Saturday, October 16, 2010

Video games are art!

Nicole McBride
English 111 1230PM
16 October 2010

Feeder 3.3
Exercise 2.1: In the online article "Scott Pilgrim Reviews Reveal What Film Critics Really Think of Gamers" by Dennis Scimeca, he writes about how video games are art and entertainment just like film and music. Scimeca quotes from film critics about the negative reviews they gave about the film Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World. He says that those critiquing the film subject those who it is aimed as basically losers and hopes that it offends them. Scimeca states that while film and music are not progressing, the game industry is. He justifies that if the game industry is not High Art, then their production definitely is. Scimeca says that those who actually play video games need to take the places of those critics because they actually know what they're talking about. He ends with that gamers shouldn't care whether their chosen art form is worthy or not, but it should definitely be heard and put out there.
Exercise 2.3: "Scott Pilgrim Reviews Reveal What Film Critics Really Think of Gamers" by Dennis Scimeca states that film critics do not believe that video games are an art. Video games are indeed an art. Video games require creativity, originality, research, computer skills, and so much more. How is that not art? The design and thought process that goes into the production of a video game requires just as much thought, if not more, than film production. In the article, Scimeca says that video gamers should be insulted by the negative comments by film critics, but then he says that video gamers should not care if people declare video games an art form or not. I think video gamers should care, I know I would if I was indeed a video gamer. If I developed a video game and no one declared my game as a high art, I'd be mad because I obviously put a lot of time and thought into that game. I would suggest that all film critics play several video games to actually see what they are degrading. How can one talk and give their opinion on something that they know nothing about? That is like giving your review of a film before seeing it. Video games are a high art and need to be viewed as such.

Are critiques too harsh sometimes?

Nicole McBride
English 111 1230 PM
16 October 2010

Feeder 3.2
Exercise 2.1: In the online article "'Scott Pilgrim' Versus The Unfortunate Tendency To Review the Audience", author Linda Holmes discusses the harsh critiques of the movie Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World. Holmes, herself, likes the movie, but she discusses how critics degrade the movie because it is aimed only at teenage boy gamers. Holmes states that you don't have to be a 12 year old boy gamer to like the movie. She says that being a woman over 30 likes the movie. Holmes discusses that if she were to critique the movie, she would talk about the good qualities of the movie and say that just because she liked it you might not. Holmes quotes from critics about the movie and says that they're too harsh. She says they need to address the issue "there's no reason to be angry at the people you imagine a movie will make happy just because you didn't like the movie."
Exercise 2.3: "'Scott Pilgrim Versus the Unfortunate Tendency to Review the Audience" presents reasons and points of view of why critics are too harsh of the film Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World. I agree with the point the author makes about how critics degrade the movie just because they don't like it. I agree with the fact that critics don't address the possibility that maybe others like the movie just because they don't. No matter how many people dislike a movie, there is going to be someone out there who will like it. Critics need to take this into consideration. Not everyone has the same opinion of the movie, so they need to approach their critique differently. Differently as in maybe when writing the critique state "this is of course, just my opinion."

Friday, October 15, 2010

Don't Hate

In the article “Scott Pilgrim vs. the Unfortunate Tendency to Review Audiences”, the writer, Linda Holmes discusses how some film critics have been stereotyping their opinion of intended audiences for the movie Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. She gives examples of various reviews from all over the U.S. that are all biased opinions about their dislike for the movie and depictions of what types of people would go see or enjoy this movie, like gamers and little boys. Linda supports her argue against all the biased reviews from the film critics by stating that she is not even part of the target audience that the reviewers are mentioning and she really liked the movie.

I see the major issue as the way these film critics are brushing off the movie with their biased opinions due to their hate or dislike for the movie. I think those sassy film critics should step up their game, reviewing movies with good intentions rather than tearing it apart, along with it’s so called “target audience.” I agree with Linda all the way on this issue, just because you hate a movie doesn’t mean you can hate on the people who like the movie or want to see it. I have not seen the movie, but it looks pretty awesome, and like Linda I am not a gamer, I’m not a teenage boy, I’m pretty sure I don’t have ADD and I have a life. My life heavily involves watching amazing movies, and this is one I plan on seeing.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Gamers vs. Film Critics

Feeder 3.3
“Scott Pilgrim Reviews Reveal What Film Critics Really Think of Gamers”

2.1: The article discussed what the film critics think of gamers. Four film critics published in newspapers that gamers were dorks, did not have a life, had ADD, and were 12 years of age. The author was offended by the rude remarks. The author claims that gaming is an art form like music or film, and critics have no right lowering gamers self worth. He believes that gamers should publicly speak their minds in order to engage critics so they can stop openly disapproving gamers. In the mean time, gamers should not care what people think or say about them and hopefully soon disapproving critics will pick up a controller and actually play a game.

2.3: The author of “Scott Pilgrim Reviews Reveal What Film Critics Really Think of Gamers” has a specific point of view about film critics playing a game that I agree with. Film critics rudely criticize an art that their profession does not cover, which is gaming. I think the critics should stay within their own category and what they know. I assume that some film critics have young children in their household who play games, and to call gamers mere 12 year olds is totally uncalled for. Believing that gamers do not have a life is outreaching, labeling an individual like this is discrimination. I myself am not a gamer, but I do believe that using hurtful words publicly towards a certain group of people is unnecessary. Some people do not realized or have no remorse about how bad they can make another feel, this is ridiculous. I think for once, a film critic should play a game, not just one, but several. When they do then they can decided whether they like it or not, but instead of publishing their opinions like they do on films they should keep their opinions to their selves.

Hostile Critics

Feeder 3.2
“Scott Pilgrim’ Versus the Unfortunate Tendency to Review the Audience”

2.1: In the beginning of the article, it discussed film critic’s opinion of the movie. Basically all critics considered the movie to be a waste and it only appeals to video gamers and people under the age of 30. The author feels that the critics are being too cruel towards the movie and if she was doing a critic on a film, she would write the good qualities of the film without totally discriminating against it. There’s no reason to be angry at the people who like the movie just because you did not. The author then discusses her point of view, claiming that she is not a gamer and over the age of 30 and she very much enjoyed the movie.

2.3: In the article, “Scott Pilgrim’ Versus the Unfortunate Tendency to Review the Audience”, the author makes an excellent point that I fully support. The point is basically the fact that film critics tend to be angry with the audience who enjoyed a film that they did not. When in a theatre, the audience usually laughs at something funny, cries when something is sad, smiles at sweet moment, or even screams at something frightening. That is proof of entertainment. The purpose of movies is to entertain the viewing audience, when that happens it should be considered a success. But then, a professional film critic comes along and if they do not like the film, they publish an article stating in their opinion what was bad about the movie. Like the author, I think film critics should ease down on what rude remarks they say on films, because there is people out in the world who actually really like a certain movie others may feel are unimportant.

Gold + Man’s Soul = Greed

In “Treasure of the Sierra Madre”, Fred Dobbs and Bob Curtin are two men in Tampico down on their luck begging for money on the streets and being cheated out of jobs. They encounter an old prospector named Howard. Dobbs and Curtin consider the idea of becoming prospectors themselves with the aid of Howard, but first they would need plenty of dough to supply themselves with picks, shovels, burros, food, and of course guns for protection. After Dobbs wins the lottery, they embark on an adventure determined and hopeful to find gold. Eventually, on a mountain, they find the perfect place to start digging for their fortunes. Everything appears great at first, but when they succeed in discovering gold, they begin to encounter difficulties such as Bandits threatening their lives and greed. Dobbs slowly becomes greedy desiring more gold, and he is paranoid that his partners Curtin and Howard are planning to steal his fortune. With greed overpowering Dobbs judgment, he shoots Curtin and leaves him for dead and makes off with the gold. Surprisingly, Curtin survives and informs Howard. Dobbs does not get too far when he is murdered by Bandits and robbed of everything. Curtin and Howard pursue Dobbs, in the end they do not find the gold that they considered precious and worked so hard for. The gold blows in the dusty wind back to the mountain it came from. Being the understanding and good hearted men Curtin and Howard are, together they laugh at this misfortune and go their separate ways, as if it were destiny.

“Treasure of the Sierra Madre” was amazing. I enjoyed every minute of the film. The story was exciting and very realistic. I loved how Howard foreshadowed the film when he said, “I know what gold does to men's souls”. I automatically expected that one of the men were going to be overpowered with greed, and as we all know, greed leads to a misfortune for an individual. Humphrey Bogart playing the role of Dobbs was interesting; he is not the classy man like he was in “Casablanca”. As for the characters of Curtin and Howard, I enjoyed their presence on screen because they were such good hearted men who keep their heads up even when they’re down. Overall, the movie was great; it further teaches that fortunes cannot buy happiness.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Too Long

Over all I thought the movie was pretty good. I thought filming was and acting.

The length was dragging on. There were areas that the movie could have ended.

Reading the article its says that it took 148 shooting,but they spreed it in one year. They went

over there budget. I like seeing and learning about different cultures in movie but don't care for

them to be long. My interest will shut off. I like movies that makes you feel that your in the the

movies, and this one did.The acting was good . I like the crazy drunker who started problems. I

could see how hard that role would be. I would give props to actor es who can do roles like that.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Gold, I Must Have It!

A tale of three men on a verge of making the big bucks, only to be torn apart in the end. In the movie , The Treasure of Sierra Madre it all starts out in the town of Tampico, Mexico. Two guys named Dobbs and Curtin are trying to scrap around to get money however they can. While they are in a dump of a motel, they meet a guy named Howard who tells them about the riches you could have if you go look for gold, and all the dangers that come with it. This crosses both Dobbs and Curtin's mind as they go to sleep, all of a sudden Fred finds out that he won the lottery, so the three of these guys plan to go look for some gold. On their way to the destination, bandits try to rob the train they are on. Together they defend the train and notice one of the bandits, whom they will see later in the film. They hit the riches big time and just as things look good, the challenges start rolling in. A guy follows Curtin back to their camp and tries to be a part of their group to get gold. But the three of them decide to kill the guy, only to be stopped by the sight of bandits coming their way.
The bandits and them get in a dispute, which ends with the new guy getting killed and they soon find out that he was a loving father with a great family. As they are on their way back with the gold they have, Howard volunteers to help a little boy in a village and is soon crowned as the village's head of government. He sends Dobbs and Curtin with his gold, and tells them to look after it. But the greed begins to set in with Dobbs because he wants it all for himself. So he tries to kill Curtin and doesn't succeed, and soon he finds himself alone with gold and gets killed by some bandits. They take the gold but think its sand and spread it all over the ruins. As Howard and Curtin go on the pursuit, they only find out that the gold and has gone back to where it came from. They get a good laugh about it and head their separate ways.
This was a pretty decent movie. The plot was very predictable because whenever you talk about gold in a movie, someone is bound to go crazy with greed. No matter how honest and trustworthy a person is, talk about money or gold will always change a person. Altogether this was an alright movie.

"We don't need no Stinkin Badges!"

In the movie, Sierra Madre there are three main characters who play their roles as gold diggers. The movie takes place in the Sierra Mountains along with a group of Federales who are known to be cops in this case, also drifters who are known to be the bandits throughout the movie. As days past for two men named Fred C. Dobbs and Curtin they find themselves jobs. At the end of this job, their boss does not pay part of their share, so they begin a conflict. During this conflict, they over hear an elder talking about "gold", this was a man by the name of Howard. Howard seemed like a wise man to talk about where to find gold and to be able to work hard for your earnings. As a couple days past Fred and Curtin begin to discuss how they want to live a better life an for them to go along with Howards plan, in search for gold. As soon as they all gathered their money and the needs they needed, they were off to the mountains. When arriving there they start immediately, and soon enough they were weighing out oz. of their profit. Soon enough, Fred C. Dobbs begins to get greedy with his share of the profit an begins to complain about random topics. This was a sign of Dobbs having a plan to take everything for himself at the end. A couple days later, the arrival of the bandits also known as drifters comes along in the picture and they have a confertation with running into the three men. They shoot off the bandits, but it is not long till they catach up to them again. One night, there were some men who asked for Howards help in currence to a sick boy who Howard healed. After this, they begin to take Howard as one of their own. From here on, Dobbs and Curtin continue on with their destination to Durango to turn in the gold for money. Along the way Dobbs begins to loose his mind more and more towards Curtin. Soon Dobbs made a move on Curtin and shot him in the chest. Curtin as the brave man he was, crawled away and found himself at Howards residence, he told them the situation that occured and they begin right away to get ahold of Dobbs. They could not catch up to him, but the Bandits did and raided him for his belongings and everything else. As the Bandits turn in the gold at the local town, a child knows its not the real men who took off with the mules. The kid blurbs the new and the bandits were shot and buried. In the time being so late, Howard and Curtin arrive to late, because out of the town the bandits threw aways the gold that were in teh bags, make it worse the wind was blowing so the gold was gone for good. In search for the gold and Dobbs being dead, the story end by Howard and Curtin laughing at everything that had just happened and also learning a life lesson for them not to be greedy and that gold is not everything in life.
This movie was a good movie for me, it kept me interested in the entire story. The dude Fred C. Dobbs also irritated me as well with his entire behavior towards Curtin. This was actually a good black & white movie and honestly I would watch it again. The set up and climax of the movie was good, and I did not feel sleepy at all when I was watching this.

Slashing through the Sword!!

In the movie of Seven Samuri it was complete Black and White, but throughout the movie i had my full attention on the film itself. This was a movie that kept my attention, mainly because of all the action that took place throughout it all.
From the beginning I kept in mind that this was a film that is going to be over three hours long and I kept telling myselft, "am I going to stay awake thoughtout the entire movie?" but in a shocker mode i actually did. In my point of view this was a good film, because this was made years ago, and for the director to make a film this strong has a good set idea for it all.
The story follows as a group of farmers gather seven warriors to steal their crops. A distinked action of killings and slayings take place as these warriors trie and get passed others. A relationship begins to take place with the youngest samuri of the group with a local village girl.Soon after a battle takes place and when morning arrives, most of the bandits were found to be dead. Nearing towards the end only three samuri's were left standing and this allows them to say that the farmers had won the battle that they feared from the beginning.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Feeders 3.2 and 3.3 Links

Feeders 3.2 and 3.3 involve reading  “'Scott Pilgrim’ Versus the Unfortunate Tendency to Review the Audience” and “Scott Pilgrim Reviews Reveal What Film Critics Really Think of Gamers” respectively, and posting Exercises 2.1 and 2.3 on page 138 of Cracking the Codes to the blog. Exercises 2.1 asks you to write summary notes for three readings of the next, but you only need to post your third reading summary along with your position statement on the issue in question.

The first article looks at the criticism of the film as a whole, while the second looks specifically at the connotations at the Discourse Community of the films fans.

Feeder 3.2 will be due by Monday, October 18, even though we don't have class that day.

Feeder 3.3 will be due by Wednesday, October 20.

Questions? Quibbles? Controversies?

So You're Thirteen?

In Kenneth Turan's article The Hours and Times, is justification of the length of "Seven Samurai." Three hours and twenty-seven minutes, the movie is rather lengthy. With each passing minute the audience, including myself, becomes increasingly captivated. Turban says in his article that the movie uses the time creatively, rather than rushing through. The length allows for the audience to familiarize with each of the characters. To become familiar to the characters enables the audience to view each as an individual, which establishes an emotional connection between the audience and the film. As an audience we are able to see the passage of time, hard work, tears, and joy. Which further captivates and intrigues through the entire film. This film would not have been a work of art if it hadn't been lengthy.
I completely agree with this article. Time moved swiftly as I became increasingly interested. If the movie had been made shorter I would not have been able to become so intrigued and it would have been just a regular uninteresting movie. I was captivated by both the characters and plot. From the wise words of Grandad all the way through to the end scene of the four Samurai graves I was able to give my appreciation to the movie. When I left the room I could still feel the moral of the movie. Sometimes good guys win and bad guys lose, but that doesn't mean that the good guys get what they want, or what they deserve. The length of this movie is indeed easily justifiable. Every minute holds importance for the film as a whole. Some movies simply are just better than dissected, chopped up films that feed the mouths of entertainment for society today.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

3 and a half hours too long? I think NOT!!!

Walking into a movie that you haven't heard of but you know its in a language you don't understand, and in black in white what do you think? I thought I gonna be bored out f my mind! the first hour went by so fast that the time wasn't a problem to me anymore.
The article we were to read did help explain why the time of "Seven Samurai". The story was told about the villagers, you get a sense of helplessness and you feel sad for the villagers. Then you meet the samurai. A perfect amount of badass and comedic personalities team up to help the villagers defeat the feared bandits. The time of the movie was perfect cause you meet all these people then you learn the strategy that is planned to be used against the bandits as the characters learn as well. By the time of the final battle you find yourself on edge feeling the emotion of each lose, each injury. In the end you walk out of that movie satisfied with those three hours spent watching this movie, I was at least. So I leave this wonderful blog saying that i am concidering buying this japanese classic. Adios

Length is Relative

“The Hours and Times” discusses director Akira Kurosawa’s most popular and epic film, “Seven Samurai”. The film is well known for its length, which is three hours and twenty-seven minutes long. Screenwriters Akira Kurosawa, Shinobu Hashimoto, and Hideo Oguni completely finished writing the script in six weeks. During that time, they forbid any visitors or phone calls from disturbing them. Preproduction alone lasted three months, and the actual shooting spanned out over a year. Although the film is incredible in length, according to the article, “Seven Samurai uses its length creatively”. Time allows the audience to get to know the important characters as individuals and creates an emotional connection with some characters. The story unravels smoothly and naturally, it occurs over the seasons from planting to harvesting. No scenes are rushed, like when the peasants search for the protection of Samurai. The overall article was basically appreciating the significance of the story and length of “Seven Samurai”.

Sitting for three hours and twenty seven minutes watching “Seven Samurai” honestly flew right by me. The story of the film was so captivating. Each scene had a purpose, and it slowly unraveled into something even more exciting every minute. The story was portrayed so vividly and obtained the appropriate amount time on each scene; nothing was confusing. The length of the movie was perfect because over time the audience can witness the bond growing between the Samurai and villagers. The plot was so amazing and humorous it created a connection between me and the characters.

207 minutes, are you kidding me?

Nicole McBride

Ben Villarreal

English 111

10 October 2010

“The Hours and Times” article by Kenneth Turan describes the art of epic storytelling of director Akira Kurosawa of his three hour and twenty seven minute film, Seven Samurai. Turan justifies and explains why the film is the long length that it is. Turan describes that Seven Samurai “unrolls naturally and pleasurably, like a beautiful scroll or valuable rug…” We are informed by Turan that the film originally was fifty minutes longer, but Toho Studios did not think that the average Westerner could withstand a film that long. Turan explains that the film uses every minute of its length to contribute to the essence of the story. One main reason for the long length of the film is to display the passage of time. The passage of time helps us know more about each individual character and connects us better with them.

I have to admit that after I read Turan’s “The Hours and Times” article, my opinion on the length of Seven Samurai sort of changed. I still think that the film could have been told just as well without being so lengthy. For example, the scene in the beginning where the one samurai comes in drunk could have been shorter. The whole point of that scene could have just as easily got across to the audience if it was shorter. The article made me think twice about my opinion because it explained why it needed to be the length it was. It described that the length was crucial in order to tell the story. I definitely agreed when Turan talked about how the length of the film lets the audience get to know the samurais and other characters because it really did. Overall, Seven Samurai was way too lengthy for me, but I now can at least appreciate and respect the reasoning for its length.

"Hours and times" basically explain the reasons why the movie is three and a half hour long. It tells us about the lengthy process of making the movie and the main plot. Finally, the article tell the message that is conveyed in the movie.

I agree with what is said in the article. After watching the movie, I did not feel that it was that long. It is perhaps the details, the scenes and the sequences are organized so suitably that I was so engrossed in the movie. Every scene helps explain how the lives of farmers and samurais are back then, and every detail leads to the next. It was a trenchant arrangement.

"Killed Two"

The” Hours and Times” article justifies very well why Seven Samurai is so long. It explains in details that the length of the movie has benefits of showing and emphasizing the passage of time. While watching the movie you meet each character and get to know them, see the characters grow and relationships developing over the course of the movie. The length of the film pulls you in and lets you experience the story in depth.

I agree with the justification of this article. I think the movie did need to be this long to show the whole story the way it needed to be shown. It was important to show the passage of time throughout the movie because it represents how hard they prepared for battle, choosing the samurais and developing relationships with each other. Because the movie was that long I got to know the characters and got pulled into the story, I wanted to see them win the battle. If it wasn’t that long it wouldn’t be the same. We definitely do need the stamina to sit through this whole movie so that we can fully appreciate and enjoy it. I have to say that if I was a little anxious for it to be over with but in the end I thought it was an excellent movie. It had humor, action, romance, hardships and it made me hungry for rice even though I don’t like rice.

What else is their to do for 3 1/2 hours on a Tuesday night?

"The Hours and Times" explains the reasoning behind the length of the film "Seven Samurai." The movie is three hours and twenty-seven minutes long and Toho Studios felt that western audiences wouldn't have the concentration to be able to watch the movie. With that thinking the movie had several cuts that amounted up to losing fifty minutes of the movie. Director Akira Kurosawa had his own personal reasons as to why he made the movie so long. He emphasizes the life of each samurai and their different reasonings to ban together and protect the village. The director wanted to vividly explain the characters and their purpose so a connection and bond could be made between character and audience. This way when each bruise, wound, and loss would be felt by the audience. The director also went through the agriculture year which helped us connect with the farmers and the value of everything they grow. How much each person needed it.
I thought it was a long movie but I see what the director is saying. When the final battle started I felt as if I were in the trenches with the farmers. When one of the samurai went to get a gun at night a sense of defeat came over me when he did not return right away. I felt victory as much as the farmers and defeat as much the survived samurai. Death in this movie was not like the death in other movies. I felt the lost of the samurai and felt as if their were never coming back. That is because the director picked great actors and made showed great character development.

Not as killer as I thought it would be

The Hours and Times, starts off by explaining where the length issues come into play with not only movies but stage preformances as well. Seven Samurai was the longest film since "Gone with the Wind." And even before they showed it to Americans they cut it down by almost and hour. It says that "long film done right have the potential to envelope you completely." "Seven Samurai" was six weeks of just writing and another year of shooting. But Akira Kurosawa enveloped the audience completely. It unraveled smoothly and naturally. It allowed the audience to learn each of the seven samurai warriors entirely. It had quite a few ways of "passing the time," one was the length of the leader Samurai's hair; which was cut at the beginning of the film. Another was the underlying beat of drums in some scenes that was almost like a ticking clock. Also the agricultural year that progressed as the film went on. These were all signs of length. The villagers grew to know the Samurai before they had to fight. Then when the time came to fight it had the audiences' "hearts in [their] throats." Akira Kurosawa uses every bit of the length to usure that the message gets "thorugh loud and clear."

I liked the movie for the most part. It did bug me that because it was in Japaneesse that the voices didn't match up at all. That is just part of watching a Japaneese movie though. The length started to get to me at the beginning because it took so long for everything to unfold. Then when it all started playing out and they started to choose to seven samurai I started to forget about the length and just started getting sucked in. It does a good job of using every bit of time to its advantage and never has a moment after it gets really interesting where I was sitting there going "If they cut that out it would still make perfect sense." I felt like if they tried to cut it down to a shorter length that it would not be quite as intruging as it was. It might not be on my monthly watch list but it is definately a good movie. I can see why they have made a few movies set in different times and places but based on the same plotline.

It's Just Right!

In the article, "The Hours and Times", many critics became skeptic about the movie Seven Samurai and because of its length, how it will fare to the Westerners. Ultimately, this lead to the shaving of fifty minutes off the movie because Toho Studios felt the American distributors wouldn't have the proper stamina to watch this three hour and twenty-seven minute film. Although the length of the film was sketchy to most people, the director Akira Kurosawa had his reasons for making the movie so long. He goes through part of the lives of each samurai warriors and their reasons for being a part of the group. By doing this the viewer learns more and creates a bond with each of them, just like a friendship. This creates emotion when the battle finally starts because we know so much about each samurai and we've gotten so close to each of them, we don't want any of them to die. He also goes through the agricultural year, which also flows with the length of the film because of the step-by-step process the farmers take with their crops.

Even though the movie was really, really long, I think that if it was cut short, it wouldn't have given the same experience to the audience. I had no problem with the film's length because I learned more about each of the samurai and became closer with each of them. It does take time to get to the point in the movie, but the length of the movie only makes the movie even better. Because it builds up tension in us like, we want to know what is going to happen next or I didn't expect that to happen.


In the article "The Hours and Times" film critics speak about the movie "Seven Samurai" and why it is such a uniqe film. The argument in the article is wheteher the movie is ok being its original leangth, three hours and twenty seven minutes. Critics say its too much of a stretch having a film that long, arguing that not everybody would be able to or want to sit through a movie that is that long for that matter. Akira Kurosawa, director of Seven samurai, seems to think other wise and has very supportive reasons on why he made the film so lengthy. He takes his time introducing every character and makes us get to know the character in a good way almost like on a personal level. Kurosawa explains everything with such detail from the characters to the scenery to the time period in which the film is taking place.

In my opinion the film itself did not seem as if it were 3+ hours. It might have been because of the intermission or other than the fact that it kept me interested (ish) the whole time. I think the director did a great job in deciding to make the film the length it is because, like the article said, it felt like you got to know all the charachters on a personal level. He felt it was important that he did a good job in explaining everything with great detail. Definately a movie worth watching and would watch it again if i ever had 4 hours to spare.