Review of Blade Runner

Featuring Harrison Ford, the movie takes place in rainy Los Angeles in 2019. The story features a retired “blade runner”, a policeman who specializes in tracking down and killing illegal replicants on earth. A replicant is an artificial humanoid who can’t be distinguished from humans except for the fact that they have no memories and they can only live for four years. Decker (ford) is called out of retirement to take care of five illegal replicants who have taken over a spacecraft and come to earth.

There are elements of film noir that are present in this movie. It might seem uncharacteristic because the movie is comfortable in the science fiction zone. That is another reason why this movie can be seen as legendary and that’s because of the marriage of Noir and sci-fi. The elements of film noir in this movie were the fact that an alienated hero of questionable morality had to face some sort of evil, a femme fatale trying to stop the hero, rain and dark streets, large usage of shadow and dark setting, and a voice-over narration. The main hero is a detective as well trying to find out and stop evil.

The cinematography was amazing for the year it was it was made in. not only does it show the futuristic technology, but the movie also shows how things will still be the same, for example people reading newspapers, street vendors selling food, that sort of thing. One thing that I noticed were the large billboards depicting young Asian ladies sipping on Coca Cola and I can’t help but chuckle at the fact that maybe in 2020 the Chinese will be the new superpower as it is looking as if we will be treading that path soon.

Just like so many movies that are viewed successful today, the movie originally was not a big hit but then it changed later on in life. It seems the moral or theme of the movie is based on the question of the nature of humanity and its relationship with technology. One question that I wasn’t sure of was whether Decker was a replicant or not. There were signs of evidence suggesting he was a replicant himself but there were also signs of evidence pointing out his nature of humanity.

Overall I liked the movie. I liked the cinematography and the plot but I didn’t really like the pacing of the movie. The movie seemed really slow paced at first and then later it sped up and that’s when I started getting more and more interested. Another thing is like the way the main characters were depicted. The strength and brutal nature of the main replicant leader even thought there was a shadow of pity I had to cast over him because if I were in his situation I would probably go through the same path he did.

Review for "Touch of Evil"

The movie starts in a seedy Mexican border town and the story is about a Mexican drug investigator, Vargas, who is at the crime of a scene with his wife and accuses a police captain, Quinlan, of planting evidence and there is a rivalry between these two men. Quinlan is prejudiced against Mexicans and so he vows to destroy Vargas. While this is happening, Vargas’ wife played by Janet Leigh is terrorized by a gang and Quinlan tries to use her to destroy Vargas.

During the end during the part where we find out it was Quinlan who plants the dynamite I can go back to the beginning of the movie and say “ohhh.” Obviously his intuition is right because he strives to make sure it is right, and if planting dynamite is what he has to do then by all means it has to be done. That is why the movie is named what it is, Touch of Evil, because every good thing probably has a touch of evil in it. Quinlan is a police officer who strives for the good of the people but he has a touch of evil in him. That thin line is so easy to cross sometimes I feel.

At first the plot was losing me and my eyes were growing heavy due to so much school work but after a while I started to get the drift of the film and the intensity of the movie pulled me in the more I watched it. The first talk about the Grandi business was confusing because they never show this guy and it seemed like two different stories but later it meshed to one for me. Orson Welles looked so huge and I was wondering at such vast obesity till I was told that he was padded and that is probably why he was filmed looking up at him to show his largeness. Another thing I liked is how Edward G Robinson was incorporated in this movie when Vargas’ wife yells at Grandi’s brother

Note that the hotel scene was just like Psycho. Same actress, sexual themes, and skittish hotel owners.

From the quality I feel like this was a lower budget movie but it still managed to be a successful movie. Apparently, after Welles left to film another movie, they re-cut the movie and added different parts which were not part of Welles’ original plans and a furious Welles sent in a 58 page memo giving detailed faults with the movie and how to change it he was ignored.

The movie so far has one of the longest cuts I’ve seen so far with my new knowledge of editing, the beginning scene. It was a bit over three minutes. The movie used these kinds of techniques for the whole movie which probably is why it was noted for being a great movie, editing-wise. It did still have the characteristics of film noir. There was use of low camera angles and sharp shadows. There were detective work and big themes especially that of murder. Of course the use of low lighting was incorporated also.

It’s funny because there was a scene at the end of the movie where director Orson Welles asked Marlene Dietrich to predict his future and she said he had no future and that his future was all used up. The funny thing is that after this movie, Welles didn’t direct anymore movies in Hollywood and he didn’t even know it but he was predicting his own future as he directed that scene. In fact, Quinlan and Welles aren’t much different because they both are celebrated but ultimately fall down to their demise due to their own work. Irony strikes once again.

Overall it was a good movie though.

this is a review for Double Indemnity, Seee!

The story is about Walter Neff, an insurance salesman who comes into the office at night bleeding. Though the use of a flashback, he tells the story of how he got caught up with a black widow of a woman, Phyllis Deitrichson, who not only convinces Neff to take out an insurance policy on her husband, but to help murder him as well for double indemnity, twice the money that she would have originally received for a normal death. Dodging annoyances like Keyes, the claims adjuster, they finally pull it off but it also pulls them apart. They end up squaring against each other in a dramatic finish.

I didn’t think I was a big fan of the older movies but I keep getting surprised at how much I like these movies. I am starting to really appreciate these aged movies. Double Indemnity definitely has characteristics of film noir; from the hardboiled dialogue, the narration, the detective work, the shadowy lighting though out the movie, and a preposterously evil femme fatale. The last element there, I am not fond of. There is nothing more annoying and sad about a women who plays with the heart of a man for money. I thought it was pretty extreme the way he killed her, but in the very end of the matter, she did deserve it

Edward G Robinson. What a genius. Growing up, I had always heard of the “back-in-the-day” gangster with his machine gun, suit and slicked back hair. One thing I would constantly associate with these fellows was the nasally phrase “nyahh see” and I just found out it was Edward Robinson from Little Caesar which just made my month. No lie, for a day and I half I just thought of that phrase and would often say it. Anyways, Edward G’s character, Keyes, was my favorite character in the movie especially when he berates the president for not knowing what he is saying. Another reason is that Edward G was in another movie, the Ten Commandments and I didn’t know that. He is definitely one of my favorite actors now. He breaks the good-looking-actor stereotype and that’s another reason I like him.

The film was good in all aspects. The cinematography made magnificent use of such noir characteristics such as heavy sculpted shadows, light slatted by venetian blinds and sharp camera angles. The main aspect that made this compelling crime story into a classic are the three main actors. Stanwyck did well in her striking portrayal of an icy woman whose boredom and desire fuel a plot of murder and intrigue. MacMurray, in a great change of pace, does well to act as the shifty loner excited by a challenge and a deadly dame's anklet. Robinson, meanwhile, brilliantly gives the film its passion. Again his speech of death statistics was very well done and his cigar smoking was trademark in the movie.

Two other things I liked were the matches that Neff used. I really want to see if those are sold anywhere, I don’t smoke but I would just want to keep it on me to look sophisticated as I held a match out for a beautiful dame at a restaurant someday. Another thing I liked was the fact that Walter Neff said “babey” in the fast manner of dialogue. It was very amusing.

What makes a movie not just a movie but a good movie?

I’m sure people are wondering what I base my reviews on, what criteria I used to idolize or criticize my film review so I decided to write a blog to give my opinion of what a movie must have to be categorized as a good movie. Ok here goes

To be truly great, a movie must:-

• Have a great plot. Not that by plot I don’t mean story because a movie can have a really silly story but have an amazing plot and vice versa. Does the plot attract or repel people? A movie with a bad plot will just bore people. Is t here any conflict that pulls the viewers in? A movie like Casablanca is perfect in terms of plot because it just pulled the readers in. we can see the twist of plot once Ilsa walks into that bar and we find out they had a history. Things like that make the movie as good as it is now. I am going to add dialogue under this because dialogue is part of the plot and stupid dialogue makes a stupid movie.

• It must have an effect that touches the audience in some way. Again I will use Casablanca. The concept of sacrifice in the movie touched a lot of the viewers and the emotion of the strength of love was another strong factor that caused the movie to be what it was.

• Good actors/characters- a good movie must obviously have good actors in order to make the characters good, thus doing a good job with the movie. The actors are a big part of the movie and a successful movie usually has good actors. There are some cases in which the characters of a good movie are hardly known so then other aspects same them from this, such as cinematography or plot but usually if the actors bring the characters to life and we can identify with that character, along with other aspects I talked about earlier and later, the movie will probably be good. Good examples of movies with good actors and characters are Casablanca and Apocalypse now and a good example of a movie with good characters is Do the right thing

• It must have some sense of realism. Do the right thing by Spike Lee was a good movie because its sense of everyday realism and Casablanca was good as well because though it was Hollywood realism, it still appealed to the realistic emotional strength that love has.

• Have continuity

o Be fresh enough to become a classic in years to come
o Be good enough that you wouldn’t mind watching it again and again
o Sequels of the movie that are viewed as crappy compared to the original show a good movie but this not the case for all movies because the Godfather series were all good.




• It must have good cinematography. I will use Ran as a good example for this. The Cinematography and mise en scene in this movie was amazing. The graphics, the color representation and other symbols such as the clouds made the movie the very expression of art. For example during the war, the transformation of the lord’s face was very good. Special effects can go into this category as well. There are a lot of good movies that owe it to the special effects used.

• The pace- the pacing of the movie can make the movie good or bad compared to what genre and the components I’ve mentioned above.


Few points to know

Remember that these traits have to be good because there are also negative forms of these core traits that may spoil a movie. For example, in daughters of the dust, the cinematography was amazing but for others the plot may have been to slow and deliberate and they might not have known the actors so the movie might have been a never-see-again movie.

I didn’t add mise en scene to this list because a lot of what I wrote above can be under mise en scene so obviously, great mise en scene makes a great movie.
I have added some extra spacing between the two bullet points and the rest for some important reasons. A lot of good movies have all these components but the first group of must-haves are a core concept that a good movie should have. The other two might not be so important and I am talking in context of culture. In Nigeria, cinematography and pacing are not that important as movies can take forever and have the worst cinematography but are still really loved. For these movies, the plot and how we relate to the characters are more important so from this I can deduce that different cultures have different expectations for a good movie

Globalization is playing a large role in movie viewing and I say this because the western culture is spreading and everyone wants to watch American movies now because of the special effects and other sort of things.

I just wanted to point that out that I think this whole topic of what makes a movie good is mostly subjective and not very objective as there is no specific criteria to how good a movie could be. What may be a good movie for me might be a crappy movie for another. Have you ever had an argument with your significant other because they want to watch a good movie and their choice is horrible to you and vice versa? That explains what I mean. This obviously brings up a critical question. Is a good movie one that is liked by the masses or can a movie be really good and hated by so many. I would say the answer is the former of the question because a great movie is one that most people have an agreement on the quality that’s why there are great movies and there are personal favorites and were talking about great movies. The movies I have reviewed are considered great movies because of the positive reviews and influence they have had on our society.

Film review of Ran- a King Lear in a different culture with some Mori Motonari....NANI?!!!

The movie has a large deal of King Lear plot but it was also about the story of a feudal lord Mori Motonari. The story is about a feudal lord, Hidetora, and his chaotic end after he gives power to his three sons and the tale of betrayal, violence and melodrama as all hell breaks loose.

I sat through this movie which seemed to take forever, not because I was getting bored but because I had to do something right after the movie. The movie I felt was pretty good and of course you must be expecting my little spiel on culture so the movie did well on that too. I think it is the beauty of the movie that really got me. No wonder it was a 12 million dollar movie! It must have taken a lot of money for the stunning visual images that I saw.

I think the meaning of ran is Chaos and so that should ease the curiosity of people who were wondering why on earth the movie was named “Ran.” It had nothing to do with Hidetora running away all the time, or at least I don’t think it did. We can see how this chaos is shown with the peaceful existence at the beginning quickly turning into a stage of violence and turmoil. We can see this in the characters as well and the two examples I will give are through Hidetora and lady Kaede.

Hidetora is this complex character and we see chaos throughout his time in the movie. He slips into insanity and back out throughout most of the movie showing his chaotic mind due to his grief of losing his sons. Lady Kaede even when she look calmed on the outside, we can see this chaotic turmoil inside her due to the fact that she had her clan murdered and was forced to marry the son of the murderer and now we can see why her whole vision is to see the downfall of the Ichimonji clan. Her beheading was pretty awesome though

As I said in an paragraph, the use of color was pretty amazing. The visual artistry of the movie was like that of a painting. The use of color as representation was amazing as well. It was easier to tell who was on whose side because each army basically had its own color scheme. Jiro’s army had a red color which might have symbolized bloodshed or evil. The colored banners just made the battle scenes like a moving painting. The choreography was amazing especially in the battle scenes. The use of colors during the battles were just visual ecstasy the music and drums were good too. I think the cinematic beauty of this movie is what makes it one of the top film ever made

One thing I want to talk about that I think a lot of other people had a problem with was the amount of melodrama the movie contained. I am sure the movie was supposed to be a serious and tragic tale of this warlord but a lot of his actions were so melodramatic that it just negated this concept. Instead a lot of the time, his actions just brought up laughter to the audience rather than the other appropriate emotions such as sympathy and joy. The death of Hidetora was very sad but one cuodlnt help laughing at the melodrama of his death.

Well whatever it was a pretty good movie.


picture from

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/325341/76450/Kurosawa-Akira-during-the-filming-of-Ran-1985

Daughters of the dust Review- a slow poem in motion

The story line even though was clear was still vague at the same time. I know that the story is about a Gullah family who move from the Sea Islands to the mainland but there are so many aspects of the story we have to figure out for ourselves because they have been left out. This movie I feel is focused mainly from a woman’s point of view and even the whole movie focuses more on women than on men.the movie I think can be said to be African-American because that is what is focused on a lot, African-American women and their ties to slavery.

First of all the narration was a bit weird for my tastes. I thought it was pretty cool that there were three narrators but the fact that an unborn child who would run around without being seen was a narrator was weird. Another thing is that the sense of time or the order of events was not present. Did they move in a week or a year? It was just weird for me. This is a way that shows this is an alternative film narrative style film. One thing I did like was the portrayal of culture. Every movie that has a strong portrayal of culture will always give it an extra 15 points in my grading exam. The imagery is beautiful and the language seems very vivid and rich. The movie is pretty much a moving poem.

This was definitely in the alternative film narrative section because the movie definitely undermined the centrality of a main character. There was hardly a main outstanding character so in a way all of the characters were equally important. Even the little girl that was unborn was very important as she was a narrator and she was very important as she portrayed spirituality that Christianity does not agree with. The differences that this movie has compared to others is definitely purposeful because we are made to see the movie in a different point of view.

Speaking in terms of cinematography, the movie was very beautiful. The scenes were amazing, the colors great and the music was excellent and very relevant. The use of slow motion when necessary as well as running the film in real-time was well done. The portrayal of the unborn baby was pretty good as well from the running around. She was portrayed in a way that showed she wasn’t completely part of this world. It was like a see through look that wasn’t exactly see through I felt.

Another thing that was weird was the accent or dialect. To me it sounded a bit Jamaican and the accents were very thick so I couldn’t understand what they were saying. They talk about Ibo-land a lot of the time and I know that the Ibo are a tribe of people in West Africa and I know this because I come from Nigeria and a large population of Nigerians are Ibo. Why then did I not understand a lot of what they were saying especially if they kept their culture from old and how did it go from a Nigerian accent to a Jamaican one? That really threw me off.

Overall, to be honest I wish I was less tired when I watched this movie because I might have concentrated a bit more. I personally thought the movie was well done but too slow for my taste. No, no, this is a film review so I am going to be completely honest. Even though the movie was very rich and vivid, this had to be one of the most boring and slowest movies I have ever watched! Sorry, there I said it.

a kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh, my review is just a review...

Well I am not going to lie before I watched the movie I always thought of Casablanca using the peripheral route process (elaboration likelihood model theory) because I didn’t bother thinking about it. I always thought of it as old because I knew it had Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman and also I always for some reason thought it was a musical. From the cover I knew it had to do with love and I know movies back in those times had really mushy scenes where ladies would swoon onto the guy’s arms and things of that nature so I came into the movie with a contrast affected point of view (social judgment theory)

The play stars Humphrey Bogart as Rick Blaine, a very cynical but warmhearted American bar owner in Casablanca, Morocco during WW2. Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman), his former love who deserted him earlier, surfaces in Casablanca with her Resistance leader husband, Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid). "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." She definitely opened other sides of Rick that we have not seen yet and we find out why he is the way he is. Ilsa and Victor need to escape from Casablanca, and Rick has two tickets which can be used to leave the country so he is the only one who can help them. The story goes on to a sad ending; well at least for me because Blaine doesn’t end up being with Ilsa.

After watching that movie, I think of the phrase “don’t judge a book by its cover” and that completely applies to me. I think the movie was definitely a classic in so many different ways. At first I was like here we go but Bogart’s character just pulled me right into the movie but even before that the characters pretty much got me in tune. Bogart and Bergman do such a great job that whenever we see the movie we are reminded of them. Rick is this m&m of a guy(hard outside, soft inside) who has buried has past only to have it stumble into his bar and Ilsa is this girl who has had two loves but has to ultimately choose one and even her correct choice grants her with nothing. Another classical thing is how many phrases and concepts are used from this movie, “I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship” and the even more popular “here’s lookin at you kid”

I have to say that the supporting cast in my opinion were as good as the two leading stars. My two favorite supporting characters in the movie were Claude Raines who plays Captain Renault and Dooley Wilson who plays Sam. They were so great, Renaults personality and witty banter just increases the enjoyability of the movie and Sam, what a guy, Sam definitely brings the mood to the movie with his piano playing and especially the love song he sings “you must remember this…a kiss is still a kiss” that melted the hearts of a lot of viewers and so making the movie without them would have been a terrible idea. These are the characters that really did it for me

The movie is made perfectly- its romantic yet thrilling story, the songs performed by Dooley Wilson, the supporting cast, fantastic script, and the amazing cinematography. I will talk about the cinematography and mise en scene aspects of the movie in my next blog. It is definitely no mystery why Casablanca was one of the best movies ever made and why it still remains fresh even to this day. Casablanca just brings out the choices that are so tough it is heartbreaking and I have had a lot of those so maybe that is a reason why the movie appealed to me the way it did. If I were to cast a vote, I would put my vote for this movie to stay in the best films ever made category.

Here’s looking at you kid!

picture from http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.independentcritics.com/images/casablanca%2520SPLASH.jpg&imgrefurl=http://mylemonadestand.wordpress.com/2007/05/30/top-100-movie-quotes-of-all-time/&h=324&w=480&sz=99&hl=en&start=13&um=1&usg=__lPb-HHnXPmEjz2ECCobuosvCX_s=&tbnid=sOBcMETCwnFrYM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsam%2Bas%2Btimes%2Bgoes%2Bby%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

raging analysis of a crazy bull-like movie!

Ok so in order to analyze this movie fully lets go through the overview of what it was about again. The movie stars Robert De Niro as Jake LaMotta, a temperamental and very paranoid but vicious boxer and his relationship with this brother, who suffered from his rage and dark side, and his beautiful wife who was his ultimate prize. The movie focuses on his rise and falls and his alienation from his family and friends. Let’s look at the cinematography and editing in more detail. The boxing bouts were about ten minutes total but with editing, it seemed to go on for so long and that is one of the good things about editing. The other scenes were made to look more naturalistic compared to the subjectivity of the boxing ring shoots. This showed a difference in how Lamotta was portrayed and how he felt inside the ring compared to outside the ring.

Let’s talk about mise en scene and in this paragraph I want to focus on acting performance done by Robert De Niro. He was a method actor who liked to be his character completely much like Marlon Brando who I have talked about in my earlier blogs. De Niro took method acting to the max by gaining about sixty pounds in order to become the older fatter Lamotta version and the dedication to do this must have been a lot for him to go this far. This would differ from a movie like Monty Python which was very stylized in acting style because characters obviously knew there was a character and would try and interact with the crowd and spike lee did a bit of both in his movie, Do the right thing.

Another thing about the mise en scene that has to do with setting which I enjoyed was the fact that the film was done in black and white. This just showed the authenticity of the movie which differentiated from the other boxing movies as well as accentuate the times it was shot in. it was naturalistic mise en scene because it was historical because it showed that that is what movies were like in those days and also I think the black and white accentuated how the times were in a way, viewed in black and white. It was also quotidian mise en scene because it tried to show the everyday life of the Italian Americans living in the ghetto which was amazing because it showed the culture of those times which I really enjoy in movies.

Another thing was the editing that was done. One thing I like about the editing was the way the film was done in a way that unlike other boxing movies, the movie showed boxing in a way that the viewers saw what boxing is like from the actual boxer’s point of view rather than that of the audience. The slow motion to real time shots and the 360 panning showed the brutality of the boxing ring and also the two shot style that showed one boxer and then the other boxer showed the Hollywood continuity style as well as the eye line matching especially when LaMotta would go through the motion of throwing a punch and then the cut transition to a hand destroying the opponent. I liked it because it made me feel the pain and exhilaration of the boxing ring. This is one of the values of editing and it was showed here, the value of using editing to generate emotion and ideas through patterns of seeing.

I would say overall this was more a classic in film making than even the watching of the movie itself.

picture from

http://usesoapfilm.wordpress.com/2008/08/09/black-and-white-film-a-thon/

Raging bull review

I just watched the movie Raging Bull featuring Robert De Niro and I am not going to lie but I absolutely loved it. The story revolves around Jake Lamotta, an animal of a boxer who gains everything he wants, a beautiful wife, and a world title but ultimately loses it due to his insecurity. One of the main reasons I liked it was because of the cultural portrayal. If you have read some of my other blogs you might notice that culture has a lot of significance to me as I was raised that way. The film portrays the life of American Italians in the ghetto, from the loud cursing outside the apartments to the night life.

One thing that struck negative emotion was how he treated his family. I mean it was something that Italian Americans were said to have done all the time; curse, but still cursing in front of little children is bad parenting. Another thing was how he treated his wife. The whole time, I thought “If that was me, I’d do this...or that” which made me realize how good the movie was if it struck that strong of an emotion from me. His treatment of his brother was rough sometimes but then he still loved him overall and that’s what counts to me. I was happy when he felt like he didn’t need the mafia because I feel the mafia influenced a lot of things and refusing them in a movie would have been awesome but in the end it didn’t happen.

This brings me to talk more about his insecurity. He was so insecure that he would just rush to conclusions. His insecurity brought spasms of jealousy where he couldn’t believe his wife Vickie could stay faithful to him and would get fits of rage whenever she came home late or greeted other guys. I really don’t know how she stayed that long and trust me I would have done much better if she were mine. I thought the way he got her though was very interesting and funny. Anyways I liked the movie because it does the opposite of the other sports movies that show people rising to fame from nothing. Jake rises then falls which I thought was cool.

Overall, I really liked the movies story line, mise en scene and cinematography. I liked how the black-and-white cinematography (throughout the entire film except for the home video parts) was done and camera (subjective might I add) used innovative techniques including slow-motion (varying camera speeds), 360 degree pans during the fights, and titled camera. The lighting was deliberately made harsh and stark, to provide an expressionistic look and feel of the brutality inside the boxing ring. The music was very melancholy and it was used to contrast the darkness the movie was trying to portray. Overall they did a good job but I will talk about that in my next blog…so be patient.

Breathlessly weird!

The movie is about a carjacker called Michael who goes around causing drama with his girlfriend Patricia. One thing I can say about this movie is that it definitely wasn’t made Hollywood style in any way. The movie was pretty humorous but at some times annoying to watch. T he plot is not even that great but it’s more than just plot in this movie if you think about it. What I mean is plot wasn’t the only thing we were supposed to focus on. The characters definitely didn’t have a lot of depth and a lot of people might not have identified with them so much.

Another thing I want to talk about is the editing through cuts and transitions. I think they hurt more than they helped because it was just confusing and disorienting and what is the point of some of the scenes? Anyways I think there is an aspect of representation and the fact that we were wondering what just happened or second guessing. The editing is probably meant to be obvious because I think everyone could tell every cut or transition that occurred in the movie. We are not used to the visibility of cuts so it just made the movie choppy and the smoothness of movie factor was not present.

The film was supposed to show natural life I’m guessing but the way it was done made it definitely seem more like art than anything else. I felt they took out the natural aspect of the movie by the transitions used but apart from that I can still see the realism that they went for and sometimes it comes out pretty clearly. One would need a lot of patience to watch this movie and I think that is one of the problems with the people who didn’t like it because they were just not used to it and didn’t have the patience or try and look at it differently.

In the end the movie was just confusing and strange for me but I shouldn’t judge because it was the directors own style and we each have our own preferences in terms of cinematography. The editing was very visible and if they were trying to show the different ways that editing can be used then they did a marvelous job. I would say overall the movie is unique.

http://www.moviediva.com/MD_root/reviewpages/MDBreathless.htm

got the picture from here

analysis on Do the right thing!

I was thinking more about Do the right thing and I wanted to analyze it more so I will write more of my thoughts down. Radio Raheem was my favorite character in the movie so I will use him in my examples.

I really liked the camera angles used especially in the scenes with Raheem. Let us look at the scene with Raheem buying batteries from the Korean couple. When we see the couple on screen, we view them with an overhead shot signifying Raheem towering over them and them being the small ones. When we see Raheem, we see him through a low angle shot again showing him towering over them from their point of view. The same thing happened with his interactions with Sal.

Lets more look at the movie more from a “Mise en scene” perspective. I like the costumes used because it brought realism to the movie. They were supposed to be in the late 80’s/early 90’s and so what they war portrayed this. The very colorful clothing style, the haircut, and jewelry worn by Raheem just make him credible to my eye. His size obviously complemented his character so that was cool too.

In terms of acting, Radio Raheem’s performance was both stylized and naturalistic and he would switch from one style to another. Most of his acting was natural and in spike Lee’s case, there was probably some “method acting” as well. I say it was stylized because there were moments when he seemed he was fully aware he was acting as he would turn towards the camera and address the audience, his famous love versus hate monologue for example.

The prop used by Radio Raheem was a radio and it had instrumental and metaphorical significance in my eye. It was obviously used to blast music and if I had a radio like that I would seriously considering walking around my campus blasting out music. Not only was it just used for instrumental value, it was metaphorical because it represented his beliefs. The fact that he just blasted one song, “fight the power! Fight the power! Fight the power!” shows his belief in freedom of expression. When Sal breaks his radio, in a way Sal attacks his beliefs and that’s why Raheem goes crazy.

The color pattern of the movie I think was beautiful because there were scenes in which the whole frame would have a specific color. In the video I added to this blog, we can see the heat radiating off Raheem in the orange-ish frame which is beautiful. There is a lot of high key lighting that accentuated a lot of the movies objects.

In conclusion, I think Spike lee does a wonderful job with the directing and acting in the movie and I like what I saw. I will write down more notes when I have more to say.

here is the video which i found on youtube.com



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsFjlLXP9GU

p.s i really dont know how to make this a link so you might have to copy and paste. does anyone know how to make it a link?

review on Spike Lee's movie- Do the right thing!

When I watched the Spike Lee movie, Do the right thing, I definitely wasn’t expecting anything different. Well let me inform you that I already watched another one of his movies, Bamboozled, in one of my friend/professors class and after watching that movie, I was pretty prepared for something similar and I wasn’t completely shocked or taken by surprise at the intensity of the movie even though there were moments. I really liked this movie because it was challenging to me.

The movie revolves around Mookie, a young black man who works at for Sal along with his two sons at a Pizzeria. As Mookie performs the activities that make up his day we see how other characters influence him along the way and how they are all connected together and their relationships with each other. As the movie continues we see how race plays a big factor in their lives and their own views of the people of different races they interact with that day.

Another thing I like about the characters is their uniqueness and the role they play in their movies. The three middle aged men I feel dealt with tension relief as they had many funny things to say, even though some of their comments were very thought provoking. The use of stereotypes was drastically increased in this movie and it was hilarious at times but sometimes kind of going a bit far, something Lee loves to do. For example Sal, Pino and Vito always use a lot of expression using their hands and Tina always has the characteristic head shake and attitude and accent of a Latino woman. Let’s not even start with Sonny and Kim.

I don’t think the movie had the typical kind of plot that people judge movies by. It’s hard to explain but I think Lee focuses more on themes than an actual solid plot. A lot of the scenes in the movie might be called random to some critics but I think they all played a part. I feel that Lee just went to a normal street in a black neighborhood that had some Asians, whites and Latinos and just filmed scenes of daily life activities but just pumped it up with racial tension, anger, sadness, humor and violence. I feel the movie relates more to the daily life of the audience a lot more than the typical movie that comes out because it blatantly addresses issues that we try and avoid today and he puts it out in the open and leaves us to decide what to do with it.

I actually like the cinematography of this movie. I like the colors used in the movie. There was a lot of soft lighting used whenever they were inside which made the rooms have this jazzy soft sultry feeling to it. The cinematographer used a lot of orange and a lot of the scenes had beige like gold tint to it which was really cool. We could tell when the sun came up and when the sun came down because it would get really orangish. The camera angles were pretty cool too but I will talk about that in my next blog so don’t worry, just stay tuned.

Job well done, Willis old boy! analysis on the godfather

Let us talk more about the movie, The Godfather. In the last blog I wrote, I gave general praises on the overall coolness of the movie, but this time let us look into the movie in a more detailed fashion. I will talk about the colors and lighting as well as some themes I thought about.

Let us look at one of the biggest concepts of cinematography that actually made the movie what it is today; the use of color and shadow. The cinematographer responsible, Gordon Willis, would get nothing less than a hug from me if I ever met him. From one of my inside sources, I hear that he originally used the overhead lighting in the beginning of the scene for Brando’s make up but saw something that could be worked with, thus continuing this effect throughout the whole movie. Good now that we are on the topic of the beginning, let us concentrate on the first twenty minutes of the movie so I can give you my examples of excellent cinematography. Come and take a visual walk with me.

When we think of criminal underworld what do we think of? We think of some bad deed happening in the shelter of darkness. We see crimes going on at night time. In conclusion there is general darkness to it, whether literally or psychologically. See how the movie starts. The beginning shots set the whole tone for the movie and we see this dark tone in the film. We can only see a person’s face as the camera slowly moves towards him. The light is above him so there are shadows under his eyes magnifying the hatred in his voice and we don’t even know who he is talking to. We have a setting of darkness and mystery already. Pretty sweet huh.

One theme that ties with this opening scene is the inside view of the family vs. the outside view. We constantly see two sides of the family but incorporated into one. We see the normal jovial side of the family and then we see the darkness business side of the family. We see them separately in some scenes and interwoven in others. The beginning of the movie is a perfect example because we see this bright busy wedding and then we see the business going on inside where it is dark and quiet. We see this theme of light transitioning to dark and large transitioning to small.

Another thought this brings is the concept of props used in the movies which ties directly with the theme I just expressed as well as the use of light and darkness. I would like to say the doors and windows serve as symbols in this movie and again I will use the first couple of scenes to illustrate this. We constantly see Don Corleone looking out of the window. We constantly see the door open and close as well. When the door opens we see people bustling and laughing and having fun, basically the concepts that make a family and accompanied with this is the happy jovial music but when the door closes all this vanishes. The doors and windows are the barriers that separate the blood relations family from the crime family. What I mean by this is that the business dealt in both sides are family business but in different aspects. One is happiness and connection and the other is crime, corruption and death. The doors and windows are used to physically show us the difference between these two.


Go and take a deep breath…go and stretch for five minutes and then come back. Don’t worry I am nearly done.

Ok back to my analysis. The cinematography is also used to help generate moods and feelings from the viewers as well as to have a psychological effect on us. Let us go to the hospital scene where Michael goes to visit his father after an attempt on his life had taken place and he was rushed to the hospital with five bullets in him (what a champion). When Michael gets out of the taxi, we already get a bad tingling in our bones because we feel that something isn’t right from the way the dark gothic hospital looms over him.

As he walks down the hallways our hearts are starting to get restless due to the empty hallways portrayed perfectly by the extreme long shots. All the while the tension inducing “something’s going to happen soon/horror music” isn’t helping with the beating heart situation either. He notices little things that say people left in haste like a half eaten sandwich and when he starts running the music quickens, making our hearts beat faster. When they move his father and we hear someone coming up the stairs, it’s the slow but volume increasing footsteps that make us even tenser. Do you see what I mean by the cinematography helps with the generation of certain moods? Ok good.

One of the scenes I really like is how they spend time to show Sicily culturally using cinematography. I really like movies that show the setting in detail so that we can get an aspect of what a setting is all about. When we first come to Sicily, we get this wide shot of a hilly countryside with houses sitting so finely on the hill. It is a bright sunny day and birds are singing. We are moved from this modern life to a life of simplicity. People are dressed as peasants with the traditional clothing. We see wide and long angle shots ranging from a whole landscape to simple streets. We have nice music playing in the background. I love Sicily and the portrayal of it just made me smile during this part of the movie.

Overall my comment is that the lighting which consisted of minimal lighting and under-exposure and also had a lot of yellow-red in it made the movie what it is and the quality gave it a kind of antiquity to it if you will. This also goes towards the themes and symbols from the movies. These symbols and themes make the movie what it is and hopefully one day when a movie about my life is made, cinematographer will use a creative style like the one used in The Godfather….well a bit brighter though.

I got the picture from http://www.timeout.com/film/newyork/gallery/features/3170/take-five-with-gordon-willis.html

i have an offer you cant refuse...read this

I just watched The Godfather and I don’t think I’ve watched so great a movie in a while (apart from the diving bell and butterfly of course.)We can see why this movie is one of the most looked to, parodied, quoted and imitated movies of all time. The acting was superb and the movie just brought this air of antiquity that other movies don’t even come close to. The script, music, the cast and the directing as well as cinematography just brings the excellence to the movie that a lot of movies will never come near. The range of the actors was amazing and it just showed how everyone in the mafia had their own characteristics. Some hotheaded like “sonny,” some calm like Don, some struggling even though they try like Fredo and some changing like Michael.

I think what really appealed to me the most was the portrayal of culture. The culture of the Italians was portrayed perfectly. Everything was concerned with family. It wasn’t just a business, it was the family business. The movie just brings out the everyday lifestyle of the mafia, showing that it was hard work and not just killing spree after killing spree. There are so many rich scenes full of culture in the movie. We see how the Italians live in America vs. Sicily and the similarities and differences in both contexts. We are introduced to family customs and values and we see the relationships between father and sons. Notice how they said the mafia consisted of five “families” and not business owners.

The movie also brings morality to something as heartless as syndicate crime. The don’s ethics brought a nod of agreement to a lot of heads from the audiences and I believe that is another reason that Don Corleone had to be one of the greatest fictional characters of all time. The sense of family love and protection was just as great as the other crimes committed. It was strictly business and the family matters were different. It just brought a sense of love and protection and that the family always comes first. I also liked how they put an outsider like Kay to see her point of view to show how outsiders had no clue or were in the mist about the business of the family.

One thing I thought about was just the commonness of death that was portrayed. People would just die left and right and it was just life. They portray a lot of deaths from the family as something that was unwanted but not unexpected because I feel other family members would be more devastated than the way this family took it. Even the death of the Godfather was really cool because tomatoes are very important to Italians and for him to die in a patch of growing tomatoes was just the significance of how life goes on.

We can see that this is definitely Francis Coppola’s work because of the use of lighting and fixtures in this movie. The shadow cast on the face of Don Corleone just gives him a presence that we can feel, one who has great power and of course with that great responsibility( thanks Uncle Ben!) the application of shadow and light was well done bringing out the mysteriousness in all the characters. Lighting is also used to see how Michael Corleone is transformed from this schoolboy to the next Don which is amazing. With this cinematography we can feel the kind of era this movie was set in and how dark the times were but don’t worry, I will write more about the cinematography on the next one and that’s an offer you can’t refuse!

oh and p.s i got the picture from here- http://workitmom.com/bloggers/workitdad/files/2008/04/godfather.jpg

lets analyze this apocalypse now movie!

In my last film blog I talked about Apocalypse Now and my opinions on the movie. This time I want to talk about the film more from a cinematographically point of view rather than just resting on my personal opinion alone. As far as cinematography goes, I think Apocalypse Now did a pretty fine job. The use of color was fantastic because
it wasn’t random but the lighting used was symbolic and had meaning to it. Another good job done was with the framing of the characters in the movie.

One of the best parts of the movie that appealed to me was one of the first scenes. The scene shows a ravaged battle field in a moving frame but it had a faded in
background of Willard all in the same frame and I thought that was cool because the
cinematographer and director probably wanted to show us what he had been through and that his mind was kind of like that battle field. At least that is what I felt. The depth of field there was tight considering the closed room that Willard was in.

Another thing of similarity was when the boat they were in was near Kurtz’ domain and we see a faded in shot of two heads and we can see the boat entering the two heads signifying how near they were. In the end they do the same thing with the boat leaving the same way with the faded in shots of the two heads and I thought that was cool.

Another good use of different filming angles was the battle scene when the helicopters fought the villagers. There is a good use of high angle and also low angle shots. On the way there, there are some good overhead shots looking down at the village from the point of view of the helicopters and it was cool because it was an overhead shot but also a moving frame so we get to have the full point of view experience. We can also see the villager’s point of view as the choppers attack. Another cool thing I thought about this scene was the range of colors from the green smoke when the choppers land vs. the yellowy background of the battle.

Again ill reiterate the importance of color in this movie. The whole frame had specific colors in some parts of the movie for example when they go to look for mangoes, the whole screen seems blue and also after the death of one of the crew members, it’s all blue again. When Lance the surfer opens up the purple flare and calls it purple haze I believe it shows that their experiences are just feeding into their insanity like purple haze feeds ones addiction. Another part was when Willard finally confesses his destination to the crew, the sky and water become grey just like the feelings of the crew. They knew it was going to be darkness ahead so it was perfect the way it was visually portrayed.

Now that we are talking about color let’s move on to the use of shadows vs. light. I thought they did an excellent job with this because it was used to represent good vs. evil and sanity vs. insanity. Kurtz face is drowned in shadow when we first meet him signifying the insanity that has surrounded him. Come to think of this, in the earlier scene with the craziness that was going on where the soldiers didn’t have a commanding officer, their faces were smothered in darkness too showing their insanity and it was dark out, but a darker than usual dark showing insanity. Anyways after Kurtz gets killed, Willard is drowned in shadow as well showing how he becomes just like Kurtz except he leaves this behind when he exits the island in the end of the movie.

Wow Marlon Brando is so fat in this movie. Way to use the darkness to hide this fact. Good job because I would be embarrassed as well.

I liked the use of proximity in this movie. In one of the scenes they just killed a bunch of Vietnamese people and took a puppy and the puppy is showed out of focus in the next scene showing that the dog wasn’t the most important thing in the scene but was still pretty important because we wonder if they kept it. The bridge was also a good example because they used a long shot there so we could see what was going on and then the close up shots of the soldiers and the looks on their faces.

Overall I thought the cinematographer and the director did a pretty good job and I would not have changed much if it were me. Oh and by the way one thing I forgot to say is now that I think about it; I didn’t think the ending was all that spectacular apart from the colors used. Kurtz wanted to die like a soldier but he died like an ox, an animal. Or maybe there was more to that. What do you guys think?

Film Review on Apocalypse Now

So I watched Apocalypse Now and I thought it was a pretty good movie. I had a long day and started to feel my eyes close at the beginning scenes but then it gets more captivating and I was shaken out of sleep after the first twenty minutes. One thing I didn’t like about the movie was the extreme violence and also the fact that I feel like I was feeling the tension that they had in the boat, which I guess shows that the movie as a well directed one because of this reason.

The movie is about a Captain who is sent towards Cambodia to assassinate a former Colonel who has set himself up as a godlike figure to a village of mixed rebels. As he and a crew taking him there experience the hardships and tension of the mission, they have to battle the insanity that is slowly trying to take over. Captain Willard experiences the same thing that changed the former Colonel and slowly starts to see from his point of view as the movie progresses.

I like the movie as well because it wasn’t completely just a war story but more psychological towards the end as well. Why do I say this? Look at the mental state of the crewmembers of the boat as they keep moving closer towards Brando’s Character. They start yelling at each other, doing crazy stuff, smoking more; they even kill a whole Vietnamese peasant boat crew because they were so high strung. A girl made a sudden move and “clean” got so freaked out he started shooting and they only realize it was to protect a dog. Brando’s character, Colonel Kurtz is completely messing with their heads too it seems and the more Captain Willard advances to him and finds out about him, the more he becomes like Kurtz. Oh and it was cool to see a young Laurence Fishburne.

Another aspect of the movie that I liked was the color choices. There is a scene where cook goes to look for mangoes and Captain Willard goes with. The scene is in all blue, the sky, the jungle, everything and I thought it was really cool. I seem to think this represents depression because in the scene after “Clean” dies, the next scene is filmed in all blue as well. During the war scene involving the bombing of the enemy base there are a medley of different colors, brown green, blue and others. The use of darkness was very critical during the movie because it symbolizes evil and insanity that slowly spreads around to everyone.

In conclusion, I thought the movie was really good and I will probably watch it again when I feel the mood to do so.

lets float away as we dive into the cinematographical point of view of the diving bell and the butterfly!!

First of all something I didn’t mention in my first blog is that this is a true story.

One thing I loved with the movie is the point of view used. The diving bell and the butterfly’s cinematography definitely separated it from the movies we usually watch, even the one where the actors point of view is portrayed. The point of view is completely subjective when it is used as we experience his emotions, we can hear and experience his beliefs, feelings and opinions on various topics. I admire how the movie starts with the opening of his eyes. I could tell it was through someone’s point of view but I was impressed at how real it seemed.

The movie was fuzzy at first when Jean-Do first wakes up. The fuzziness at first just like someone would experience when they first woke up. This is amazing depth-of-field work because there were even scenes when we could see a watery kind of field or lens signifying how we see the world through watery eyes. After a bit his eyes get used to the light but the background isn’t as focused on as the people who are closely observing him. I loved it! When his eyes were sewn shut, we could see the red coloring signifying the brightness of the outside light against his skin color.

The other characters are in close proximity because everyone is near him, staring at him. A point of cinematographical genius was when the medical doctor told him to follow the light. The background was dark except for the bright fluorescent like light and when the light moved so did mine! Our eyes are attracted to light and so it was only natural for us to follow it as well. Did anyone else notice that? Later on there are more pans and tilts as he get stronger and is able to look around his environment.

The proximity got further and further as the movie progressed finally moving to an outside point of view, when we first start observing him from the outside. The proximity of the character compared to the audience was random as at first we might see him from far off and then we might see him sitting right in front of the camera.

I will write more when I think of more things to write!

the picture was from http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/photos/2007/08/butterfly_yellow-flowers_detail_01.jpg

film review on the diving bell and the butterfly

The movie that I am going to review is The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. When I first heard the title of the movie and I heard the movie was going to be in French, I was pretty skeptical about watching it but I would soon be proved wrong. I absolutely enjoyed the Diving bell and the Butterfly and I am going to state the various reasons why I thought so.

The movie is about the experiences and tribulations of Jean-Dominique Bauby before and after a massive stroke that left him paralyzed from head to toe. He gives us his ideas and views on life as he lives with this condition he has called locked in syndrome. The only thing he can control is his left eye and eyelid which he uses to communicate. He ends up compose a book this way which I think is completely amazing. They reveal little things about his past as the movie goes on and people in his life that are important to him. Ten days after the publication of his book he dies of Pneumonia. I really liked the way the movie wasn’t softened and sugarcoated. Movies like this are usually used to aim for box office status or for those who want to have a good cry for the fact of just feeling like crying.

An aspect I liked about the movie was that for a long part of the movie, we could see through his point of view. They gave us the full scope of empathy in which to partake in seeing what he was going through. The opening of the movie was brilliant as it started with the opening of his eyes. We get to see his eye get sewn shut also from his point of view which was cinematically brilliant. I also like how they slowly transitioned from his point of view to the audience looking at him.

I think the strongest reason I liked this movie was the cinematical representation of Jean-Do’s imagination. I loved the butterfly as a symbol of his imagination because after the accident, his imagination bloomed from his previous closed cocoon view of life. The butterfly is free to fly anywhere and that is exactly what his did. I loved the part where he says the only two things that aren’t paralyzed are his imagination and memories and immediately we are given a flood of different scenes used with different kinds of film! AMAZING! One of the best scenes was the scene where they show his tube pertaining to the fact that he can’t eat. He crushes everyone’s sadness by stating that he can actually eat anything he wants and they show him devouring an amazing looking seafood dinner. The cinematography of his imagination was beautiful. I will talk about it later though.

The acting I felt was completely superb. The emotion portrayed through jean-do’s voice when he talks about the sadness he feels when his children come visit him, the emotions his father feels when he calls Jean-do in the hospital was so intense and real that I nearly cried (were in the safety nest so this stays here!). I would never cry at a silly movie like the notebook so it tells you how moved I was at their pain. These kinds of situations where people are suffering are really hard to watch sometimes and I liked how the movie portrayed his stress and pain without sugarcoating it at all.

What a movie! Ten out of ten

thoughts on the 1998 remake of psycho

My opinion on the 1998 remake of Psycho is that it wasn’t that badly done. It was pretty good on the contrary. I mean naturally it’s not as good as the original or actually let me rephrase that, it has its differences, but see the thing is I cannot say that for everybody because everyone has their own unique perception and when it comes to movies, everyone is different. People tend to say it is not as good as the original because they use the original to base the performance of the remake but some people see it as better because it is newer and by that I mean it is closer to the movies of today as it was made for today’s audience. It seems more realistic and it is faster paced. People of today see melodrama as corny and there were a lot of corny moments in the original that the remake does not have, for example, the famous hotel scene where Marion offers to lick the stamps in the original.

There were a lot of differences in the remake and as I said, this movie is much faster paced than the original. Let’s analyze the hotel scene for example. Marion seems much less caring and melodramatic in the remake and Sam’s personality is much different and in my opinion better and more believable. I like the fact that they updated little things like the money stolen for example from 40 thousand to 400 thousand, which today is more believable. Marion in the remake seems less nervous in her runaway scenes and I hope everyone agrees with me on this. Look at the original. Everything she did was completely nerve racking for her as well as for us from seeing her boss on the road going through the California Charlie scene till the hotel scene. California Charlie himself is different and he had a kind of sleaziness to him. He didn’t even notice the Cop at all and probably didn’t even care if he did after she left.

I would like to comment on the color scheme as well. The movie looked very orangish if I am not mistaken. She wore a lot of orange and the background seemed orange in comparison as well. To me I felt that the new director in a way was trying to commit the movie and still keep a black and white kind of view despite the fact that the movie was in color. Apparently I heard that green was the new color of evil. I mean even though it was a sheik, colorful movie (or so I thought), I would have still stuck to black because green is too bright a color for darkness but that’s just me. What do you guys think?

I just want to make a small comment about Vince Vaughn as a small tangent. In order to get the full experience I feel people should watch this before any of Vince’s newer comedic movies. Well because if you watch the movie with the mindset of Wedding Crashers or Old School then just seeing him will put a smile on your face and his laugh will set you bursting with laughter. I think Vince did a good job because even though he didn’t have the originality or the thinness of Anthony Perkins (I say this because Anthony’s bony, skinny face did worked better with shadows ads it made him look more mysterious and creepy whereas Vince’s shadow work just made him look like he’d been swimming in Twinkies), he did a really fine job to portray creepiness.

Now that were talking about creepiness lets discuss Anthony’s portrayal of Norman compared to Vince’s portrayal of Norman. I think Anthony Perkins did a much better job of course because not only was he physically perfect for the role, his acting was better too. Perkins made Norman seem so innocent like a child which made the movie scarier after our realization of Norman as mother. Vince didn’t do a bad job as I said earlier but Vince looks more grown up and manly than Anthony making him seem more threatening. We see Vince as threatening from the start whereas we saw Anthony as innocent and even pitiful. Marion in the original isn’t really creeped out but amused by Norman whereas in the remake we can tell that she is creeped out from the beginning. After their talk she doesn’t seem repentant at all but just wants to leave. The masturbation scene was pretty disturbing but today we need something that really creeps us out and that did the trick so well done.

I just wanted to say that the scariness of the remake is different because they wanted to go for the immediate scariness not the later scariness of realization that Norman and Mother are the same. The energy takes place in different parts in both movies so where one part would be slow in one, the other would be faster and vice versa. So in those ways the remake did well even though personally I think the original was much better. Please comment so I can see what you guys thought. i will update this after I have more time to reflect

film review on Alfred Hitchcocks "Psycho"

I don’t think I am exaggerating when I confidently say that Psycho was the best psychological thriller or best horror movie if you will, of its era. The master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock, certainly delivered no disappointments when he released this movie in 1960. The movie is basically about Marion Crane, a real estate agents secretary, who runs away with $40, 000. She meets a motel owner, Norman Bates, a quiet man who lives at the house on top of the hill with his dominating mother. Marion goes missing and then so does Arbogast, an investigator and it is up to Marion’s sister and lover to find out what happens and the amazing twists that ends the movie. Every second left us thirsting for more and I am not going to lie but I was peeking from behind my hands a good bit of the time I watched the movie. Hitchcock’s genius is revealed because there are only three or four scenes with gruesome violence but the setting scenes just bring a flood of suspense and drama to keep the movie going.

Norman Bates is one of Hitchcock’s best characters and from the moment we meet him we know that he is going to play a big part of the movie. Just from his reserved yet strange personality to his quotes like “We all go a little crazy sometimes” or “mother isn’t herself today”(which actually shows Hitchcock’s love for irony), Hitchcock sets our hearts beating as we watch the film. Hitchcock shows us the potential of the human character when it has been abused like that of the character of Norman Bates. We can’t even call him the bad guy because like the shrink said, it was his mother pulling the strings. How can a gentle man like him have that inside? How does one person have two different identities, one strong enough to overcome the body that isn’t even hers? Hitchcock is a genius for sure.

The cinematography of the movie was phenomenal. The best scene that demonstrates Hitchhock's genius was the scene where Mama (I can bet you at this point nobody figured out the killer was Norman Bates himself) runs out the door from the side and stabs Arbogast. Believe me I jumped when the perfectly executed scene took place. The camera view was perfect and when the door flies open and mother runs from the side and stabs Arbogast and he falls, we see the look on his face as does so. “Wow I know the secret to mother and Norman but now I’m going to die”. Genius! Watching horror movies from the past, I haven’t even flinched because of the violence I am used to in movies so that must have had quite an effect with the audience of that time period. The music is very important to the movie because it gave life to it and it was what kept our hearts beating the whole time because it kept us expectant. The use of darkness was a great tool as well because this gave us the feeling of evil from the night time darkness outside to the darkness of the interior of the car.

Lastly I just want to talk about the background voices, which I think were genius. When Marion drives away and we can hear her boss and his client talking, is it her imagination or are they really talking? I only say this because she starts to smile as if she can hear the voices when they discover that she is gone with the money. And at the end of the movie we can hear Mothers voice which is truly terrifying and honestly genius. Is it Mother actually talking or just Norman pretending mother is talking? She completely dominates his will so it might be truly her.