In his essay, “Why We Crave Horror Movies,” Stephen King tells us that some reasons we like a good horror flick are: to prove that we aren’t afraid of things that go bump in the night, to make us feel “normal,” and to have some good old-fashioned fun. Upon reading these assertions, I began to reflect on my own attitudes about the horror film genre. I have never considered myself to be a horror film fan. I tend to shy away from movies with extreme gore, violence, and gratuitous blood shed. They aren’t fun.
Quite a cult of hardcore fans has developed around it, and for those folks, the film is essentially immune to criticism and reinterpretation. The biggest surprise to me was that the bulk of Donnie Darko is a realist drama. I had long heard about how strange the film was, and heard it described as being partially sci-fi (which it is) and horror (which it isn't if you ask me). It was supposedly a "reality-bender". I'm much more of a "genre" fan, and I much prefer fantasy, surrealism and absurdism to realism.
Sadly, Ferrell's "hombre loco" act wears thin on the nerves and the overall movie is about as hollow as an empty piñata. Predictably, Casa de mi Padre has a meager feel like an over-extended sketch that overstays its welcome. It is only fitting this sparse Spanish spoof has origins from the minds of Saturday Night Live vets Ferrell, director Matt Piedmont and writer Andrew Steele that all hail from Lorne Michaels Nation at 30 Rockefeller Center. Indeed Casa de mi Padre resembles a prolonged weak skit embedded in strained chuckles and empty-headed goofiness. The premise for this thin nacho-flavored narrative is quite simple: get Ferrell to impersonate a moronic Mexican as he stumbles through a spastic storyline that looks to parody everything from telenovela serials to elaborate spectacles such as the Grindhouse-type genres.
The remake for a television movie, in fact, caused an insignificant uproar. It is a remarkable effort on many levels but did not cause many changes. The harshness is very difficult to watch; unlike how the usual films portray violence, this movie characterized violence so differently. The performances are remarkable and believable, mainly Farrah Fawcett’s as Francine. The choices she makes throughout are frequently wrong, although her intentions are correct and honest.
In Sullivan’s Travels, the montage of the casualties of the Depression that Sullivan witnesses underscores everything that the movie had previously eluded too. Like Sullivan, the audience does not appreciate how horribly that time affected people and those few seconds articulated the sentiment like no words could. The movie itself, made during the Depression, does what Sullivan realizes he needs to do—make a movie that gets people to laugh through the hard times. As Sullivan says, “There's a lot to be said for making people laugh… It isn't much, but it's better than nothing.” While in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, there is not one line that sums up the entire movie’s premise, there is a lot more than one montage to show us. The audience sees Mr. Smith fighting for something he believes in, despite everything that suddenly hits him.
I’ve heard people refer to “The Notebook” as cheesy, as a ‘chick flick’ (a label very few of my colleagues can stand because of its negative connotation), as predictable and sappy. So “The Notebook” doesn’t exactly take a brain surgeon to guess how the story is going to play out. And it does unapologetically play on your emotions, practically begging you to squeeze out a few tears. But here’s why I enjoyed “The Notebook”: it’s a movie you can relax and let flow over you. It’s also one of the few films out there that tells a complete story.
What could have been considered a clichéd and callous prison yarn about cartoonish caricatures under the shock value banner of racism is actually an inspired and wacky yet shrewd comical commentary on fear and ignorance. The pacing is energetic and the film is well-written and audaciously insightful. Baget’s direction is refreshingly bouncy and the performances are devilishly carefree. True, Cellmates does not bring a
The movie was nominated for many awards proving how great it was. Djengo unchained would be a great movie in addition to these was because like Crash it showed how bad racism was, even though it was during a completely different time period. It showed how bad people can act in certain situations, and how badly people were treated back
However, Scotland, PA manages to keep true to the original Macbeth, even while introducing dark comedy throughout the story. In the play, and in the movie, the character parallels are easy to see, and define- Duncan is the boss, Macbeth is beneath him but ambitious, Banquo is initially still Macbeth’s good friend, his wife is still crazy, and Macduff is still suspicious, and Macbeth’s enemy. However, there are some marked differences between the play and the film. Macbeth never kills Macduff’s family, Lady Macbeth never sleepwalks in the movie, and Macbeth was killed by Macduff, not Malcolm. Although some of these are major deviations from the original film, Scotland PA still retains the important events, the important moods, themes, and enough of the events to very successfully recreate Shakespeare’s
This film had a really good beginning and a not-so-good end, as at the end stops being a romantic comedy and finishes at Heathrow airport as a romantic movie, thus ruining the end. I don't remember this film as a very tricky to understand one because of