Wrap Up!

Note:

For the last two entries I will be writing about two different movies. I was unable to see Pixar's Up and Indiana Jones. I will be discussing Chasing Amy and Alice in Wonderland. These movies I have seen numerous times and could go on about them for days.

Alice in Wonderland

Although I did not see the movie in 3D the movie was no less spectacular. Time Burton remakes this classical Lewis Carroll story. His characters are riveting and they display such emotion in body language. The depictions of their characters are so accurate. I can see the dialog come to life (in Burton's film) just the way Lewis Carroll intended. Compared to the old school television, the movie was intelligent, quick and witty, where as the cartoon was dumb downed so children could gaze into the brightly colored fantasy-land.

I always wondered how a writing of such adult material could end up to be a show (we as kids) watched on Nickelodeon or something. Growing up knowing the shows, movies and stories of Alice of Wonderland including Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit", I absolutely loved it. I think the writing was incorporated beautifully and Burton's world displays everything Lewis Carroll.

I found the new version, "live action" Alice in Wonderland to lack such creativity. The characters and cast actors were spot on. They were enticing and kept me wanting more. They really tapped into the written text that Lewis Carroll intended. But the actual creative content is lacking originality. Burton is such an awesome director, I don't see why he would produce something less than extraordinary and "mind-blowing". The most astonishing piece of work would be the outfits and Johnny Depp's outfit and make up in particular!

Most indifferently, die hard Carroll fans find this rendition to be a complete disaster! Carrie Rickey of the Inquirer Film Critic says, "It is whimsical to read about the Red Queen's playing croquet with a flamingo for a mallet and hedgehog for a all. But it is enchanting to see an apparently real (if digitized) flamingo and hedgehog used for the games." Whether or not the movie brought Carroll's exact world into play it definitely got the "jest" of it. Tim Burton brings out that colorful explosion rather than keep us wondering.

Chasing Amy

Although not a new movie, it is undoubtedly one of my favorites. Kevin Smith is a brilliant writer. Although he is outward and a bit crude, he takes his well written dialog and his elaborated intertwined and developed characters. Many of the characters can be seen in other Kevin Smith movies as lesser important characters.

As far as writing goes it is a class (of new age cinema). Smith has a knack for real life interpersonal relationships and he definitely understands the way we interact in the most casual of settings.

Margaret A. McGurk of the Cincinnati Enquirer says, "It's a tribute to a smartly written script that the triangular relationships are played out in hip, flip language, but are not trivialized. These characters may be wry, rude and foul-mouthed, but they are grappling with honest human emotion." The characters are so deeply written and built. It creates a whole new outlook and brings the viewer into the scene. It exposes the characters for what they really are, genuine and raw. There is a level of sophistication between his ridiculous plots and bad humor.

His comics as well as his cartoons are well written. To Smith's disadvantage he doesn't reach all audiences and can be considered somewhat of a fool. Kevin Smith has a way with words and come backs. The dialog could come off the page and there would be the scene being played out in front of you. Each character has his/her own distinct traits and flaws. Some being jealousy, passion and loss of self. I feel like I know the characters as if I were each of them. There is something to be said about well written dialog that jumps along with the natural rhythm and flow of a conversation.

Conclusion

Throughout the semester we have examined the way that writing can be expressed in movies. Cinema is accessible and exposes us to all the different types of written dialog. Most things we see are not solely original and make up on the spot. They have been carefully written down and analyzed in several different ways.

Some conversation can be taken different ways. But what makes a good written dialog? When writers express a flow of words that blend to make music, they are creating verbal harmony. Being able to recognize good writing is as simple as being able to recognize good dialog.

Movie scripts and critiques create a lot of buzz. There is always talk of the action and the special effects, but if there is no main story and the dialog is garbage, then there is no way for the movie to be a success. Sometimes the movie do not adapt well to the book, however alone they could stand as successful writing.

final blog post

During this blog, I learned about how writing is incorportated into movies and cinema. It gave me a new way of looking at writing, because all of the essays and papers I have had to write in my high school and college career were mostly academic papers. The writng mentality is very different when trying to create a character on screen.

When writing an academic or research paper, one has to sound sophisticated and intelligent. They should mostly follow all the rules of grammar and other guidelines that have been taught in english classes. One has to be able to give the proper information, while also trying to make your paper interesting and not boring to read. If you are writing a personal essay, you need to bring your expereinces and emotions to life, so that the reader will understand you and be engaged.

When writing for a movie, the writer needs to focus on bringing an entirely fictional character to life. They need to create an adequate script for him, and make sure that every line he or she says is "in-character". If the character is written as funny, the writers need to supply that character with an ample amount of jokes through-out the film so the audience is entertained all the way through. A comedy can not simply stop being funny half way through. If the character is written as serious, then he must have certain qualities that make him likeable, for it is very rare that we encounter and unlikeable and uncharismatic protagonist.

I've also discovered that writing in the form of character development is one of the hardest things for a cinema writer to pull off. The writers must first establish a prime character with a noticeable personality. Then the writers must have that charatcer interact with other charatcers or events that happen so that the charatcer can have a noticeable personality shift. Although, many movies try to get their characters to change, not all of them come off as believeable because the of the events that occured earlier in the film did not mesh correctly, or the change was too sudden with no build up. As I was writing about films for this blog, I noticed al ot of them focused on having character development. In the Dark Knight, Harvey Dent went from being a noble crime fighting district attorney, to one of the films villains. However, due to what he went through and the changes that occured through out his life during the film, this change did not feel out of character. In the movie Up, the main protagonist Carl Fredrickson goes from being a grumpy old man, to becoming a softer and kinder human being because of his interaction with Russel.

Another thing I learned from this blog is that creating the plot of a film is a lot like creative writing. There needs to be an engaging story that has no, or atleast a few plot holes to make it work. Also, there can be more than one person who gives suggentions and helps with the piece, just like in film there is usually never just one writer wo takes credit for the story.

All in all, this blog helped me see that writing can come in mnay different forms and there are many ways in which it can go wrong or right.

Reflective Post – How Can a Bad Movie be Elevated with a Better Story?

Most of the movies today are rated on either special effects or upon the stories within them. Why should they not? This is essentially what composes any film out on the current market. However, in the current culture, special effects seem to have become more pronounced and more pervasive than the film’s story. This can lead to an overabundance of special effects and an underdevelopment of the story. One of the best examples of this was a superhero movie that came out in 1997. This film was Batman and Robin, directed by Joel Schumacher, a film made so horrible due to its intended audience that it has been deemed one of the worst superhero films ever made and won numerous nominations at the Razzie awards.
In Batman and Robin, the story seemed to be the typical Batman story that was similar to the previous three films: A villain decides to take control of Gotham and harm its innocent civilians, thus causing Batman to emerge and take down the twisted criminal. Everyone has heard that story, so this one won’t be any different. This wasn’t the case. In Batman and Robin, the villains decide that one city just isn’t enough and they decide to take over the world, which instantly turns the film into a clichéd remake of so many other films. Another mistake was the tone of the film. The film was so overloaded with flash and sparkles, that it made one forget they were watching Batman and instead made them think they were watching a toy commercial. Incidentally, this was exactly what the film was hoping for in order to market off the toys that would follow its release.
From these examples, one can derive an important rule for making a successful story: If you’re going to create a movie, make a good story to go with it. If you’re going to create a commercial, which is essentially what Batman and Robin could easily be called, just an overblown, multi-million dollar commercial, then write a creative concept, not a typical script.
When a movie is reviewed as “bad,” most of the time, the plot is thin or the characters seem weak. The story has to be the basis for the film. Special effects and CGI will come later when it’s time to flesh out the story. Writing the story is the first step and most likely the most important step of the movie process. The story has to be one that audiences can relate with or that will draw interest so that viewers will stay for the entire film. A strong story will only be further enhanced by the use of special effects and CGI. The story should be what the main focus of the film is about, not a chance to show off the special effects. But many films do this. It’s almost as if the story has become an excuse for special effects testing. A good story stimulates emotion and gets the audience motivated. It can take characters and make the audience relate to them, make the audience feel for them. People who relate to what the person on the screen is doing are far more likely to understand their motives, more so if these motives are portrayed in unique circumstances.
By going back and examining the stories of films, people can see where there could be rooms for improvements. For example, in the above film, Batman and Robin, scaling back on the number of characters would be a first step. By having to only focus one villain perspective story and one hero perspective story, more time can be dedicated to filling those two stories to make them detailed and original. Splitting that between two or three is only going to hurt, unless there is the necessary man-power to do so. It’s best to not have too much going on at one time. Another improvement would be to completely remove the world-domination aspect. It’s been done before and done to death. There are ways that this can be pulled off, but in this film in particular, it fell flat. Matching the plot of the story with what the characters can do is a fine way to keep the story in check.
For the most part, if the stories of films these days were examined for what they were, stories and not effect experiments, then there might be a better diversity between films. I would make a suggestion that when a film is being designed from a previously written story, a script, then run the story through without special effects and see how it goes. If it works without the effects, then limit them. Don’t try to cover up the weak story with high definition and flashy substance.

It has been an interesting time working on this blog and I’ve learned some interesting things from what I’ve read here. I hope to continue to improve my writing as the years go by and I hope that what I’ve garnished here influences my style as well.

Till next time,
Richard Jicha

Conclusion

There are many ways writing is incorporated into movies. The script and story are among the most central features that determine whether or not the movie will be a success. Movies that are sequels, adapted from books, or completely new stories all have their challenges in making their film come to life and send their audiences home happy. Another way in which movies inspire writing is by causing other people to write about what they saw. While some do this for fun, criitcs do this as a job and they are forced to make their writing sound much more professional, as are people who are forced to write in order to achieve a grade. All in all, movies may be made for watching, but are made from imaginations and the way in which they are written down from paper to the big screen.

Thank you for reading these posts. We hope you enjoyed them. From Alex Daniels and Richard Jicha.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

One of the most iconic action heros in the histroy of cinema is Indiana Jones. The first three installemts were realeased in the 80s were a huge smash making Harrion Ford one of the biggest stars in Hollywood. In the summer of 2008, after a nineteen year absence from the big screen, the newest installment Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was released.

Although there were many who loved the film, there were a large portion of viewers who were left unsatisfied. A lot of people were turned off by its story which revolved around aliens. Although the first three were anything but realistic, there was something about extra terrestrials that many felt did not feel in line with the other three installments and should have belonged in a different movie. This is especailly present in the end that actually features a UFOSteven Speilburg and George Lucas had nineteen years to think of a plot and it can not help but feel like they simply ran out of ideas and decided to throw in aliens because many people have been fascinated by the concept of life outside of Earth. Apart from aliens, there were even more instances in the story where audiences felt were too ridiculous and invoked unintentional laughter. In one scene Jones is involved in a nuclear explosion and manges to survive by hiding inside of a refrigerator. In another scene, a character swings from some vines along side a bunch of obviously computer generated monkeys. Also, towards the end a bunch of Indians attack the heros that came out of nowhere and are easily dispatched making the audience wonder why they were written into the story at all.

Another reason some people were disappointed by the film is the introduction of its newest characters. The most prominent of these characters is Indiana Jones' son Mut played by Shia Labeuf. In the past inserting a side-kick into an already established franchise usually never yields positve results. Although Mut does contribute to the events and story, there were many who found him annoying and felt his character could have been better written. He is not given much debt other than being a street kid who wants to help his mother, and the revelation that he is Jones' son was obvious to many viewers from the beginning of the story despite the fact that it is treated as a shocking revelation in the movie. The villain in the film played by Cate Blanchett also does not receive much attention and her motives are not very clear.

However, there were some positive results for the film. It proved that a story can still work despite the amount of time that has passed from one installment from another. Usually when sequels are introduced after several years, audiences get turned off because it is fairly obvious the movie was made as a cash grab that is going to offer the same things as its previos outings. However, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Cyrstal Skull managed to avoid this. The movie still feels like an Indiana Jones movie and managed to retain its tone and sense of fun as Ford still plays the character just like he used to. The writing and script is also quite good as the film is aware that its protagonist is well past his prime and offers a few quips to ensure their audience that they know its star is over sixty and can no longer move like he used to.

All in all, the newest Indiana Jones flick retains the same elements that made the earlier installments a huge success, but could have used some work on creating a better plot and direction which would have made this a classic like Raiders of the Lost Arc, instead of just a worthy addition to the franchise.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull – Story Reception

Today, many film sequels are set up in quick succession. They follow one another from year to year or with only a few years between them. Examples are prevalent throughout the superhero film genre; these include the Batman series, the Spider-Man series, and the X-Men series. In fact, hero films in general have done this, ranging all the way from James Bond to the more recent Harry Potter. However, there are some film series that make sequels many years after the previous release, mostly due to the limits of technology during the filming of the preceding movie. One of these heroes has been well known to audiences of a wide range of age groups. This hero is none other than George Lucas’ own legendary creation, Indiana Jones.

While it hasn’t been the first to fit in this category, Indiana Jones, played by Harrison Ford as one of the actor’s most famous roles, has had his fame blown to massive proportions due to his series that expanded over the course of a few films. His first film, Raiders of the Lost Ark opened in 1981, followed by Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom in 1984, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in 1989. Skipping the television series, The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which ran from 1992 to 1996 and only had the famous actor in one scene at the end of an episode, it has been quite some time since Indy has graced the silver screen. This all changed with the fourth entry to the Indiana Jones franchise, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, released May 22, 2008.

The film’s release time, nineteen years after The Last Crusade, caused joy in many fans of the character. Despite the extreme length of time between film continuity, the film doesn’t seem all that different when compared to the previous trilogy. Indy still acts like Indy, still sounds like Indy, and still looks like Indy, just aged. The story still contains the same plot as the other entries in the series: Indy hunting a priceless artifact and overcoming obstacles in his quest. It’s a tried and true formula that embodies the old saying, “If it’s not broken, then don’t fix it.”

For this outing, the treasure is a little different than the ones in the other three films. All of the previous artifacts were historical, or at the very least, of earthly material. The fourth film offers a quite literal departure of this trend. Instead of finding a treasure used for religious purposes, the object in question is a mysterious crystal skull. For some reason, it seems that the directors had tired of the confines of our home planet and decided to invoke the otherworldly theme of aliens. While this certainly is a path that could have been taken, it just doesn’t seem to fit in with the treasures of the previous films. Indy has traveled all over the world to find artifacts that reside on Earth and that’s the formula that audiences are used to. However, to suddenly introduce an artifact from the depths of outer space itself seems to be a little bit of a stretch. Due to the film exuding a sense of finality, it does make sense to end it with the last unexplored frontier our human minds can imagine.

To further expand on the story, despite offering nothing new in the way of formula, it did manage to entice the audience by retaining its roots. The details of the story, mostly angled at alien visitors from outer space, were brand new and completely out of left field. Audiences probably weren’t expecting to see a UFO in an Indiana Jones film; this plot element and the story it is settled in managed to help and hinder the film in different ways. It helped by offering something original for Indy, something that hadn’t been tapped before. It introduced new characters to the story, helping flesh out a character that already had plenty of characterization from his previous films. Additionally, it proved that age has nothing to do with affecting the story. Despite the years in between, the age gap is hardly noticeable and the story makes use of it by adding some humorous instances to bring attention to it.

In some ways, though, the story was a little, what one might call, “campy.” With the introduction of aliens, some fans felt that the story had overstepped its boundaries, even going so far as to call the film absurd. It was a new route, one that did not agree with every person who saw the film.

The major consensus for the film is that even though the plot runs on the same formula, the elements that made the first three Indy films such a hit are still present in the fourth entry and that is enough to make audience still enjoy the movie. This was apparent even before the film was released. A major part of the marketing theme relied on the public’s memories of the previous films. Feelings of nostalgia ran high, enticing people to see the film because they had “seen the others before.” For the most part, people weren’t disappointed. Indy took a chance by returning to the big screen after such a long absence and it was worth it. Indiana Jones was greeted with open arms and a warm reception by fans and casual movie goes alike. It just goes to prove that, even in old age, heroes who have etched themselves in the hearts and minds of the public can be received with positive reviews once again.

Till next time,
Richard Jicha

Pixar's Up

If there is one name in Hollywood and cinema that is equivilent with greatness, its Pixar animations. They have been known to produce film after film like Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and Toy Story, all of which have received enormous praise and box-office success. Their latest offering is Up which came out during the summer of 2009 is Up.

One of the reasons why Pixar has achieved its flawless reputation, is all there movies have a good story and characters. However, after nine films their patterns and similarities are beginning to grow transparent. Most of their films revolve around two primary characters who do not get along at first, but grow to become friends. Toy Story had Buzz and Woody, Wall-e had Eve and Wall-e, and Ratatouille had Remy and Linguine. Up follows the characters Carl Fredrickson, an elderly short tempered man, and Russell an energetic and happy child. This writing technique of pairing two unlikely characters is used very often in films like buddy cop movies and romantic comedies becuase it creates tension and character development between the characters. Having a story about two people who have nothing in common and must learn to get along provides an ideal opportunity to create a funny script and entertaining story. However, it takes good writing and believable characters to make this strategy work. Up and most of Pixar's films manage this quite well.

Pixar is noted for having very adult thems in their movies and their latest film Up is the darkest of them all. The film starts off seeming like it will be a happy little tale filled with joy and humor. Carl meets his wife Ellie when their both kids and lots of laughter ensues. However, the story is anything but bright and happy as we are treated to a heart breaking montage which showcases the entire lives of the couple in a few short minutes. It even shows that Ellie had a miscarriage, something unthinkable of putting in an animated film. It also ends with Ellie dying and Carl sadly mourning her. Some might find this writing too depressing, while others enjoy a story that does not play it safe and deals with real human issues. The film then takes a happier turn as the character Russell shows up and provides lots of comic relief and the two fly upward in Carl's house as the house is actually lifted up by hundreds of balloons attached to it by carl. The two characters then encounter many adventures as they sail away in the flying house and then find themselves stranded in a jungle.

The film explores many themes not often found in animated movies. The most prominet is the issue of love and death. Although Ellie, is given very little screen time, the audience grows to care about her, and we can really feel the pain and grief that Carl feels throughout the film. We are reminded of her death quite often as Carl stares longinly at a photo of her in his house. The other main character who becomes a part of Carl's life is Russell. Their relationship receives the most attention, as Carl grows from finding the kid annoying and irksome, to deeply caring about him. This is further exasperated by Russells lack of a father. It is clear that his attachment towards Carl is not because he really likes the man, but because he yearns for a father-figure in his life and by the end of the film, Carl has filled that void. Spending time with Russell also softens Carl's heart and begins to open him up from the shell he clamped in when his wife died. The story is carefully crafted out so that when Carl does change from an angry old man, it feels natural and believable after everything he's been through.

Up is a movie that takes great risks. Focusing a kids movie on an old man is not something studios do very often, but it was still able to draw large crowds due to its story and script. Being able to tell a story that balances laughter, action, and tears is no easy feet, but Pixar is often able to pull it off.

Pixar's Up - Story Response

Pixar has been earning a name for itself by putting out numerous family-friendly computer animated films over the past few years: Finding Nemo in 2003, The Incredibles in 2004, Cars in 2006, Ratatouille in 2007, WALL-E in 2008, and Up in 2009. With Toy Story 3 set for release summer this year and a sequel to Cars, tentative release date in the 2011 summer, it seems that Pixar is on the roll for an annual distribution pace. The most recent film, Up has been deemed the second most successful Pixar film to date, trailing only after Finding Nemo.

In Up, the story tells of an old man named Carl Fredrickson who, in his youth idolizes a great explorer, Charles F. Muntz. After meeting a young girl named Ellie who shares in this desire, they grow close and eventually marry, living together in the house where they first met. Years later, after loosing his beloved wife to illness, Carl decides to complete a dream they both shared: to live at Paradise Falls. In order to do this, he fills up hundreds of balloons that literally lift his house from the ground and carry it away into the sky, creating the iconic image of the movie, a old house born away by a mass of balloon. Along the way, he reluctantly allows Russell, a young Wilderness Explorer, to join him after the boy is accidentally stranded on the porch of his house once it is airborne. Due to a clash of Carl’s cynical attitude and desire to be alone in his old age and Russell’s over-enthusiasm and constant desire to help him, the two protagonists understandably get off on the wrong foot.

The house is thrown off course due to weather and once they arrive at Paradise Falls, it is revealed that they must manually direct the floating house to the edge of the falls, which would accomplish Carl’s dream. As the two head towards the falls, they encounter a large bird, which was originally hunted by Muntz. Russell befriends the bird, naming it Kevin, and manages to get Carl to deviate from his plans in order to aid the creature in returning to its offspring. After meeting with a hunting dog named Dug, who wears a collar that allows him to speak, they soon discover that Charles F. Muntz is still alive and searching for the bird. Due to an earlier failure, Muntz has become dangerously obsessed with bringing the creature back to civilization to restore his tarnished reputation.

When Muntz learns that Carl and Russell have seen the bird, he instantly switches into the antagonist of the film, becoming borderline psychotic as he tries to make them give up the location of the creature. The two protagonists manage to escape, aided by Kevin, but not without Kevin being injured by Muntz’s pack of hunting dogs. When the group is finally cornered, Muntz makes Carl choose between saving Kevin or letting his house burn. Though struggling with the decision, Carl ultimately decides upon his house, allowing Kevin to be captured, Dug to be taken back with Muntz, and damaging the growing relationship between himself and Russell.

While resting his house, which has managed to land next to Paradise Falls over the course of the chase, Carl discovers a picture album his wife made and finds a message from her, telling him to continue on with his dreams, despite the fact that she isn’t around. Carl is inspired by the letter, but finds out too late that Russell has taken some of the balloons from the house and set out to save Kevin. Realizing that he has come to care for his new friends, Carl throws out many of his possessions in order for the remaining balloons to lift the house so he can join in the pursuit.

Upon arrival that Muntz’s airship, Russell is capture, but Carl rescues him. Kevin is freed and Muntz chases them around the ship with his hunting rifle. They are soon trapped inside Carl’s house, which is tethered to the airship by its garden hose. As Muntz forces his way inside, the group escapes through a window back to the airship. Muntz tries to follow, but snags his foot around some of the balloons and falls to his death. The house breaks away from the airship and slowly departs from the group as it lowers towards the ground.

After retuning Kevin to her brood, Carl pilots the airship back to civilization and takes up residence inside it. He attends Russell’s promotion to Senior Explorer, stepping in for the boy’s father who fails to show up. It is revealed at the end of the film that Carl’s house has landed right beside Paradise Falls, where it had been intended to be all during the film.

In many ways, the film is about relationships, as Carl creates and develops numerous one throughout the film. The story plays heavily upon these relationships, strengthening and testing them with every event that takes place. Carl’s relationships with many of the main characters are a driving point in the film, right along side the plot to save Kevin from Muntz. Seeing how his ties are strong at one time, then weaken during curtain events, only to get stronger later, reveals a character who is capable of change, something that is the basis for a “good” character. Indeed, Carl’s transition for grumpy old man to grandfatherly old man takes the entire film to complete, but is well worth the wait. I believe that the real story is Carl’s change; everything else is just a catalyst for this transformation.

The story in Up is one that tugs at the heartstrings of its viewers. It makes us feel for the characters on the screen; some of us may even relate to the character of Carl or Russell. We all want to see the good guys win, but not without a challenge. This formula is presented clearly during the course of the film. Audiences are able to see that Carl struggles with some of his challenges, both physically as well as mentally. Yearning to understand his choices and how they change during event of the film, audiences are drawn towards the character and his transformation. The story surrounds this idea, focusing in on Carl’s feelings and how his actions reflect his developing character.

Till next time,

Richard Jicha

The Dark Knight

Every now and then there comes a movie in which no one can stop talking about. One that had huge hype leading up to its debut and managed to garner even more attentioon when it was released. Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight is one of these films that had everyone buzzing when it was released in the summer of 08.

Whats interesting about The Dark Knight is that despite getting glowing responses from audiences and critics, its story and plot is really is quite simple and is not at all original. It follows its super hero Batman as he tries to bring peace and order to the city of Gotham while his arch nemesis, the Joker, tries to bring about chaos and panic throughout the city. There are also smaller subplots involving other characters. A large amount of attention is paid to Harvey Dent, who eventually becomes another villain of Batman. One of the film's most impressive feats is carefully crafting his story and arc. He spends a large portion of the film as a likeable character who is just as passionate as fighting crime as Batman. Yet after the events of what he is put through throughout the film, his turn to evil is believable and does not feel out of character. There is also a love triangle between Batman, Dent, and their love interest Rachael.

Whats surprising is that the film manages to feel mostly balanced and well-paced despite so much going on and so many different characters getting screen time. However, things take a bad turn in its final twenty or thirty minutes in which things begin to feel rushed. There were many who felt that Harvey Dent's portrayal as the demonic Two Face did not receive nearly the amount of time he should have gotten and should have been left for the sequel. There is also a late plot device in which Batman uses people's cell phones to track where the Joker is. This device pretty much came out of no where and was not explained very well.

However, there is a reason The Dark Knight made over 500 million dollars domestically and it easy to to see when looking at its script. Another Batman movie called Batman and Robin was notorious for having cringe inducing lines and puns. The Dark Knight manages to keep its dark tone, and still have plenty of funny lines and comic relief . Batman's butler Alfred as well as his gadget maker Lucious Fox manage to provide some spark while still maintaining their "wise old leader" status. However, no character can upstage Heath Ledger's Joker. If most other actors had atttempted this role, the results would have been disaterous, yet he is able to deliver every line with a twisted voice and tine which is chilling and sure holds your attention. One of its best scenes is an interrogation between Batman and the Joker, in which the Joker manages to give an interesting and inciteful speech about the way of the world while still managing to appear completely insane and in-character.

Another reason the film excels, is because of its dark tone. In movies today, there seems to be a trend that darker is better. The Harry Potter films have received this treatment as well as the newer Bond movies. Here, however it really works. You can feel the despair and fear of the citizens of Gotham as well as Batman's determination to stop the madness and his guilt over the events that occur. The Joker also manages to invoke fear and terror while still being very entertaining to watch. All in all, the film does not have a great story, but the way in which the way the events are written and are able to stretch the film into nearly two and half hours of suspensful viewing make this movie a very interesting film to study.

The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight was not only a nice surprise for those who are Batman fans. But also it is easily appreciated by those without any knowledge of the Batman series. I am not particularly an avid Batman reader. Not only did it surpass the expectations of people who had doubts for the film. It is undeniable that it was a better film than the first Batman movie. “Why soooo serrrrrious?!” Although, sounding nothing like the proper English of Shakespeare, its slang spoke words to the public.

It is also very well known that Heath Ledger’s award winning performance helped captivate the numerous followers, fans and large profitable sums. He created a completely new dimension for which the Joker came to life.

Manohla Dargis of the New York Times states “Pitched at the divide between art and industry, poetry and entertainment, The Dark Knight goes darker and deeper than any Hollywood movie of its comic-book kind.” It was first of its kind to take comic book writing and transcribe it to a memorable and substantial piece of literature.

The movie held strong sociological points while giving it a hint of philosophical intake towards the stories plot. The movie was entertaining regardless of age, mindset and intellect of prior Batman knowledge. You can view it to see a new side of things or to just watch things blow up. The strong characters and psychological conditions proved to be convincing more than just a box office hit.

The Dark Knight – Critics

It can’t be argued that superhero movies are all the rage nowadays. Over the past few years there has been a literal explosion of Marvel and DC characters flashing up onto the silver screen in live action. While these types of superhero films aren’t new, the genre has been growing steadily more rapidly after the success of the pioneering film series Spider-Man and X-Men. Now, it’s almost as if there’s an annual picking going around to see which comic book character will be the next one to make the transition from paper to film. Some of them have succeeded and some of them have failed. Some have been incredibly successful and some of them have been labeled as flops by disgruntled critiques and fans. One character has been going on long enough to see both sides of this spectrum. That character is Batman, whose most recent release, The Dark Knight, has been met with wide critical acclaim.

Following the story set in the prequel, Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan’s sequel presents audiences with a look at Gotham’s Caped Crusader as he struggles to keep the streets of his city clean. Introduced is the Joker, Batman’s arch nemesis and most recurring foe in the comics, who utilizes sabotage, murder, and perilous mind games that push Batman to his limits, physically, mentally, and even morally. Critics have praised the film for this almost nerve-racking script and for the dark atmosphere presented throughout the story. Famed Chicago Sun-Times movie critic, Roger Ebert describes the production as a “haunted film that leaps beyond its origins and becomes an engrossing tragedy” and helps “redefine the possibilities of the comic-book movie.” Rolling Stones magazine called the film’s script “deft” and said it “refuses to scrutinized the Joker with popular psychology, instead pulling the viewers in with an examination of Bruce Wanye’s psyche.”

A lot of praise was given to the characters and their actions against each other, mainly to interactions between Batman and the Joker. Entertainment Weekly gave it a positive review as well. In it, the film’s characters were praised for their relationship to each other with the statement, “Every great hero needs a great villain. And in 2008, Christian Bale's Batman found his in Heath Ledger's demented dervish, the Joker." The story, largely driven by the character of the Joker, shows evidence behind this due to the Joker showing up at nearly every major plot in the film or at least being related to the majority of them. Not all of the critics were pleased with the film however. David Denby of The New Yorker criticized the story for “not being coherent enough to properly flesh out the disparities.” He felt that the film was too long and rushed from point to point, leaving no time for the audiences to catch up. Another negative review came from David Edison of New York Magazine who stated that the story was too dark. One of his quotes sums his review pretty well: “It could only be darker if Batman died.” Edison calls the film “noisy, jumbled, and sadistic,” but his review doesn’t hold much sway when compared to the hundreds of overwhelmingly positive reviews from other sources. But it shouldn’t be a surprise that a few found the story bad. It always happens.

Speaking of the story again, it is dark and gritty, as mentioned in several reviews, harkening back to the positively received Batman films directed by Tim Burton. The concepts of murder and distrust run rampant throughout the story, from the very first introduction of the Joker to the final end with the face off between Batman and Two-Face. Several sensitive themes are presented in the film by the Joker’s actions. The themes of moral rights and ethnical decisions are laid bare within the script as the Joker tries to get Batman to become a dark, twisted version of who he normally is, of what he stands for. Critics have taken note of an uncommon theme of evil triumphing over good as it plays out with every encounter the audience gets of Harvey Dent. While not a popular theme, the script presents it very thoughtfully and not too vaguely.

The Dark Knight is well deserved of the amount of praise that it has received. The story presented within the script gets the audience thinking. There are numerous events that let the audience members think of what they would do if they were in a specific character’s position. The story is one that, while presenting an entertaining film, gets the audiences out of their special effects blindness and into a story that causes them to think. While not every critic gave the film good reviews, the story was supported by the masses and most likely unhindered by a few minor instances of bad press.

Till next time,

Richard Jicha

Sherlock Holmes-Critics

Its no secret that movie critics are often disliked by the general public. They not only get to watch movies for free, they get paid to do it which is something most people would love to do. They are also said to be narrow-minded and only like oscar worthy films while dismissing everything else. This is not necessarly true. There have been many times when a film has been beloved by both audiences and critics. However, it is almost impossible to please everyone which is the case with the film Sherlock Holmes.

Sherlock Holmes was directed by Guy Ritchie and was released on December 25, 2009 starring Robert Downy Jr and Jude Law. The story revolves around the famous detective as he sets out to solve a series of murders along with his sidekick John Watson. The films has been mostly liked by audiences along with critics. At rottentomatoes.com, the films has a 69% approval rating with 137 positive reviews and 63 negative reviews. It is said that films in which movies are based on are never as good as the original work. While the movie is not a direct story from one of its novels, turning the famous icon into a movie character is no easy task. There have been many different opinions on whether or not Sherlock Holmes is an entertaining and thought provoking film or just a big mess.

While the film has received mostly compliments, many critics have had a problem with its story. Critic Stephen Silver says "The plot of Sherlock Holmes is so needlessly complex and nonsensical that you'll try to understand, but eventually give up, since its not worth it." Having a good story is essential to a mysfilm like this, because it requires the audience to want to play along and solve the case along with its protagonists. Just like reading a mystery book, it should put the viewer on edge and make them anxious to find out the answers. Some critics say that the makers of the film should have gone with one of the stories that made the titular character such a classic in the first place, while others applaud them for trying to make Sherlock feel new and original. While its story and plot has some problems, Sherlock Holmes has been praised for its writing and script. Fellow critic Alex Zane writes that watching the two leads, Holmes and Watson, converse with eachother is the film's strongest appeal. This is mostly thanks to the chemistry and delivery of its stars.

Another way this film has divided audiences and critics is its approach in bringing Holmes to life. Most think of him as an ordinary man with a bowler hat and pipe in hand. Instead the film makers opted to go with a more gritty Fight Club style in which Holmes is more of an action hero than a detective. While this may cause some to be turned off, it does allow for some great chases and fights to take place. All in all, Sherlock Holmes is a film that can be highly enjoyed by everyone depending on their tastes and style of prefernce in watching a mystery or action movie.

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes although entertaining for a couple of hours, you’d really have to decide whether or not the movie followed the original story line. Cole Smithey says “You'd need a special magnifying glass to identify any elements of Doyle's original literary source material that lends the title character his name.” The same literary merit is not found in the movie as it was in its original format.

The action scenes in the film were more over compensating for the lack of witty and intellectual story line which Sherlock Holmes is known for. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law give an adequate performance and live up to my expectations of a Guy Richie rendition.

Action and suspense/mystery are the main focus. The original literary source was witty and ingenious; it incorporated good writing to capture the reader’s attention and could lock them into the mystery. Whereas the film throws in action packed fun and the Hollywood commercial appeal it loses all literary merit and intellectual stimulation. It is difficult to appreciate the story when it was smothered by action. A story that has always had such rich material, it is sad to see it be completely erased.

Sherlock Holmes - Positives

When people think about detectives, one of the first characters to jump into the forefront of their minds is the timeless Sherlock Holmes. With fifty-six stories and four novels about him written by creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and numerous others composed by various other authors, the character is certainly one who has been locked into the prominent head of detective literature. For the most part, Holmes has been carried on through books, but now as films have been rising at an exponential rate, the character has been making appearances in movies. The most recent of these is Sherlock Holmes, directed by Guy Ritchie, and released on Christmas day, December 25, 2009.

In the film, a series of murders attracts Holmes’ attention when they are suspected of being linked to occult worship. Together with his friend John Watson, they set out to uncover the means and reasons behind the killings. For the most part, audiences and critics have received the film with positive feelings alike. The story has been well received for its innovated plot twists and detailed, but understandable descriptions to key events that occur during the film. It never feels overwhelming or confusing. By the end of the film, viewers are anxious to learn how instances in the movie were completed, which should be expected from a detective production. Another strong point about the film comes from the pace of its script. The story moves along at a rather quick rate, even with the amount of information presented at every turn. Viewers are taken through the film with enjoyment and drawn into the world presented on the screen, despite the fact that some of the language used is within the realm of what one would hear from an expert working in the field.

Probably the most positive point of Sherlock Holmes deals with the pattern already set for the character within the stories. It seems that this pattern was followed by the current take on the character. The pattern, more or less, is this: Get case, search for clues, gather clues, solve case, then explain how the clues helped Holmes close the case. It has been this way in most of the stories and it could have both positive and negative effects, due to audiences always wanting to see something new and original. Thankfully, the story delivered is one that stays true to the essence of Sherlock Holmes, but adds the kind of action to the mix that audiences of today desire. As mentioned above, there is never really a dull moment in the film, enabling audiences to always be “on edge” so to speak, waiting for the next big event. Fights and chases are plentiful in the film, but they don’t detract from the intellectual pursuit and confrontation that comprises the main plot. The story itself is firmly established as the most important part of the film, outshining the special effects and barely edging over the spectacular characters.

All in all, Sherlock Holmes was a thoroughly engaging film and one that many fans of the character seemed to enjoy. While there are negatives to the film, as there are in any film created, the consensus is that Sherlock Holmes is worth the watch and most importantly stays true to the character that is loved by millions.

Till next time,
Richard Jicha

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire-positives

One of the most successful franchises in all of cinema has been the Harry Potter series. They have accounted for billions of dollars world-wide and with its fourth entry, Goblet of Fire, it is easy to see why. It is no easy task to condense a 734 page book into aproximately two hours and twenty minutes, but the film manages to strike a good balance for most of its important events. Hard-core fans always complain that events from the book are changed and certain plot points are left out. I fail to see how this can be a bad thing, as what would be the point of watching a film in which you already know every single line and event that will happen ahead of time. I believe that this film, as well as the other entries, have been pretty faithful to their source material. Not to mention, movies such as Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix would be six hours long if everything were to stay exactly the same from the book.

Another reason Goblet of Fire is an excellent film is because it boasts tremendous action pieces. The film resolves around a tournament in which Harry as well as three others contenders must compete in difficult and dangerous tasks to be crowned champion. Although I would have liked to see the third task extended, the first and second task which includes an air-bourne battle with a dragon and an under water rescue more than make up for it. No Harry Potter movie would be complete with out magic, and the film has some great special effects. Scenes such as the quidditch world cup and a chilling battle inside of a graveyard are a treat for the eyes.

When the movie is not trying to wow its audiences, it manages to be enjoyable by boasting a witty and funny script for all ages to enjoy. Some say Harry Potter is for children, but this is the first of the fims to pander more towards adult audiences as seen by its pg-13 rating. The acting from its stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson continues to improve with each film as they all perform funny and charming roles. The film is also helped by newcomers Mad-Eye Moody and Harry's arch-nemisis Lord Voldemort, who always manage to hold your interest when they are on screen. Whether or not this film is is the best of the current Harry Potter films is a matter of opinion, although I definetly found it to be in the top three. The film can feel a bit rushed sometimes, but the end result is well worth it.

Harry Potter: The Goblet of Fire – Negatives

By now, nearly everybody in America has heard of the famous Harry Potter series, written by J. K. Rowling. As with almost every work of literature that reaches pop culture status, the series was quickly transferred onto the silver screen and is still running strong. On November 18, 2005, the fourth installment of the series was released in American theaters and fans flocked to the movies to satiate their inner Potter cravings. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire went on to become one of the most well-received films in the series, its reception trailing after the third film, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, by only a minute percent.

It has received its flood of praise and popularity, but as with all films, not everybody was thrilled with what it delivered. Among the negative points garnered from reviewers, several areas stand out. The Arizona Republic, Arizona’s largest and most prominent newspaper described the film as "far too episodic." CNN.com described the film as “trying to do too much with too little.” Also mentioned in their review was how the three themes of the film, thriller, action flick, and romance story didn’t “mesh together” and felt "clunky and disjointed." Another criticism took issue with the relative absence of much of the familiar supporting cast. Fan favorites such as Draco Malfoy, his father Lucius, and professors Severus Snape and Minerva McGonagall all received the short end of the stick in terms of screen time. The relationship between Harry, Ron, and Hermione was weak and rarely played upon, something very strange in a film that is trying to combine adventure with character development. Other criticism stemmed from fans accusing the film of changing and leaving out too much source material. Of particular interest, these dropped parts were instrumental in developing characters and setting up events for later occurrences in the series.

This just goes to prove that when stories have been written, their transition to the big screen usually isn’t a smooth one. Very rarely will everything get transcribed perfectly, undoubtedly upsetting purists and fans alike.

Till next time,

Richard Jicha

Transformers 2 negatives

There has been a lot of controversy over last summer's blockbuster "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen". Some have called a fun popcorn movie while others have called it a piece of garbage. While I did not hate the film, I found it could have been much better. The main problem is that the story and writing is pretty weak which is a big problem for a movie that is two hours and twenty minutes long. There are lots of spots where it is difficult to figure out just what is going on. Some might say that a good plot is not the reason people attend a movie like this and you should just turn your brain off. Well I don't believe one should have to turn off their brain in order to enjoy a movie.

There are also other areas that could have been improved. The film has been praised for it special effects and graphics. This may be true as the giant robots look very realistic, but director Michael Bay messes up the action sequences by filming the camera way too close to the robots and adopting the shakey cam technique. This makes it not only difficut to tell who is winning the fight, but its also hard tell who's fighting who. The film is also filled with plot holes. At one point, a human turns out to be an enemy robot in disguise, which makes no sense as the whole premise is supposed to be about cars that turn into giant robots, not humans. Another reason this film did not meet my expectations is because the humor often falls flat. Some of the writing seemed geered more towards children than adults.

In addition, the sidekicks in this film, Leo and two robots called Mudflap and Skids, were supposed to provide comic relief, but instead came off as more annoying than funny. One of the few bright spots were Shia Labeuf and Megan Fox who provided some funny lines and were atleast interesting, unlike a lot of other characters on the screen. Despite this, the film still managed to become one of the highest grossing movie of the year, and was liked by audiences. Everyone has their own opinion, but I believe people will delude themselves into liking a movie as long as it has eye candy like cool robots or Megan Fox. All in all, I found this movie to be a letdown as it was ok, but could have used a better story and script.

Alex Daniels

Transformers II

Transformers II was an action packed film full of graphics and hot chicks. Megan Fox plays the role of a tough yet unbelievably beautiful girl. She can be held responsible for the movie’s popularity. What is better than an action packed movie with attractive girls, machine aliens from another planet and the ever romantic twist of Sam and Megan Fox’ character’s?

Critics are unanimous in the opinion that movie was a waste of a $200 million budget and of two and a half hours of our lives. Top critic John Anderson, of the Washington Post declares “What's wrong here is that there's so much swirling, relentless action, indistinct robot characterizations and over-caffeinated techies loose on the special-effects machines that the movie, in mere seconds, achieves incoherence.” ‘Revenge of the Fallen’ was not only painful to noteworthy critics but was just as awful to those of us who aren’t professional critics. Rossiter Drake of the San Francisco Examiner says, “Loud, long and utterly incomprehensible, 'Revenge of the Fallen' is an exquisitely painful experience that pummels the senses as it confounds the intellect.”

Though critics agree that the movie is a waste of time, it still grossed an enormous amount of money and is still rented regularly from both Netflix and Blockbuster.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen – Positives

On July 3, 2007, film director Michael Bay brought an extremely successful American toy series out of its paper comic pages and cartoon roots and turned it into a live-action film that created quite a stir in the movie community, as well as the fans of the series. This series is Transformers, well known among the youth of today, but hidden behind relatively newer shows. Transformers was released to a box office success and while it got a rise out of the audiences, it didn’t manage to garner any extremely high-end praise. It did manage to break a few records in America, but those were shattered again right away. What did the shattering of those records? It’s bigger, louder, and more expensive sequel.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was released to theaters on June 24, 2009 and quickly began to rake in the cash. Despite the massive cash influx at the box office, the outflow of reviews quickly turned sour. However, there is so much focus on the negative aspects of the film, not many people remember that there were some praises given as well. While most well known critics tended to lambaste the film, such as Roger Ebert and The Washington Post, audience reception right out of the theaters was more positive. CinemaScore, a market research firm located in Las Vegas, surveyed audiences as they left theaters to see how the people would rate Revenge of the Fallen on an A+ to F scale. It turned out that the average came out to a B+.

So what were some of the positives about the film? Well for one, it definitely reached its target audience. A summer flick with giant metal robots beating the living daylights out of each other, explosions galore, and near continuous, non-stop action? What ten-year old, hyperactive kid couldn’t resist this film? Because of that, parents were the ones to pay and go with their kids, so the film made its money. Another positive was the little spits of humor thrown into the middle of this action packed war movie. Some of the more memorable examples include Sam’s flustered bickering with Mikaela while they’re being hunted down by the Deceptions, one of the soldiers sly/cruel method of getting rid of an obnoxious and disrespecting politician, and Optimus’ ominous speech to another politician about the Autobots continual presence on Earth. A third positive aspect could be the visuals, but they have been highly praised by some and heavily criticized by others. Most of the criticism comes from one too many explosions. However, the more detailed shots of the Transformers themselves were positively received, such as closer viewings of mechanical heads, joints, and weaponry, if one is into that kind of thing. The voice acting for the robots was also receive with little criticism and the wide range of Transformers in the film gave a more hearty range and variety for toy manufacturers to work with, undoubtedly making the movie a potential cash pot for them, despite what the critics said.

While critics have already put Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen into the ground with their printed reviews that will last for years, at least there are people who will remember the movie as one that they liked, unbiased by what other people say. Though this is just one side of a coin, unfortunately where there is good, there must also be bad.

Till next time,

Richard Jicha

Essentially Avatar has had opposing reviews among the public and the top critics. Critics writing for the Washington Post and New York Magazine agree that the movie was magical. R.J. Jones, of the Chicago Reader uses symbolism to old time movies to get his excitement across, “Watching it, I began to understand how people in 1933 must have felt when they saw King Kong.” Claudia Puig, of USA Today says “For all the grandeur and technical virtuosity of the mythical 3-D universe Cameron labored for years to perfect, his characters are one-dimensional, rarely saying anything unexpected. But for much of the movie, that hardly matters.” Generally speaking top critic reviews are in sync with this review. Top critics seem to use large words to convey the simplest of sentences. Is it really that difficult to write that the movie lacks originality and is whole heartily boring? The movie was just too long, and after 3 hours without an intermission, it was difficult to enjoy the 3-D graphics towards the end, due to the pounding headache and blurred vision I was getting from the awful 3-D glasses. General public critic, Philip Martin, finds the movie to be a complete waste of time and explains it in plain English, “...a big, dumb movie built to make money but hardly worthy of serious examination. Avatar isn't only critic-proof, it resists serious criticism. You might as well analyze a beach ball.” I want to read commentary that is short and to the point. Philip French puts it perfectly, “Avatar is overlong, dramatically two-dimensional, smug and simplistic.” I couldn’t explain it any better. This movie is widely viewed as great graphics, with an ordinary plot. If you want the straight forward every day sort of reaction to a movie, go to the public. If you want overly thought out, and somewhat exhausting (to read) explanation, read the daily news and their wordy commentary.

Written by Sarah Tucci

The first movie we will be reviewing is James Cameron’s "Avatar." It is the most recent blockbuster that came out, and has caused quite a buzz in the movie community. While most fans have praised it for its state of the art special effects, it has been rightfully said that its story is predictable and clichéd. The story follows James Sully, as disabled former Marine who becomes involved in the Avatar program. As he ventures into a new world called Pandora, he encounters the planet’s native people, the Na’vi and learns the ways of their culture. During his time with the tribe, he falls in love with Neytiri, the daughter of the Na’vi clan’s chief. Due to his feelings for Neytiri and her people, he rebels against his own kind, resulting in a climactic war between humans and Na’vi. It is because of this simple "fish-out-of water" story that there have been many comparisons to movies like "Dances With Wolves" and "Pochahontas". Some critics have called the movie overrated because its script is not very clever or witty. There is very little humor and almost no catchy lines. The actors give adequate performances, but they don’t seem to make very memorable characters. In the end it is difficult to even remember everyone's names in the film. Despite this, the movie still surpassed Titanic to become the highest grossing film to date. This is mainly due to its stunning graphics and visuals as well as the huge number of imax and 3d theaters with higher ticket prices. To be fair, it is well worth it to pay the extra cash as it is a much better experience watching the film in imax. Overall, Avatar's story and writing flaws keep the film from being a truly terrific movie going experience, but it is still a worthwhile film to see.

Avatar's Story

James Cameron’s “Avatar” has been creating a noticeable ripple throughout the movie community and will most likely shape the future format for the oncoming wave of 3D films in the near future. It has been extremely well received in terms of box office numbers and by the general public alike. Audiences have felt enraptured by the visuals and the special effects, conceptions that have only been heightened by the advancements in 3D technology. Everything in Avatar, visually, seems to reflect the feeling of new, especially when the story moves out into the jungles of Pandora. The way the settings draw the audience into the film, attention to nearly every detail has been due to a virtual camera system that Cameron used throughout the filming. This new system is one of the reasons that Avatar was so successful in the visual department.
However, pulling away from all the glamour, if one examines the story of the film, the backbone that is supposed to be holding the entire production together, they might be disappointed. Why is this? Here’s a slight rundown: New setting, new creatures, and new technology…same story. To be fair, it’s very difficult to create something completely original in today’s world. Nearly everything has already been done before in some aspect, in some shape or another.
The story of Avatar is one that many moviegoers will probably be familiar with. Human outsider encounters native group of people and falls in love with a member. Due to the developing connections, the outsider abandons his or her human roots and turns his/her back on his/her fellow humans to follow the one he/she loves. This type of story has been around for ages, so it’s kind of surprising that it hasn’t become an instant turn off for many audiences. This might be due solely to the visuals of the film, but it also could be that this theme is just a timeless classic that never gets old. Whatever the reason, the story of Avatar has been the recipient of a more mixed bag of critiques than the other aspects of the film, visuals and graphics.
The story of Avatar also gets into the hearts of the people watching it. Personally, when I finished viewing the film, I thought that it did an excellent job of making me hate the human race. The humans in the film are portrayed with such drive to gain material resources that they seem almost evil due to their actions. Viewers would have to be quite stone-hearted if they left this movie without having at least some conflicting thoughts developing in their minds from the film. The fact that this story gets the viewer to think about some current events gives it a more meaningful existence. It isn’t just an action story for special effects; it does a good job at tugging at the morals of audiences and probably spurred some interesting discussions between families during their ride home after the film.
All in all, Avatar is a film that could be taken in two ways. One, it could be a start into thoughtful discussions about any number of different topics. Some of these could be based on religion, politics, or even environmental issues. There are a lot of themes branching off this movie that can be explored. On the other hand, viewers could just agree that it was a good film that kept them entertained for several hours because of the action and special effects. Either way, the fact remains that Avatar has made a mark in history and its story has been an essential aspect of its position.

Till next time,
Richard Jicha

Introduction

Greetings, this is Blog Project 09, which will be written by Alex Daniels, Richard Jicha, and Sarah Tucci.

The purpose of this blog will be to discuss and analyze several prominent films over the past few years. Some examples we will provide include Avatar, the Transformers series, one or two of the Marvel films, and possibly the Harry Potter series. Throughout the course of these reviews, we will be discussing several aspects of the films, such as characters, settings, and the story itself. Moreover, we will be focusing on what critics and the public wrote in their responses to the movies. During our time on the blog, we will try to delve into what made the films a success or a failure with their audiences. By doing so, we hope to gain a deeper understanding of how to write in a manner that will be positively accepted by today's standards.

Till next time,
Alex Daniels, Richard Jicha, Sarah Tucci