Frame Rate

I had the opportunity to check out 21 on DVD over the weekend and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The film, released March 2008, tells the story of a team of brilliant young MIT students who use their abilities to take millions from Vegas casinos. The movie is based on a true story (told in the book Bringing Down the House by Ben Mezrich) and features great locations, exciting visuals, and a plot constructed in textbook style.

Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess) is an unassuming, yet brilliant student who is wrapping up his final semester at MIT before moving on to Harvard Medical School. He’s applying for a highly coveted full-tuition scholarship, because the $300,000 in expenses is just too much for him to handle. He’s frustrated because he can see his dream of med school slipping away simply because of the money.

Enter the inspiring and affable professor Micky Rosa (Kevin Spacey) who takes a liking to young Ben and recruits him to become a part of an underground MIT Blackjack team. The participating students fly to Vegas on weekends and use their mathematical skills to count cards and earn millions. Ben sees this as a way to help him pay for Harvard Med, but of course,  not everything goes as it should.

21 is certainly not an example of revolutionary filmmaking, but it does succeed in presenting a solid, standard 3-act story that moves itself forward nicely. We are presented with a character who has a goal, but there’s an obstacle to that goal. So, the main character is hooked into a solution to his problem through counting cards, and so he becomes involved in the story. Through that story we see this character evolve and change, and he comes out the other side having learned something about himself and life. It’s Screenwriting 101 at its best. Although many moments in the story are predictable and the viewer can see the ending coming from a mile away, the premise itself held my interest, and the performances from each actor were engaging.

What’s especially nice about the film is the cinematography. One might not notice upon a first viewing, but the entire movie was shot digital and not on film. This gave the filmmakers some latititude when working in low-light situations and the result is great. The tones of Vegas are rich and inviting and the tabletop close-ups during casino play are crisp and detailed. Through it all, however, your attention is never really drawn to the lighting, the camera angles, or the color palette. The techniques blend well into the story, but they never upstage what’s happening on screen.

Overall, a good film that’s worth a look.

7 out of 10

First it was Beta, then VHS, then Laserdisc, then DVD, then HD-DVD. Now it’s Blu-Ray. But are discs doomed? Will the format soon give way to on-demand streaming movies and TV shows from the internet? At least one blogger thinks so. In the wake of a Netflix debacle that has frustrated customers, this article discusses the antiquity of physical media and the need for the internet to provide high-res streaming movie content. It prompts an interesting discussion. I can definitely see the advantages of purchasing or renting movies over the internet, especially if one has access to every movie ever made. That would be quite a perk. But will physical disc media go away? Your thoughts?

Let’s face it - with higher and higher ticket prices, crowds, inconsiderate patrons hitting your seat, people talking, sticky floors, concessions that cost two-week’s salary - wouldn’t everyone be better off investing in a nice home theatre system and watching films in the comfort of their own living room? Recently my dad went and up-rooted his money tree, hauled it off to Circuit City, and proceeded to buy…

1. A 52″ HDTV
2. A 22″ HDTV
3. A new TiVo with 180 hrs. capacity
4. A Playstation 3

Couple that with his amazing surround sound system and dad has his own home theatre (He just became my new best friend). I might find myself visiting good ‘ole mom and dad a little more often.

But this trend is something that theatres and studios are battling. “How do we keep people coming?” I will say that the new digital projectors in many theatres today is an incredible exhibition improvement over the grainy, scratchy prints of just a few years ago. But there can be a downside too. Consider Scott Simmons recent experience watching The Dark Knight, as noted in his blog, The Editblog.

 

The Dark Knight was a very good film. Amazingly well made and a very complex story to boot. It took quite a while to actually see the film last knight though. We arrived for the 4:15 show at our neighborhood Carmike theatre, they have digital projection and a matinee price that is $6.75 and doesn’t end at 3:00 pm like Regal Cinemas, and I noticed something strange during the trailers. I looked as if the picture was scaled up about 25%. Besides all the noticible film grain, the dead give-away was the trailer for Step Brothers. Will Ferrell’s credit looked like this:

I went out and told the kid taking tickets and he said he would tell someone. So the movie starts and it is the same way. I go back and and tell him again and he seems frustrated they haven’t fixed it and leaves his post to tell the manager. About 10 minutes into the film it is still not fixed so I go out again and he informs me that is the way it is supposed to be. “It was filmed in IMAX so that’s the way it is on a regular screen” he says. I proceed to tell him that the director didn’t intent for his character’s chins and forehead to be cut off and to have framing so poor that one character be half-way off screen when talking in conversation. He says I should talk to the manager. She begins by telling me the same thing and that that is part of digital distribution. When I explain the above reasons to her she finally admits that they have a tech scheduled to look at that projector and we can move to the 5:00 screening, which we did. It was better except for the 2 kids who talked the whole time.

Couple things like this with all of the people who check their brightly-screened cell phones during a movie these days and it is no wonder many people prefer to watch at home in their own home theaters. It’s sad that so much care is taken during the production and post of a big feature film only to have so little care given to the exhibition. When I was in film school we once had a speaker, a retired gentleman who had owned a small theater chain and donated the seating for the schools screening room. He spoke at length about how exhibition was one of the most under-appreciated and misunderstood parts of the filmmaking process. When he owned his theaters he checked the picture and sound quality of his screens on an almost daily basis. But he sold the chain when the costs got too high. Now all that most of these chains care about is selling concessions. That 100-inch LCD can’t come along soon enough!

What do you think? It used to be that people went to the theatres for the experience of a big screen and big sound, sitting with other movie fans. But has the romance worn off, due to today’s home theatre technology? Are theatres worth the price of admission?

Paul Thomas Anderson’s epic, There Will Be Blood, chronicles approximately 30 years in the life of oil prospector Daniel Plainview around the turn of the 20th century. It is a magnificent examination of a complex character whose motivations are often known only to him. It explores themes like greed, wealth, family, religion, and hypocrisy. The layers of this story are often as deep as the wells Plainview drills, and these themes can only be appreciated upon subsequent viewings of the film. If you are looking for a special effects blockbuster with a lot of action and shooting, then this movie probably isn’t for you. But if you are interested in characters — their relationships and motivations, then you will certainly enjoy There Will Be Blood.

The narrative structure of the film is rather loose. There is no predictable direction within the storyline, and this only serves to heighten the intrigue as one watches it. So many Hollywood films follow a certain formula and one can see the outcome from miles away — not so with this film. The characters are so well written, and the performances are so excellent, that one can never tell what will happen next. Since the basic plot centers around Daniel Plainview, we watch from the beginning as he struggles to dig and make a living on his own. Then we see him drilling with only a handful of assistants. Finally we see him as an established and successful oil man, overseeing several drills throughout the state.

But when Daniel begins drilling in a small ranching community he is met by an equally ambitious young preacher named Eli, whose greed and deceitfulness are masked behind a facade of righteousness. Their feud serves as the narrative thread running throughout the film. Eli tries to manipulate Daniel in an effort to get more money for his church and more prestige for himself. Daniel hides his anger and disdain for Eli to save face among the community, but the quiet manner in which he thwarts Eli (save for the wonderful scene in which Daniel slaps Eli around a little bit) is remarkable to watch. Each man wants what he wants and will stop at nothing to get it.

No amount of words here can describe the outstanding performance of Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview. It has been said that great acting is reacting, and that’s so true of Lewis’ portrayal. He can convey so much about his character in the subtle, non-speaking moments in the film (Just look for the scene in which Daniel Planview speaks to the community in a small ceremony before drilling begins. The stare he gives Eli in that scene tells a lot about Planview’s character).

There Will Be Blood is an outstanding film that you will definitely be thinking about, even days after you watch it.

8 out of 10

For the longest time I had never seen a Stanley Kubrick film (INSERT GASP HERE). Recently I’ve been trying my darndest to play catch-up with other movie buffs around the world. First I rented Full Metal Jacket. Then I caught Lolita on Turner Classic Movies. Then, my friend Todd let me borrow his Kubrick Collection and I have watched A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, and 2001: A Space Odyssey. My impressions of Kubrick probably don’t gel with other film fans, because I’m still struggling to find out why this particular auteur is so legendary. But before you shoot me for such heresies, let me say a few things:

First, he had some extraordinary art direction. 2001, for example, has remarkable set pieces and beautiful color. Second, he had a unique visual style. The costuming in A Clockwork Orange is truly out of the ordinary. Third, he could establish mood simply by his lighting scheme. This is evident in the climactic moments of The Shining when the family is completely snowbound. And he could illicit some classic performances from his actors, like Lee Ermy in Full Metal Jacket.

However, several of the films I have seen thus far suffer from horribly slow pacing, like 2001, and non-sensical plot elements (just check out the ending of 2001; however, I have heard that the ending makes more sense if you read the novel). I found Full Metal Jacket to be anti-climatic, as the best moments of the film are the moments when the soldiers are in boot camp. Overall I haven’t yet found anything in his films that I might consider truly innovative for its time. Perhaps I just don’t realize what his contemporaries were producing around the time he was making his films. Any opinions here would be greatly appreciated.

While in one of my film classes during my college years, our professor treated us to probably the best documentary on filmmaking that I have ever seen. Entitled, Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse, the film chronicles the making of Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now and the struggles the crew endured to see this picture through to the big screen.

The origins of the film start with United Artists, the distributors for Apocalypse Now. They wanted someone to shoot a behind-the-scenes look at production in order to promote the film. Coppola recruited his own wife to make the film, since she had a background in art, photography, and short films. So, she picked up a camera, aimed it at the crew and began shooting a story as compelling as the film itself.

Today when someone watches the behind-the-scenes featurette of their favorite film, what they normally see is a glamorized, polished look at the process of filmmaking. The viewer is left to believe that creating a movie is nothing but good times and smiles, with little effort involved. These featurettes are nothing more than PR spin for the studios. However, Hearts of Darkness is completely different. It is a brutally honest look at how a movie is made. We see Coppola struggle with the Philipino government to secure locations and equipment. We see the crew pushed to the limits of their endurance as the number of shooting days balloons out of control. We see typhoons shut down production. We see Coppola struggle to write an ending to the movie and question his own decisions. In one portion of the film, Eleanor Coppola (Francis’ wife) records him without his knowledge as he proclaims over and over that his movie will be a complete failure.

It’s this kind of look into the process of filmmaking that I really appreciate, and I believe every aspoiring filmmaker should watch this documentary. If you still want to make movies after watching this film, then you’re in the right business.

For a while this documentary was hard to find, and if you could find a copy it was on VHS. However, I was able to purchase a DVD copy from Amazon and am excited to have this one in my collection.

Bottom Line: 4 1/2 out of 5 stars

I was expecting the film 1408 to be a constant fright-fest, with plenty of jump scenes and terrifying sequences. What I discovered was that the film is relatively tame, which makes me believe that the movie should be re-labeled as “thriller” rather than “horror.” However, what impressed me most about 1408 was the fact that the story haunted me long after the closing credits faded away. I found myself wanting to know more, as I tried to put the pieces of the plot together.

1408 is based on a short story by Stephen King and immediately introduces us to Mike Enslin (John Cusack), a cynical author only known for his books on the paranormal. He travels the country, investigating so-called haunted hotels, and writes about them in his compilation books. However, he himself is a skeptic with a troubled past - a past that has left him a shell of his former self. But when he receives a postcard from the Dolphin Hotel in New York, he’s intrigued by the warnings about room number 1408. When he calls to inquire about the room, he finds hotel management less than accommodating. Hotel manager Olin (Samuel L. Jackson) gives Enslin the gruesome history of 1408, adding that no one who stays in the room lasts for more than one hour.

In the end, the story becomes more about Enslin’s life than the room itself, although the room has some weird things up its sleeve. But there’s nothing in the story that can really be called “scary.” The plot seems more like an episode of The X-Files or Twilight Zone - a collection of bizarre occurances that leave behind more questions than answers. The ending is frightfully convenient and the writers fail to follow established plot rules about the room, leaving virtually everything about this movie up to personal interpretation.

Cusack’s performace is good, not great, as he finds himself on screen by himself for a majority of the film. The challenge for a film where one character is alone is finding ways to communicate his thoughts to the audience. The writer’s decide to give Enslin a mini tape recorder, allowing him to speak what’s on his mind without sounding too expository.

Although the ambiguous nature of the room itself intrigued me, 1408 failed to live up to my expectations and is a pretty forgettable film.

Bottom Line: 2 out of 5 stars

I finally took the plunge and registered with del.icio.us so I could bookmark my favorites sites and pull them up on any computer. I was getting frustrated of trying to remember a great web site when I was away from my office. Well, the great thing about del.icio.us is that they allow you to import all your favorites from Internet Explorer. Anyway, I was looking at my bookmarks after importing them and came across a site I had completely forgotten about. It’s called Videodetective and it’s a great place to watch preview trailers of upcoming films and learn about what’s coming out on DVD and TV. I’ve also posted the link on the sidebar under “Movies & Entertainment.”

Many films often fail to strike a good balance between plot and action. Characters are sometimes lost in the dizzying display of CGI effects and big-budget explosions. However, Blood Diamond is a rare jewel that strikes a chord on almost every level. Attention was paid to the action, the story, but most importantly, the characters and their relationships to each other and to their individual goals. That kind of attention has resulted in a well-rounded film that a variety of audiences will appreciate.

In a small African country the people are engaged in civil war over control of the nation’s diamond mines. It’s there that a fisherman, Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou), is captured and pressed into service as a miner for a vicious rebel leader. When Vandy finds a rare pink diamond, he hides it, knowing that its value will help him and his family.

In another part of the country, Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), a mercenary-turned-smuggler, is arrested while trying to smuggle conflict diamonds across the border and now owes his superior a lot of money. And a young journalist from America, Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly), seeks to bring the African country’s plight to the world by exposing the truth about conflict diamonds.

Each character in this film has a specific need which drives the course of the film, and the three soon learn that they need each other. Archer needs Vandy for the diamond. Vandy needs Archer to help find his family. And Bowen needs Archer as a source for her smuggling expose. The needs and the goals of each character provide a depth and richness to this story which is very heartfelt. It also raises several questions that keep the audience in suspense: Will Archer overcome his cynicism and act out of compassion not greed? Will Vandy find his family? Will Bowen become bitter and enraged at her plight, or will she find the story that will finally make a difference in the world?

The structure of the story is well written and well executed, with a clear beginning, middle and end. The action serves as an intense backdrop to the entire film and each actor’s portrayal is magnificent. It’s obvious why DiCaprio was nominated for an Academy Award for this performance. It’s simply a joy to watch. Hounsou’s passion for his lost family is so vivid that it would take a heart of stone not to empathize. Connelly is somewhat overshadowed by the performances of the other two, but deserves a lot of credit for her performance as well.

Overall, Blood Diamond is an excellent film with rich characters and solid story.

Bottom Line: 4 1/2 out of 5 stars

There was a lot of hype surrounding last year’s Children of Men, a depressing and hopeless vision of a futuristic world where women are infertile. I finally had my turn at screening the film in the comforts of my living room. Even before the first scene fades into view, we hear voices from news anchors talking about the political climate of the times. When we do get a glimpse of this world, we see a mass of people crowded in a coffee shop, mourning the loss of the world’s youngest person - an eighteen year-old, known as “Baby Diego.” For 18 years no child has been born, and the year 2027 is a depressing, hopeless place, filled with political upheaval and government oppression.

It’s in this turbulent time that a one-time radical activist-turned-cynic named Theo (Clive Owen) is given a proposition by his former love-interest Julian (Julianne Moore). She asks him to abandon his rut-filled cubicle existence and assist her radical rights group (known as The Fishes) smuggle a young pregnant girl out of the country to rendevous with a mythical group called The Human Project. From the moment he agrees, Theo’s life changes in ways he could not expect.

Children of Men is a dark and ultra-realistic take on the ver-near future. There are no flying cars here. No outrageous, colorful outfits. No droids to do the human’s bidding. It’s a place where chaos and inhumanity reigns. It’s the manifestiation of our generation’s fear of what “may be.” And upon this backdrop we are introduced to the most unlikely of heroes - Theo. His is an interesting character study. When we first meet him, we see that he sort of sleep-walks through life - cynical and bitter. But his association with Kee, the young pregnant girl, and his experiences thereafter, rekindle his hope for humanity.

Technically speaking, Children of Men achieves some very wonderful shots. The director chose to shoot scenes in ultra-long takes, which gives the film a sense of real-time and viewer participation. There are very few cuts throughout the film, but one hardly notices, as the acting and story succeed in holding our attention. Particularly impressive is a scene lasting approximately four minutes wherein five actors sit inside a car, having a conversation. There are no cuts throughout the entire scene and the camera moves fluidly throughout the space, even rotating 360 degrees to show the viewer what lies ahead on the road. Truly remarkable.

The film is very dark and depressing, and probably won’t leave a lot of viewers with a good taste in their mouths, but the more one reflects on the story and its characters, the more one appreciates what the filmmakers were trying to achieve. I especially enjoyed the cinematography and shot selection. The characters are very well developed and the viewer can easily sympathize with their plight. The dialogue is good throughout the film - well structured without unrealistic expository statements. The viewer is left to figure out many things on his own and that is what helps create a compelling film.

Bottom Line: 3 1/2 out of 5 stars