Jim Carrey actually didn't suck.

Mini Reviw #3

I've been losing faith in Jim Carrey. Let's be honest...he's losing his touch. Look at his new movie! Penguins? Really? Let's get back to Ace Ventura and Dumb And Dumber, shall we?

I'm not a huge fan of comedy actors doing serious roles. It's just weird. Remember when that guy who played Joey in Friends tried to have that serious role, and everyone was just waiting for Joey to come back out? It just doesn't work.

Anyway, back to Jim Carrey.

He managed to make it work. I don't know what it was about this movie, but I loved Eternal Sunshine. I loved Kate Winslet, I loved Jim Carrey, I loved the story, I loved everything about it. It was really cool and kept my attention the whole time, which only really good movies can.

Good job, Jim Carrey. Good. Job.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha........no.

Mini Review #2

Winnebago Man. The Angriest Man In The World.

More like the most overrated man in the world.

Watching this movie was like wasting an hour and a half of my life that I will never get back. I felt a little bit like I lost brain cells watching it. Call me crazy, but I don't find constant streams of swear words funny. I know, I know, you must think I'm pretty abnormal. I just don't.

I found it boring and Jack Rebney was trying too hard to be funny. You could tell when he said certain things - there were cameras and he had a persona. He loved the limelight and it was just him trying to hold onto it. It bored me to tears. Sure, there were a few parts where I chuckled, but all in all, I was not impressed.

I'm more of a funny cat video kind of person, I guess.



Look, it's cats yodeling. This is quality entertainment.

Faith has caught the Bieber Fever.

Mini Review #1



Let's be honest....everyone loves the Biebs. Even if they say they don't, everyone has this little soft spot for him. His songs are catchy. He's adorable. And that hair flip? What's not to love?

His movie was (from what I saw) great! It was cute and he was cute and it was really interesting to watch. It showed how he would sit out front of the theater in his town and sing for people. I had no idea he did that, and it was really cool to see, since everyone just assumes he's not really into it, he just sings for the money. Plus he was an adorable child. It also showed him and his crew handing out tickets to fans who hung out around his shows looking for last minute tickets. He also gave tickets to a random family in the audience who sat way in the back - that family got to sit in the fourth row. It was their little way of  giving back and I thought that was so cool to see.

All in all, I have to say...I fell a little in love with Bieber watching this movie.

Musical Madness

Musicals, as a film genre, have been around since the late 1920s, though they were mostly silent (and not very well done, even by the standards at that time).They invented new technology called the Vitaphone which allowed them to record sound on a large phonographic disc and play it simultaneously with the movie. No fancy audio and video on the same file here. Of course not. Preposterous!  Witchcraft! …Boring?

Boring it was. In fact, most people who first saw the musicals, or anything with sound, really, were uninterested. They liked the overacting that they saw on screen, it was a normal way to see emotion portrayed. However, the happy tunes had people whistling along cheerily while they skipped around and, in a short time, musicals gained popularity.

In 1927 the first musical The Jazz Singer was released. It grossed $2.6 million and cost $422 thousand to make. I may not be the best at math, but by my calculations it’s not a very groundbreaking, earth-shattering profit. No records were set with The Jazz Singer (unless you count the whole “first full length musical” thing), however, very few theaters had the technology to use sound, so it was fairly impressive considering that.

Musicals revolutionized the way that theatres worked. Had it not been for the gaining popularity with them, we’d probably still be watching silent films, and we all know how much everyone loves those. By 1929 silence was being spoken over and sound had completely taken over the film industry.

Al Jolson was seen as the first main star of a musical, therefore regarded highly within the musical genre. One of the most influential people for the genre would be Busby Berkeley, who took musicals and added in his own unique style of choreography, which we still see elements of today. The way that he choreographed could never be viewed properly on stage for musicals - they demanded high camera angles, getting birds eye view shots of the dancers. He really took choreographing to the screen. The stars of musicals are either just beginning their career in Hollywood and were lucky enough to be spotter, or trying to come back from their falling career, pulling all the strings they have to stay relevant. However, there are no typical "musical" actors. Today, the choreographer and director Kenny Ortega is seen working on a lot of musicals - from Dirty Dancing, all the way to High School Musical (clearly the height of his career).

The thing about musicals is that many of them are so different. Typically, they somehow involve a guy going after a girl he believes is totally out of his league, but she usually ends up already in love with him, and if not she falls for him anyway (probably because of his stellar dance moves. I’m looking at you, Zac Efron!). 

They also include peppy dance numbers and chorus pieces which involve everyone around them getting up and dancing to the choreography and singing to the song which they conveniently happen to know, leaving the audience wondering how on Earth this is happening. But only for a few seconds because those numbers are so catchy you wouldn't believe it and you know yourself you'd be getting in on that dancing action. 

And then there's that moment where your two favourite characters have conflict and a long ballad where they sing about never seeing each other again. They're sad and alone and upset, and what better way to get it out than to sing a song spontaneously and have everyone around you completely oblivious to what's happening. 

But then you also get musicals like The Wizard of Oz, where there is no epic romance to sing love songs to, only happy songs about finding missing organs. There are the same factors, however. Look at this clip, for example.

Clearly all they must do in Emerald City is sit and practice their song and dance for when they have visitors. It is entirely well planned out. It's also completely normal. For a girl from Kansas, Dorothy takes it all pretty well.

Just like in every musical - it's one of the main things people can pick out. Everyone knows all of the dance and all of the song with no practice, no nothing. It's totally, 100% normal. Heck, these days there are musical numbers in musicals about not wanting to sing or dance! (Though how much credibility High School Musical has is totally up for debate.)

Another code and convention of musicals is that they are typically shot in a very bright, happy lighting. It's a reality full of happiness and sunshine. The people are happy and energetic all the time, everyone smiles a lot. Of course, there are exceptions to the rules, but for the most part this is how musicals are.

And then there are Disney musicals, which is a whole sub-genre unto itself. Disney musicals are usually animated with the typical romance I described above, but there's always a very angry villain out to get the girl in the movies, which leaves the prince a great opportunity to swoop in and save his damsel in distress. There's still the constant chorus of song, but since the movies are usually cartoons, it's totally acceptable for the cartoon baker to know the song and when to talk to Belle. That's fine. And the dishes and candlesticks? It would be ridiculous for them not to. What else would they be doing in a magical castle?

Another element commonly found in Disney musicals is the lack of people in the cast. Usually there are talking and singing animals (or dishes and other household items) that take on main roles, and less people than you would think would show up.

Musicals are the ultimate rainy-day movie. Who wouldn't want to sing along with Danny Zuko and the rest of the Greasers while they sing about Grease Lighting? It's the ultimate mood-brightener. And they have been since 1927 when they first came out and people were first introduced to them, though it took some time to warm up to the idea.  They make you dance and sing and hum the tunes all the next few days until everyone around you is ready to snap at you for getting it stuck in their heads. And really, what's more fun than that?

Copywrong

The filmmaker made this film to prove his point that copyrights limit too much, that they make creativity too hard. His intention was to get the attention focused on industries that hold these copyrights and make them seem like they are taking too much from the general public. I agree with some of his point of view, but I disagree with some of it. I agree that copyrights do limit a lot and make it hard to be creative in any way, but I disagree with how they presented their ideas.

Obviously there is bias, and it's perfectly fine to have a bias in a film, it'd be very difficult not to. Most documentaries are all supposed to prove a point and that can't be done without some form of bias. However, I think that there does have to be a sense of showing the other side, which I don't think this film did very well. It went into the background of copyrights and looked at all the awesome/cool people who supported what Girl Talk did and how copyrights shouldn't be used and when it came to the other side of the argument they were all, for lack of a better word, lame people. All of the people who were charged with copyrights all got a sad sob story segment, but the people who were pro copyrights got nothing near that kind of sympathy. The copyrights lawyer was presented as someone who was totally unable to comprehend how Girl Talk did what he did and was floored by what he was doing. This gave the impression that, even though they are protecting copyrights, they don't know what they are protecting them from. This is completely inaccurate and incredibly biased to show, though it helps his point greatly. I really don't think he did a good job in interviewing the other side of the argument, as he portrayed them in a very poor light.

My thoughts on copyright haven't changed much. I think that anything online should be able to be used and altered by anyone, but I don't think anyone else should be abl eto make a profit on it. So long as you give credit where credit is due, and do not claim anything as your own, I see no problem with borrowing clips from other movies. The only time that I disagree with these things is when they are used for profit for others. Since this is not something that you can call your own you should not be able to use it for your personal gain in any other way than for entertainment.

I really did enjoy this movie (have we wtch a movie in this class I haven't loved?). I thought it was a very well constructed argument, and the point was proven very well. I really liked the approach he took to making this movie and I really do think that it was effective. It was very easy to watch and follow, and since this is an issue that is relevant to youth today, it was a very good documentary. It wasn't boring in the least, due to the cool graphics and constant music. It was overall a very good film and I really did enjoy it!

If I hadn’t been very rich, I might have been a really great man.

Honestly, I don't think that Citizen Kane is the best movie I have ever seen, but it does come into the top five. It was well done and, though there were dry moments, it did have a great mystery to it.

I understand where one would think that the movie was boring or not well done. We have very high standards today when it comes to movies, and if it doesn't keep us on the edge of our seat and it doesn't have stellar visual effects then it is deemed a "boring" or "terrible" movie. I think it has become more about that then about a good story line, which I believe Citizen Kane did.

Movies today lack a good story. They're more about one upping the last visually pleasing movie than about creating a witty and in depth story line. The characters are generally flat, and if they do have any dimension to them, it's all done through the present in the movie, never going back in their life times. I think that Citizen Kane did that well and Kane was an incredibly well developed character and the way that the movie flipped through present and past was done effectively.

The way that they set up the interviews was, in my opinion, the best part about the movie. My favourite would have been Leeland's interview. I really liked that you could see how they reacted to his death, and the reasons behind it. It was so much better with the use of flashbacks than it would have been for them to simply tell the story. Or, like many other movies do, have the flashback but have it narrated. The one thing that I can not stand is having a flashback narrated. Without the narration it keeps the feeling of the movie without feeling like it's story time.

However, I would not say that it is the best movie ever to have been made. It was very good, though. A solid four and a half out of five, for me!

(I thought that picture accurately represented my feelings for this movie.)

Music Video Analysis

Whoa Is Me by Down With Webster

Reality in this video is presented as a life full of fame and partying. Like the typical party-esque video everyone is attractive and having fun. Reality is shown this way because of the nature of the song. The lyrics to the song and the entire point to the song is talking about how awesome and cool the band is (or how "whoa" they are, according to the lyrics). By showing everyone having fun at a show of theirs and everyone around them being attractive and partying it, in music video standards, makes them awesome.

The video is set at night, which is when most party videos are set in. Though, not too many pop/party music videos are set on a bright sunny afternoon, either. There are lots of flashing lights and some slow motion performance scenes, which are quite common in videos of a pop-rock genre (though this song falls more into the pop genre).

The main value statement in this video is that the more you party, the cooler you are. It could also have to do with being full of yourself, if you look at the lyrics, and it shows that through the way one of the band members acts, with his somewhat diva like attitude. Being a diva is what it takes to be a celebrity - if you want to be famous, be a diva.

This video appeals to teenagers because it's about being a celebrity. A lot of videos show a story, but this was about being famous and a celebrity, which is everything that most teens dream of being. Celebrities are idolized and most teenagers want to have the life that a celebrity does - partying, red carpets, playing music on stage, etc.

Personally, I like the video, and as a commercial for the band, I think it's a good video. Down With Webster wasn't a hugely famous band before this video, and while they still are't giant they did gain a lot of fans after this song and video. They did a very good job of making the band seem incredibly cool and popular. Their video before this was a very funny, joke type video and this video made them seem like they were already incredibly famous and popular and cool and that everyone should want to be like them. It did a great job of selling the band, and it fit well with the song, since the song is about being cool and a celebrity.