The balcony scene in Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 film, Romeo and Juliet, is more successful than the balcony scene in Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 film, Romeo + Juliet, in three main ways: the acting, the script, and the traditional setting. Zeffirelli was very clever with his casting of the innocent Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey. These actors were naturally true to their characters, mainly because of their lack of experience. It's truly believable that they are legitimately in love and feel the pain and suffering that the two lovers went through. Their dialogue is delivered in a way that appears natural, in contrast to the forced efforts of Leonardo DiCaprio in the 1996 version.
The characters of Seinfeld have such great chemistry that we love to watch them, and feel like a part of it. A major flaw with many sitcoms is when the non-main characters get their own plot lines and viewers must endure them while waiting to get to the real meat of the show. Each of the characters of Seinfeld has an equal and valuable role and because of this, none of the sub-plots ever seem boring. The sitcom is rated PG, with mild sexual references, and infrequent course language, therefore would be suitable for viewing between 7.00 pm and 9.00 pm to audiences consisting of young to middle age adults as they are closest to the age of the characters, hence would relate more with the situations and issues
That was it the actors only wore drama blacks and the background was unfurnished, it was a risky move on Kennedy’s part but ultimately paid off as the set really was a manifestation of what the play is about, no fancy lighting of costumes just characters real relatable interacting characters which I feel is what really makes a play of film or TV show, for example look at the award winning Game of Thrones series it real reason for the appeal and hype isn’t the action, the gore, the nudity, it’s the characters and their relations. That is why I am giving the Nixon theatre companies’ production of David Williamson’s The Club 9 out of ten pictures on the
I think that the movie was good in concept but it was a slow movie to watch due to the lack of immediate action. Although not everything in the movie was bad. Even though the movie had a slow start and was lacking in color it had a good plot. The story of a small town boy becoming a war hero is very popular and can be a great success. The movie could have improved by providing more realistic explosions in battle and if the actors talked slower and more clearly so the audience might understand them better.
As an actor he was part of the Stratford Festival company acting along with some famous actors of those times. Timothy was married to Janet Reid for a few years but the marriage was annulled. Timothy met William Whitehead who was also a writer and that started the relationship between them and they became partners for the remainder of Timothy’s life. The two of them worked on various documentaries in the 1970’s. Ruth Gordon, a screenwriter and playwright met Timothy through an acting gig, was influenced by her to write his first short story called ``Tamarack Review.
Nothing could beat the emotions that were shown in the movie, even though the book had a great description, I thought the movie really brought out the characters especially towards the end. Nothing could beat the end scene. When Bruno and Schmuel were gassed, you didn’t really think it would have happened at the start especially to Bruno. How much emotion that was shown when they had to march it really captured my interest it was something that made my stomach churn but I just couldn’t help but watch. I particularly appreciated the way Bruno mispronounced some words for example Auschwitz as Out-with.
Sabina Sorondo Period 8, Post, AP LANG “Thank You For Smoking” is a movie fitting for an educational purpose. Its plot, consisting of great amounts of both satire and criticism towards our government has both strengths and weaknesses. As a critic, I find that over all the movie supported its arguments well with an underlying tone of humor. “Thank You For Smoking” was a very enjoyable movie to watch. Having a good plot and over-all message gave it many strengths, yet there were small flaws that also gave it weaknesses.
When speaking of the differences between Arthur Miller’s works, Atkinson said “The literary style of “The Crucible” was cruder.” He said this abruptly because he wanted to assure that his point would be made. The brief sentence forced the reader to concentrate on the emphasis of Atkinson’s opinion. McCarthyism was at its peak in 1953 and the release of “the Crucible” was no coincidence. Although Atkinson writes about the plot of the play, he ensures to include the details that correlate to the present day situation. He adds in combinations such as “vague suspicion,” “implacable” and “highly wrought trial.” These combinations are very important to the review because they portray a symbol of the horrors of McCarthyism.
When he decided to choose the latter, it was transparent that the trails had changed him drastically as he appeared to be a stubborn man in the beginning. By the end, Proctor chose to die in the most righteous way. In the beginning, Proctor could be described as stubborn and somewhat selfish, but by the end of it, he was anything but these qualities. The characters who were wrongfully accused were symbolic to an actual crucible and the trials that they been through was a furnace where we are expected to tell the “truth” when the trials itself is based on false accusations. In conclusion, The Crucible was an excellent title for the play.
You tell me.” (Old Spice) I personally loved this commercial because it was funny to me. I thought the actor was spot on and his lines were well written. On the other hand, it made be a little sad because I feel like I do not measure up to the guy in the commercial. He is in shape, good looking, and tall. Also, some women truly believe this commercial.