Kick Ass 2 (2013)

          Essential plot rundown:  Chris D'Amico seeks revenge for what happened to his father while Kick-Ass and Hit Girl try to balance being a superhero with their daily lives.  I really liked the first one, so obviously I had to see the sequel.

          This was a great film.  I was pretty much pleased with most everything. However, I have only seen Kick-Ass once, so I can't really compare the films in their style, seeing as they are directed by two different people.  There seemed to be some disconnects between the two films.  But, that could just be because I'm remembering the first one wrong.  And Todd, who is in the first film, is played by another actor here.  So, that threw me off.

          I thought all of the characters were interesting.  I liked the group that Kick-Ass joins with.  I thought they all gave solid performances.  And their reasons for wanting to fight crime made them all realistic and relatable.  But, by far the best was Col. Stars and Stripes, played by an almost unrecognizable Jim Carrey.  I really liked his character and what he was doing and wanted to get to know him more.  While he does have a decent amount of screen time, it wasn't enough.  I wanted to see more of him.  I was surprised to also like John Leguizamo's character.  I wasn't expecting much from him.  Though, in all fairness, I only know him from Super Mario Bros, Spawn and the trailer for The Pest.  Basically, I liked all of the characters.

          As far as the plot goes, it is good.  It was intriguing to see how both Kick-Ass and Hit Girl try to deal with being superheroes.  The only problem I had was when Hit Girl makes a promise to Marcus and then devotedly follows it.  It is in complete violation of a promise she had previously made to her father, Big Daddy.  And when Kick Ass confronts her about this decision, she says that she never breaks an oath.  But you just did by making that one to Marcus.  It seemed off to me.

          There were really only two other things that bothered me.  One was a scene where these people begin projectile vomiting and pooping themselves.  It was too over-the-top and comical; it felt out of place in the movie and didn't really add anything.  The other thing was that at the end of a very dramatic scene, someone would say something funny/stupid and would totally ruin the mood.  This happened a couple of times and was annoying.

          But the best part of Kick-Ass 2 was the emotions it evoked; and it was able to do that because of the compelling plot and relatable characters.  I cried multiple times throughout the movie.  Sometimes I could feel the passion the characters had in what they were doing and found it very motivational; and it moved me to tears.  Other times I was just afraid that someone would die or they did die that I cried because I was sad.  For me, one of the signs of a great film is its ability to elicit emotion in the audience, whether it be happiness, fear, apprehension or sorrow.  If I'm feeling something, the movie is doing it's job.  (Though, not all great films have to do this).  And Kick-Ass 2 was able to make me cry.  So props to the filmmakers.

          So, overall, Kick-Ass 2 was a great film.  I want to go see it again, now. It had relatable/likable characters with a persuasive storyline.  It would be interesting to see if they make a third, but I think they could end perfectly with the second one.

     But that's just my opinion...

     *author's edit (19 August 2013)

          I've been thinking a lot about the movie ever since I saw it.  And my thoughts keep returning to a pair of scenes involving Kick-Ass and his did.  In the first scene they get in an argument.  And as I was watching it, I totally sided with Kick-Ass.  I agreed with his motives.  I understood and rooted for him.  However, a few things happen and they later confront each other again, finishing the argument.  But this time I totally sided with his dad; I sympathized with him.  His motives for doing what he did made sense.  As I watched this argument span these two scenes, I could see a little of myself and my dad in the characters (though, not nearly as extreme).  They were very relatable.  I loved these scenes; I found them effective and moving.  Whenever I thought about them, I kept getting choked up, which is why I wanted to write about them.  They were great story telling.

Elysium (2013)

          Essential plot rundown:  A poor guy from earth must fight his way to the rich space station above to save his life.  This is from the same writer/director of District 9, which I thought was really good, so I had to go see it.  And I had nothing else going on today.

          I really liked Elysium.  However, I do have to say that it started off a little rocky, but was rolling smoothly by the time it was over.  The biggest problem for me was how some of the characters were introduced; it felt too rushed.  The audience is blatantly told that the villain is bad, instead of being shown he is bad.  And when Matt Damon's buddy is introduced, I just thought he was just some random guy.  But it turns out that he is kind of a big shot; I didn't get any of that when he was first introduced.  (And on a similar note, the story that the little girl tells Matt feels shoehorned in there and rushed.)

          But those were really they only complaints I had.  I thought Neill Blomkamp did a good job building worlds; this was a believable and realistic (as realistic as a futuristic sci-fi flick will be) environment.  I believed and felt for the poor living on desolated Earth and I believed that a space station exclusively for the rich existed.

          Speaking of believability, the SFX were amazing.  The spaceships look real, the robots looked like real characters.  Everything was seamlessly put together.  It all looked great.  (Interestingly enough, the director graduated from film school with an emphasis in animation and visual effects.)

          Actually, I did have another complaints: some of the accents.  I found Kruger's accent distracting (yes, I know he's from South Africa).  And I had a hard time understanding Spider at times.  So I was a little confused on occasion when I missed some expository dialogue.  However, I liked Jodie Foster's accents and felt it added a little to the character.

          Right before I wrote this, I was looking through the message boards on IMDB.  And most of them were political debates.  Yes, this movie does have a moral; but I when I saw it, I didn't see the 1% vs the 99% or Wall Street vs Main Street.  I saw it on a personal level.  And I personally liked it.  But there is much a heated debate on those message boards.

          Overall, I really liked it.  There were a few things that bothered me and a couple of plot-holes.  But it is entertaining and it does give you something to think about.  Also, Neill must like blowing people up because in Elysium and District 9 that happens a lot.

     But that's just my opinion...

Star Trek: The Original Cast

          So, ever since they rebooted the Star Trek franchise, I've been wanting to watch the original movies.  I'm not a trekkie, but I grew up watching The Next Generation and Voyager, but I had never seen anything with the original cast.  So during the last few weeks, I went through them and watched them all.  Here are my brief thoughts.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

          The beginning of this movie feels abrupt.  Kirk no longer is captain and all of his crew are scattered about.  I felt like that I missed something for not having watched the last few episodes of the series; but my brother told me that there is no connection.

          The first half was boring, but once they reach V'ger, it got pretty interesting.  I really liked the ending.  It was the ending that made the film for me.  It it had ended in a different way, it merely would have been a "meh" movie and not a "that was really good" movie.

The Wrath of Khan (1982)

          This one is held to be the best of the series; but I was disappointed.  I liked it, but it wasn't the best.  I did like the fact that they used one of the TV episodes as a launching pad for this movie.  But I never felt like Khan was a threat.  He's suppose to be a superior being but he spends the whole movie being outsmarted by Kirk.  Khan was lucky that he had those brain control slugs for those were the only things that gave him an upper hand.

The Search for Spock (1984)

          This was the worst of the lot.  I don't remember anything about it other than I liked seeing Bones act like Spock and Christopher LLoyd in black face is far funnier than it is menacing.

The Voyage Home (1986)

          This was probably the funniest of the series; but there was way too much tree hugging and not enough star trekking.  The plot was kind of dumb and didn't really fit in the series very well.  It started out promising with the Klingons after Kirk, but then it took a left turn.  This movie was lucky I thought it was pretty funny.

The Final Frontier (1989)

          I like movies like this one; movies that combine space and religion (e.g. Prometheus and Contact).  And while I liked the concept of the ending, it was kind of cheesy due to bad special effects.  I just really like the quest they went on, to go where no man has gone before.

The Undiscovered Country (1991)

          For overall entertainment value, I would say that this was the best one. I was invested in it, waiting to see who dunnit and how.  While it didn't deal with the same topics that I really liked from The Motion Picture and The Final Frontier, I would probably say it was my favorite.

          So, overall it is a pretty good series.  I wonder how different my experience would have been if I had seen the original series first.  But I did really like Bones.  Now I want to check out some of DeForest Kelley's other work.

     But that's just my opinion...

Man of Steel (2013)

          Essential plot rundown: Superman tries to keep his existence a secret until Gen. Zod comes looking for him.  I had never seen a Superman movie before this, but I never really have been a fan of Superman either; he's too powerful with too many powers.  But, this movie looked pretty awesome.  Unfortunately, it wasn't awesome; good, but not awesome.

          My biggest problem with the movie is its non-linear story telling for most of the movie.  The movie uses a lot of flashbacks, jumping from Clark Kent doing one job to him as a child.  Then it cuts to Krypton and then back to Clark working somewhere else. Not that that is bad in and of itself, it just doesn't work in this type of film.  The film jumped around too much which made it hard me for to connect with and care for the characters.  I didn't really feel that there was any character development.  I never felt what the characters were going through.  And because of this, I wasn't invested in the film, which made it good instead of awesome.

          Visually the film is pretty sweet.  I liked all of the production design.  The costumes looked cool, the vehicles and technology were interesting.  Everything looked great (I just didn't care for the characters).  Speaking of looks and characters, I thought Henry Cavill looked the part of Superman.  When I looked at him, I saw Superman.  But, I didn't think he acted the part very well; something was lacking.

          And the ending sequence lasted too long.  There were a lot of people fighting and things getting destroyed way before the final showdown between Superman and Zod.  So by the time they finally confronted each other, the whole novelty of watching things being annihilated was beginning to wear off.

          While I liked it, Man of Steel wasn't as good as I was expecting.  But, it did make me want to watch the original movies with Christopher Reeve, which is always a good thing for a remake/reboot to do.  But it'll have to wait while I watch the Star Trek films because Star Trek Into Darkness did the same thing.

     But that's just my opinion...

MPAA: Time for a Change

      This was my research paper for my English class.  I hated that class.



         Millions of people go to the movies each year and many rely on the ratings assigned by CARA (the Classification and Rating Administration) to choose which movies are appropriate for their children to watch. CARA, which is an affiliate of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), was established on November 1, 1968, as a tool for parents (Ratings History). As stated on their website, the purpose of the MPAA’s ratings system is to “provide parents with advance information about the content of films, so they can determine what movies are appropriate for their young children to see” (“Film Ratings”). While the ratings system does give a general idea of a movie’s content, the system is inadequate in helping parents decide which films their children should see. The ratings system does not sufficiently inform parents of movie content because the system suffers from ratings creep, inconsistency, and vagueness. The MPAA needs to revise the ratings system to remove these problems. The current ratings system, which assigns a letter grade to a movie designating who should be allowed to see it, should be changed to a system that, instead, quantifies the amount of objectionable content (i.e. violence, nudity, drugs, etc.). CARA also should not look at context or restrict audiences. The MPAA will be able to correct the problems that are presently in the ratings system by changing to a classification system that looks purely at content and not at what may or may not be offensive to prospective audiences.

         One of the problems that the ratings system has (and one a change in the system could fix) is ratings creep. Ratings creep is when content that used to be predominantly assigned to one rating (such as R) begins to “creep” down into another (PG-13). A study done in 2010 by Priya Nalkur, Patrick E. Jamieson and Daniel Romer, provides evidence of ratings creep. Nalkur et al. compared the content from the highest grossing films from 1950 to 2006 to their ratings. Nalkur et al. found that “differences in violence between R and PG-13 were often blurred” and “PG-13 has absorbed films that would previously have been assigned R, and has exhibited an increasing trend regarding the explicitness of violent content” (Nalkur). According to their studies, PG-13 movies are becoming increasingly more violent (Nalkur). A PG-13 movie from 2004 is likely to be more violent than one from 1990.

          A similar study was done by Richard Potts and Angela Belden. However, instead of looking at the actual content of the movies, they only looked at the rating descriptors. (Ratings descriptors explain why a film received a certain rating.) They came to the same conclusion--that there is “increasingly more adult content in movies at all the rating levels examined . . . ” (Potts). Potts and Belden write that “children are exposed to more mature content . . . in today’s G, PG, and PG-13 movies than they were only a few years ago” (Potts). If movies aimed at kids contain more mature content than they used to, then the ratings are not doing their job.

          In addition to reporting their findings, Potts et al. give possible reasons why ratings creep is happening. They point out that CARA is part of the MPAA, which is an “organization whose primary function is to maximize the financial success of motion pictures” (Potts). Because of this affiliation, they continue, a “competing profit motivation exists for CARA to apply the most liberal rating assignments possible and thus facilitate the largest audiences possible for each movie to be released” (Potts). Restrictive ratings, such as R, limit the number of prospective audiences; therefore, these movies are more likely to make less money. By giving more movies PG-13 ratings than R, CARA is increasing their profitability. However, Potts et al. point out that this reason is only “speculative” (Potts).

          Another possible reason Potts et al. give is the raters on the board are becoming desensitized to adult content (Potts). They write that “ratings creep could also result from a natural psychological process in which CARA raters themselves, in the execution of their jobs, become involuntarily desensitized to evocative adult content, resulting in collective assignments of more ‘lenient’ ratings” (Potts). If the act of them doing their job compromises the integrity of the ratings, then a revision is needed.

          One way to fix ratings creep is to quantify the content instead of assigning an age category. If the raters scaled the amount of violence or sex on a scale from one to ten, instead of deciding whether the movie should be given a PG-13 or R, it can prevent ratings creep. The amount of adult content is objective, whereas assigning content to an age category is subjective. While a better way to rate movies than today’s standard, it is still not perfect. In order for a quantitative rating to really work, there has to be a definitive way of quantifying. But, establishing a standardized way to quantify content is beyond the purpose of this paper.

          The second problem a change in the ratings system could fix is inconsistency. In an article for “The Hollywood Reporter,” Joan Graves, head of CARA, wrote, “Our most important job is consistency: Whether a film is educational, delightful, terrible or insightful, ratings are applied based on the level of content in a film” (Graves). However, by examining the content/ratings from different movies, a lot of inconsistency can be found. One example would be the documentaries Gunner Palace (2004) and Bully (2011). Gunner Palace is about the war in Iraq and Bully raises awareness about bullying in public schools. Both movies were originally rated R for language and both appealed to the MPAA to get their ratings changed (Tucker; Sacks). Gunner Palace’s appeal was successful and the film was given a PG-13 rating (Tucker). However, in order for Bully to achieve a PG-13, it had to remove some swearing (Sacks). While one movie was able to get a PG-13 rating without any editing, the other had to be re-cut. Bully removed half of the f-words used, taking it from the original six down to three (Zeitchik ‘Bully’). Gunner Palace, which was not edited, contains forty-two f-words (“Gunner Palace”). If CARA cannot consistently rate language, then something needs to be changed. By quantifying the content, Gunner Palace would have rated higher on the language scale than Bully, allowing for more consistency. A quantification also would have alerted parents of the actual content better than a letter would have.

          Language is not the only thing that is unsystematically rated--sexual content also is. In 2010, two movies with similar sexual content were released, Black Swan and Blue Valentine. However, Black Swan was rated R while Blue Valentine received a NC-17.  The distributor of Blue Valentine appealed the NC-17 rating and won, allowing the rating to be dropped to an R without any change in content (Zeitchik ‘Blue Valentine’).

          These movies show two different inconsistencies. One, they show that the MPAA does not always give the same rating to movies with similar content. One would assume that movies which contain similar content, such Blue Valentine and Black Swan, would receive the same rating. It also shows another inconsistency:  changing the rating without changing the content. Bully had to be edited to receive a PG-13 rating. It had different content, so it deserved a different rating. However, Blue Valentine kept all of its content intact while obtaining a lower rating. So, whether it was rated R or NC-17, it was the same movie with the same content.

          If the MPAA changed their ratings system to one that quantifies material, it would help decrease the inconsistency in the current ratings. Instead of the board members trying to decide whether something deserves a PG-13, R or NC-17, they only have to measure the amount.  By simply quantifying the amount (in whichever way CARA decides is best), it will be able to more consistently describe a movie’s content.

          Another concern a revision of the ratings system could change is the vagueness of the ratings themselves. The MPAA assigns a rating (G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17) to each movie and then offers a description. According to their website, the purpose of the rating is to signal “the degree of caution parents should exercise in weighing whether a movie is suitable for children” (“How to Read a Rating”). However, not all R-rated movies require the same amount of “caution.” Some R-rated movies, such as The King’s Speech, only have a few f-words, whereas other R-rated movies contain horrendous acts of violence. Not all R-rated movies have equal content and, therefore, should not have equal ratings. Scott Wampler, a writer for Examiner.com, wrote about his surprise that The Human Centipede, a movie “where three characters were stitched together, mouth-to-anus, and forced to parade around a mad scientist's lair,” received a less restrictive rating than Blue Valentine initially received, both of which were released the same year (Wampler). After Blue Valentine’s appeal, they both have an R-rating. But, are parents sufficiently “cautioned” about the movies’ content? According to the rating, the true story about a man overcoming a speech impediment, as seen in The King’s Speech, deserves the same amount of caution as torture-porn films such the Saw franchise. Movie critic, Michael Phillips, in an article for the “Chicago Tribune,” wrote “If ‘The King’s Speech’ and ‘Saw 3D’ warrant the same rating, then the system underneath leaves me speechless” (Phillips). It is arguable whether the profanity used in The King’s Speech is offensive, particularly to younger children; however, one cannot argue that The King’s Speech is equally offensive as Saw 3D or The Human Centipede. If they are not equally offensive, they should not have equal ratings. The vagueness of the ratings system necessitates that it be updated.

          In attempts to make the ratings clearer, the MPAA started including descriptions with the rating during the 90s (“Motion Picture”). As described on their website, the rating descriptor “aims to convey with precision why the film received its rating” (“How to Read a Rating”). Adding these descriptions did help, allowing parents to know the general content of a movie. However, the descriptions are still too vague. The MPAA does modify the content, but these modifications are also unclear. Some PG-13 rated movies contain “violence,” “combat violence,” “sci-fi violence,” “fantasy action violence” and “intense war violence” (“PG-13”). Essentially, these modifiers only name the genre of the movie. Is there a difference between “combat violence” and “war violence”? It can be seen that these descriptions are not very precise.

          While the present ratings system is useful, it is not as effective as it should be. It does provide general information about movie content, but it needs a revision. In a study similar to the ones mentioned above, Lucille Jenkins et al. suggest that the ratings could be improved by “the addition of a quantitative component” (Jenkins). However, this idea needs to be taken further and the current letter system replaced by a quantitative system. Referring to how they rate films, Graves wrote, “When we assign ratings to films, we do not make qualitative judgments; we are not film critics or censors” (Graves). However, they are making a “qualitative judgment” when they decide whether certain content is worth a PG-13 or an R-rating. A quantitative system would help CARA achieve its goal and reduce ratings creep, inconsistency and vagueness.

          To make the ratings system more effective, the MPAA should adopt a system similar to the one used by Kids-in-Mind.com.  As posted on their website, Kinds-in-Mind claim, “We do not assign an inscrutable rating based on age but 3 objective ratings for SEX/NUDITY, VIOLENCE/GORE & PROFANITY, on a scale of 0 to 10, and we explain in detail why a film rates high or low in a specific category” (Kinds-in-Mind). Instead of giving a movie an R-rating, the MPAA should assign a rating similar to four-seven-six (reflecting the amount of sex, violence, and profanity) and then have a detailed outline of the content on their website.

          While not a perfect solution, a quantitative ratings system would cut down on the amount of ratings creep. Instead of deciding from movie to movie which deserves an R-rating and which deserves a PG-13 rating, they determine up front how to scale content when the quantitative system is implemented. This will give them a baseline for consistency. Establishing a standardized way to rate films will, of course, be the tricky part. Will sex be measured by screen time, body parts shown or some other way? But, once a way has been chosen and implemented, it will help prevent the amount of ratings creep. One way in that it would help ratings creep is that it would be more transparent; it would be a lot easier to keep track of one specific category and to tell when ratings are creeping.

          Another problem that a quantitative ratings system could solve is inconsistency. A scale of one to ten is objective whereas a letter rating is subjective. Saying a movie, in regards to violence, earns a seven out of ten would be easier than deciding whether it deserves a PG-13 or an R rating. Because the one letter grade would be changed to a three category content grade (or whatever is decided upon), it would be more consistent. The rating given to one category would not be influence by the amount in another, thus making it easier to be consistent in scaling it. The raters would only have to look at and measure one category at a time, instead of weighing all of the content and coming up with an average rating for the entire movie.

          The four-seven-six example would not necessarily remove the vagueness of the current ratings. However, having a detailed description on a website explaining each category would. Instead of saying that a movie contains “war violence,” it would describe the violence--people are shot with blood splatter, a man gets his arm blown off, etc. It would also clarify the sexual content by saying whether it was consensual or forced, a same sex encounter, etc. Also, some parents may be more concerned about one type of content over another. By having the content divided, the specific content in question would be more accessible to parents and will better help them decide which movies are ok for their children to view.

          In addition to preventing ratings creep, inconsistency and vagueness, a switch to a quantitative system would prevent the MPAA from interpreting context and establishing restrictions. Context is more subjective than content. It is true that a war movie might be a more realistic portrayal of violence then the glamorized action blockbuster; but, violence is still violence and some people may want to avoid all of it. A person who wants to avoid all forms of violence would be more easily able to do so with a categorical rating of content.

          This type of ratings system would also prevent the MPAA from restricting audiences. It could be argued whether the MPAA should have the right to do so, but I am not going to go into detail about that here. However, Joan Graves, did write that “The ratings system exists for one purpose: to inform parents about the content of films” (Graves). Therefore, they should not censor who sees what, but should leave that to the individual and parents. Potts et al. point out that “The assertion, or assumption, by the MPAA . . . that CARA raters are somehow valid representatives of the American public, and that their judgments reflect the public's values, is implausible” (Potts). The members of CARA cannot represent the American norm and they should not try; parents should decide what their children see.

          In addition to censoring children, the ratings system is also censoring filmmakers. Filmmakers try and earn money from their movies; but a restrictive rating would decrease the prospective audience and, subsequently, box office earnings. So, in order to reach the widest possible audience, filmmakers edit, and censor, their movies to get a lower rating. Steven Zeitchik, in an article for the “LA Times,” wrote that 

An NC-17 rating means anyone younger than 17 cannot see the movie in theaters — even if they are accompanied by an adult. Many theater chains have a policy of not exhibiting NC-17 films, and some media outlets refuse to carry ads for NC-17 movies. That means the box office receipts and cultural impact of an NC-17 film are likely to be much more limited than an R-rated movie. (Zeitchik “Two Films”)

Many NC-17 rated movies are mature takes on adult themes, but they are not available because of their rating. In an interview with “TIME,” Dan Glickman, chairman and CEO of the MPAA, said, “Some people still see this as a censorship board. It's not. It's an information system. It's actually designed to keep censors at bay” (Cruz). The MPAA may be defending movies from government-imposed censorship, but the structure of the current system is only shifting the censorship to distributors and theaters.

          In order for the present ratings system to better fulfill its purpose, it needs to switch from the subjective letter grade based system to an objective quantitative system. Ratings creep, inconsistency and ambiguity in ratings prevent the system from fulfilling its purpose. The ratings system also is imposing its own interpretations on context and is restricting people from seeing certain films. However, a change to a ratings system that objectively assigns content (sex, violence, etc.) a number from one to ten and provides an explanation of the number on its website would greatly help in reducing the current system’s problems.  The next question is to decide how to quantify content.

Works Cited

     Cruz, Gilbert. "Happy 40th Birthday, Movie Ratings." Time.com. Time, 30 Oct. 2008. Web. 11 Mar. 2013.

     "Film Ratings." MPAA.org. Motion Picture Association of America, n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2013.

     Graves, Joan. "MPAA Ratings Chief Defends Movie Ratings." The Hollywood Reporter n.d.: n. pag. 23 Feb. 2011. Web. 11 Mar. 2013.

     "Gunner Palace." IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     "How to Read a Rating." MPAA.org. Motion Picture Association of America, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     Jenkins, Lucille, Theresa Webb, Nick Brown, A.A. Afifi, and Jess Kraus. "An Evaluation of the Motion Picture Association of America’s Treatment of Violence in PG-, PG-13–, and R-Rated Films." Pediatrics 115.5 (2005): E512-517. 1 May 2005. Web. 1 Mar. 2013.

     "Kids-In-Mind." Kids-In-Mind.com. Kids-in-Mind, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     "Motion Picture Association of America Film Rating System." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 Oct. 2013. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     Nalkur, Priya G., Patrick E. Jamieson, and Daniel Romer. "The Effectiveness of the Motion Picture Association of America's Rating System in Screening Explicit Violence and Sex in Top-ranked Movies From 1950 to 2006." Journal of Adolescent Health 47.5 (2010): 440-47. ScienceDirect. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

     "PG-13-Rated Movies (MPAA)." MovieInsider.com. The Movie Insider, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     Phillips, Michael. "There's a Word for the MPAA...." ChicagoTribune.com. Chicago Tribune, 4 Nov. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     Potts, Richard, and Angela Belden. "Parental Guidance: A Content Analysis of MPAA Motion Picture Rating Justifications 1993–2005." Current Psychology 28.4 (2009): 266-83. SpringerLink. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

     Sacks, Ethan. "‘Bully’ Rating Reversal: The MPAA and Weinstein Co. Agree on Compromise That Nets Documentary PG-13." NY Daily News. Daily News America, 5 Apr. 2012. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.

     Tucker, Michael. "War May Be Hell...But Fighting the MPAA Over an 'R' Rating Is F*@#in' Lethal." Documentary.org. International Documentary Association, Feb. 2006. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     "Ratings History." MPAA.org. Motion Picture Association of America, n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2013.

     Wampler, Scott. "Why Did the MPAA Give 'Blue Valentine' an NC-17 Rating? You'll Never Guess." Examiner.com. Examiner, 8 Oct. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     Zeitchik, Steven. "'Blue Valentine' Wins MPAA Appeal, Will Be Released as an R-rated Film." 24 Frames. Los Angeles Times, 8 Dec. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     Zeitchik, Steven. "'Bully' Rating: Some, but Not All, Profanity Cut to Get PG-13." 24 Frames. Los Angeles Times, 5 Apr. 2012. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.

     Zeitchik, Steven. "Two Films, Two Sex Scenes, Two Different Ratings." 24 Frames. Los Angeles Times, 4 Dec. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

The Purge (2013)

          Essential plot rundown:  In the not too distant future, all crime is legal for 12 hours out of the year and during this time, one family gets some unexpected company.

          So the trailer for this movie looked terrifying.  I was sure it was going to be the scariest movie I've seen in a long time; but it wasn't.  It still was really good, just not that scary.  The movie starts off promising, building lots of tension.  But, once the intruders got into the house, it lost all of its intensity.  I was more nervous and scared before the intruders got in than afterwards.  It's still a good movie after they break in, just not very scary.

          And the kids were stupid.  Why would you run away and leave your parents?

          While the movie itself was pretty good, the best thing about it was the concept.  As a way to "purge" ourselves, everything is legal for 12 hours.  This idea opens up for a wide range of stories.  I think it would be interesting to see somebody seek revenge during a purge for something that happened to a loved one in the previous purge.  It would also be interesting to see people acting as vigilantes, protecting those who can't defend themselves.  There are a lot of possible stories for future movies.  I wonder if this will become a franchise.  They could even have future installments be anthologies, with 3 or 4 segments about different situations.

          Another good thing about this movie was that it really made me think.  I was putting myself in their situation trying to see what I would do.  And I couldn't come up with an answer.  A lot of times with movie you think Well, if I was so-and-so, I would just do this...  But with The Purge, I had nothing.  I couldn't think of any moral decision; I had no idea what I would do.  But, the family ends up choosing pretty well I thought.

          As I was talking about this with my friend on our way home from the theater, we got onto the topic of violence in the media.  We discussed whether consuming violent movies/games makes one more violent or if it acted as a catharsis.  Which made me see The Purge as a metaphor for cathartic violence.  In The Purge, people have 12 hours to do what they want.  By having this freedom, it decreases the amount of crime the rest of the year.  Similarly, watching a violent movie purges you of your violent tendencies, decreasing the possibility of you acting violently in real life.  But that is just how I interpreted it.

          Overall, I really liked it.  It did run out of steam by the end but it still works.  I would really like to see other movies that take place during the 12 hour purge.  Could make for a compelling franchise.

     But that's just my opinion...

Ocean Heaven (2010)

          In my English class last semester, we had to choose a movie playing at International Cinema and write a review about it.  So here it is.

Ocean Heaven (2010)

An Average Story of a Father and his Son

  The premise of Ocean Heaven looks like a very promising tear-jerker: A father with a terminal illness, awaiting his own death, must find a way for his autistic son to survive on his own. And it stars Jet Li as the father. However, while someone would expect a powerful film, Ocean Heaven does not really pack a punch.

          Don’t get me wrong, Ocean Heaven is a decent film, just not as moving as I anticipated. The film is about Wang (played by Jet Li) who works at an aquarium. Wang is a widower who takes care of his twenty-two year old autistic son, Dafu (portrayed by Zhang Wen). After finding out that he is suffering from a terminal illness, Wang must find a place where Dafu will be taken care of after he dies. It seems like compelling stuff, but the whole movie is subtle and does not really invoke any strong emotions. And I think that is partly because of the script and partly due to the restrained acting. There are some tender moments between the father and his son. There are also some hard moments. But these are all small; there are no big, emotional scenes that most drama movies of this kind normally have. There are no dramatic hospital scenes, no powerful “I love you” moments. The emotions are pretty much low-key here. I could see and understand why this situation would be hard on Wang; but, I never felt his struggles.

          The script could have also benefited from some more revisions. There are a few plot points and scenes that feel a little out of place. The opening scene sets you up for one type of movie, but fails to follow that, taking you in a totally different direction. The beginning brings up some interesting ideas and questions, but the rest of the film never pursues or examines them. It is almost as if it never happened.

          And just like how there is no follow up to the opening scene, there is no build up to the ending. I do not want to give anything away (though, the movie is fairly predictable with no real surprises) but the ending involves a sea turtle. But I do not think we ever see a sea turtle before then. Sea turtles actually play a pretty big part in the ending of the film, but it comes as kind of a shock because it appears so random. The guy works at an aquarium; I imagine it would have been fairly easy to insert a scene early in the movie, introducing the idea of the sea turtle. But, there is none; so the ending is a little weird and not as compelling as it could have been.

          The same thing applies to the mother. Early in the film, it is established that she died when Dafu was still a young boy; but, it leaves it at that. Later in the movie, some more information is revealed about the mother’s death. But, because she is basically absent from the whole movie (there may have been one flashback), this revelation has little impact.

          But, like I have said, Ocean Heaven is worth watching. The actors do a good job. This is Jet Li’s first main role outside of the action genre. He trades in his lightning fast hands for a pair of glasses and a blue jumpsuit. Li plays an average man who works hard and wants the best for his son; and he pulls it off pretty well. Zhang Wen also is believable in his role of Li’s autistic son. I have not spent any time with autistic children, so I do not know how “realistic” his portrayal was; but I bought it. (Though, the hand thing seemed a little weird to me.) All of the supporting actors are also convincing in their roles.

          It does bring up some interesting points about our society. Whose responsibility is it to watch after and take care of a person with a mental disability when he has no family members? Dafu is twenty-two years old with no mother and a dying father; and all of the institutions that Wang visits are unable to accept Dafu. Wang tries to teach him how to take care of himself; but without external support, it does not appear to be enough. Should the government institutionalize him? Should the community get involved? Who should be responsible?

          It is interesting to see what points and themes are brought up, considering that the writer and director, Xiao Lu Xue, had previously volunteered for fourteen years at an organization for autistic children. Ocean Heaven is her directorial debut. Her only previous film credit was writer of Together (2002), which was also about the relationship between a father and his son.

          While not as moving as expected, Ocean Heaven is good film. It has a strong story with honest acting; but, everything was too subtle to really stir me. But, it is worth watching. I give it three out of five.

But that's just my opinion...

Iron Man 3 (2013)

          Essential plot rundown:  Iron Man takes all of my money again.  This is the first Marvel movie to come out since The Avengers and it will be interesting to see where they take things.  And this movie review is full of spoilers.

          And considering this takes place in a post Avengers world, I didn't feel there was a strong enough connection between the two.  There are a few references to the events; but it mostly consists of Tony Stark not being able to sleep and having a panic attack whenever somebody asks him about New York.  I was expecting something stronger, something that would tie in with the plot of Iron Man 3; but no.  But, before I started writing this, I read a few reviews and they better explained the connections.  They explained that War Machine being changed to Iron Patriot was a response to Captain America and superheroes (not the government) saving the world and how his perspective of what really matters changed after what happened in The Avengers.  These things are hinted and while I didn't pick these up during the movie, now knowing them makes me like the movie a little better.

          But my two biggest complaints were about the plot.  The movie starts off with an obvious set-up for a revenge flick:  Tony Stark disses some loser, said loser becomes cool and powerful, he then seeks revenge on Tony.  Lame and unoriginal.  (Though, most movies are unoriginal; but they could've done better than  that).  It just didn't work for me.  (Now that I think about, the plot for Iron Man 2 also was a revenge one, but that worked).  I didn't feel it was a strong enough motive for the villain.

          And I didn't like what they did with the Mandarin.  I'm not comic book fan; nor did I know who the Mandarin was before this movie came out.  But I did not like how they made him a phony.  I imagine that some people would feel the same way about this as they did about Bane in TDKR.  They make him appear all awesome and badass, but it turns out he's just a drunk actor?  That's lame and really disappointing.  I could see how that could work, but not in Iron Man 3.  It is an interesting concept and would be cool to see, but don't do it in a superhero movie.  I really wanted to see Iron Man face the Mandarin.

          The rest of the things are just mild complaints.  I didn't like how they changed Pepper into the fire thing only to change her back two seconds later.  If you're going to kill her, kill her.  If you are going to changer her, change her.  But don't do a "just kidding, she's not really dead" and immediately follow it with a "just kidding again, she's not going to be a fire thing."  Just pick one and go with it.  Have Iron Patriot save her or something.

          But, one of my favorite parts of the movie involved Pepper.  That was when Tony's house gets blown up and he activates his armor.  You think it is going to him, but instead it attaches to Pepper and saves her.  I thought that moment was moving and revealing of Tony's character.  And was a cool moment.

          At first, I thought the part with all of the Iron Man suits was kind of corny.  I saw that in the trailer and was dreading it.  It was a little silly at first, but then you get caught up in the excitement of the scene and go with it.  And it was cool to see some new technology that Tony had created.

          And what is up with the extreme fire guys?  How come some die by a single gun shot, whereas others get shot multiple times without stopping?  And how is it that some of them get killed by a laser gun but others have to be blown up multiple times before they are stopped.  And is he breathing fire?

          And why didn't Tony remove the shards in his heart in the first movie, after he got out of the cave?  He had access to a hospital then

          But overall it was a really good movie.  The action was great.  The acting was good.  I really liked Ben Kingsley.  It was also really funny.  It had a kid in it that wasn't annoying.  I might have to say I may have liked this one better than the first.  It is a close call...

     But that's just my opinion...

Les Misérables (2012)

          Essential plot rundown:  Wolverine and Catwoman sing in France.  So this was based on a musical that was based on a book that was based on a Saturday morning cartoon.  I went in with high hopes for this movie, but I left disappointed and bored.

          Les Misérables probably has to be the biggest let down I've seen in a while.  It was nominated/won some things and I've only heard good things about it.  But, halfway through the movie I was bored and wondering when it was going to be over.

          I think the biggest problem was that I didn't connect with any of the characters.  I didn't feel for them or care for them.  I think that that may have been because there is no dialogue; it is all musical numbers.  And I have a hard time understand people when they sing, so I didn't know what they were singing about.  Maybe if they had speaking lines like most musicals do, I may have connected better with them.

          And speaking of the musicals, I though they were kind of meh.  None of them were memorable; none of them stood out.  The songs weren't bad, they just weren't particular good.  But I though all of the actors did a good job singing.  Crowe's singing took a little to get used to, but it was good.  And I thought the little kids did really good as well, not only with their singing but with their acting too.  I thought they both were really good all around.

          I also felt that Sacha Baron Cohen's and Helena Bonham Carter's characters were distracting.  I know they were suppose to be comic relief or whatever, but it didn't work for me.  Whenever they were on screen it took me out of the movie.  I have a hard time taking Sacha Baron Cohen seriously.  (I also didn't like him in Hugo).

          And the love story felt extremely forced.  Cosette and Marius falling in love after only seeing each other from a distance?  Give me a break.  They only talked to each other for like five minutes.  I felt Éponine's love was more genuine.

          And why didn't people move farther away?  People are always constantly moving, trying not to get caught, but they only move like four blocks away.  If they really wanted to escape why don't they move to a different country?

          But it wasn't all bad.  Like I said, I liked most of the actors.  And I thought the cinematography was really good.  I liked the close-ups with the shallow depth of field.  And I liked how things were composed.  It was a good looking film.

          But, overall, it was an ok movie.  I didn't care for what was happening on screen, but it sure did look good.  Would it be weird to say that I was more moved by Source Code than this?

     But that's just my opinion...