MYST #4

The Italian Job

I was having a pretty boring and tired day so I wanted to watch something entertaining and not too serious for my MYST. Once I came across The Italian Job I knew that was the movie I had to watch. It was one of my favorite movies as a kid and I hadn't of seen it in at least a few years so I thought it would be a good one to do a MYST post on.

The Italian Job is about a group of friends, who, after stealing 35 million dollars worth of gold from Italian gangsters in the city of Venice, are betrayed by one of their crew members, Steve (Edward Norton) . Steve kills John, their beloved leader and father-figure of the group and steals all of the gold. Thinking he had also killed off the rest of the crew, Steve goes on to live his now wealthy life in the city of Los Angeles. After locating Steve, Charlie (Mark Wahlberg) reassembles his group of friends and also recruits Johns daughter to help them get revenge. The movie revolves around their preparation and planning of stealing the gold back from Steve; not for the money but simply to avenge Johns death. Although the movie revolves around the story of a heist, its really more about a group of friends and their intention to get back at the man who killed John. If your not looking for something too serious, its an entertaining and fun watch with a good cast. (Jason Stathom, Charlize Theron, Seth Green, and Mos Def also star in it)

2 scenes in the movie which really stood out to me were the scenes in which they were cracking the safe codes. The first one came at the beginning of the movie when they are underwater cracking the safe in Venice. The camera cuts back and forth from the extremely calm and nerve racking setting of John trying to crack the code to the ensuing police chase which is going on outside through the canals and alleys of the city. The scene cuts back and forth between these 2 a lot and it helped create a lot of suspense. It was also interesting because it showed that both events, which were happening simultaneously, were seemingly equally suspenseful even though one was a police chase and the other was very calm, still, and quiet. This is also seen in the end of the movie when Johns daughter is trying to crack Steve's safe. As she is in the process, the camera once again cuts back and forth between the safe and the ensuing chaos of the men racing towards the safe to stop her. It was very interesting how the director chose to do this with both scenes and it really added a suspensful "are they gonna make it" feeling to both.

Im glad I decided to watch this movie. It was a nice throwback to one of my favorite movies as kid and I would recommend this movie to anyone looking for a good heist movie. 4/5 stars

MYST POST #3

Jack Reacher

I was real bored looking for a movie on Netflix the other day and somehow I came across Jack Reacher. I usually tend to stay away from anything Tom Cruise as it usually implies a dumb action movie, but I thought it would be funny to watch the movie and write a bad review on it and pretty much bash everything that is a soulless action money-maker.

To my surprise, I actually enjoyed the movie. From a technical stand point there wasn't much that stood out other than some different camera angles used for effect and such like that, but given it was a small budget movie I wasn't very surprised by that. It just wasn't that type of big block buster movie. However, the plot had some good twists and It was cool to see the movie unfold in front of you given it was sort of a conspiracy mystery thriller. It also had some subtle humor throughout which kept it a more entertaining watch. 

The movie revolves around the story of the aftermath and investigation of the presumed cold-blooded murder of 5 innocent civilians by an ex-military sniper James Barr. Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) is also ex-military and a drifter and is motivated to come and bury the suspect (Barr) once and for all, whom he shares an interesting past with. As he learns more about the case, victims, and evidence he begins to discover that some of it doesn't add up and believes Barr was framed. Reacher then sets out on a seemingly one man mission to uncover the real truth behind the murders and clear his own name on the way. Its cool how the story and investigation unfold throughout the movie and it was much more of a thriller than I had expected.

I couldn't tell wether he was acting or not cause he's pretty much the same person in every movie but Cruise gives the good old signature Tom Cruise performance. It wouldn't be a Tom Cruise without some real cheesy lines, no emotion, and a car chase. The only difference was it actually worked in this movie and aided to some of the humor throughout. I think Cruise knew exactly what  he was doing and purposefully played off that cliche of himself. As a viewer I could pick up on that and it made it seem more funny. Given that he produced the movie and had some behind the screen influence I can painfully admit I respect that. 

Given that there really wasn't anything that special about it technically speaking its hard to pick a specific scene to dissect. I will also admit I got a little carried away with the story to pay attention to some of the technical aspects of it, so ill chalk that one and say put it on me Mr D. 

All in all, it wasn't anything super special, but i think it definitely achieved its goal as a movie. It was entertaining to watch and I think it would be safe to say I would watch it again to see all of the stuff I didn't pick up on the first time around. I give it a solid 3 stars, maybe 3.5 on a good day. 

MYST POST #2: Hunger Games Mockingjay - Part 1

Scrambling to get my MYST posts done, I had no other option but to venture into the oh-so disappointing "On Demand" movie selection. Once I got there, they had the newest Hunger Games movie featured on the front page. I watched the first two, and have read the first book, so I decided to watch it, even though I didn't really want to. I was pretty turned off by the fact that they split the third book into 2 movies, seemingly doing it to try to squeeze every last penny out of the Hunger games series that they can. I didn't really have that high of expectations for it, because I assumed it was going to be slow and dragged out like the "Part 1" in its title suggests. Unfortunately, the movie did feel really slow at some points and yes, even dragged on too, however I will admit that I'd be wrong to call it a "bad movie" - I did like the first two movies in the series after all.



Mockingjay - Part 1 depicts the beginning of the uprising against the Capitol amongst the districts that Katniss evidently started following the events from the previous two movies. The movie begins with Katniss awaking in the secret District 13, who have also been secretly spearheading a revolution. They employ Katniss to be their "Mockingjay" - the face of the rebellion and symbol for hope among all the districts. As the Mockingjay, Katniss must shoot a variety of propaganda "commercials" encouraging the other districts to join the rebellion. The whole movie revolves around the shooting of these propoganda clips, which seemingly angers Katniss who just wants to help her friends escape the Capitol.

As I said, the movie felt really slow and dragged on at times, which can probably be credited to its 2 part structure. It has very little action and was boring at times, but I feel as if "Part 2" is going to be really good just because they pretty much spent this whole entire movie setting the scene for it. The whole "propoganda commercial" plot line bothered me because I thought it was kind of stupid and the story could of gone in a lot of of different but better directions. However, I felt the movie did a good job of portraying what the author envisioned in the book, and the acting was pretty good throughout the whole movie. And, although it is boring, it has a lot of clever political subtext, which I can respect in a major blockbluster movie.

All in all, the movie wasn't bad, just a little disappointing compared to the first two. I feel like the only goals for this movie were to make a lot of money and set the scene for Part 2, which I think will turn out to be pretty good after seeing this.

I give it a 3 out of 5 stars on my scale.

MYST POST #1: Ferris Bueller's Day Off

As I was searching on Netflix for a good movie to watch (something that has turned out to be way harder than I thought) I came across one of the greater classic films from my childhood; Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Before I could think twice, I had already clicked on it to start watching, and anyways with the end of my high school career in near sight, I thought it would perfectly fit to watch this high school classic.

Its been at least a few years since I last saw this movie, and although I remembered the story and some of the more iconic scenes and gags, watching it again almost felt like I was watching it for the first time. Over the years, you tend to forget the smaller details of a movie that mark its true character so to speak and that is exactly what happened to me for this movie. Watching it again, I've realized how funny it actually is. Although it may not be an Academy Award decorated piece of art, it still exceeds at doing its intended job. Its intended job was not to win Academy Awards, its job was to not be too serious and make you feel good and laugh, which is exactly what it does. In the film itself, Ferris preaches to his best friend Cameron throughout the whole movie how he needs to lighten up and enjoy life. I think that this movie mirrors Bueller's words because when you watch it, it makes you forget about everything else that's going on and just enjoy what your doing. Its just an all around really fun movie to watch, especially being in high school myself.

One of the biggest stylistic aspects of this movie is how Ferris commonly breaks the fourth wall throughout the whole movie.

 This makes the viewer feel more involved in the movie, as there are many instances where Ferris is directly talking to the viewer. This further supports how this movie is not too serious, it was made to be a fun experience for the viewer, and I think this aspect of breaking the fourth wall was really smart to portray that experience.

One scene that really stands out in this movie to me is one of the more iconic scenes when they are in the city and Ferris takes over the parade float and sings "Twist & Shout" in front of thousands of people. The whole city seemingly breaks into synchronized song and dance and everyone seems to forget about reality for the duration of the song. I think that this scene really represents the movie and its message well. This would never happen in real life, yet they still decided to add it into the movie because it wasn't too serious. It showed a bunch of people having fun with their lives no matter who they were or what color their skin was. I think this scene represents the epitome of what this movie was trying to do and what it stood for.

Like I said above, although its not necessarily a "great film" it overachieves at its ultimate goal which was to make a fun movie about being young. This will forever be considered a classic, no matter what age you are. Anybody who ever experienced a childhood should have appreciation for this movie.

I confidently give this movie 4.5/5 stars

Formal Film Study: Martin Scorsese

I had never realized before that Martin Scorsese was actually my favorite director until I saw the movie The Wolf of Wall Street for the first time. While sitting in the theater watching that movie, I couldn't help but start subconsciously making connections to the movie Casino throughout practically the whole thing. And then, once the Goodfellas connections started coming in too, it all made sense to me. I didn't even wait for the movie to end before I was looking up who the director was, and a few taps on the screen later I was looking at the list of Martin Scorsese's filmography in pure amazement. How could I have not known beforehand that he was the director of all three? I mean, even before The Wolf (2013) came out, I still regarded Casino (1995) and Goodfellas (1990) as some of my all time favorites, and they too are strikingly similar in regards to the directorial style. Because of this, I chose to do my Formal Film Study on Scorsese, particularly on these three films. Having already seen all three of these movies, I wanted to go back and watch them again, looking for and analyzing the stylistic similarities of all three that is evidently Scorsese's doing.

Another aspect I wanted to analyze was Scorsese's development of these techniques over the years, so I decided to watch the three films in chronological order to get a sense of how they've changed or improved over his career. When Goodfellas came out in 1990, that's really when Scorsese started to develop his own style and be known around Hollywood as an extremely influential director. His trademark techniques such as the use of slow motion, freeze frames, long tracking shots, pace, depiction of women, and all around story telling are all evident in all three movies. Whereas in Goodfellas and Casino (both 90s movies), I felt Scorsese was just beginning to pioneer these techniques and come into his form, I think he absolutely masters his craft in The Wolf of Wall Street - almost two decades later. (a 2013 film)




The first of the three that I watched was Goodfellas. Goodfellas is a classic Scorsese crime movie depicting the rise and fall of self made gangster Henry Hill and his band of brothers. Many circles consider this to be one of, if not, Scorsese's best films. In this movie in particular, Scorsese starts to really bring out some of his signature story telling techniques. All throughout the movie, Scorsese uses rolling and tracking shots that go on for tens of seconds to even minutes, much longer than normal cuts in a movie, to make the viewer feel like they are inside or even a part of the story. Instead of seeing the movie clip by clip, Scorsese puts the viewer at the center of the story and lets it seamlessly unfold in front you. Layered over the tracking shots are usually voice overs telling the story as it is rolling out on the screen, or music to enhance the setting that he is trying to portray. Two instances from the movie that really stand out to me are in the bar scene when Henry is introducing all the fellow gangsters, the shot goes on for minutes and seamlessly rolls through many different rooms and angles without cutting once. The second is when Henry's wife is describing what her life is like living with Henry. She explains this through a voice over, that runs through many scenes. Some of these scenes are tracking shots, while others are fast paced clips - reiterating the fast paced lifestyle that a gangster lives.



The second of the three that I watched was Casino. Casino, just like Wolf and Goodfellas, follows the same rise and fall storyline that Scorsese has become known for. Depicting the life of Ace Rothstein, a Handicapper who gets called on by the Italian Mob to run the Tangiers Casino in Vegas, Casino depicts the events that put Ace and his fellow mobsters on top of the world and also what evidently lead to their downfall and crash. Although in Casino, Scorsese uses his signature rolling shots, voice overs, and freeze frames that made it feel so similar to Goodfellas, I felt he experimented a lot more with different camera angles and shots. He used more closeups and one-on-one interactions with characters. I think Scorsese was more involved with the actual character development in this movie, whereas Goodfellas was more about the story as a whole. All of the characters in this movie go through some sort of transformation and Scorsese uses his directing to enhance this. During the middle of the movie, when everything in their lives is moving so quick, and everything is so hectic, that is when the characters begin to change. Scorsese uses a lot of fast paced shots, clips, and editing to mirror this change in the characters and that really helps the movie seem like a full circle piece of work.



The last movie I watched, and his most recent, was The Wolf of Wall Street. This movie I believe, as I said above, is the epitome of Scorsese's directing style. Coming out almost two decades after Casino, Scorsese had years to master his craft, and that is exactly what he did. Throughout the whole entire movie, he effortlessly blends in every aspect of his signature directing that he's known for. While in Goodfellas and Casino, it seemed he tended to focus more a few specific things, in Wolf we get to see all of his directing trademarks in one master piece. He uses things such as the rolling shots and voice overs that were predominantly used in Goodfellas to give that same storytelling effect, while also incorporating more intricate pacing, camera angles, shots, and character development that we saw him dabble in with Casino. The Wolf of Wall Street is about the life of excess and greed that Jordan Belfort, a crooked NY stockbroker, lived during his time on Wall Street in the late 80s throughout the 90s, There was no one better suited to bring this man's rise and fall story of crime to life than Martin Scorsese. Throughout the movie he ingeniously weaves in his story telling aspects with fast paced editing and camera work that mirror the out of control lifestyle and excess that Jordan Belfort lived.

Every time you watch a Scorsese film, your going to get more out of it than just a movie. He is a master of storytelling, almost making you feel as if hes taking you on roller coaster through a book he was the author of. There's always more to his stuff than just a beginning, middle, and end, and I was extremely intrigued watching these movies and analyzing his directorial style. Its hard to notice sometimes the little things that a director does to make a movie just that much better, but when you do, its at that moment that it turns from a movie into a piece of art.

The Godtoddlers

The whole story is Humphrey Bogart, Da Boss is a huge mafia guy in Chicago and as  soon as the movie starts, he dies and his daughter Shirley Temple, Crystal takes the throne of his large Mafia. She takes control of some parks and such. whatever a 7 year old gangster would do. Then the rival gang, with leader Edward G Robinson, Frankie Joyce decided to retire to compete against the competition properly and puts his son Norman Chubby Chaney, Chubs, competes against Crystal. At first, Chubs follows his father footsteps and rules his gang as a mean mobster, but when he found out he was competing against the cute little Crystal. Crystal and Chubs have a friendly get together at the neutral ground, Grant Park, and Crystal changes Chubs for good. Over some time, Crystal and Chubs get in a relationship and the become great friends. Through their relationship, the gangs dissipate and they work together to make chicago a better place.

The genre of this movie is a gangster/comedy mix. We chose this genre because we felt it was unique and original but still would be able to draw a huge audience from a range of people such as factory workers to families. Both genres were increasing in popularity at the time and we felt it was a perfect mix 

We chose Warner bros. As our studio because they specialized in both gangster films and comedies. Another big reason for choosing Warner bros was because the goal of this movie was to be a huge budget blockbuster film and classic hit with an ensemble cast. Among all of the studios, Warner bros were pioneers of a lot of things in film and we felt they were the only studio with the money, personnel, vision, and ambition fit for it.

The reason for choosing Shirley temple and Chubby Chaney as the two main characters were because they were two huge child stars at the time and were both at the tail ends of their careers, making it the perfect opportunity for them to go out with a bang. We also chose Humphrey bogart to star because of he was a big mean looking guy who could perfectly personify a crooked mob boss. Edward G Robinson is also going to star in this film. He was Warner bros go-to-guy for gangster movies and would bring good acting to well rounded cast. We chose to focus on sound and editing because Warner bros specialized in this aspect and we felt that the sound and editing needed to be spot on because of the type of movie we were trying to make. 

With regards to the Hays code, we would be able to get around a lot of the "no's" by just not showing them and focusing more on the childish aspects of the movie. This will make the movie more friendly with all audiences but still be entertaining by revolving around a gangster plot. 

Our poster was in black and white but the movie is going to be in color. We chose to advertise our movie this way because that will really wow the audience once they finally watch it. 

If I had total control I would make the movie more gangster oriented, however that would of been very difficult at the time because of the hays code. The plot seems a little too childish and unrealistic, but the feel good ending will hit home with a lot of the audience. 

Review of Reviews: American Sniper

The first review I read was a positive review on Rotten Tomatoes by certified top critic Tom Long of The Detroit News http://www.detroitnews.com/story/entertainment/movies/2015/01/15/american-sniper-follows-consequences-violence/21822507/. American Sniper recieved a 72% on the website, with many of the critics who gave it a "fresh" review pointing to Eastwood's directing & vision, and Bradley Cooper's performance as the main reasons why; this review was no different, however, the critic did a better job of delving deeper into the message of the movie. He used very descriptive and gripping words throughout the review to support and praise Eastwood's cinematic style of directing, especially with the war/action shots. He also commented on the contrast between the war and home front scenes and how they showed what veteran and returning soldiers are dealing with on a day-to-day basis in such great depth - this was ultimately the main message of the movie, and he believes Eastwood did a great job of portraying it in a real, not Hollywood-glorified way. He also praises Cooper's performance as "groundbreaking" and says he did a great job of embodying the man Chris Kyle was. (this critic has read the Chris Kyle autobiography "American Sniper"). He gave it a final score of "B+".

The second review I read was negative one, also on Rotten Tomatoes, by another certified top critic J.R Jones of the Chicago Reader http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/american-sniper-bradley-cooper-chris-kyle-clint-eastwood/Content?oid=16192145. He states the main reason for his negative review is that the movie "lacks a credible perspective on its subject" and notes how the "blacked-out" ending is mostly responsible for this. He feels that the filmmakers should have waited a few more years to make this movie, so they could include the true story of how Chris Kyle was killed and not leave the audience with a typical, cliche ending. The review is put together really well, almost feeling more like an actual article or story and gives the reader just enough bait to want to go and see it for themselves.

A quote I really agreed with from the first review by Tom Long stated "Eastwood keeps moralizing to a minimum, allowing the audience to examine the true evidence." I felt this was a really strong point because in a war movie, especially with one that has a message like American Sniper, it is important to NOT leave anything out so that the audience can truly know and experience what these soldiers actually have/had to live through. From the second review, I really agreed with the critic when he stated "the scenes of Kyle struggling to function as a family man between his tours of duty are as involving as the combat scenes." When I first watched the movie I had the exact feeling and I felt that this was a really important aspect of the movie to ensure that it wasn't just a typical Hollywood-war-glorifying film, and it helped to engage the audience into the real message of the movie.

I think the first review would be more convincing because the critic seems slightly more credible, having read the book, and because it is more of an actual movie reivew. The second review slightly confuses me because it