Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Who's to say what will happen to his career once he grows out of it, either way the point is that he will grow out of it. Once that happens will we still be able to see him featured on the big screen or will he be just be a faded memory of 2010. In a few years he won't have the frame of a frail sixteen year old boy nor the innocent face that allows Cera to play these geeky teenage boy roles. We don't know what's in store for Cera, but what is known is that there will be a change in time.
The article "Scott pilgrim Reviews Reveal What Film Critics Really Think of Gamers" by Dennis Scimeca brings light on how film critics are complete disconcerned on how society today really works. Critics bashed the movie for it appealing to gamers, who don't have lives and have ADD. Whether the film was intended for a specific target audience or not, there is one thing that critics need to take into account. There are gamers. The number of gamers has been increasing exponentially. And the gaming industry continues to flourish as the movie industry stays at a stand-still. Games are just as much a form of art as the amount of entertainment that they provide. If they were given they appreciation that they deserve and would be viewed as "art" then non-gamers would be more accepting towards games.
I do not have the pleasure of being labeled as a gamer. From the occasional Guitar Hero and watching my buddies play Call of Duty, I have developed an understanding of the games. I appreciate the entertainment that they provide and the amount of work that was put into them. Over this past summer Allen Wake was released. My best friend was completely psyched to get home and play it. I had thought that it was ridiculous to be that excited for a video game. He popped the game into the Xbox, and rather instantly I was infatuated with the game. I thought it was amazing, from the plot to the graphics. Until then, I hadn't appreciated a game for anything else besides entertainment. I acknowledged that there must have been a lot of time and effort into making that game. Making it a form of art.
I moved from the dark side and realize now that gamers and game developers do not get the appreciation that they deserve. Critics bashing on gamers is ignorance. Ignorant because they seem to ridicule something that they clearly do not understand. If they were to step off their pedestals and see the forest for the trees, they might not be so quick to judge. Honestly, I do not think I person can critique what they do not understand. It would be like taking medical advice from the dude who works the Cash register at BK.
Monday, October 25, 2010
The movie Scott Pilgrim vs. The World has been watched by many people who thought they'd enjoy, but many, especially critics hated the movie. Some feeling that it targeted a generation of young ignorant, incompetent, and impatient losers. However, Linda Holmes, the author of the article thinks the movie is great. She happens to be none of those things mentioned above, especially not a part of the targeted audience. She mentions that the movie is not for everyone and doesn't deserve the criticism towards the targeted audience.
Critics definitely seem to be concentrating and critiquing on the targeted audience rather than the movie itself. You don't have to be an impatient teenager with the lust for entertainment to enjoy the movie. Critics should have concentrated on the movie, not who it was for. If the movie sucks it sucks, it shouldn't have been the movie sucked because it was filmed for these kids who don't have enough of an attention span to appreciate real movies.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
25 October 2010
In the St. Petersburg Times, the review "'Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World' is merely mediocre" by Steve Persall starts off with negative comments about the film Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World. "I have discovered more appealing ways to not have a life," is the second sentence of the article and immediately sets the tone Persall has for the rest of the article.
Persall then goes into saying that watching Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is like watching your friend play a video game and then trying to play yourself, but you discover that it isn't at all what you hoped. Basically meaning, that when Persall watched the movie it was a disappoint. Persall claims the director Edgar Wright is a good director, but did not bring his skills in this film. He then goes on to mention that Michael Cera simply just plays "himself" yet again in another film and brings nothing new to the floor.
Persall then summarizes Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World with Cera's "signature dorkiness" and the film's "psycho fight scenes." Persall ends stating that the film is not his type to watch. Persall also makes a remark regarding the fact that geeks will say that a young gamer should have done the review for the film and not someone like himself.
Right from the beginning of the article, I knew Persall had a negative reaction the the film. I also knew this because of the original article I read stated that the St. Petersburg Times also put down Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World. I do agree with Persall's statement about Michael Cera's "signature dorkiness", but I do not look at it as a negative trait as Persall does. I've seen Cera's performance in two films and the way he acts is relatively similar, but that is what makes him what he is. That is why directors choose him in their films because they know he will come with that "signature dorkiness" that they're looking for.
I thought this was an awesome movie. It was just down to earth and showed what greed can do to people. It quickly drove Dobbsy to madness and paranoia while Bob and Howard kept their sanity along with their good soul. Dobbsy said in the very beginning that he wouldn’t take any more money than he said he would and that he would stick to what he wanted in the first place, but once he gets his hands on some gold he wants more and more. I loved Bob and Howard because they were the honest and wise ones. Bob was true at heart and showed it throughout the movie, like when he gives Dobbsy the gold to pay for the equipment he got for the journey. Howard is the wise mentor of the group and has a smart way of handling any situation thrown at them. I also love how the movie ends with them laughing at how the gold is gone and basically saying oh well. Even though the gold is gone and blown away they go on their separate ways to live life.
That's just what Dobbs and Curtin need. An easy job with extremely rewarding pay. Howard had told stories of men who would set out for gold and then become increasingly greedy, wanting to acquire as much a they possibly could. Dobbs said that he would only need $5,000 for his desires to be fulfilled and that he's easily walk away after that goal was met.
Dobbs and Curtin decided that they would set out and prospect for gold. They realized that they would need a man who knew what they were doing and invited Howard along. The three men set out for the search of gold deep into Mexico. They were able to find a mountain that was rich in gold, they built a mine, and soon started panning.
The land yielded more and more gold, and Dobbs desire increased along with his wealth. Once their goals were reached, Dobbs expressed that he wanting to keep going. It's not like their time was limited. "Why stop?"
$45,000 and the death of an innocent man later, the three men decided that the land had no more riches to offer. They packed up, thanked the mountain that provided them with wealth, and left. Bandidos had already proven that a threat to the men, but they didn't realize how much of a threat they really were.
Howard had to leave Dobbs and Curtin with his riches to assist some villagers. Howard knew that he cold trust Curtin, but Curtin had completely underestimated how much greed had overtaken Dobbs. He had gone rabid with lust for the other men's gold. He wanted more than just his share and was willing to do anything for it. He shot Curtin and was more paranoid than guilty for what he had done.
In the end the Bandidos killed Dobbs. Ironically, they didn't want his gold, they even scattered because they thought it was just sand. Sand. All that work and blood shed just for it to be useless in the end. Curtin, who survives the gunshot, and Howard laugh. Laugh at the irony, and laugh at themselves.
I really liked this movie. It was unfortunate, but that's not all the story told. You can't really grieve for something that you didn't even have in the first place. They knew the gold wasn't theirs, it was the lands. Howard and Curtin were able to hold character and fight the greed that was able to overcome Dobbs. Even though I enjoyed the movie as a whole, it was rather boring. So I guess I liked what the movie had said and not the movie itself.
24 October 2010 John Houston's film The Treasure of the Sierra Madre tells the ironic story of three men on the search of gold in the Sierra Madre Mountains. Fred C. Dobbs and Bob Curtin are two American men down in their luck in Tampico, Mexico. They are just scraping by by finding whatever low end job they can get and asking people for money. All this changes when they meet an old prospector named Howard.
Howard is in search for partners to help him prospect for gold. At first, Dobbs and Curtin turn him down because lack of money. However, Dobbs attains some money from winning a small lottery so Dobbs, Curtin, and Howard, go on to search for gold.
On their journey to find gold, they are attacked while on the train by a group of bandits headed by Gold Hat, who will later be a recurring problem in the movie. The men get supplies and set up camp on some territory that is loaded with gold and build a gold mine. The men agree to split all the gold equally amongst themselves, but Dobbs being the suspicious person he is believes that he is being cheated out on this share. This feeling of unsecurity only heigthens when James Cody is introduced.
The three men plan to secretly murder Cody, but before they can do so, their campsite is attacked by bandits leaded by Gold Hat yet again. Cody is killed in the crossfire in the attack and the bandits leave because they fooled by the appearance of Federal soldiers. The men decide to leave the campe because the thinning of gold and Howard is called to help some sick boy at a nearby village.
Dobbs and Curtin continue on their journey with only Dobbs getting more and more paranoid about the gold. This results in Dobbs holding Curtin at gunpoint one night, but Curtin survives. Curtin somehow manages to find the village where Howard is being honored and they go on to look for Dobbs. Meanwhile, Dobbs is killed by the recurring bandits lead by Gold Hat and they mistakingly scatter his gold in the winds. They also still his belongings.
When Howard and Curtin return to town, they barely miss the killing of Gold Hat and his bandits. The film ends with Howard and Curtin having lost their fortune, but realize they were better off than Gold Hat and Dobbs.
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre was an okay film. I probably will not want to watch it again, it really dragged on and was slow. I was excited to see it at first though because I liked Humphrey Bogart's performance in Casablanca. I do like how in these old movies, the music is really intense. For example, you can tell what emotion is trying to be put across through the dramatic music played.
I can see Michael Cera growing up into an even more successful actor than he is now in the future. I don’t really understand why Sara’s putting so much emphasis on that question because he’s still young and taking advantage of the roles people love him as, like in Superbad, Juno and now Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. I think he should keep playing the cool nerd parts in movies like that for a while and then he can transition into more serious and sophisticated roles. Young actors like him have plenty of time to transition and “grow up”. I would like to see him take advantage of as many cool movies as he can while he’s still so young. I love him as an actor and I would love to see him play a variety of more cool parts in a variety of more cool movies. Don’t grow up yet Michael, stay in Neverland for a while!
Well this is no Casablanca that's for sure.I personally didn't like the movie very much.The characters were good and it was good acting. There were some parts of the movie that i did enjoy such as the scene where that old guy freaks out and start dancing. it just wasnt my prefered type of movie.
Will Michael Cera Ever Grow Up?
In the article, "Will Michael Cera Ever Grow Up?" by Sara Vilkomerson, she talks about
where he will stand and what will happen to his mediocre acting career when he goes from man-boy to man. In his recent movies, Michael has played the same role; from dorky loser to rising above the challenges or bullies to getting the girl in the end. Not only is his acting a trademark for him because we basically see him playing the same role in mostly every movie he's in. Sara makes a point; "But what will happen to the man-boy when he's all man and can no longer slouch about in baggy pants and hoodie sweatshirts with perpetually flushed cheeks?" Not only is she wildly curious about where his acting career will lead to when he supposedly becomes a man and can no longer play the dorky boy who gets the girl in the end, but she also creates curiosity for all of us because we think about where his career will escalate to or what it will become. And with that, she thinks he will make the transition from man-boy to man but is not entirely sure, but only time will prove this point.
The old man named Howard told the men the first night that gold changes a man, but Fred and Bob both thought otherwise.
They all three set off south further into Mexico to start their search for gold. After a while of traveling they finally find the right spot at the top of a mountain and set up camp. For the next ten months they live in the forest and mine the gold out of the mountain. Some time into their search a man named Cody stumbles into their lives and accidentally bring in some bandits. After Cody gets killed the movie takes a bit of a turn around and the three men pack up with their loot and start to head north.
They a found by some bandits and when Howard goes back to their village to heal a boy he then become their Medicine man. He tells Fred and Bob that he will meet them in a few days.
But Fred is a changed man. The gold has made him go crazy with greed and paranoia and shoots Bob and leaves with all the wealth.
Bob doesn't die and somehow finds his way to Howard. From there they set off to find Fred with the help of some bandits. Little did they know that Fred was now dead and different bandits had stolen their donkeys and all the richess.
After finding the Donkey and then empty bags that the gold had been in they decided it was a sick twist of fate and there was nothing that could be done. Howard went to be the Medicine man and Bob went to Dallas.
I thought the movie was slow. I think I actually heard people snoring in some parts. If it hadn't dragged on I think I would have liked it a lot more. It was all really just a "money is the root of all evil" kind of movie. At least it had a point, but it was just boring. Even though it was boring I did still like a lot of it. They just could have cut out some of the parts, or made them shorter scenes. Pretty good but boring over all.
Overall, I think "The Treasure of Sierra Madre" is above average. The music really brings the audience to the right mood, with luminous sounds every time Fred is suspicious of his partners allowing the audience to sense the tension among them. Humphrey Bogart's acting is superb as he plays a treacherous man that is totally different from the hero in Casablanca. He succeeds in making us abhor him in the character yet admire him as an actor. The fine acting is actually the highlight to a film with too many details. The fourth character, James Cody, may be a little bit out of place. Without him the film would be just as good.
In the article , Sean Burns expresses his disapproval towards the movie. He refers to the movie as "fan service," stating that the movie only aims to please its target audience. To him, "Scott Pilgrim Vs The World" only portray an obsession of the youth towards video games and an inappropriate attitude towards women. Sean Burns clearly states that the plot, the directing and the acting are, to a large extent, not up to standard. He also suggests that while the content may be better if the director have exploit the emotional conflict of young couples, the conflict, which may be such a highlight for the movie, is not used at all. Instead, the director focuses merely on the visual effects in order to please the target audience group consisting of gamers. Sean criticizes the directing of the movie as a collage is used to explain about the main characters' past. All in all, to Sean Burns, the movie is such a far cry from interesting.
You can clearly see my stand just by looking at the choice of title for this post. Even if the movie may not be excellent, it is not acceptable for Sean Burns to libel the director and his movie in such a biased manner. As long as the target audience of the movie and some others still enjoy it, the movie may not be considered a failure after all. Being a critic and a journalist, Sean Burns could have done a much better job if he has kept his extreme personal feelings aside and write an unbiased review. Philadelphia deserves better than him.
Firstly, it is not true that the movie is exclusive of those who are above 30 and non gamers. While Sean states that the movie is a "punishingly alienating experience preaching only to the faithful, devoted hearts of arrested 12-year-old boy," the rest of the people think other wise. Movies attract people partly not only because they offer a new and broader outlook on life and its various aspects but also because they are the entrance that leads the audience to a world different that the one the latter live in. It is natural that every one seeks new information and experience, and this movie offers both information and experience regarding the game world. Non-gamers may have a better idea of the gamers' world and via the information provided by Sean Burns, one can easily realize that the director indeed has done a great job creating the gaming environment with his heavy reliance on visual effect.
Secondly, Sean Burns has been overly critical towards the movie that he assumes that the director misses out the most exciting "vein" of the plot. Yet, he may be wrong. The directing of the movie may focus on visual effects since that is the impression on the audience that may be what the director desires. People go to the cinema mostly for entertainment. The kind of entertainment can come under many forms, such as beautiful visual effect, an unpredictable plot or a quirky way of directing. As long as the audience is pleased, it should not matter under which from the entertainment should be. Taking Avartar by James Cameron for instance. The movie is praised all over the world. It is thanks to its beautiful cinematographic although the plot is highly predictable. This example proves Sean Burns wrong regarding his thoughts of what is best for the movie and how it should be directed.
In a nutshell, I disagree with Sean Burns and his criticism of the movie "Scott Pilgrim Vs The World." Biased personal feelings should not come in the way when the article is assumed to be written by a film critic. Moreover, extremely libeling words should not be used either. Sean should put himself in others' shoes to appreciate the hidden beauty in it.