Long, long wait... sorry

I apologize for not posting anything new or recent for over a year. I have been on and off on things, but rests assured I intend on staying active and keeping up with my blogs with the latest theater showings out there. I'll be starting new again with the latest films in theaters and getting my criticism out there. I'll even post Oscar announcements. Please leave comments or suggestions. I hope to hear from you all soon.

Josh

Roland Emmerich In His Own Disaster

[The following passage below is basically a review about the movie that has already been criticized, which is why I want to share my honest and accurate opinions about the film.]

Blockbuster filmmaker, Roland Emmerich (Stargate, Independence Day), always love to share his audiences his taste for destruction and chaos. In which this case, his latest film, 2012, became that disaster of a movie. The movie pretty much gave the message to the audience of serious (literally), theoretical terror. The film sets as a countdown from 2009 to the inevitable date. An all star cast, including John Cusack, Woody Harrelson, Thandie Newton, Danny Glover, Oliver Platt, and more. Overall, the film barely tells about the reasons from political, religious, or scientific perspective on how or why this disaster may or may not happen.

Being the most important element in films, story is what keeps the audiences seated in their chairs. Cusack plays as the low-middle class writer and divorced husband, Jackson Curtis, whom his book is critically-acclaimed and becomes the key in the film. Reuniting with his two kids at a family campsite at Yellow Stone National Park, Curtis gets last minute heads up from an anti-government hippie, Charlie Frost (Harrelson). After some talk and little knowledge about the 2012 disaster, "tick-tock, tick-tock. BOOM!" An Eruptive volcano, extreme earthquakes, dark clouds roaming America, and vast oceans flooding regions worldwide in a very short period of time. What makes it worse is the majority of the characters (Glover, Newton, Platt, and more) coincidentally share their *family adventures* meeting in destiny at humanity's final destination: Mt. Everest. Being the co-writer of the film, Emmerich obviously had little enthusiasm with story, or better yet ignored it. Emmerich, most likely, stayed away from the political, religious, and scientific perspectives of the 2012 theory. My direct answers to the plot is simply direct, self-explanatory, and above all crappy.

Emmerich's film, I think, is becoming somewhat of a scare-tool to audiences nationwide. Some had a little scare when many thought America was going to turn into a frozen wasteland because of global warming. Now, people are growing concerns about a event that's not far from time. As a disaster film artist, Emmerich is heading for mixed reviews and maybe poor remarks from some long time fans becoming his last (if he keeps this up). If you're looking for a good film with explanations and relations to plots, this film will be a waste of time to you. However, if you're looking for only action and visual effects on disasters, then you may like it. In conclusion, the 2012 film is perhaps Emmerich's second worst film ever made in his career since his '98 film, Godzilla (Being his first). My overall score is 5 out of 10 for speechless visuals, but awful story.

What's Going on at Shutter Island?

After arriving home from seeing Martin Scorsese's latest film, Shutter Island, my friend, Travis, and I both felt cheated by the plot and not to mention the severe twists from the elaborated story.


The film sets in the mid-1950's where U.S. Marshall, Teddy Daniels (Leo DiCaprio), and his parter, Chuck Aule, investigate the paranormal patients at an Alcatraz-like mental institution. Both detectives become aware and very cautious to the surroundings of the facility, along with the people in it. During the stay on the island, Daniels and Aule became inevitably stuck for longer periods of time due to a heavy storm, which meant more questions along the way. The head doctors who run the facility, Dr. Cawley and Naehring (Ben Kingsly & Max von Sydow), become the primary concerns to the whole plot, along with the mysterious deadly patient. The investigation is eventually all up to Daniels to figure out what is behind and what is going on now at Shutter Island. Tensions draw deep and deeper when the feel of investigation is almost solved. Turns out you are seeing more than what you are expecting.

[I will not go into details after this ...]

I will say, however, that the film surprisingly made me jumped in quite an amount of suspenseful scenes. The movie made me felt like I was watching Stanley Kubrick's, The Shinning, for the very first time. The cinematography also gave another enhancing element to Scorsese's ideal of suspense. Everything became fast paced and slow paced mixed in its proper places in the film. There was very little musical score, which created more dramatic and suspenseful movements in the plot. The sound was incredibly loud at the theater. The sound-effects artist(s) or sound editor obviously increased the bass or primary volume. The littlest object, such as a buzzer noise, matches, or gun fire became loud enough to act as a suspense tool.

In conclusion, for those of you who haven't seen it, the film is worth going for at the theaters. There isn't that much intense, graphic violence like you see in those slasher films. Shutter Island is beyond different. By beyond, I mean more (literally) or as twisting as an M. Night Shyamalan film. My overall score for Scorsese's film is a 7 out of 10. I find this score suitable because the film surpassed my expectations with the actors, cinematography, narration. Unfortuneately, the story becomes part of the problem: All I will say about the majority of the plot is that it definitely turns your brain in many directions of the outcome of the plot. Thus requires much thinking and memory to nearly all elements in the story. Finally, I recommend those who haven't watched it watch it. If you are in for a non-slasher, good suspenseful story, then this is the one.

What Do You See?

When you go out to see a movie with somebody or by yourself. What do you see? What do you gaze at when something remarkable, surprising, or frightening happening in the film? Visual effects? Actors? Cinematography? Honestly, I try to gaze at a lot of things when I go watch a movie at the theaters.

Growing up watching films has been a very blissful moment where I learned to think of movies like they're part of my life. Ever since I first I remember growing up in an apartment in SLC, Utah where my family had a big collection of movies on VHS. Immediately, I learned how the VCR worked and watched films like pages from a book. Originally, I was always interested in just the visuals and actions, like explosions or heroes saving the day, and those became my only interests in films. The 1990's became the highlight of my life with movies. Films made by James Cameron and Steven Speilberg were like my idols, along with Schwarzenegger's action roles throughout that decade. When the near turn of the century came, films became more and more realistic in visuals and dark themed in story telling. The new millennium, however, was also a new start for everything in movie making. They changed my interest and perspective of what I think of movies and what I like. I didn't know if this was a good thing or bad thing. After graduating high school and attending Aiken Technical College, I later applied to the online class (Film As Art) and spent a few months learning new ways of looking and criticizing films today. Thurmond Whatley, my teacher, posted his student's and I web links and examples of how to complete our work. In addition, the links contained some videos and illustrated demonstrations to what I was studying, such as cinematography, mise 'en scene (which is French for "placement on stage"), movement, drama, and more. When the semester was over, the feeling of finishing the online class so soon was sad for me. Disappointed to know that there were any other higher level courses for that study. Film As Art changed the view and criticism of what I think of films then and now. My fascination with films grew bigger since I took my online course.

Looking at films between the 20th and 21st century have made significant outcomes of what I look films now and in relation to people's lives. Films, in my opinion, have made a long way in reaching the expectations and changes to critics and audience's outlook on movies. Today in the digital age, film artists seek the soul of humanities feelings and emotions of what life is in the 21st century. So overall when I go to see a film in theaters I don't just watch, I analyze as well.