Ok! By a show of hands, who here has heard of Mystery Science Theater 3000? Anyone? No? Well my friend, you sure are missing out because after this MYST post you'll be watching hours upon hours of this wonderful production of comedy (As I have done without regret in the past)!
Basically, it's a show where three dudes commentate on a cheesy/bad old movies. Now, before I go in-depth about MST3K (that's how the cool kids say it), I'll go over the movie that they watched and reviewed which I subsequently watched and reviewed: Gamera!
...It's...it's basically turtle Godzilla.
No, really, that's all I can really say about the movie. It's a Japanese Kaiju film from 1965; you can't get any less or more specific than that. It like any disaster movie: scientist find some strange carvings of an ancient creature; the creature emerges and starts blowing s**t up; the world seems to be at it's end; the world leaders come together and find a way to defeat the monster; the monster is vanquished, but not necessarily killed; and there's some ridiculous subplot about someone saying that he/she "understands" the monster and that it is "alone" or "scared" or "hungry" or whatever cliched crap the writers will come up with.
That's the movie, ladies and gentlemen. This would be the end of the MYST post...had it not have been for these guys:
Like I said, if you don't know these guys you really should. They will make your boring hours of nothingness much more enjoyable.
To go further into it, MST3K was a show back in the late 80s and 90s that poked fun at bad movies using a sort of "peanut gallery" commentary (I know it's technically a show, but come on, they show the full movie for every one of them). It stars two robots, Tom Servo and Crow, along with their human friend Joel (it varies on which season).
Now, the reason why I say to go and watch these bad movies with these fellas is simple: they are like your best buds having a good with a terrible movie. They all have their individual charms, quirks, and personalities that just make you feel good inside. You get a comedy from movies that clearly weren't meant to be comedies, and you feel a sense of honest reward of sticking with it to end with these guys. You know the movie is bad, they know the movie is bad, and you all want to stay around and listen to all the funny remarks up until the credits roll.
I give this movie, on it's own:
2/10 for quality 3/10 for watchability
I give this movie, with the aide of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 crew:
8/10 for quality 10/10 for watchability
I hope you all enjoyed my review of Gamera with Mystery Science Theater 3000.
Fond regards,
~Grant Dunderman
October 2013
Film Studies Period 10
It seems as though this summer wanted to give it's film-goers as many heart palpations in as many places as possible. We've got heart palpitations in space (Gravity), heart palpitations in the suburbs (Prisoners), and heart palpitations on a racetrack (Rush). But as intense movies go, there's always one that just stand out from the rest. The one that just gets right under your skin to make a grown man curl into the fetal position and cry "You fool! Don't do it!" The movie that gets the title of "Most Heart Palpitating Movie of the Summer, Like, No Joke, I literally Cried" goes to Paul Greengrass's Captain Phillips.
Now, Paul Greengrass movies have always been about motion and intensity (cough cough Bourne), whether it'd be translated into the writing or the shakey camera cinematography (if you thought the Bourne movies had the shakey camera thing down, try that on a boat and you will feel seasick). But this movie is different for two reasons: one, this is his first "based on a true story" movie (even though the real life Captain Phillips was much more douchey than in the movie); two, this is the first time in a Paul Greengrass movie where acting seemed to be the priority.
Now, say what you may about the Bourne movies and Matt Damon being incredible, that's fine. He was. But the Bourne movies' focus was more about the complex story and finding the true identity of Jason Bourne. For Captain Phillips, on the other hand, we know how it's going to end. It was a headlining news story. There was even a book written by the captain himself. We know he would live and that the bad guys bite the bullet (no pun intended).
But the beauty of this movie is that it's directed as though we don't know that. He wants us, the audience, the feel every tense minute in that movie as though we were on that ship being tracked down by the pirates, and the acting really solidifies this.
Tom Hanks is obviously taking the cake for this movie. His acting ability is unmatched in this role. It's not that fact that's he going all out all the time (cough cough Forest Gump), but it's more the subtleness of his fear and anxiety. It's obvious that he's trying to stay calm and trying to be one step ahead of the pirates, but if you look at his face you can just hear him crying out in his head "If you f**k this up, we're all going to die." That's impressive acting, when you can tell your whole situation just by your face.
But Tom Hanks isn't the only power-house actor. Let's take a look at the Somali pirates, and how I had to remind myself that they were not really Somali pirates. I'm being very serious in saying that they literally look, act, talk, walk, and even feel like they were from the coasts of the crime-ridden Somalia, which, when you look into it, is sort of true. The main pirate was born in Somalia, raised in Yemen, then moved to America. Talk about typecasting all you want, but this guy deserves an insane amount of praise for his role. He just may end up sharing an Oscar nod along with Hanks (which will happen. Don't lie to yourself, this movie was made to woo the Academy Awards).
I give this movie:
9.5/10 for quality (-0.5 for shaky camera) 10/10 for watchability (Only for the first viewing. You might want to collect your wits before braving it again.)
I hope you all enjoyed my review of Captain Phillips.
Fond regards,
~Grant Dunderman
October 2013
Film Studies Period 10
Come one, come all! Come see the next great American classic: Rock Bottom!
The story starts off with Frank, played by Gary Cooper. A successful business man, Frank's wealth and power shadow over his intense demeanor and unanimous detest by his associates and clients. This all changes suddenly when the stock market crash causes Frank to lose his job. Without work and power, he prowls the streets of Chicago, lonely, sad, and without any support by those who have always hated him. But, a silver lining appears as Frank comes across Vivian, played by Claudette Colbert, a close friend of his from high school. Having remembered Frank from the grand memories of the years before, Vivian looks past his coldness and welcomes him into her blue-collared family. With the help of her mentor Maxwell, played by Sam Jaffe, Vivian teaches Frank the cultures and values of those who never made it to the high life. Will Frank accept these values? Will he be the same, cold man as he was for many years, or will he change himself through the care of Vivian? And, is Vivian helping him because he was a good friend, or is there something more? Find out in what is called "the best movie of the year"!
From the desk of Colombia Pictures:
Colombia Pictures is honored to present Frank Capra's latest film, Rock Bottom. We have always admired Capra's solid directing capabilities and his ability to engage the audience in timeless tales. We also greatly admire each of the stars and their roles. Gary Cooper, Claudette Colbert, and Sam Jaffe have all been a part of Colombia Pictures's films, and we have to say that they all put on a stellar performance. We also are honored with having Joseph Walker as head cinematographer, as his status in the American Society of Cinematographers really had an impression on us. His attention to various shots, long and close, in this movie in fantastic, and even though it is still in black and white he was still able to capture the essence of strong emotion through his meticulous lighting. Now, because this is a bit of a darker drama, our production studio had to regulate some of the original content of the film. For instance, there is moment where Frank denounces God during his plight of depression and downtrodden. Obviously, this scene was removed, and instead we were given a beautiful prayer scene in which Maxwell leads the blue-collar family in grace and Frank was so moved by the end that he begins to tear up. So rest assured, our production office ensured that this film followed the code.
We hope you enjoy this fantastic production of Rock Bottom!
Fond regards,
~Grant Dunderman
October 2013
Film Studies Period 10
(Before I begin, I'm want to make this very clear: All of the Saw films that I reference to or display in this article may contain brutal, graphic, and sometimes disgusting imagery. For those with a faint of heart, or for those who just don't feel like reading about this during a meal, I would tread lightly while reading this.)
Alright, well here it is. The moment of truth. The answer we've all been waiting for. The personal testament to the ordeal that only a few have dared ventured to. Don't get me wrong, I know could've done something else. I could've done a Formal Film Study on Quentin Tarantino, Dreamworks, or movies with talking animals. But I chose this. So here it is.
The first Formal Film Study of all seven Saw movies.
Now, obviously I'm going to go through this study a little bit differently. While most film studies in this class focus on several different movies with connecting themes, I'm stuck with seven movies that are essentially the same that have to be connected. Why do they have to be connected? Well, I'll get that later, trust me. There's a lot to talk about in these movies, and I'll make sure to save my personal opinion for the finale.
But to start things off, let's take a brief history lesson of the successful horror franchise of all time.
HISTORY:
The original idea behind Saw is credited to two Australian film school graduates, James Wan and Leigh Whannell. After tossing around ideas, and drawing inspiration from The Blair Witch Project and Darren Aronofsky's Pi, the two decided to try to get their idea into form. After failing to get proper funding from various studios in Sydney, and realizing that their initial budget of $30,000 would not be enough, they were convinced by their agent to go to Los Angeles to find a studio.
In order to get the studios' attention to the project, Whannell provided $5,000 to make a seven-minute short film based on one of the traps from the original script. With Whannell playing the main role, and Wan shooting with a 16mm camera, it took the duo two days, with some assistance, to make the short.
With the script and short bundled and out, they soon got the attention from studios and producers. I didn't take long for Gregg Hoffman, producer and co-founder of the then-new Twisted Pictures, to take specific interest. The movie was signed, and, after a couple of mortgages from the independent producers, had a now reasonable budget of $1 million.
The original Saw short is below. (Even though the amount of blood/gore is very much absent compared to the later movies the film's content is still horrific. Viewer discretion is advised.)
Now, enough of the history (you can find the rest of that on Wikipedia). It's time to cut deep into the Saw films.
WRITING AND PLOT:
Now, I know that you may not trust me on this. You might be thinking, "Writing? Plot?! C'mon, Grant. Saw is just torture porn." And I wouldn't blame you just by looking at the posters.
Blood, Gore, and Torture
Blood, Gore, and Torture 2
Blood, Gore, and Torture IN 3D!!!!
But hear me out when I say that there is more to this franchise than you could ever imagine. No, really, I'm being dead serious here. This is the most plot-centered and and most twist-heavy (as in Shymalan plot twist) horror film series there is.
Don't believe me? Well, kudos to you for thinking with a logical brain. But in honesty, I'm not lying.
There's a great article online called "The Shocking Complexity of the Saw Movies" and it lists a few reasons as to why these films are so tightly plotted. (Some spoilers warning)
In Saw III, we see a character read a letter and burst into tears, shortly before flying into a homicidal rage. We don’t learn who wrote this letter until Saw IV. We don’t learn what it said until Saw VI.
Saw III shows us the five minutes immediately after the end of Saw II. Saw IV shows us what happens immediately after THAT.
Saw IV actually takes place during the events of Saw III, which is only revealed when a character from Saw IV literally walks into the final scene of Saw III, about two seconds after the previous film cut to black.
Saw V picks up about thirty seconds after Saw III.
You see the traps from Saw I being set up in flashback sequences during Saws III and V. You see the traps from Saw II being set up in flashback sequences during Saws III and V. You see the traps from Saw III being set up in flashback sequences during Saws V and VI. And I’m not talking about merely reusing footage – I’m saying that the latter movies recreated earlier sets and brought back actors who were chronologically deceased, to show us new information about things we’d already seen.
After the credits of Saw VI, you see something that took place between the events of Saws II and III.
The main villain, Jigsaw, dies at the end of Saw III, and yet the events of all the subsequent movies are planned by him. And no, there’s nothing supernatural about it.
Good lord! What is this? This is just as complicated and confusing as Lost...which is probably why they did this. The article later states that Hollywood learned a lesson from that television series in regards that "audiences could be enthralled, not repelled, by huge mysteries that unfolded over years...The Saw producers took this lesson to heart, and built the Saw sequels to be full of twists, complete with Lost-esque flashbacks and lots of loose ends."
Hello Jack. I want to play a game.
Well, that's all fine and dandy, but does that really entail good screenwriting? Well, yes and no. At it's core, it's still a shock slasher series, and there's not much complication in a script to say "scream loudly". But aside from that, there was an aspect of the plot, asides from it's twists and turns, that stood out for me: Jigsaw, the main villain.
Jigsaw, aka John Kramer, aka the guy you don't break the rules with, has a very specific method to his madness. The source of his reign of terror doesn't stem from maniacal rage or vengeance on society, but rather a bunch of experiments. He's an engineer by training, and you can see it in his traps, but everything he designs has a purpose for every specific subject, and, more importantly, they each have a way out that requires them to sacrifice something from themselves, be it bloodshed or ridiculous amounts of bloodshed. "How much blood will you shed to stay alive," Jigsaw would say to his game-players. He's not downright killing innocent people. He takes people who takes their life for granted and plants them in these "games". If they win, they live, and ultimately end up with a feeling of grateful appreciation towards their lives (some judge whether this is true or not in the films). If they lose, they die (quite spectacularly at times). It's all about testing the capabilities of the human survival instinct.
Now with all that in mind, I still want to make it clear that this isn't a franchise that you'd casually watch with your girlfriend/boyfriend every Friday night. It still brutal as it's said to be, with all of the traps and such. Which brings me to my next point:
THE TRAPS
I'm not going to spend a whole bunch of time on this. Frankly, I'd rather discourage some people from even knowing about what some of these traps do. But I have to mention it. It's the Saw series! This is what half of the movies are.
What I'll say about the traps is this: I'm very impressed by the studios production of them. For each trap, they put in a ridiculous amount of time and effort into all of them and made sure they were safe for the actors and that they looked convincing enough on-screen. Below are examples of the creation and production of several traps. (Warning: Some language involved, plus the imagery might be horrific for the faint of heart. Viewer discretion is advised.)
CLOSING THOUGHTS
In my opinion, I think the Saw franchise does deserve all of its cultural glory that it has received. Sure, it can be gruesome, but that's what it's supposed to be. And after watching them all by myself, I realize that the real fun in these movies come from watching it with a crowd or maybe even a few friends, just to share that collective feeling of "EW! Gross! Did you see that?!" I would not recommend theses films to be watched by everyone, but I'm stopping everyone either. I just wanted to show to you all that if you took out all of the blood, gore, and torture you'd be left with a pretty neat and thrilling series (even though it would only be about 60 minutes).
So, the Saw films aren't horror masterpieces, that's for sure, but they have enough depth to them that the audience can relate to and for the fans of the series to talk about on the message boards until the next installment is released. (Which it will. I ain't buying that whole "Final Chapter" nonsense from Saw 3D. No sir! I'll be going to the midnight premires of Saw 8-12, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it!)
Fond regards,
~Grant Dunderman
October 2013
Film Studies Period 10
P.S. For those of you who felt a little shaken after watching the clips above, have some puppies. You deserve them.
