The Quiet Man (1952) (Spencer's Take on it)

So I'll keep this review short and sweet. This film is a charming romp through Ireland featuring John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara. The color is really pretty, I think it's 3 strip technicolor. The cinematography was plain, with only a couple shots that were terribly interesting. Alot of it is done through process shots, so it's actors acting in front of a screen. I don't know. I would have to say this movie wasn't my thing. I don't terribly like the way John Wayne acts. The romance is entirely too melodramatic (the first kiss is lit with dramatic lighting and wind is blowing around them, creating this romantic composition that is highly idealized).

The one thing this movie has going for it, is that it's funny. The humor is really well written. And on top of that, all of the romance is funny because it is so over the top. It's amusing, but I don't consider it high cinema.

It was enjoyable to watch, but not enough for me to see again. I'm not sure I would recommend this, unless you're into either John Wayne or older technicolor melodramitic romances. I give this film 2.5 out of 5 stars.

Yojimbo (1961) (Spencer's Take on it)

Yojimbo. Akira Kurosawa. These are things I think of fondly. I LOVED Seven Samurai and I went into this movie expecting alot. Were my expectations met? Yes-ish. I would say they were for the most part. The action in this film was fantastically choreographed, and I was suprised at some of the wittier dialogue. The film was shot beautifully just like all of Kurosawa's work, but I constantly was wowed by the compositions that he set up. The editing was also really well done, using the wipes for the end of scenes and fade to black for the end of an act. He has strict rules like this that he adheres to and it's interesting to see this. The music was also good, and played along well with the action on screen.

Essentially what I'm getting at is that it is a perfectly crafted film. Akira Kurosawa knows the elements of film, and works them all together well. My only complaint was what I consider a fault of my own, that being that I felt a bit impatient at times during the film. I am not questioning Kurosawa's pacing, but moreso my patience. I feel like we are raised in this ADD enviornment where the media feels like it has to throw things in your face loud, bold, and fast.

If you like samurai films, this is certainly one of the greatest. I give it a 4.5 out of 5 stars.

The Aviator (2004) - Jared's Thoughts

4 out of 5 stars

I have to say I really enjoyed this movie. There is so much to pay attention to, one of the foremost elements being the use of color. Simply brilliant use of contrast between the older two-color Technicolor look and the later, more saturated 3-color process. I guess I had an unfair advantage going into this one since Lord Parkin in our 285 class gave a brief overview of how color is used in this film. It’s inspiring to see filmmakers do such cool stuff with the visual elements. It takes a lot more effort and time than most people think, and adds such an intensity to the film. It just goes to show the difference between amateur and professionals. Both can point and shoot, but the true professionals think about what’s in front of the camera, outside the frame, and where it belongs temporally in the story. Amazing stuff.

The scope of the film’s story really appealed to me. Partly because it is based on a true story that my grandparents remember living through, and also because it is such a big story. It covers such a vast time period and shows an amazing character progression. The character’s changes kept me wondering what was going to happen next to this intriguing character, portrayed with amazing skill by DiCaprio. But props must also be given to the rest of the cast, who convincingly reproduced that era of film making.

Overall, very well done. I highly recommend this one. It's a great film to analyze for smart film making.

The Aviator (2004) (Spencer's Take on it)

Let me preface by saying that you should see this movie. It's a great movie, that won 5 Academy Awards: Best Supporting Actress, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, and Best Editing. It is altogether gorgeous.

On top of being breathtakingly beautiful, it is really well acted. Leonardo Di Caprio does an excellent job as the neurotic OCD Howard Hughes, and plays well with Cate Blanchett. The story is epic, chronicling Hughes entire life. It was fascinating to watch as he poured millions of dollars into his crazy ideas. The idea that he felt he needed 26 cameras to shoot his war epic illustrates this perfectly. Showing him washing his hands until he's cut, or refusing to eat a meal after one of his peas is taken, along with many other mannerisms makes him a fascinating character to watch.

I give this movie a 4.5 out of 5 stars. (I changed from out of four stars, to out of five to match Jared). It's really quite an amazing film. Watch it. Please.

As a sort of lengthy P.S. to this review I decided to write about the color in this film, which was incredible. I did some research as to what kind of look he was looking for, and found that Martin Scorsese was trying to emulate the technicolor style of the era. The first 50 minutes of the film, which takes place in the years of 1927-1937, when the technicolor process was "two-color technicolor." This gave it the look very cyan and red heavy. All the greens and blues fell into this cyan range, and the reds became more prominant. The remainder of the film resembles the "three-color technicolor" process which took place between 1937 and 1947. This gave the film a very saturated look with brighter blues and more vibrant colors. Essentially it was done to reflect the time period's films.

Here is a before and after from the two-color technicolor process that was done in the film:




Here is a before and after from the three-color technicolor process that was done in the film:




For those of you who want to read more, here were my resources:
www.adobe.com/products/aftereffects/pdfs/The_Aviator_021405.pdf
www.aviatorvfx.com/index.php?cmd=frontendOverview&id=color
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor#Two-color_Technicolor

Next Film: The Aviator (2004)

Wednesday, October 18, 8:30 p.m.

view the trailer

Flightplan (2005) (Spencer's Take on it)

Ah yes. Flightplan. The film got a 37% on RottenTomatoes.com, which is far below passing. Yes Ebert may have liked it, but then again he liked Tokyo Drift. What did I think of this movie? Hmmm. Well before I give a rating, let me first sort out the what is good and bad about it:

The Good:
This movie was well shot with alot of interesting cinematography and editing. The look of this film did a good job of creating interesting compositions, considering that ninety percent of the film takes place on the plane. The editing tied these shots together really well, using interesting visual transitions that would overlay over the current scene. This is seen in the scene where there is a plane outline that goes across the snow on the ground and it fades away to see that it is the child's light projector in her room. There are numerous transitions like this that blend together the scenes so you can't always tell where one ends and the other begins or where they take place in the timeline. It does a good job at keeping the audience interested during the opening where we are slowly discovering what is going on, mostly through the visuals. The other good thing about this film are the credits. The opening credits are masterfully done, blinking along with the lights or reflected onto the passing subway. They stand out, but feel a part of the composition, without getting in the way of the storytelling. Yes I'm a graphic design nerd. So what?

The Bad:
First and foremost it comes back to the script. It was very average and predictable. Alot of the dialogue comes off as clunky and ackward. Within minutes of the introduction of a character I decided that it was he/she (trying not to spoil) who is the bad guy. The movie tried to turn me away from him/her, but I was right all along. Too simple. The acting was also preeeetty bad. There were lines that were supposed to be delivered seriously that I laughed at, which isn't too much of a good thing. Jodie Foster especially I would say was the worst offender. She just wasn't doing much with the role, although this may have to do with me not having much sympathy for her character. The worst of all is when the little girl delivers the line "are we there yet mommy?" Lame. I couldn't believe they tried to pull that off. Another thing that this film does though is it tries to be a thriller, using music, cuts, certain angles to reinforce this. This would be ok if they weren't doing it all the time and relying only on that to carry the mood. It came off as really heavy handed and overdone.

The Ugly:
Jodie Foster. I think alot of it was the way it was filmed and the lighting, but man did she look old.


So overall it was kind of pretty, yes, but it wasn't good. Um... this gets a 2 out of 4. Very average. Very forgetable.

Flightplan (2005) - Jared's Critique

3 out of 5 stars

This is an excellent example of a movie that can both succeed and fall flat on its face in the same showing. I say that from the perspective of audience involvement. It is a typical, semi-predictable mild thriller that can take you on an intense ride, or bore you to pieces, all depending on how you approach it. I chose to be in the boat that took it more seriously than not. And I’m glad I did. When you are spending a couple hours (and occasionally a couple dollars) on a movie, I have found that becoming involved in it is the best way to go. In saying that I would suggest searching for what the film has to offer, or in other words, participating in it. That’s not to say that this film had a lot to offer thematically (which I don’t think it did), but it was created with the intent of giving the viewer an entertaining scare here and there.

I must say that I enjoyed the film overall. The ending was a huge letdown, but I guess that was the denouement that everything naturally led to. Such is Hollywood cinema. I observed that the lack of story depth was compensated for by the use of interesting visuals and sexy camera angles.

I have found that by participating more in the film, or giving the film more benefit of the doubt, the movie experience can be both enlightening and more entertaining. While this film doesn’t really have much in the way of enlightenment (for my part), it does offer a fun ride for escapism’s sake. So if you’re looking to question your philosophies and take a journey down the road of life, this movie isn’t the one for you. But if you want to have a fun kick-back evening where you can slyly slip your hand into her’s, this is the one you should pop into the DVD player.