1975 Movie: Mischief In Manhattan

The plot of our movie is about 3 brothers and 1 sister all living in Manhattan. The two older brothers, played by DeNiro and Walken, run their own restaurant while the youngest brother, played by Hoffman, is living a life of crime. The two older brothers used to be involded in tha mafia and organized crime but they decided to stop and to make a decent living. They do not agree with their younger brother's lifestyle because they know where that road can lead, so they don't have much contact with him. Their sister is adored by all brothers and she is the mediator between them. One day the younger brother steals a lot of money from the mob boss and is in a heap of trouble. He runs to his older brothers and begs for help, but they want no part of it. The mob, while searching for the youngest brother, kills the sister. This breaks the heart of all brothers so the older brothers decide to help the younger brother and hunt down mob members.

The style is dark and gritty. We are making a gangster/crime drama, so it has to have these components. This works for the cast and crew because DeNiro and Walken are used to making these type of movies. Same with the director, Scorsese. He is used to making crime dramas and movies dealing with family issues.

The studio we are using is Warner Brothers as our distributor and our producer. They make a lot of crime dramas, including Mean Streets with DeNiro and Scorsese. This helps because it is the same style of film so therefore the actors and the directors will feel comfortable with this studio. This is going to be a high budget movie because Warner Brothers now trusts Scorsese.
For our cast we are using Robert DeNiro, Chritopher Walken, Dustin Hoffman, and Lynda Carter. We chose DeNiro as our lead role because he is a gritty actor that is used to playing in crime movies. We chose Hoffman because he portrayed an innocent man in Mrs. Robinson so we hope that he portrays a young, irresponsible character in this movie as well. Our director is Martin Scorsese because he makes these types of films. Our focus is cinematography so we went with cinematographer Gordon Willis. He is famous for doing the Godfather films and we wanted that same dark, gritty look. He likes to keep his characters in the dark, and that's what we want.

We went for the popular R rating at the time because we wanted to push the envelope, like most 70s films were, when it came to violence, sex, and language. We couldn't make a gritty film unless we went with this rating. We were aiming for a more mature audience so we could tell a gritty story.

Since our group bounced off ideas and didn't have many disagreements, the only thing I would have done differently was instead of hiring a star actress, such as Lynda Carter, for such a small role, I would have hired a star male lead to play the mob boss.

MYST #1: 007 Skyfall (Q2) 4.5 out of 5

I recently saw the most recent James Bond movie, Skyfall, and I thought it was fantastic. I may have some bias because I am a big fan of the Daniel Craig Bond movies. But besides that, I thought it was great. I thought the plot was very intriguing. James Bond is getting old and people don't think he still has it in him to be a 007 agent. It also brings in the fact that M, played by Judi Dench, has some past ghosts that come back to haunt her. Throughout the movie, we also find out who James Bond really is and how his past has affected him. The villain Silva is played by Javier Bardem and he did terrific. Javier Bardem portrayed his character as a psychopath which he did really well. I truly believed that he was insane. It reminded me of his character in No Country For Old Men.        

The Daniel Craig Bond movies is one of my favorite series, except Quantam of Solace. Casino Royale, in my opinion, was the best Bond movie, until now. Director Sam Mendes portrayed his vision of a Bond movie very well. He is best known for American Beauty and this is a drastic change, but he did it well.

Now I touch on the technical side of the movie. I thought the camera work was very interesting. Nowadays, we see a lot of action scenes in movies very shaky because the cinematographer want's to make it seem "real." It's refreshing to see a movie where the camera is still and you can see every move. This is different from the other Bond films. The lighting and the color of certain scenes such as when Bond is in China, it reminded me of Mission Impossible. The lights had a very high contrast. I liked it. But throughout the movie it had a dark theme, because it wanted you to feel how Bond felt. There were a lot of extreme long shots to show all of the scenery. Overall I thought this was the best Bond Film I have seen. I give it a 4.5 out of 5.

MYST #2: Sinister (2012) 4 out of 5

First off let me start by saying that I rarely ever see horror movies, but for some reason I was dragged along by friends to come watch this, and to my surprise, I wasn't disappointed. It was about a crime novelist that moves to a home with his family where a murder took place, without his family knowing. He finds a box with super 8 film in it and he starts playing it. It is video recordings of different murders that occured in different areas with a reocurring character in all of them.

Ethan Hawke is the leading main character in this film and I thought he did an awesome job. Hawke has disappeared as of recently and hasn't done a good movie since Training Day. But in this film he actually becomes the character and acts very passionately. The thing I liked about this film is that they tused the serial killer aspects and the demonic aspects of horror films. You get the best of both worlds.

The reasoning I'm giving this movie a 4 out of 5 is because it ends like every other mediocre horror film. Very abrubtly and without reasoning. Other than this, i thought the movie was very good.

1935 Group Project

We have created a movie called "Trading Bases." Basically our movie is about a blue collar guys that asks his girlfriend to marry him. She says yes, but the day after he proposes to her he receives his draft papers to go fight in the great war, also known as WWI. So he goes off to war and they are both heartbroken. They can't live without each other. So during an accident, the soldier fakes his own death and starts on a long journey back home. Meanwhile, his fiance can't stand being without him so she pretends to be a man and volunteers for war so she can be with her husband to be.

Our genre is a war drama. With this, we could include the aspects of a war film, like exciting action, and also the aspects of a drama, like a love story. This works well because this appeals to more than one crowd of people. It appeals to both men and women.

As a studio we choose Fox. We chose Fox because it had the money to make big budget films. With this film we were going for a Hollywood type of movie where we would have many people go see it. So with the money that Fox provided, we made the sets for the war scenes more intense and realistic.We also chose Fox was because they were used to making dramas, which was a big part of our story. Another reason was because RKO had just come out with a war drama and Fox wanted to compete.


As our leading male role we went with Tyrone Power. We chose him because he was one of Fox's main stars, and even tough he did a lot of romantic comedies, he also did dramas as well. As our leading female role we went with Janet Gaynor. She was Fox's leading lady and became very successful when she started doing movies with sound. We also choose her because she was very attractive and that appealed to the Hollywood type movie. For a supporting role we went with Raymond Griffith who plays a general. We chose him because he was an old experienced actor that worked with Fox. John Ford would direct this film because he directed a lot of westerns which can be related to wars. He was also a big war fanatic. In our film we chose to highlight cinematography so we went with James Wong Howe. He was a very sought out cinematographer because of his use of shadows. We thought we could use him because he was one of the first to use and perfect deep focus, so we thought this would look good during battle scenes.

With the Hays Code we couldn't show the two lead actors' affectionate side. And also, we had to make the audience seem like the American soldiers were the good guys, to promote american values.

If I was working on this project alone, I would have changed it to just portray the soldier's journey home and have his fiance at home waiting for him.

Formal Film Study: Quentin Tarantino

For my formal film study I decided to watch three films of the infamous Quentin Tarantino. The three films I saw were “Kill Bill Volume 1,” “Reservoir Dogs,” and “Inglorious Bastards.” I very much enjoyed all three of these films but I’d have to say my favorite of these three would have to be Inglorious Bastards. Let me first start by giving just a brief background on these three films. Inglorious Bastards takes place during World War II and tells three different stories that finally intertwine at the end. Reservoir Dogs is about a group of criminals that have experienced a robbery gone wrong and the story is told in flashback form. Kill Bill Volume 1 is about a woman that seeks revenge from the man that tried to kill her. These three movies are obviously different in a sense where the setting and plot of these three are so distant from each other, but with the same director and writer, Quentin Tarantino, you sometimes get the same feel/style in his techniques. This is obviously going to be the case because, starting out as a very unknown, indie director; he has had full freedom to do whatever he wanted with his films. And now that he’s getting into bigger budget Hollywood films, he has done what I respect, and has stuck to his roots and still has creative control of his projects.

Quentin Tarantino is very important in the film industry because ever since his directorial debut, Reservoir Dogs, he has become an instant cult legend. His style and techniques are very different from that of Hollywood directors. He also brings in many different techniques from different genres into one film. These three films range in style. Inglorious Bastards had a gritty, war style that was not unlike any war movie I’ve seen. The difference was that it reminded me of Kill Bill Volume 1 as in they are both broken into chapters, as if it was a book. In these three films, and many others of his, music has a strong influence in his movies, and most of the time, music that doesn’t fit the genre.  The style of Reservoir Dogs is very dark and gritty, but still has the same elements as the other two, not as much.

Other than Inglorious Bastards, these films aren’t really the “Hollywood” type. Hollywood is meant for big budget films with little creative control, and that appeal to the masses. Tarantino’s films are mostly indie, low budget films, where he, the director, has full control. When it comes to directors, he’s different in a sense that he uses so many different techniques, but the same techniques in all his films.

The technology is very interesting in these films as well. It starts with Reservoir Dogs. It was his first film and he didn’t have the best software, but it worked for the style he was going for: gritty. Then Kill Bill. He really focused on sound and cinematography during this film. There were a lot of action sequences in this movie so it called for great cinematography. There were also a lot of close ups in this movie. And since there was a lot of action, there needed to be interesting and new cinematography to capture the sequences. And in Inglorious Bastards, you can tell that Tarantino used the more money he had to good use. Crisper film, more violent violence, sound was good, etc.

The only film out of these three that was somewhat political was Inglorious Bastards. Since it took place during World War II he had to be somewhat historically accurate, but Tarantino interpreted events his own way. He created an ending in a way that Adolf Hitler dies brutally, which obviously never happened. Now that I look back at it, it wasn’t so much a war movie as it was a movie about characters. His characters in this movie were so interesting and kept the audience hooked.

I discovered a lot of different styles and techniques used by Tarantino. One, for example, is that he loves giving his characters nicknames or aliases. In Reservoir Dogs all the people involved in the robbery were given colors such as Mr. Pink, Mr. Brown, etc. In Kill Bill, the main character goes by “The Bride” and Bill’s team has nicknames as well. In Inglorious Bastards, Brad Pitt’s team goes by “the bastards” and one of the guys goes by “Bear Jew.” The one big discovery I noticed in not just these three films, but all his movies, is that he loves to write in long scenes of dialogue. Reservoir Dogs and Inglorious Bastards both open up with very long, no cut, scenes of dialogue. In Reservoir Dogs it opens up with Mr. Pink rambling on about why he doesn’t give tips. And in Inglorious bastards, the Nazi General talks about pure randomness. And throughout Kill Bill there’s a lot of dialogue. He loves having one sided conversations with the audience. We can’t respond because we are watching a movie. Overall I think that Quentin Tarantino is a genius in his art of movie making. He brings a fresh new style to his movies and I cannot wait for his upcoming films.

MYST #1: Warrior (2011) 3 out of 5

I recently saw the movie Warrior. It was about two men that join a fighting competition for a big prize of 5 million dollars. The twist is that these two men are brothers that don't talk anymore because they're angry at each other for what has happened in the past. They also don't talk to their used-to-be alcoholic father who abandoned them when they were young. A lot of emotional drama throughout because one of the brothers, Brendan (Joel Edgarton) needs the money or else he is going bankrupt. The other brother, Tommy (Tom Hardy) is a war hero who wants to help his dead best friends family. Their paths finaly collide at the end when it turns out that they are both in the final match.

I'd have to give this movie 3 out of 5 stars. The plot had potential but the director didn't work well with it. Even though it was a 2 hour and 20 minute movie, the story seemed rushed and it felt like there was no screen time for when the brothers were training. This movie reminds me of The Fighter and the Rocky movies because these are all fighting movies with a dramatic backstory. But what you didn't feel in Warrior was the connection to these characters. The best performance in this movie was done by Nick Nolte, the father. If everyone in the film acted as well as he did, i would have definitely felt a connection, but it just didn't seem real to me.

The movie used a lot of medium shots and close shots. For the fighting sequences I was surprised they didn't use more full shots, but their cinamatography worked. The training montage was interesting because there were many boxes on the screen that showed both brothers trainign simultaneously. There were very few close shots, which adds drama. And personally, I thought the music was a little dull and didn't do the correct job of making it dramatic.

Review of the Reviews

1.I decided to do the movie Inception. This movie, I loved. All the thinking it made you do, all the beautiful CGI, and the brilliant acting made it terrific. Not everyone agrees witht his. http://djardine.blogspot.ca/2012/07/inception-usa-2010-christopher-nolan.html This person relates the movie to CHristopher Nolan's breakout film, Memento. He says it has the same structure with a unusual premise, but he says that the plot to Inception doesn't make sense. He says that some of the information stated in the movie about our minds is false. The tone of this review was fairly demeaning. He focused mainly on the plot and how it didn't make sense.

http://www.chron.com/entertainment/movies/article/Inception-1719086.php This review was a raving review. She went crazy for this movie. She talks about what the movie is about then talks about what she loves about it. The mind blowing plot. The tone is very excited as if she was a child on Christmas morning. She was focusing on the plot and how it made you think and she loved that. She, of course, referenced Memento because they both have twiat plots.

2. In the negative review, I agreed with something he said. "In the third place, and most of all, the psychological premise of Inception is based on an utterly false model of the human mind. The unconscious is not OFF while we are awake and ON while we are asleep." That's what I was thinking while watching. I thought your subconcious was always on, therefore this is a false statement. In the positive review I agreed with her when she said "it's only the latest indication that Christopher Nolan might be the slyest narrative tactician making movies today." She is not just praising the movie, she is also praising the director. I agree with this because Nolan has tremendous talent and great story telling techniques.

3.The negative review would be more convincing because he uses facts and his own opinions even sound like facts, while the positive review is just raving about the movie, which could get annoying.

4. I would first start out with the summary of the movie, letting the readers know what it's about. Then I would tell my opinion on the acting, the plot, the directing, the cinematography, etc. Then i would give my overall rating of the film. I would try to leave out any bias.