If any of you have seen Borat or Bruno, and really enjoyed the sardonic humor in them, then this one is right down your alley. Personally, I never actually laugh at these movies, the best is a audible smirk, or a heavy exhale. However, this weekend my dad really wanted to watch this movie, so here we are...The movie is all about this guy from a fictional country called Wadiya. According to the producer and co-writer (and also leading role) Sacha Baron Cohen, it is based on actual dictators, such as Kim Jong-il, and Muammar Gaddafi. The movie doesn't really have much of a moral message to send across, other than democracy is really a subtle dictatorship when done correctly, at least in his country. Aladeen (Sacha Baron Cohen) is the Admiral General of Wadiya and he goes to America to deliver a speech basically stating that he refuses to give his people a democracy, because they "enjoy being oppressed". He ends up in New York city with his beard cut off, and no one recognizes him (because having a beard really is a defining characteristic in identifying a person..) so he befriends a tomboy-ish Anna Faris who owns a little grocery store that hires people from other countries that are discriminated. The irony in the movie is that he is all about power and dictatorship, and she is very liberal and all about forgiveness and the "everyone is special, and valuable, and can contribute to the world" type of persona. But naturally, of course, they fall in love, and the guy (since the male character always seems to be in the wrong) ends up changing his ways, into a not so democratic way of running a democracy in his country. The movie has a lot of funny scenes, and the dialogue is very sarcastic, and typically refers to real life stereotypes or jokes that are relatable as well as true, which makes the audience laugh.
The one scene that really stood out to me in the movie was the opening scene where they say he created his own Olympics, and he proceeds to run first, shoot the gun as he's running, and then shoot anyone within a close range who has a chance to catch up. I thought this scene was the funniest part of the movie, and it created a catchy intro that made you expect the rest of the movie to follow in the same manner. The angle of this shot was a far away one, in order to show the full landscape and backround. It was a fast paced shot, which is generally what the movie was filmed like as well. I don't think this scene is really critical to the movie, but that's because I don't think any of the scenes really had an impact on the movie as it doesn't really have a plot-line that needed to be enforced or kept along with. I think the most important element this scene contributed to the movie was that it set a good mood for the movie, and it kept you hoping that it would continuously get funnier as the movie went on, and depending on your perspective, you can argue it did.
The camera work in the movie was well done, it was a generally bright movie, that was fast paced, and kept you engaged. I think that they dragged a few parts out, simply because they lingered too long in hopes of it being funny, but that only diminished the effect, and made it rather the opposite. Like there was one scene in particular, where he sleeps with Megan Fox and then asks her to stay and cuddle, and she leaves because she didn't get a Rolex like Katy Perry had bragged that she received after her 'encounter' with Aladeen. Then after she leaves, its a little dramatic moment where you see that even though Aladeen has it all, he is still lonely as he gazes at his wall of pictures with all of his lady and some male conquests. I think the scene started out funny, but the length that they dragged it out was too much, and left me feeling like, "okay, we get it...". However, the lighting in the movie was done well, it usually took place in brightly lit rooms, or outside under the sun, creating that happy go lucky vibe and just a carefree type of aura. There were a few close up shots of Aladeen, usually to fully grasp his emotion (because you can't see his face under his beard? maybe?) But typically the shots were long ones, and captured the whole cast of people in the scene.
The main actor, Sacha Boran Cohen, previously starred in Borat which was a huge success (personally I thought it was funnier), and Bruno (which I never had a chance to see). I think its interesting to note that he starred and help write these movies, as well as working with the same director Larry Charles. All of the movies are mock-documentaries of real life things that have happened in the past, or stereotypes such as Borat. I think the acting was actually very good, and that Sacha Boran Cohen is a very talented actor. There are a few scenes that actually display some forms of emotion and he delivers spot on. The movie is directed okay-ish. I didn't really like the flow of this one, however the director did a way better job in Borat. So I do believe he's a good director, maybe this plot was just harder to work with, since it was based more on an actual dictator, while Borat was more a foreign stereotype.
Overall, I can't say this movie is worth the 83 minutes of running time, since there are only about 15 minutes worth watching, and you might as well have seen it all. On the other hand, you might be like my dad who definitely would rate it two thumbs up since he had tears of laughter running down his face the entire time. I would give the movie, two thumbs down, because I think that the type of humor in the movie is funny, and I'm all for the irony, and sarcasm, however I think the problem with this genre of movies is that you can only keep the audience engaged and laughing for so long, before it just starts getting lengthy and dull. The movie was a little repetitive, and drawn out, but for its genre it did achieve the humor it was aiming towards. I would recommend this movie if you seriously cant find anything else to do, and need something mindless to watch.
I am typically not a fan of movies surrounding wars, and especially ones that are adaptions of books, because regardless of the directing, they never seem to come out the way you pictured them in your head. I prefer the happy sappy movies that leave you feeling good and leaving the theater buoyant and blissful. However, this weekend I decided to watch the movie the Book Thief, and give it a chance. The movie takes place in Germany during World War II and it is about a young girl named Liesel who is given up for adoption because her mom was a communist and gets taken away. The movie starts out being narrated by none other than Death himself, and it has a very catchy intro. Liesel's younger brother dies during the trip to their "new" family, and you can tell she is a troubled girl already. However, her new father Hans and Liesel bond immediately over books and music. Her mother however seems to be very bitter and is always screaming, but after a while we see that she is a good person at heart. Liesel becomes close friends with her neighbor Rudy Steiner who later gets drafted into training because he proves to be a very fast runner. Liesel learns how to read, and finds solace in her books which she finds and takes. The plot of the movie is that Liesel's family is German and her father, Hans, had fought in a war with a Jewish man who sacrificed his life for Hans'. He promises the Jewish family, that if ever they needed anything he would forever be indebted to them. So in the middle of the night, a dark haired man comes knocking on their door by the name of Max, and asks for shelter. Hans explains to Liesel that no one can know about the man staying in their basement, that she must guard this secret with her life. Liesel becomes very close with Max who teaches her to use her words to tell stories, and bring the words she learns from her books to life. Max becomes ill, and the war thickens, soon the Nazi guards are checking basements and after a close encounter and Liesel's family almost getting caught they reluctantly send Max on his way. The movie ends with an explosion destroying the town and robbing Hans and Rosa (Liesel's parents) of their lives, as well as her neighbor and best friend Rudy. Liesel however, having fallen asleep in the basement where she writes and reads survives and goes to live with the Mayor and his wife who she had continuously visited during the movie to read books and towards the end would sneak in and steal books, hence, her name as the "book thief".
The camera work in this movie was very interesting as there were a lot of high shots and low shots, it seemed that whenever the narrator was speaking the angle was high in the sky looking down. A few times in the movie, such as the scene where everyone is hiding and Max (the jewish boy they are hiding) comes outside and is spinning under the stars, the camera spins along with him, giving the effect a dizzy happy feeling. Also the movie had quite a few dark scenes, or scenes that were lit simply by candlelight, especially the basement scenes and the night scenes where you expected them to get caught hiding someone in their house. However, there were a few very bright scenes, such as whenever Liesel would take laundry to the mayors house, maybe this was used as a foreshadowing effect as a clue that the Mayor's wife would later end up saving Liesel. Also when the books were burned, it was a dark scene that used the technique of lighting up the cast's faces with the flames, creating a dramatic dark effect. I thought the camera work was done very effectively.
The director of this movie, Brian Percival, was not someone I was familiar with prior to this movie. However, after I watched it I looked up some other movies he directed, such as A Boy called Dad, About a Girl, Gracie, and a few others. He has only about seven other movies, because his main focus is in television. The main girl Liesel is played by Sophie Nelisse, a Canadian actress who has won many awards for her performances in Monsieur Lazhar. I thought it was interesting that for a movie that is based off of a novel, they used a lot of actors that are not very known. None of the actors were people that you typically see playing in big movies, and even though this wasn't a huge blockbuster, it still did pretty well according to reviews and made around $21 million world-wide. I think the movie wasn't as successful just because the theme of the movie is World War II Germany, and its a plot that has been very over done in the past, and its also something that comes up so often I don't think the public is going to see different angles and perspectives of a time we all wish didn't happen.
I think the scene that stood out the most to me would probably be the one where everyone is hiding in the part of town that is used for the saftey of bombs being dropped, and Hans is playing music, and while everyone is hiding, Max comes outside for a brief moment and is happy and unafraid. He is just looking up at the stars in awe, displaying that even through all the sadness and horrible events that surround him and everyone else in that time period, there was still beauty in the world and things to be grateful for, such as the stars and the fresh air. It was a very emotional scene, where not much talking is going on and its very open for interpretation, but I think it portrayed a positive light on the darker scenes of the movie, and kind of made it a little less sad. I think the scene was important because it not only showed that it was hard for the German family to be hiding a Jewish man, but that it was also hard being Max and feeling as if he was a burden and causing unnecessary danger to a good family. The scene portrayed a lot of character, and really showed the personality of Max which you don't get much throughout the movie because he is a quiet character, and when he wasn't sick and sleeping, he was usually talking just to Liesel.
Overall, I didn't particularly like the movie despite the fact that it wasn't as sad as most Holocaust movies, it made you feel sad because half of the main characters end up passing by the end of the movie, leaving Liesel without a family, yet again. The movie was, however, interesting because it kind of goes full circle, while the whole time being narrated by death and it ends with death saying that it is the one that is haunted by humans, despite the fact that its what humans are avoiding and running from all their lives. I give the movie one thumb down, because regardless of it taking a different spin on the war, and telling it from a unusual perspective, it ended in a way that kind of made you feel like you wasted your time watching and feeling for all these characters who just end up dying. The directing, and acting was very well done though, and they definitely picked a good cast for the movie. I don't recommend watching this movie if you don't like the main characters dying and leaving you feeling with a "now what.." type of feeling.
Steven Spielberg is one of the most influential people in the movie industry. He is a well known director and producer who has made many Oscar and Award winning movies that people still talk about to this day. He is well known for his movies Jaws, Indiana Jones, E.T, Saving Private Ryan, Amistad, Schindler's List, and that's just naming a few.
The first movie I watched was Schindler's List, this movie was very emotional and was based around the Holocaust. This is a true story, and is about a German man named Oskar Schindler who ultimately saves around 1,000 Jews by bringing them to his camp where they work but are never brutally treated like other camps such as Auschwitz. He spends all of his money in providing the proper living conditions for all of the Jewish people, and also in bribing the Nazi officials into helping him. The movie tells the devastating story of the Holocaust. Because of the topic, it is no surprise that the genre of this movie was very dramatic as well as historical. You can tell that the movie is older because of the cinematography, and the quality of the movie. It was black and white, and the music was very dramatic throughout the movie, making you anticipate what would happen next. It wasn't a mystery or thriller even, and a lot of times the piano would be playing in the background and it would be happy upbeat music in a very dramatic and dark scene. For example there was one scene where the police are checking the Jew's houses/apartments to make sure no one is hiding, and then this guy comes out of a piano and he makes noise and hears them running up the stairs coming for him, so he casually sits down and starts playing the piano, and two other guys come in the doorway contemplating whether the composer is Bach or Mozart nonchalantly, it adds a lot of dramatic irony to the scene. Maybe Spielberg did this to take the edge off a little, and not make the movie as depressing, but while still conveying the message of the movie, and accurately depicting what life was like during that time period.
The second movie I watched was The Terminal with Tom Hanks, I did some research and saw that Spielberg worked with him a lot as well as Harrison Ford, and Tom Cruise. So he tended to work with famous actors and that probably is a big reason for why his movies are so popular in the box office, it appeals to the crowd, because people like seeing actors they recognize, but his movies are also deep and symbolic, which could also catch the attention of critics. The Terminal was about a man from Krakozhia who travels to America to get an autograph of a famous Jazz player that his dad liked, because he promised he would after his father passed. However, as he lands in New York his country goes into war making him country-less, and therefore a threat to the USA. So the main guy at the airport says he say to stay in the international terminal until everything gets cleared up. He ends up getting a job at the airport, falling in love, and winning the hearts of everyone in the airport. It's completely different from the deeper meaning Spielberg movies that I have seen. Its more of a feel good movie than anything else, and the message at the end is just that "good things come to those who wait", because he could have easily just left the airport and gone on his way, risking getting arrested for breaking the law, or he could wait and cling to his blind hope of fulfilling his dads dying wish, and since he chooses the latter we see that it was all worth it in the end. The shots of the movie were very direct and straight forward, a lot of times it would be a distant shot showing the whole setting and it would cut between the perspective of Viktor (Tom Hanks), and the main airport guy.
The third movie I watched was Lincoln which was the most Political and historical because it talks about the civil war and his attempt to make sure freed slaves can't be re-enslaved. Its more of a war movie which also shows how Abe Lincoln tried to give African Americans their rights of freedom. The movie is more dark and there are a lot of scenes that are black and you can basically just see the peoples faces being lit, so the lighting in this movie was very interesting. It seems to me that the more dramatic the movie is the more Spielberg conveys it through the lighting. I thought the last scene of the movie was interesting, in that he gets shot and they end the movie of a flashback of him giving his speech, and its very dramatic and captivates the audience. I think Daniel Day-Lewis did an excellent job playing Abe Lincoln and really made him come to life. For a historical movie, it kept you interested the whole time, even though it was pretty long, the acting was done exceptionally well, and from some of the reviews I read online the accuracy of facts was dead on.
These movies were all unique, because The Terminal was a funny feel good movie that had a happy ending, and then Schindler's List is more historical and talks about the tragedy of the Holocaust, even though in the end the Jewish people are free, the movie ends with them putting rocks on his grave, and its a very bitter sweet ending, and Lincoln is very political and historical as well. Schindler's list and Lincoln both deal with political issues such as rights for human beings, whether it be race, or religion, it focuses on the morality of and quality of human life, and what is acceptable and isn't the way we treat others. It sends the message of the injustice that has occurred in history, in hopes of us remembering and not repeating the past. The movies both leave you going away with a more profound meaning of life and a sadness of actualization of what has happened in history. The Terminal was the odd one out of the three movies I chose, because even though it had a meaningful message for the main character, it didn't deal directly with a political issue. Indirectly though, the argument could be made that it shows how the system of America has cracks that people could fall into under the right circumstances, like Viktor, who merely came to New York to get a signature of a famous Jazz group member, and ends up being considered a threat due to the economic situation of his country. He can neither be taken into customs and be arrested because he hasn't committed a crime, but he also isn't free to enter America because he is potentially a 'threat'. The look of Schindler's List, and Lincoln were darker and had a more gloomy look to them. While the Terminal was brighter, even though it too had some dark scenes. What is unique about Steven Spielberg is he is known for the piano music that plays in the background of his movies, I saw this in all three regardless of the genre. The pacing in all the movies was generally pretty slow, which is ironic cause I found myself captivated by all the three. Typically, they start out slower, and then you get more into them, as the story-line progresses.
These movies represent a lot of deeper and more thoughtful messages about history than typically a common Hollywood blockbuster would, yet somehow the audience is known for loving Spielberg movies. I think it is because he hires very well known actors, like Tom Hanks in Terminal, Liam Neeson in Schindler's List, and Daniel-Day Lewis in Lincoln. He appeals to the audience, and he makes history entertaining. Typically Spielberg does very well in the box office Lincoln made $275,293,450 in the box office. Schindler's list won the Academy Award for Best Picture, and The Terminal won a few design and production awards as well. Spielberg movies are unique because he has a lot of consistent references to World War II, he uses a piano as a key element in scenes, he uses powerful flashlights in dark lit scenes, a lot of times shows children in some sort of danger and a lot of his important characters are scene in the rearview mirror of a car. The movies he makes are often inspired by true events, or are depictions of true events. The movie the Terminal was inspired by a man who lived in a German airport, and Spielberg did his own spin of it, Schindler's list, and Lincoln are true stories. I think because Spielberg is Jewish it is one of the main reasons he references World War II so much in his movies, I think he wants to inform everyone in a way that makes people feel something towards the events that have happened in the past. He has a few movies relating to the Holocaust, The Purple Heart, Shooting War, Eyes of the Holocaust, and Schindler's List. Also Saving Private Ryan and Lincoln, are movies that feature a lot of war scenes. However, I looked into some of his other movies as well and he does a lot of Disney related things as well, like E.T, Who framed Rogger Rabbit, Casper, and The Flinstones. His movies are a ton of genres and don't just focus on war or drama. I think the movies he makes lie everywhere on the spectrum because there are so many sides of him as a director, just like any person, and that's why he appeals to any age group and any crowd. He has movies anyone of any age can relate to. All of us every single year, we're a different person. I don't think we're the same person all our lives.
