30 March 2012

The Thing (2011)


          Essential plot rundown:  A group of scientists discover a shape-shifting alien.  This is suppose to be a prequel to John Carpenter's masterpiece The Thing (1982).  However, it feels more like a remake.  The plot is basically the same except for, here, we see the discovery of the alien.  It reminded me of Let The Right One In and Let Me In.  They tell the same story, but do it in different ways.  While the John Carpenter's version focuses more on atmosphere and tension, this one mainly uses jump scares and what not.

          I wanted to be as unbiased as I could while watching this.  I wanted to judge it based on its own merits.  But I couldn't help but compare it to the original.  (Yes, I know the real original came out 1951.  But, for the sake of this post, I'll call John Carpenter's version the "original").  And I'll just start with the obvious: the thing.  This movie uses CG to create the alien.  And it looks fake.  Not once did I ever feel like it was actually there.  I mean, just look at the above picture: it just doesn't look real!  The original used animatronics and practical FX and it looked amazing!  It's kind of sad to see a movie look less real than its predecessor from 30 years earlier.  And I felt it relied too much on the "monster" aspect of the creature.  It can perfectly duplicate an living thing, yet spends most of its time as some gangly mess of grotesque body parts.  Now, don't get me wrong, I thought the alien looked cool; it's just over used.  (And it looked more like a video game alien than a movie alien).

          Also, I never cared.  For anything.  This movie was not engaging at all.  I didn't care for the characters.  I didn't care for what was happening.  And, there were some parts that it seemed like the actors didn't care either.  When they first discover the alien, nobody is really excited; they almost act like it's a common occurrence to discover aliens.  I mean, personally, I would be freaking out!  And there was no rise in energy.  (I don't think that's the word I want).  I was never scared, nervous, excited, happy, etc.  It was an emotional flatline.  There was no buildup or anything.  Things just kind of happen.

          So, overall, it's not a bad movie, nor is it good.  It's just there.  It wouldn't do any harm to see it; but you're not missing out on anything if you don't.

And this poster slightly offends me.
If I'm not mistaken, that image is taken from the original, not the prequel.

     But that's just my opinion...





28 March 2012

The Robocop Remake


          So far I've been fairly unbiased about the news for the upcoming Robocop remake.  I knew it was being remade and was incredibly excited to see which direction they took it.  I knew that Jose Padilha was helming it.  But I had no idea who he was so I had no opinion.  And a few weeks ago they announced that Joel Kinnaman (The Killing) was going to be donning the iconic helmet.  I've only seen him in The Darkest Hour and I barely remembered him from it, so I didn't have an opinion to give.

I just hope they let him keep that stache...

But, today I read some new news and decided it was time to speak up.

     You can read the same news HERE

          So, the reason that I was excited for the remake was to see how they interpreted it.  Robocop was a big, bulky slow-moving character.  And for the 1980s, I imagined that it worked fine.  But, 20 years later, the world is a different place and movie audiences want different things.  In a world where Iron Man gracefully kicks butt, I imagine it would be hard for a character like that portrayed in the original Robocop to find place.  I anticipated to see what the design would look like.  Would they be faithful and make him bulky?  Or would they modernize him, making him more Iron Man-ish?  I would imagine it would look something like this:

Click HERE for artist's blog

And I would totally be fine if they used a design similar to that above.  It's still Robocop, but looks modern.  And I was excited.  But then I read the following statement:

     "Our vision of how a robot is going to be in 2046, it's going to be a very human skin, it's gonna look very human."

...and died a little inside.  Human?!?  Robocop can't look human!  At first I just thought it sounded stupid.  Why would you want to see a robot cop that looks like a human?  Just go watch The Blade Runner or something.  One of the things that make Robocop so appealing is his sweet design.  He is definitely a recognizable character.  But, I was thinking some more and thought the following:  By making him look more human, they are compromising his character.  One of the main themes of the original classic was Alex Murphy's fall from human and his slow journey to regain his humanity.  The reason his journey was so hard was that he only had a few fragmented memories and his face.  But, other than that, he was a machine.  He could never regain his former life as Alex Murphy.  While he regained his humanity, he could never be human again.

          But, if they make him "look very human" than that...um, well...makes him human.  I see that whole struggle going out the window.  If he looks human and still has his memories, what is going to keep him from going back to his life as Alex Murphy?  That was the whole character's arch.  If he doesn't fight for that, then what will he fight for?  I don't know; maybe it will all make sense once I see the final product.  I still have hopes for the remake and am looking forward to it.

          But, now the next big question is:  Will ED-209 be in it...?

     But that's just my opinion...



26 March 2012

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)


          Essential plot rundown:  An innocent man is convicted of murder and copes with life in prison.  I have a feeling I missed something as I watched this because I didn't think it was anything special.  I was expecting something more.

          The thing that bugged me the most was the plot.  (Or character development.  I'm not sure which category it falls under).  Tim Robbins character (Andy) goes to prison.  Then he does taxes.  Then he runs the library.  Then he teaches a guy to read good.  Then he escapes.  I never felt like there was any forward progression in movie.  I didn't feel that Andy's character evolved at all.  He seemed to be the same character when he left as he was when he came in.  I couldn't see any growth.  I also never thought that there was anything at stake.  There were no real scenes of tension; nothing for me to anticipate.  I guess that there was that one character who knew the real murderer; but nothing came of it.  Maybe knowing that Andy would escape at the end kind of ruined it for me(?) I never felt invested in what was going on.  Sure, I felt bad when people got beat up or whatever.  But it happened right from the get-go and so often that I guess I just kind of accepted it; it became normal.

          I don't know what I'm trying to say exactly.  Basically, it never engaged me: dramatically, visually, or emotionally.  So, overall, it's not a bad film.  But I do not see what all the hype.  If I failed to see the real meaning of the film, please, let me know.


     But that's just my opinion...




23 March 2012

Stephenie Meyer (trailer)


          No, this isn't a trailer for a movie about Stephenie Meyer.  It is actually two trailers for movies based on her books:  The Host and Breaking Dawn: part 2.  I saw both of these last night when I saw The Hunger Games.  And normally, I talk about trailers that look good.  But, I decided to mix things up because these two trailers are too bad not to talk about.  Let's start with The Host.

     Watch the trailer HERE

          This probably has to be the worst trailer I have ever seen.  Why is it no longer my world?  And when were we ever battling for it?  And who is "us"?  And why will I become one of you?  I have no idea what this movie is about and the trailer doesn't help.  It makes me more curious to know what happened to the world than what happened afterwards.  And what is up with all of the creepy still photos?  I have never seen that before in a trailer.  Will the movie just be an 1 1/2 photo montage?  Cuz that would be lame.  Essentially, this trailer leaves me confused but with no real desire to find out more.  However, Saoirse Ronan will be starring in it; which gives me mixed feelings.  I really like her (Hanna was awesome) but I would hate to see her do something stupid.

          Moving on.  This is the only trailer I could find for the final installment of the Twilight series.  I may update it to a better vid when I find one.  But, I probably won't because I'm lazy and Twilight doesn't deserve it.

     Click HERE for awesome bootlegged-ness!

          This just looks ridiculous.  Bella says:  "I finally found that I could shine."  And by "shine", do you mean "sparkle"?  That seems like an odd thing to single out about being a vampire.  And the thought of Bella hunting down a deer is extremely laughable.  I would probably pay $8 just for that one scene.

          Both of these trailers just look really bad.  I don't know how The Host will turn out but the trailer doesn't give me much hope.  And I know that Breaking Dawn: part 2 will be so bad that it is good.  As in I will probably be laughing the whole way through it.

     But that's just my opinion...



The Hunger Games (2012)


          Essential plot rundown:  Katniss must fight for to the death in a yearly competition.  Before I get started, I'll say that I did read the books, so I am slightly biased.  However, I always try not to judge a movie based on its book because they are two totally different mediums.  But, then again, there are always good adaptations and bad.

          I think I'll start from the beginning of the film:  it was horrible.  I remember thinking Wow, if the whole movie is like this, this is going to be a waste of 2 1/2 hours of my time.  The whole things happens so quickly that there is no character development.  I didn't get to care for Gale.  (I barely knew who he was).  And when Primrose was selected, the only reason I cared was because she was a 12 year old girl going to a death match; not because I cared for her specifically.  It could have been any other little girl and it would have had the same impact.

          Katniss also has a pin that is suppose to have some kind of special meaning.  But it has none; it added nothing to the story.  Katniss buys it for Prim and Prim gives it right back 5 minutes later.  She takes it into the arena with her, but for what purpose?  So she can look at it and think I bought this for Prim, but she returned it before I left.  It would have been more meaningful if Prim kept it, that way it would have been a reminder of Katniss; but in the movie it's a reminder of nothing.  (I don't know why I'm making a big deal out of this; they only show the thing two times).

          But, probably the worst part (because it is always present) was the cinematography.  It is way too shaky in the beginning, almost nauseating.  There is a time and a place for handheld, shaky shots.  But people standing around in a big group is not one of them.  It only bothered me in the beginning; the rest of the movie was fine.  So, I don't know if I just got use to it, or if they used it less or because there was actually some action going on to merit its use.

          One last thing before I move on to the rest of the film.  When Katniss volunteers, her district gives her some kind of hand gesture.  In the book (if I remember correctly) it had some kind of special meaning.  But that is not explained in the movie; so it just comes across looking kind of weird.

          Ok, let's move on.  When the competition first starts, there is a fight for supplies.  And this fight was surprisingly bloody.  I was expecting violent, but not blood.  When people get stabbed, there are blood spurts and blood on the weapons.  Usually PG-13 movies only have violence and the lack of blood is what separates them from R rated movies.  (From my experience that is how it seems to be).  So, yea, the blood came as a shock.

          I thought most of the actors did a good job.  But the one that stood out to me was Josh Hutcherson (who plays Peeta).  There were a few parts where his acting was subpar.  But, the main thing was he came across as a super likable guy.  In the book, he's charismatic and that is what he has going for him.  So I felt they did a good job of casting him.

          I also really liked the addition of the control room.  In the book, you know that the competition and the environment was being controlled; but the movie shows you how.  That is all I really have to say about that.  It just added a cool dimension to the film.

          Now it's time for another bad.  During the competition, a group of other tributes join in a group, looking for Katniss.  But the whole time they were laughing and joking around.  They didn't seem to be taking the game seriously.  They came across more like a group of "cool" high school kids, picking on the nerds as oppose to a group of kids fighting for their lives.  They seemed way too lighthearted for their situation.

          Before, I mentioned that there is no character development in the beginning.  This is actually true for the whole movie.  I never really came to care about any of the characters.  And that is probably the biggest flaw of the movie.  There were several scenes that were meant to be emotional.  But, because I didn't care for the characters, they weren't.  The biggest example was Rue's death.  She is helping Katniss, only to get killed.  Katniss cries and covers her with flowers.  I know I should be feeling something, but I was only introduced to her like 5 minutes ago.  Luckily, they followed it with a scene of her family back home and that really did add to the emotional impact.  So basically, there were several scenes that I knew were suppose to be emotional and dramatic, but because I didn't care for the characters, I felt nothing.  (But maybe I'm just cold-hearted.  Who know).

          But, overall it is a good movie.  For the most part, they did a good job of adapting it to the big screen.  There were a few things in need of improvement but they don't hinder the movie.


     But that's just my opinion...





22 March 2012

Rubber (2010)


          Essential plot rundown:  A tire blows people's heads up, for no reason -or- WTF just happened?  This was a really interesting movie.  The concept was novel.  Basically, a tire goes around killing people, while a group of spectators watch.  Nothing is ever explained.  Things just happened.  Well, there is an introduction at the beginning that explains that Rubber is an homage to certain things.  And thats all we get.  (And that was probably the best part of the movie).

          I wanted to like this movie more than I did.  I liked the concept and idea. However, it just moves too slow.  There's the intro scene which is really cool but then nothing really happens for 20 minutes.  And the ending dragged on for way too long.  Actually, that is the only down side:  it moves too slow.  Everything else I liked.

          I really thought the cinematography was great.  Most of the movie takes place in the desert with a tire, neither of which are interesting subjects.  But, there are a lot of cool camera angles and compositions that make for an esthetically pleasing film.

          Overal, a decent film.  Story: good.  Cinematography: good.  Pacing: bad.  And that's really all I have to say about Rubber.  It's worth checking out, but you won't be thinking about it the next day.



     But that's just my opinion...




21 March 2012

Nature is Beautiful (time lapse)


          So, I just watched a video that had links to some more videos.  And I really liked the other videos, so I thought I would share them.

     But first, HERE is the original video.  (It's a DIY filmmaking news show).

          He talks about some interesting stuff and has links to some other cool videos.  But I just want to focus on the time lapse ones.  Because they are really cool.

     Click HERE to see some starfish freeze to death.

     And click HERE to see the/a/this (I'm not sure of the proper way to refer to it) aurora borealis.

          These are amazing.  They really make me appreciate the beauty of the world around us.  We truly do live in an incredible place.  And I am thankful that God designed it that way.  And I am glad that we have the technology to capture, preserve and share moments like this.  It's great.

          And that's it.  Just felt like sharing these two vids.



     But that's just my opinion...



20 March 2012

Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)


          Essential plot rundown:  The most popular kid in school calls in sick in order to hang out with his friends.  This is a funny movie.  A little crude, but funny.

          The humor in this was well written.  I was laughing the whole time and none of the jokes really felt forced.  I especially liked the secretary (played by Edie McClurg).  She was superb.  I felt all the actors did good in their roles.  However, I have mixed feelings about Bueller.  He's kind of a jerk.  He essentially bullies his friend into hanging out with him.  He had good intentions, he just went about them in the wrong way.

          I liked the themes that were presented.  1)  Enjoying life and 2)  Standing up for yourself.  At the beginning and end, Bueller says:  "Life moves pretty fast.  If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it", which I personally think is true.  It was also cool to see (well, you never actually see it) Cameron stand up for himself.  He makes some comment about not letting things  unfold anymore that will determine his life but how he's taking charge.  I thought it was a nice little scene.

          Also, it was fun to see Charlie Sheen in the police station.  And, I'm just going to throw it out there, but those 80's babes were pretty fly...

          Overall, a pretty funny show.  It has good acting and some other good stuff.  It's 2 o'clock in the AM and I'm really tired.


     But that's just my opinion...



          

19 March 2012

TMNT vs TANC


          Ok, I've heard about this a while ago but forgot until my friend posted about it on his blog.  (Check it out HERE).  But, it seems that Michael Bay is going to reboot TMNT.  Which, in and of itself, I don't have a problem with.  I think it would be interesting to see what he does with it.  However, I found out one thing he does want to do with it and no me gusta.

     HERE is what he said about his upcoming project.

          First of all, that sentence barley made sense.  (But that's besides the point).  The real problem is that he wants to change them from being "mutants" to being "aliens".  What? Why?  That doesn't make any damn sense.  No, no it doesn't.  But, I guess Bay wants the kids to believe that these turtles do exist.  So, logically, by making them aliens, they become more realistic.  Cuz everyone knows that aliens are more real than mutants.  Wait, what?  Don't these kids know that they are going to see a movie and that, kind of by default, those things don't exist?  Yea, well, I don't even know.  Maybe Bay is talking about a specific group of kids that are very impressionable.  Hang on.  If they are "alien", doesn't that mean they won't be "turtles" either, since turtles are kind of from around here?  So, instead of making Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Bay is going to make Teenage Alien Ninja Creatures.  (And that is assuming that the aliens have a similar life cycle as us and are teenagers).  Why doesn't he just make Ninja Aliens.  Or, better yet, why don't we all just watch Alien vs Ninja?

     HERE is the trailer.  I'm serious.  It's a real movie.

          So now, I'm just confused.  I'll just leave it as this:  Michael Bay is making a movie which may, or may not, involve ninjas, aliens and turtles.

They should speak Klingon too.  That would be sweet.

     But that's just my opinion...




          *authors edit (23 March 2012)
     HERE is a funny, different view on the subject
          (warning: contains mild profanities.  and by profanities i mean the f-bomb)



Prometheus (trailer)


          There's nothing really specific I want to say about this other than the fact it looks awesome.  So, when Ridley Scott first started working on this film, he said it was an Alien prequel.  But then later he said that it was just a generic space film, with no connection to the Alien series.  I'm not sure if there has been anything official said since then, but this is as sure as hell an Alien prequel.

          And it looks really good.  There seems to be action, suspense and drama. I'm not really sure what else to say other than it looks freakin' amazing!  I really liked the Alien trilogy.  I thought they created and finished a well told story. (Alien: Resurrection was unnecessary).  So, I'm excited to see how Prometheus adds to the world.  And I'm curious as to what and how much will be explained of the "Space Jockey" and the xenomorphs.

     HERE is the first trailer.

     HERE is the second.

     And HERE is the trailer for Alien for comparison.

          Now, if you're reading this, I'm going to assume that you're a fairly intelligent human being, so I'm not going to include a shot by shot comparison.  But here is a list of similarities:  1) They have the same title sequence thing.  2) They have the same sonar noise.  And 3) They have the same ship.  The Prometheus trailer has the Space Jockey which is in Alien and a quick glimpse of the xenomorph.  (I don't like to use the term "alien" because it's too broad.  The xenomorph is the alien from Alien).

     But there are two things that bothered me.  The Space Jockey looks like a tapir.  Behold:



And the whole thing about the different civilizations having the same pictograph sounds a lot like Alien vs. Predator.  But, other than that, this movie looks great!

          Prometheus will be hitting theaters and IMAX on 8 June 2012.  Or you can look at the countdown thing at the bottom of my blog.

     But that's just my opinion...





15 March 2012

TED Talks - Filmmakers



          A week or so ago, I shared a link to a TED talk about viral videos.  I don't know much about TED other than it stands for "technology, entertainment, design" and they set up conferences where cool people say cool stuff.

          The other day I stumbled upon a website that had grouped 7 TED talks given by various filmmakers.  I really don't have much to say about them, really, except for the first 2 are the best.  Andrew Stanton, director of WALL•E and John Carter, compared story telling to joke telling.  Everything in a joke leads up to the punchline.  Stories should be the same way:  everything in it should lead to the resolution.  JJ Abrams explained how mystery brings in and holds an audience.

          James Cameron was kind of boring until the very end.  And Morgan Spurlock, while interesting, didn't really say anything "profound" or "inspiring".  And the other two guys weren't even interesting enough for me to pay attention.

          So, just thought I would share that with ya.  And that's about it.

     Oh yea.  HERE is the link.



     But that's just my opinion...



14 March 2012

Battleship (trailer)


          Battleship: making people guess since 1931.  Ok, I'm not going to lie to you, but I think this looks really good and by "good" I mean "entertaining".

     Click HERE to see what I mean.

          There are a couple of things that stood out to be.  But let's begin with what I have already mentioned:  this looks entertaining.  Battleship is going to be an action packed, everything is exploding, loud and in your face movie.  And that is exactly what the trailer says it will be.  You can't go into this movie expecting good plot, interesting characters, or moving acting.  You can't.  Because this ain't one of those films.  It is purely eye candy.  Not all movies have to be good stories (and that is a rant for another time).  Some are just visuals.  This reminds me a lot of Transformers, with the design of the ships, the explosions and overall feel.  But, personally, I'm a sucker for watching things blow up.  And that is exactly what I am expecting after watching the trailer.

          However, seeing that the trailer clocks in around 2 minutes, I'm going to venture to say that all of the cool stuff was shown in it.  Probably the only things left out of the trailer was the boring dialogue between the characters.  But, with this type of movie no one really cares about that.

          One thing that interests me, however, is how it will be tied to the game.  Will it just sport the name Battleship and a naval fleet?  Or will they do something more?  I think it might be interesting to have the ships loose radar or whatever, forcing them to shoot blindly, hoping for a hit.  That way it will be something more than just a name ripoff.  But, that just might be a silly idea.

          So, if you like dumb movies with things 'xploding, I would guess that you'll like this movie.  (But I'm not sure because I haven't seen it yet).  But, if you like something with a little more substance, you won't find it here.  Battleship launches into theaters 18 May.  (See what I did there?  Launches into theaters, like you would launch a boat?  Ha ha.  Yea, I know.  It wasn't that funny).


     But that's just my opinion...





12 March 2012

American Movie (1999)

Mark and Mike

          Essential plot rundown:  Filmmaker, Mark, finishes his short film in order to finance his dream project.  This was an interesting documentary.  I went in expecting to see the inside of making a low budget, independent film.  But, what I got, instead, was an insight into the drive of Mark Borchardt.

          American Movie is about a filmmaker making a movie.  But, it seems to focus more on the filmmaker than on the actual film being made.  Which is perfectly ok because Mark is an extremely intriguing person.  He's ambitions, motivated, driven.  He's also not the most classy guy.  It's an interesting contrast to see him, loud and on top of things, juxtaposed next to his friend Mike, who is quiet and doesn't seem to really know whats going on.  What one point I thought Wow, those two are really interesting.  They should make a movie about them.  Oh, wait...this is a movie about them.

          The overal theme is about working towards your dreams.  There are several parts where Mark says he wants to be somebody.  When I first started watching it, I was confused as to why the movie was called American Movie.  But, as it went on, I realized that it's about the American dream.  And Mark's dream was to make a movie.  It was kind of motivating.  Mark had to go through so much crap, time and money to get his film made but he never gave up.  He kept at it.  You could totally see his passion and commitment to what he was doing.  And it made me think about myself and my own filmmaking ambitions.  I have way more resources than he did (He had to buy film; I can record on my phone. He had to make a bunch of phone calls; I can just send out a mass email).  But, I haven't done as much as he has.  Why am I wasting my time doing stupid crap, when I could easily be outside making a short film?

          Really, the biggest flaw of this movie was the pacing.  There were some parts that were really boring.  There were a few scenes that could have easily been cut without jeopardizing the integrity of the film.  It would've flowed smoother and been more interesting.

          Overall, it's a decent movie.  The main characters are really entertaining to watch, but the film does lag in a few spots.  I'd recommend it to anyone curious about filmmaking or fascinating people.



     But that's just my opinion...




11 March 2012

Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings


          This is a person by person comparison between the main LotR and Harry Potter characters.  Who's better: Gandalf or Dumbledor?  Sam or Ron?  This debate win finally be settled..by science!  (And by science I mean a lot of pictures in a chart).

     Click HERE to see the final showdown!


     But that's just my opinion...




09 March 2012

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (2011)


          Essential plot rundown:  Young Oskar searches all over NYC for a lock in an attempt to keep his deceased father near to him.  I left this movie with mixed feelings.  Some parts were really good and others not so much.

          Let's start with the bad to get that out of the way.  Oskar has this game that he plays with his dad called "reconnaissance".  This game plays an important role in the film.  However, I never quite understand exactly what it was.  The boy was suppose go find stuff and talk to people.  Maybe I missed something but I was just kind of confused over the whole thing.

          Another thing that bothered me was Max von Sydow's character.  Now I thought that he did a good job and that the character was interesting.  But nothing really happens with him.  His character didn't really add to the plot.  I was expecting some kind of closure or growth or something. But no, nothing comes to fruition.  He's just kind of there, writing things down.

          Also, the kid was kind of a dick, for lack of a better word.  At first I thought he was mean because he was grieving the loss of his father.  But I remembered that there were scenes where he was a jerk before his dad died.

          The last thing was his first encounter on his journey.  Oskar meets this lady, she tells him to leave, he says he's thirsty, she lets him in and starts crying.  The whole scene felt awkward.  And I never understood why she started crying.  I was expecting her to know something about his dad.  But no.  She's just under a lot of stress I guess.  And those were really the only things that bothered me.

          Now, let's keep on truckin' with the good.  I really liked the acting.  I thought everybody did a good job.  This was Thomas Horn's (Oskar) first role.  And he handled it pretty well.  There were a couple of parts that were weak but in all, he was pretty good.  During the film, I could really feel Oskar's lost.  Even though he was a jerk, I couldn't help but feel bad for him.  His pain and struggles were obvious.  You could just tell his was hurt by what happened.

          I thought the emotional scenes were well executed.  There were a couple of powerful scenes between Oskar and his mother and between him and some other characters.  These parts kind of cut deep and were a little hard to watch.  There were multiple occasions where there were tears running down my cheeks.

          The different themes in the movie were also powerful.  There was the obvious one of dealing with loss.  In the movie, Oskar gives the example of how, if the sun exploded, we wouldn't know for 8 minutes.  He compared that to his dad, and that by looking for the lock to his key, he was trying to extend his 8 minutes with his father.  There was another theme that wasn't revealed towards the end.  And that is the theme of a mother's love.  Linda (Sandra Bullock) tells her son that she was "searching for him".  And I could totally feel how, as he distanced himself from her, she went looking for him.

          Finally, I liked the cinematography.  I don't know if there is a specific name for them, but there were some really cool optical effects that helped augment the emotion of the film.

         So, overall, I liked it, but not as much as I wanted to.  The powerful emotions just quite don't make up for what's lacking in script and plot.  But I would say watch it.  But there's no rush.



     But that's just my opinion...



06 March 2012

What Makes a Viral Video?


          I am currently in a YouTube class.  In there, they teach us how to navigate YouTube, gain exposure and hopefully make money.  This morning our teacher emailed this link to us:

    Click HERE to go to said link.

          Basically, its a guy who works for YouTube giving a presentation on viral videos.  There are 3 things that make a video go viral.

     1) Unexpectedness:  Accordingly, there are 2 days worth of video uploaded every minute on YouTube.  So, in order you stand out, the video has to be unexpected and unique.

     2) Tastemakers:  These are people like Jimmy Kimmel and Tosh.0 who talk about and share videos.  This brings the video to a lot wider audience.

     3) Participation.  Viral videos allow for community participation.  It inspires people to remix, cover, parody, etc the original.  Instead of just being a consumer, people can now participate in a cultural event.

          That's about all he talks about.  I found it interesting and wanted to share it.

     But that's just my opinion...