Wednesday, October 17, 2012

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.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

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.


Tuesday, September 18, 2012

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.