critique http://www.cinemaroll.com/tags/critique New posts about critique A Bluffer's Guide to Film Critique http://www.cinemaroll.com/Cinemarolling/A-Bluffers-Guide-to-Film-Critique.258493 Film critique is not quite as easy as watching a movie, it requires more brain power than that. Some people feel that they can shut off their brains when watching a movie, however critics do the opposite. It’s important to note that everything in a movie is there for a reason, and as a critic it is your job to think of why it might be there, the filmmakers intended impact on the audience, and how well it was achieved (if at all). So after reading this article, watching a film should be not quite as easy as before since you now know what to look for, you will never watch a movie in the same way again.

Criticising a movie can amount to more than whether or not you liked it. You could discuss in detail which parts of the movie you particularly liked and which parts you would have changed if you had been behind the camera. And I know what you’re thinking, "I couldn’t do any better". But with the right amount of knowledge and the ability to form an opinion (which I assume you all have) anyone can have the skill to choose the parts of a movie they would have done differently. Now I’m not saying that this will turn you into the next Stephen Spielberg, but with a certain amount of technical know-how and a level of awareness when it comes to Hollywood conventions and audience response, anyone can recognise a hit from a flop.

At the very least this article will allow you to be able to generate conversation at a dinner party. Film is probably the most popular form of art (yes, art!) in the 21st century and is always a good topic of conversation. And at the most this article could spark an interest in the subject and inspire you to find out more, as film critique is an interesting hobby to have, even if you’re not writing reviews, you can still form an interesting and valid point of view about a film that could come up at your next dinner party (assuming you hold regular dinner parties, of course).

One of the most recognisable aspects of a movie, maybe apart from the storyline, is the genre of a movie. No one needs to be told what a romantic comedy is, or a horror, or a western. We know all of this from experience alone and we can attribute each of these genres with a feeling as, with each genre comes an intended affect. Romantic comedies are supposed to make the audience feel good, horror films are intended to scare the audience, and westerns excite the audience with action and adventure. And even though these genres may appear obvious to us, there are certain aspects to each which help us to define the genre. These are called "generic conventions", which is just a fancy way of saying "things that pop up in each movie within that genre". For example, blood, murderers and blue lighting are all generic conventions of horror, as they all appear in most horror movies; therefore ‘Scream’ (Wes Craven, 1996) is a conventional horror movie as it holds each of these factors. Movies can also cross over into other genres to form "hybrid genres" such as ‘Back to the Future: Part 3’ (Robert Zemeckis, 1990), because as well as being a sci-fi/ comedy movie, it also holds many generic conventions of westerns, being set in 1885 in California, having shoot-outs and cowboys and Indians.

As I have mentioned, the storyline of any film is probably the most blatantly obvious aspect of any movie as the plot is what you explain to friends when you first mention a movie. However the actual structure of a movie is different to the story, and can be harder to determine. All film’s narrative structure can be separated into two categories: linear (when the story runs in chronological order), as in ‘When Harry Met Sally’ (Rob Reiner, 1989) or non-linear (not chronological), like in ‘Kill Bill: Vol. 1’ (Quentin Tarantino, 2003). The basic narrative structure of linear movies (and some non-linear films) can follow this pattern:

Exposition > development > complication > climax > resolution.

The exposition defines the characters, setting, themes and possible storylines for the film, the development defines each in more detail and the plot thickens as the characters set out on their adventure, the complication is when something goes wrong and something (e.g. a life, a relationship, someone’s reputation etc) is in jeopardy. The climax of a movie is the most adrenaline filled part of a movie, perhaps in an action film, the biggest fight will take place, or in a romantic comedy, the characters will kiss for the first time, and then comes the resolution when equilibrium is restored and the characters live happily ever after (in most cases). However in non-linear movies, the story tends to jump around more and they do not often follow this pattern. This is a narrative theory, and theories are essential to your knowledge as a film critic as you have the freedom to agree or disagree with each and then see to what extent each theory is used in any film and how affective it is.

Another theory that could come in handy is Vladimir Propp’s character theory that can be allocated to most films. He found, in several stories, seven common characters: the hero, the villain, the "donor" (someone who "donates" useful information or tools to the hero for their task), the helper (a character who helps the hero in their task), the princess (not always literal, most of the time just the romantic interest who is the reason for the mission), the dispatcher (the one who sends the hero on their mission), and the anti-hero (a character who seems more heroic than the true hero and therefore takes credit and tries to woo the princess). This character theory can be assigned to most films (and books too), for example, ‘Star Wars’ (George Lucas, 1977): Luke Skywalker = the hero Darth Vader = the villain Ben Kenobi = the donor Han Solo = the helper Leia Organa = the princess (literally) Ben Kenobi = doubles up as the dispatcher too Han Solo = can also be seen as the anti-hero. As I say, this can be related to almost any film, so why not try it with your favourite film, or a film you know well?

Something else to look for in a movie is the film’s themes and motifs, and the question to ask in order to find these themes is "why did the filmmaker make the movie?" All films are made for a reason, sometimes it’s purely for entertainment, but all films carry a certain level of "verisimilitude". Verisimilitude in its simplest form is the extent of reality shown in the text (film) and how far the film reflects any current issues. A good example of this is ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ (Roland Emmerich, 2004) as this is addressing a current issue: global warming. This is the main theme of the film as it appears relevant in all scenes, however other themes shown in the film are the relationship between father and son which, although prominent, isn’t substantial enough to call a theme, and so it is therefore called a "motif". The different themes and motifs shown in a film can be subtle or obvious, but no matter how noticeable they are and how much you consciously take note of them, these things are what attract an audience and relate to an audience. Everyone can relate to a parent/ child relationship and so by writing a relationship like this in the script, the writers have automatically got the attention of the audience on a personal level. As for the main theme of global warming, it appears very relevant to today and as it is constantly appearing in the news, so it must be of interest to people. This is probably why the film was made. Filmmakers such as Ken Loach (Kes, Sweet Sixteen) are famous for making films which carry worthy social issues and he does this partly by removing any Hollywood clichés and making the scene feel as natural as possible by using natural lighting mostly and real locations and often, real people (not actors). So, again, pick a movie you know well and see if you can work out why it was made, what techniques the director/ writer used to represent the theme or connect to an audience and how affective is it?

A good critic will take the time to look closely at the film, and not just at the story or the themes, and at first you might need to watch a film or a scene several times to pick up everything. There are four main things to look out for on a close study of a film: cinematography (the camera angles and movements), sound, editing (transition between one shot to another) and mise-en-scène (anything that contributes to the atmosphere: setting, costume, make-up, lighting etc). And it is through these things that the themes are presented and the story is told. Most cinematography is done at "eye-level" and editing done with a simple cut from one shot to the other. This way the audience don’t get distracted by it and can therefore concentrate on the story. However, films such as ‘Moulin Rouge’ (Baz Luhrmann, 2001) have fast paced editing and flashy "in your face" cinematography, and it could be argued that this style of cinematography is more likely to absorb an audience as the use of a lot of close up shots makes the audience feel more a part of the story. This is another interesting debate for your dinner party!

Sound can be inviting to an audience and can also inform them of the type of film they’re watching. A film such as ‘Hot Fuzz’ (Edgar Wright, 2007) is a good film to watch in order to get a good feel of how sound can be used in films. The director uses loud sound effects on something as mundane as hanging a coat on a peg to translate an action genre feel to the movie before the action even begins, and since this is a comedy it also has comic effect as the director lovingly pokes fun at the action-cop genre. This gives a good sense of the film, subtly bringing an action movie feel to it (a la Hollywood) and lets the audience know what to expect in terms of both comedy and action. The use of music in movies is always very carefully chosen in order to bring the right atmosphere in the scene, the music in a scene tells us what to expect as in horror movies, the music gets louder and more intense at the approach of a murderer or monster. Some characters even have a theme tune like Darth Vader in ‘Star Wars’ or the shark in ‘Jaws’ (Stephen Spielberg, 1975). These tunes simply define their presence in the scene.

These are just a few pointers and opinions of mine about some of the movies mentioned. However, in order to be a good film critic, you must form your own opinions about various movies and the theories that could apply, and to do this, all you have to do is take heed and watch!

]]> Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:51:11 PST Wall Street http://www.cinemaroll.com/Drama/Wall-Street.130232 Wall Street is the story of Bud Fox, a curious stock trader in the 1980's who gives insider information to his idol, Gordon Gekko, with hope that he might work for him. Gekko accepts the information and takes Fox in. Almost immediately Fox is immersed in a rich life he had never dreamed of, he has a lot of money, material objects, and a woman Gekko has sent to him. He meets with his dad because he is trying to organize a purchase of BlueStar airlines for Gekko and starts to realize that what they are doing is morally wrong. Fox double crosses Gekko and gets arrested on charges of violating federal securities laws. In the everyday scenes that this film depicts, it shows greedy stockbrokers, a dark bustling polluted city, and a deregulated government, all important things happening during this time period.

This film takes place in a time which saw the rich get much richer, the poor get much poorer, and the middle class remain the same. These rich getting much richer were for the most part "urban professionals," or, "yuppies," that is stockbrokers, accountants, and company traders. Bud Fox and Gordon Gekko both fit perfectly into the mold created by the yuppies. They are rich, they have very expensive cars, clothes, and houses and they are materialists who had a never ending greed. Fox sees Gekko as one of these yuppies who always smokes very expensive cigars, owns expensive property and is always trying to get richer at any cost; he is extremely greedy. After Gekko takes Fox in, he is immediately seen riding in an expensive chauffeured car, with a very nice suit, and a beautiful girl. Soon after this, Fox buys a very lavish apartment and they show the decorators putting up paintings and painting gold on the walls of part of his house. Showing Fox and Gekko living these yuppie lifestyles, especially with Fox's walls getting painted gold, was a very accurate representation of the time period.

In the beginning of the film Fox fit into the middle class whose wealth never changed. He was unable to buy anything he really wanted and had trouble paying his rent. Fox was a stockbroker who never took risks, only buying very safe stock, so he never made the huge profits like Gekko did. At this point he became discouraged with being in the stationary middle class and developed the greed Gekko had. He saw Gekko living very lavishly, knew he had an enormous net worth, and wanted it. Gekko showed him how easy it was to make large amounts of money under the Laissez-Faire presidency of Ronald Reagan. Reagan believed in not regulating business and so the stock market was also affected by this, only in the end does Fox finally get caught after he and Gekko do hundreds of illegal trades. Through Gekko's help and Reagan's laissez-faire presidency, Fox made the transformation from honest, lower middle class stockbroker, to this greedy upper class stockbroker who violated Securities Exchange Commission rules. The director portrayed this change very accurately at this point in time the U.S. businesses and the stock trading were not regulated well and the yuppies took advantage of this through illegal activities and speculation.

When Bud Fox is walking around New York City, or is ever outside, the atmosphere is of a very bustling, cramped, dark and polluted world. There are always thousands of people talking and walking through the streets and piling into the Wall Street buildings. One good example of this crowded, never sleeping, busy city is when Fox squeezes himself into this very small cramped elevator to go to work and it has a very claustrophobic feeling. Outside there is a shroud of smog to make it seem very dark and polluted, which represents the time period very well, it was one of the most environmentally unfriendly and polluted times in American history.

The 1980's were a time of the yuppies, pollution, and the deregulation of business and the stock trade. This movie represents the time period very accurately, it shows Fox and Gekko doing illegal dealings and finally getting caught by the stock commission, it shows Gekko, and eventually Fox with the lavish lives full of greed, and it shows a dark and polluted world, reflecting the terrible environmental situation at the time. Wall Street portrayed Wall Street and the social climate of the world as it was during the 1980's.

]]> Tue, 27 May 2008 10:19:38 PST Cloverfield Review http://www.cinemaroll.com/Science-Fiction/Cloverfield-Review.119353 It starred Michael Stahl-David as the main character, Robert Hawkins. Other actors in it were T.J. Miller as Hudson Platt, Jessica Lucas as Lily Ford, Odette Yustman as Elizabeth Mcintyre, Lizzy Caplan as Marlena Diamons, and Mike Vogel as Jason Hawkins. The production company for Cloverfield is Bad Robot. The director of Cloverfield is Matt Reeves and the producer is J.J. Abrams. The plot of the story is that during Robert Hawkins (Stahl-David), a giant monster attacks the island of Manhattan. Robert and his friends must make it through the torn island and try to get out alive.

It started with Jason Hawkins giving his camera to his friend, Hudson Platt who was to then go around an interview people. Rob gets mad when his crush comes with another girl and goes outside to calm himself down with Jason and Hudson. They see an explosion in the distance and run downstairs only to almost be crushed by the decapitated statue of liberty's head. They go to cross the Brooklyn Bridge, but one of the monster's tentacles crashes down on the bridge and kills Jason. The rest of the group, Rob, Marlena, Hudson, and Lily, run off and into the military and almost get crushed by the monster. They travel into a subway where Marlena gets bitten by one of the monster's parasites and they run up into a Bloomingdales, where soldiers take Marlena into a tent and she seems to explode. One soldier tells the remaining group how to get to Elizabeth Mcintyre's house, as Robert wants to find her, and when to get on the next helicopter. They rescue Beth and make it over to the helicopters. Lily gets on a helicopter alone and the other part of the group gets on one. They monster seems to be killed by bombs as the group's helicopter flies past it, but it leaps at the helicopter and hits it. The helicopter crashes and Hudson, Robert, and Beth meet up with the monster who then kills Hudson. Robert takes the camera and Beth go under a bridge, just as the military begins its hammer down operation. The camera then shuts off.

The movie was mostly unknown when it first hit theatres in its mysterious trailers. This stirred up hype, and everyone was soon wondering what this movie Cloverfield was all about. This was a smart move on the side of the Cloverfield team because it drew in more viewers. The special effects in this movie were all pretty neat, such as the head of the statue of liberty when it comes falling out of the sky, and the monster itself. Many aspects of its special effects were well put together. Some parts, like the scene where the soldier's chest is torn up, were not that good. The soldier's chest looked somewhat plastic, and pretty fake. The actors in Cloverfield were well played for the most part.Odette Yustman, Elizabeth Mcintyre, wasn't all that well played. Her part was to be Robert's crush and a new tag-a-long that the group saves, but she seemed more like a drama queen, as she mostly put her emotions in the sad parts. This was the only real acting flaw though, and Hud's humor did give in a couple of laughs her and there, as he tried to get a chat started with Marlena. It wasn't a humor movie though, so that sometimes got in the way, as it was more of an action / horror movie. The believability of some things like this happening is definitely at a 0% chance level. The realization was good though, as it was shot in a home-video style, which made you seem like you were in it.

Cloverfield's plot was well thought out, although the trip to Beth's just seemed as a scene to pack in a few minutes and show off the creature's parasites. The end was also kind of sudden, with the helicopter just crashing and then having the military bomb the place. They could have done more with the ending. The advertising was also well done. The Cloverfield team made a site for the fictional drink Slusho! Created by the producer, and people who put their e-mail on this site received sonar images of a large mass moving towards Manahattan. Another site, 1-18-08.com, had pictures of some of the events before the Cloverfield attack happened. The trailer also set people up and made them want to know what it was about. Overall, Cloverfield is a good movie with cool special effects and a good story, but if you get motion sickness, watch this with caution.

]]> Sun, 04 May 2008 07:31:42 PST Tideland Review http://www.cinemaroll.com/Drama/Tideland-Review.75381  It's one of those things, where the end result is only achieved through a complete journey through the story, and I wish that I could tell a story like it. The entire time my brain is getting bent in one direction, near to the point of breaking the experience is so strange, and then when I can't take it any more it snaps and it's as if I've been underwater for hours before bursting through the surface for air.

Gilliam did what he set out to do; he created something so odd, so different from anything that Hollywood has to offer, that by the end we have no choice but to wonder about the nature of reality itself. Or maybe that's just me. I get the feeling that he is right in his assertion that many people that watch that film will leave it with a contempt for its creators. They just won't get it. They'll feel cheated, confused, angry even that they sat through something that feels so much like an affront to those basic principles that most of us take for granted. And there are others that will think that they're cultured, so they'll pretend like the subject matter is what was so genius. Addiction, death, madness, retard pedophelia, molestation… all in all a hellish world as seen through the eyes of a child- these things put to film seem artistic to those that believe that it's what is shown that matters. But there will only be a few that see the movie the way that I did. A metaphor for birth, the chaos that leads to order that makes up the universe itself. Such a huge statement was made that I don't think that I can even attempt to justify it or explain it.

Then again, I don't have to. I just know that I was in tears for the last two minutes of the movie, and that's a thing that few films can get me to do. And it wasn't because the true love died, affirming the truth in the hearts of two star crossed souls or anything else that has been done so many times.

]]> Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:14:58 PST Review: Hot Rod http://www.cinemaroll.com/Comedy/Review-Hot-Rod.66502 A comedic movie about an average man who just wants to prove to his deceased father that he can fallow his footsteps in being an incredible stunt man.

This is actually a pretty funny movie, although when watching it I did notice a lot of similarities with Napoleon Dynamite. The story is simple and the characters are simple, but lets face it, a movie like this isn't watched for the plot. If you have an above average sense of humor, you will be laughing for a good part of it. Adam Sandberg is a good main actor for the movie, his facial features add to the enjoyment. It almost makes me want to watch Saturday Night Live right now, just to see the resemblance between the characters.

I think it could be a good date movie, if your date isn't too stuck up that is. I thought most of the funny parts were already shown on the previews, like most movies, but believe it or not, they weren't.

So happy viewing and my next movie preview will be Superbad.

]]> Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:26:43 PST 300: a True Spectacle http://www.cinemaroll.com/Action/300-a-True-Spectacle.29504 What’s better than watching completely ripped musclemen wearing nothing more than a cape and tunic while slicing through the bodies of countless Persian soldiers with sheer manliness? 300 of them.

Recently a friend and I saw the movie 300. It seemed it was all over in a flash and when we stepped out of the theater our adrenaline was running high. Never in my life have I seen a movie capable of filling me with so much energy. After witnessing the utter brute and strength of these muscle-popping warriors, I couldn’t help but hitting the gym as soon as possible. As well as being a stunning spectacle of a film, 300 is a great motivator for doing some much needed exercise.

By now you have most likely read at least a couple of the reviews that the critiques have provided. They try and make this movie seem like something mediocre or nothing special with degrading comments about lousy acting or storyline. Truth be told, even if the acting or storyline is lousy, (which I think it is not, Gerard Butler does a tremendous job of embodying a Spartan king), the shocking visuals and often-times grizzly graphics will put you in such disbelief, that you’ll soon forget about run-of-the-mill acting or lame storylines. Obviously spectacle is meant to play the greatest role in this film and it certainly does.

No matter what the critiques say, 300, out of all the films released this year, is not one you want to pass up. One extra note as well, see if you can catch this one in theaters. It’s a big movie, it needs a big screen.

]]> Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:26:04 PST