. She felt like she was accomplishing what she wanted to, which she really felt like she did. An objective point of view was used in the film, in my opinion anyways. As John Ford considered the camera to be "a window and the audience to be outside the window viewing the people and events within." I felt like that this film we were not brought into the movie like some others we have been. It realy did feel like we were the audience waiting what was going to happen or what she was going to do. The subjective point of view I think was when the camera would zoom in and let us know what her emotion is and what is going on. The film connects with both objective and subjective points of view. Meaning that we are looked at the audience and looking into the movie through a window, but the subjective view is that we realize what Amelie is feeling and how she is feeling about things. It more so fits into the category as indirect-subjective point of view, because as the book states it does not provide us with the point of view, but it does bring us close to the action so that we feel intimately involved and how we see what is going on. The film, Amelie, was a great movie that I had ever watched especially in a different language. It kept me watching and grabbing my attention. I really enjoyed it. I can now see how it was nominated for five Academy Awards.

The Sixth Sense and Signs

The Sixth Sense:
The location to the overall effect of the film is that it took place in his home where he was killed and that is where he goes back to allow him to keep thinking he is alive. The main sets is the man's place and the little boy's place because the little boy is where he sees most of the activity that goes on. The costumes for the characters tell us the timeline of when it takesplace. It also helps you define their status in life. For example the guy usually has a suit on and the little boy showed that he had gone to a private school because he wore a uniform type outfit. The lighting of the movie had a more suspenseful outlook, so therefore it is darker and keeps your attention and what is going to happen next. Towards the end of the movie the lighting changes all of a sudden because there is light that reflects through the window. He says goodbye and his life is going to change meaning it's going to get better and he is gonig to have a better life ahead of him and how bright it can be and that everything is going to be okay. There were a lot of dark and muted colors that keeps it darker and edgier.
Signs:
They are located on a farm where they have crops so they are more isolated. Being in an isolated area makes it more suspenseful and nerve wrecking. In order to get the crops they had to find the crop signs and be isolated to be more suspenseful, meaning on a farmstead. Each person has their own character. The little girl always has her own little dresses on. It also gives you a time era when the movie was happening and also how they dress on farms, for example they are not going to wear suits because they are farmers and you don't see farmers typically wearing suits. The lighting is appropriate because it shows the day scenes and the scary scenes. It is night and dark when there is attacking. It is more terrifying because you are scared of the dark and you can't see what's out there so it makes it more scary. The director is trying to tell you that it is more safe during the day and more scary at night. It sets up fear for people and makes the movie more intense. There were no really significant colors. The color of night represented the danger. The little girl always wore light colored dresses and always had the purified water; she was an important part in the movie because she always had the water and acted like the savor. She saved the ones around teh house because of the movie. It is like the good versus the bad and how the light always wins. So therefore, the little girl was the savor with her light colored dresses and the aliens represented the bad because of their darkness.

On the Waterfront

On the Waterfront was also a movie in black and white just like Casablanca. On the Waterfront, in my opinion, was easier to watch because there was more action and different things that went on. On the Waterfront was a little more difficult to follow because right away Joey was killed without anything happening, so I was a little confused right off the bat. Throughout the movie there were different emotional effects and moods, for example, the love connection between Terry and Edie, the attitudes between Terry and the priest and with all the other guys also. I had no clue what to think about the movie right away because Terry was friends or getting along with most everybody. The end wrapped up the movie for me because I then figured out what the storyline was saying. In the article, On the Waterfront (Motion picture), had great descriptions about Terry and Edie's characters. The acting, I thought, was very good; it fit the description of the movie well. As stated in the article, On the Waterfront (Motion picture), that this movie is proof that you can take the man out of the Party, but you can't take the Party out of the man; I agree with this, I would have never thought of it that way, but it sums up the movie very well. I can see how On the Waterfront was nominated for a bunch of awards and how it won, it was a well-rounded movie.