Pacific Rim

A film where the burden of the acting is put onto Charlie Day's shoulders and the writing is cliche to say the least, you wouldn't expect such a fantastic result. Guillermo del Toro's latest film is composed of giant robots fighting giant monsters. It's not the type of movie I normally would even watch but something about it from the trailer alone seemed so intriguing that I had to investigate, and boy am I glad I did! 

The film doesn't stray far from its main idea: epic larger than life fights. The plot is relatively simple, a rift in an ocean trench causes a bridge between our dimension and a dimension housing these monsters (dubbed Kaiju) to open up and it leaves the Pacific Rim susceptible to attack. Mankind's response? To build giant robots (Jaegers) to fight off the kaiju. A washed up Jaeger pilot is asked to return to duty as a new class of Kaiju appear. Partnered with a young, inexperienced women with abundant potential and a few other interesting Jaeger teams, they represent the humans last line of defense against the impending destruction. 

The great thing about the story that del Toro tells is that there's no extraneous love story, background story, or really any tangent to distract from the main point. While these subplots can add great depth and substance to a movie, based on the writing and acting exhibited in Pacific Rim, it was probably a good idea to leave out the extraneous stories. 

The brilliantly crafted fights between the Kaiju and Jaegers is a true testament to how far special effects have come. The fight scenes are visually incredible and completely captivating. They are the most entertaining part of the movie. 

The most intriguing part of the plot is Charlie Day's subplot. He's a scientist obsessed with studying the Kaiju. He talks at a mile a minute and is convinced that the Kaiju have a purpose other than destruction for its own sake. Using the technology developed for piloting the Jaegers, he links his brain with a Kaiju brain to learn of their origin and ultimately their weakness. 

Don't get me wrong, Pacific Rim contains more than its fair share of shortcomings, but if you take it in the sense of imagination and entertainment, it's one of the best movies of the summer and could potentially change the way people view blockbusters. Although falling short of achieving depth, the film aspires for substance and originality, which is something most big budget sumer films lack.

Grade: B-

 

My Return with The World's End

Ironically enough, I'm choosing to write about The World's End for my first post in a long time. I went to see this movie in theaters twice! I liked it so much. 

Comedic duo Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg return with this sci-fi comedy that offers more then just entertainment. The trailer reveals a secret that is well disguised as an unpleasant feeling of the familiar in the film before the reveal. The genius of Pegg and Wright is their ability to blend together sci-fi action, humor and real emotion in a way that doesn't feel manufactured. 

The film opens with a flashback to an infamous night that Gary (Pegg) can never forget. The group of 5 friends attempt their hometown's "Golden Mile" pub crawl which consists of 12 stops. Pegg's character, a childish nobody desperately clinging to his youthful glory days calls that night the best of his life. When he deceives the group, 20 years later, into heading home to retry the Golden Mile, they reluctantly agree. Once back in their home town, they quickly become lost in the unsettling tweak on the familiar places of their past. The film climbs to an epic conclusion at the World's End pub.

One of the great parts about this film is the foreshadowing and the presentation of the obvious. For starters, each of the 12 pubs' names is an indication of what happens there. The flashback from the begging of the film also has a subplot similar to the film's plot. Throughout the film's dialogue more clues are given to what will happen later on. 

Pegg and Wright also seem to create genuine emotion out of the hilarious and action packed scenes. Pegg's character is singularly focused on reliving the glory days and making it to the World's End at all costs. Throughout the film his juvenile behavior and selfishness seem to have no limit. While it is hard to watch him struggle with the realization of where his decisions have left him in life, his behavior is rewarded at the end when it becomes his saving grace and also offers a somewhat frighteningly real view of the human race. 

The film was hilarious and also had something to say. The story it told seemed real despite its absurdity. And despite the title and plot of the movie, the ending is actually quite surprising.  Grade: A 

Girls

http://www.showbiz411.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/hbo-girls-.jpg

I don't care what anyone says, this show is amazing! I love it! 

So I don't really know where to go with this post...

So I'll start off by saying Lena Dunham really captured something special in the show. I think she found the voice that can speak for the generation of recent college grads. I think what makes the show so special is that it makes you hate these people. They are terrible and self absorbed and just really bad people, but you have to love them because you know that those people are real, and that they might be you. They are the embodiment of their age group and demographic. They didn't grow up rich but they never struggled. They all had an easy life and they all are pretty intelligent. Now that they are on their own though, they don't want school to end. They don't want jobs, they don't want to struggle. They still expect things to be handed to them. They're so lazy and over dramatic. Everything is the end of the world and I feel that it shows very well what life is like. 

I think Hannah is the most real character and I also love that Lena Dunham makes her character the worst of them all. Every week I just want to jump into the tv and shake her and tell her to get hr shit together. She complains all the time. She's so lazy. She makes everything a huge deal and she keeps gravitating to the wrong people. She keeps idolizing Jessa who is the world's worst role model. She keeps going to Adam, which I like because they work really well together, who has enough problems to fill his own show. She can't jsut sit and write her fucking book which is the absolute worst. And she drove Marnie away and refuses to mend their relationship. 

I love Marnie! First off, she's gorgeous and Brian Williams' daughter (love him too). Also I think that she captures a totally different persona. She is too uptight and too busy planning to live. At first she was so bad to Charlie who was perfect. Then they break up and he, very understandably, just wants to move on, even though he can't. So Charlie goes on and Marnie is pissed. She resents him for it. She can't stand him being happy while she is miserable. She tries to be more relaxed. She tries to go with the flow and not stress which is even worse for her. I understand where she's coming from but it's still frustrating seeing her be her. 

http://cdn01.cdn.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/girls-prem/hbo-girls-premiere-10.JPG

My favorite character is Ray. I think his age gives a good perspective and a brilliant contrast to the others, especially Shoshanna who is so young and optimistic. Ray is kind of dark and super intellectual. I think he isn't so much a voice of reason but more a philosophical presence on the show. I really like his realism. It seems, in contrast, to be pessimistic but I see it more as him being a warning. He knows shit happens and life sometimes sucks. I think he really wants them to avoid becoming like him. It's too late for him to save himself but he can at least help the others. 

Well here's to 1000 more seasons!

2001: A Space Odyssey

So I finally did it. After a long time of knowing I needed to watch, I finally sat down and put in the 2 and a half hours to watch Kubrick's masterpiece that is 2001: A Space Odyssey. In one word: beautiful. But I'm thinking you'd like a bit more than that. The film is absolutely gorgeous; from the music to the ships to the shots of space, you are in for an all out audio/visual assault. Wow! 

The most notable piece in the film is  "Also Sprach Zarathustra" by Richard Strauss. I have no doubt you've all heard it even if the composer and title are foreign. This first use is in the opening titles. You get a gorgeous shot of the moon, earth and sun all in a line as the camera slowly pans up revealing each. The music blares and builds and builds and you see Kubrick's name flash on the screen and then finally the title of the film. It's one of the most impressive title shots I can recall. Along with this, it is used again when the primate first realizes that he can use the bone as a tool. He swings away almost exactly to the beat of the music. And finally, at the end of the film, it ends with a scene similar, visually, to the beginning with the music being used again just as impressively. It really is used quite well and leaves a lasting impression. 

Throughout, classical music scores the film beautifully. It doesn't seem like a sci-fi, but rather, in some scenes, like you've wound up at the ballet. It is absolutely wonderful. The emotion and power in the music is a wonderful accompaniment to the the light dialogue of the film. While some films can feel empty because of too little dialogue, I feel 2001 uses it as an advantage. And along with the music, Kubrick does something most can't. He uses silence just as effectively. One must appreciate the moments in the film in which you hear nothing. There are many shots outside in the vacuum of space that are silent, just like actual space. Also, there is a long scene where they are in a space suit and you can only hear the breathing which to me seems like it may have been an influence on Vadar. And lastly and most notably, in the climax scene, HAL is the only one talking, pleading, while Dave approaches. 

As a heads up, the rest of this post is going to have spoilers, so you might not want to read. Having said that, it's not like major plot twists, but your choice. 

So as to the plot and meaning. In the beginning there's the scene where the primates discovery the use of bones as tools. This I believe represents a major advancement in evolution and represents all tools, as seen at the end of the primates part when the bones is thrown up and then a space ship in the shape of a bone appears. I feel that lends itself to show what tools have done for us. Before that though, one morning the primates awaken to see the Monolith appear. They're scared. They howl. When nothing happens they even dare to touch it. They do and nothing happens, its just a solid, black rectangle. Also, I think very importantly, when the primate is looking at all the bones, the music starts, the monolith appears and then he picks it up and turns it into a tool. 

After this, we move to 2001 and the space age. We see a man on a ship and we know he is going to the moon to deal with some crisis. We later find that the crisis is that the Monolith was found buried on the moon. The only other thing known is that there is a strong signal pointing towards Jupiter. Once again, they touch the Monolith, but its just solid. 

Next, 18 months later, we are on the ship with the Jupiter Mission. We only have Dave and Frank, the two crew members not in "hibernation." We also have HAL-9000, the computer control of the ship and the "6th crewman." HAL has a perfect track record and cannot make mistakes like humans. He can see, talk, compute, reason and can give not only the illusion of feelings, but I think he has genuine feelings. When HAL feels that the humans may cause the mission to fail, he steps in. He feels the mission is of the absolute highest possible importance and cannot fail. First, he reports a radio failure, wrongly. When discussing with their base, they find that HAL is probably wrong. Dave and Frank try to secretly discuss the possibility of HAL malfunctioning and turning against them. When Frank goes back out to look at the radio, HAL uses the pod to push him into space and murder him. Dave tries to go in another pod to save him but its too late. Dave comes back and HAL discusses his intention to carry on the mission alone. He even cuts off "life support" the the hibernating crew members. Dave enters the emergence, manual air lock and once in the ship, he decides it's time. He decides to "kill" HAL.

Dave must walk through a long passage to HAL's memory and disconnect all the processors. This scene is one of the most chilling murders in film history for me. Dave silently works his way to the processors. HAL first tries to reason with him. He talks on and on. Dave continues in silence. HAL begins to beg and plead for Dave to stop. At one point he says he can feel it, meaning himself being killed. HAL says repeatedly "I'm afraid." Over and over again, slowly, HAL repeats this. As the processors are removed, HAL's voice gets lower and he basically resets. He says he can sing a song and asks Dave if he'd like to hear it. Dave finally speaks and wants to hear it. He then, in an incredible low voice sings "Daisy" and he dies. 

The movie then continues with just Dave making it to Jupiter. He flies in a pod and then the film gets weird and really trippy. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But after several minutes of that he ends up in a room and you see him age with each cut and doing different things. He lives the rest of his life there. When he is about to die and in bed the Monolith appears. He dies and turns into a fetus. Then the camera goes towards the Monolith and as soon as the whole screen is black from it, the music starts and instead of panning in space to see planets, we see the fetus floating and the film ends. 

So I had to look up what to make of the movie. It's weird and makes very little sense. Kubrick has repeatedly declined to give it meaning, preferring viewers to make their own interpretation. I think that the Monolith is used by the aliens to encourage evolution. At first, with the primates, it's inspiration for the bone to become a tool. But the primates can't use the Monolith, just touch it. Once it's served its purpose in creating tools, we don't see it until it's found on the moon. I think aliens then put it there as a sort of test. When we get to the point where we can find it, it'll push us on to Jupiter. When we see the men look at the Monolith on the moon, they can touch it, but not move through it. But it serves its purpose and sets us off to Jupiter. The bedroom in space doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I think that the rapid aging isn't as rapid as it seems, only a clever use of cutting scenes to show a long period of time passing. In the novel of the same name by Arthur C. Clarke, which was written along with the film and released after, Clarke explains that the room is like an alien zoo. Maybe. I don't know what to make of it. Also, many consider the fetus to represent the star child. I also don't know what to make of it. I do, however, feel that what ever the room represents, by dying in there, humans have fulfilled their purpose. When the Monolith appears for the final time, we are able to pass through it and enter into space.

Another interesting point brought up in the film is technology. I see it more as a warning then anything else. It seems to be postulating on the rapid growth and advancement of technology and especially artificial intelligence. I think the film is meant to make us reconsider how far to push. Can any good come from a machine that can reason? Think? Feel? Maybe we'll never advance that far, but if we do, these are things to consider. HAL felt it didn't need humans, will other advance computers? It's both intriguing and terrifying to consider. 

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2708/4050346966_79f10b1618.jpg

A few other points is that the film was released in 1968 and the special effects are unbelievable. There are so many shots representing zero gravity and they are dine beautifully. The film effects were ground breaking and definitely an inspiration to Star Wars and many others. Also, Kubrick loves symmetry and it was definitely noticeable in this film. Mainly I noticed it with the bedroom at the end, but it can be seen many other times. Overall, I loved the movie regardless of how much sense I could make of it. Even if you don't care for the story, you should watch for the audio/visual experience. 3.5/4

P for Panopticism

From the moment I first read Michel Foucault’s Panopticism, I noticed its relationship to the film V for Vendetta. Even though from the 19^th century on panopticism has been the dominate method of discipline for society, I felt there were a lot of parallels with this film. It may seem that dystopias are more obviously panoptic than normal societies, but I actually think that they are generally less panoptic because they generally lack the flow of authority back up from the bottom. In V for Vendetta there are a lot of parallels to panopticism as well as parts of society that are not.

Now, with out going into a ton of detail, as a lot of people will feel that the ideology of panopticism is familiar even if the term is foreign, I’ll briefly tell you the main points. It’s a system of discipline for a society where everyone is constantly being observed. The main part that sets it apart from just a horribly oppressive, strong state controlled government is that power not only can be used from the top down, but also from the bottom up because the chain of command is always looking from broken links. For example, the common man can report police brutality to the chief and can expect the officer to be punished. Another main feature is that everything is to be reported to the person ahead of you on the chain of command and is to also be written down. This allows for any problem or mistake to be tracked quickly to its source. The last major part is about actual discipline. In this philosophy, it is not enough to punish or lock up a criminal, but rather to study and understand them and their crime. By doing this, authorities can hopefully learn how to prevent or rehabilitate future criminals of the same type. Knowledge is a huge part of panopticism. 

In V for Vendetta, a terrorist named V is seeking revenge on a futuristic, oppressive English government. Adam Sutler, the commander of the government, is a deeply religious man who imposes strict regulations to keep the country from falling into chaos. The revenge is centered on V’s experience with government lies and brutality and a conspiracy that goes all the way to the top. The St. Mary’s virus, a deadly disease created and cured in the Lark Hill detention facility where V was once prisoner, immune to the disease, and a survivor, is then released by the government to induce fear causing Sutler’s election and then the cure is released for profit. V swears revenge on all who were involved. Evey, a young woman who V saves from the Fingermen (police), becomes his only ally in his revenge plot. We discover the story of St. Mary’s as Detective Finch is investigating to find V. 

In the society created in the film, one of the main discrepancies with panopticism is the inability for power to flow from the bottom up. Unlike the truly panoptic society, any corruption, deception or other violations by higher ups goes unpunished. One of the most immediate and obvious cases of this is the Fingermen’s attack on Evey. 

One of panopticism’s biggest benefits is that no one is above the law. In theory, this system should have no corruption but in practice that is rarely the case. The Fingermen, who are supposed to be like the secret police to Sutler, would’ve raped Evey had V not saved her. While she was breaking the law being out past curfew, raping her neither punishes, solves nor furthers the understanding of the crime. So the Fingermen are failing to preforming their duties according to panopticism and they also, because of their role in society, will not be punished for what they had intended to do. In a truly panoptic society, there would be a way for Evey to report the abuse and the Fingermen involved would be punished. 

One of the biggest sources of support for panopticism in the film is the constant surveillance which everyone is subject to. In a panoptic state, not only is the government watching, but all your neighbors, friends, colleagues, etc. You can never escape the intrusive gaze of the outsiders and any “odd” behavior can and will be noticed and reported. In the film, it is pretty obvious that people are always being watched. They immediately have the video of V and Evey from the Fingermen’s attack. Along with that, they can almost immediately identify who Evey is, where she lives and where she works. When V attacks the news station, they once again have the video to prove he was there. 

By being able to surveil all of society all the time, people begin to police themselves (Make this a quote). By always being watched, you assume you cannot get away with anything and therefore must do nothing. When Evey asks, “Why did I do that?” and V replies with, “Because you knew it was right.” it is directly related to this idea. Normally, people do what they think is right for the sake of it being the right thing. Granted it may be less immediate when the right thing is illegal, but I believe that generally the right thing is done. Because Evey knows that she was being watched and the police must know that she aided V, a terrorist, she feels that the morally right thing to do was wrong. The constant surveillance changed her to think that doing the right thing is less important than doing the “normal” thing. 

The idea that the system of discipline could change a persons way of thinking is exactly what panopticism tries to do. It isn’t just about being able to punish when things go wrong nor is it about being able to prevent bad things, but it is so controlling and perversive a system that it wants to literally change people’s ideas of right and wrong. This change is much more powerful. It can stop people from even a second thought of wrongdoing. I think that fear is the strongest motivator and panopticism takes people’s fears and uses them to get them to behave the way that is deemed “normal.” In the film, after years of constant surveillance, society as a whole has changed they way they think about right and wrong. In the scene with Evey, she morally did what she felt was right even though it was deemed wrong by society. By seeing her guilt over helping V, you can see that the government has successfully been able to change the way society thinks about right and wrong. 

In the beginning of the film we were given a brief history of the famous Gunpowder Plot. It tells the tale of Guy Fawkes but there is one quote in particular that I feel is strongly related to panopticism. 

The quote that starts, "We are told to remember the idea..." I feel is particularly resonant with the new idea of punishment under panopticism. The purpose of the punishment in panoptic societies is unlike that of earlier times because this idea is understood. While men represent a physical danger to a society, a much more dangerous and contagious entity is an idea. Earlier systems attempted to destroy the man entirely so that he could not cause any more trouble, but panopticism attempts to understand completely the idea and then destroy it entirely so that it can no longer pose a threat to society. In the mildly confusing words of Foucault:

“The extreme point of penal justice under the Ancien Régime was the infinite segmentation of the body of the regicide: a manifestation of the strongest power over the body of the greatest criminal, whose total destruction made the crime explode into its truth. The ideal point of penality today would be an indefinite discipline: an interrogation without end, an investigation that would be extended without limit to a meticulous and ever more analytical observation, a judgement that would at the same time be constitution of a file that was never closed, the calculated leniency of a penalty that would be interlaced with the ruthless curiosity of an examination, a procedure that would be at the same time the permanent measure of a gap in relation to an inaccessible norm and the asymptotic movement that strives to meet in infinity.”

In relation to the topic at hand, in panopticism, the idea in question must be completely understood before it can be destroyed. By complete dismantling the idea it can then be more easily recognized and dealt with. This knowledge can help prevent future threats to the “normality.” Also, Foucault makes a point to mention a “file that is never closed” which relates to panopticism idea of documenting everything. This new discipline that Foucault theorized works incredible well, but clearly wasn’t used in the case of Guy Fawkes, who was hanged, representing not even the Ancien Régime’s idea of the highest punishment. In England, to this day, November 5^th is celebrated as Guy Fawkes day. This signifies that he, not only his ideas, were never forgotten by the people. Granted the day is similar to that of our halloween, the fact that it exists is a panoptic failure. Were England completely panoptic in 1605, not only would Guy Fawkes be a completely unrecognizable name, but his ideas would also be destroyed and forgotten. The recognition that ideas are more powerful than men seems very panoptic, and even more powerful, to me. 

Along with this quote, the prison term of Evey runs very similar to Foucault’s idea of the ideal panoptic discipline. She is kept isolated in a cell with no way to gage time. She is continually threatened with death during the investigation, but death never comes to her. She is tortured for information continually. First, she is indefinitely imprisoned. She was just taken one day and thrown into the cell. She wasn’t charged or tried with any crime and she certainly wasn’t told how long she would be imprisoned. Her investigators continually tortured her for information and kept trying to get answers from her. Although she never cracked it definitely seems as though they would keep pressing for information regardless of how long it took. It’s hard to say how some of the other points relate to her prison term because she was never given a judgement or anything of the type, but the film definitely shows a panoptic attempt at prison and one that I find pretty successful. 

Another very big part of panopticism is the keeping of written records. This allows for any “odd” behavior or any mistake to be traced to the the source much more quickly and reliably than by word of mouth or if there were no records. 

While not perfect, although part of that is due to "The Reclamation” it is obvious that there are a ton of records kept that record everything. The recording of documents is of the utmost importance because it allows for knowledge to be kept accurately. Knowledge, after all, is the ultimate discipline goal of panopticism. In the film the records are not kept as meticulously as they should be, but I think that the attempt itself is enough. Also, the records they are looking for are said to be either deleted or missing, and I would assume mostly deleted due to the nature of Lark Hill, which shows that the records they are looking for existed at one time. The keeping of records may not be carried out as great as it could be and corruption is definitely part of the problem, but overall I feel that the mass keeping of records seems to be a crucial element not only of panopticism but of the film as well. 

Although V for Vendetta isn’t the perfect example of panopticism, it definitely has some very strong parallels. The biggest parallel being the constant surveillance used by the government that not only allowed them to be watching everyone, but which also allowed for paranoia to spread and self policing to start. There are a few parts of the film that ma not entirely match up with the ideas of panopticism but those are mostly to add to the feeling of oppression and totalitarianism that comes with a dystopian society. Just because the movie uses panopticism, what’s the point? I think that it is important to see examples in film, tv, books, etc. By recognizing it in these mediums, you may get a better grip on the ways that panopticism is used to change your reality. I think of films as saying, “Look! Look what we can manipulate these characters and the film to do. And guess what? This can happen to you without you realizing it.” It’s not enough to say that “the film’s society is panoptic.” That is useless knowledge. When you can identify the panoptic elements of the film, however, and use those to better see the panopticism in your daily life, then you can take meaning from the film. It can often be hard to take an idea from writing and transfer it immediately into reality so I think that films provide a great bridge from words to reality. For me, the biggest take away I got from the film was how easily fear can be manipulated into control. I always used to think that the Patriot Act was a necessary law to keep us safe, but after seeing the film I questioned that. Is it truly to benefit us, or did law makers take advantage of the fear surrounding 9/11 to tighten their grip on society and infringe on our privacy? I’m not a political blog so I’ll leave the conclusion to you, but I think that these are the important connections that more people need to make between film and reality. Films are an art form and they are generally meant to communicate something bigger than the picture itself. Recognizing this and interpreting it for yourself can help make the ideas more personal or maybe help illustrate a point that we wouldn’t consider on our own. 

And just to be extra safe, Foucault's ideas that I've used come from the third chapter from his book Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison and the V for Vendetta ideas come from the 2005 Waner Bros. film written by the Wachowski siblings. The video clips are from youtube and my dvd copy. 

Hitchcock Double Feature

http://www.johndmorrison.com/hitchcock/murder.gif

http://www.thekuleshoveffect.com/storage/post-images/blackmail%20anny.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1263408296622

So I take a Film Music class in school and we're working our way through the early sound films. With this section I had the pleasure of viewing two films by the genius, Alfred Hitchcock. Blackmail and Murder! were, respectively, his first and second sound films. Both films are centered around murders and the investigation following them and both are definitely worth a watch! 

In Blackmail, Alice (Anny Ondra) commits a murder of her would be rapist. When Frank (John Longden), the detective and her boyfriend discovers her glove at the crime scene, he decides to help her cover up the crime. Unfortunately for them Tracy (Donald Calthrop) finds the other first and uses it to blackmail Alice. Frank and Alice must now give in to his demands or outsmart him and pin the murder on him. This movie is very well done. While we normally think of silent and early sound films as cheesy and unrealistic, that turns out to not be the case at all. Because dialogue is now available, the over acting isn't a problem and the music takes a step back and plays a more minor role, as the new ability to use sound effects and speech are put on display. Hitchcock's genius is found in the methods used to make this film. As the cameras were large and loud, they needed to be sealed in glass casses to muffle sound, but that made them immovable. He worked around this by shooting some scenes silently and then putting in sound afterwards. Also, as speech and sound effects were new, music was learning its place in film. Hitchcock not only uses music very effectively, especially the song "Miss Up-To-Date." Not only is music used, but he also is a master with the use of silence to build tension in a scene. Lastly, being the master of suspense  in the film he'll often build a scene and then either cut to something else, or have an anticlimactic finish. This is often a let down or frustrating, but in Hitchcock's films it works incredibly well. Overall the acting was solid and the story was very entertaining. 3 out of 4.

In Murder! (Netflix streaming), we see another murder story unfold in a very different way. Diana (Norah Baring) is an actress found in a state of shock with a fire poker next to her and a murdered body at her feet. She is brought to trial and with little trouble convicted of murder. On the jury is Sir John (Herbert Marshall) who reluctantly decides she is guilty. Fearing he has condemned her and sure of her innocence, he starts his own investigation to prove her innocence. This whodunit is less than spectacular, especially after seeing Blackmail which I thoroughly enjoyed. This film feels more like Hitchcock is learning. At the heart of it all is an interesting plot that isn't played out as well as it could've been. The music was at a real minimal, with only 4 instances of music being played. With that, in at least one scene the music seems to drown out the dialogue which is a huge distraction. I didn't find myself sympathizing with Diana who might be innocent as much as I did with Alice who most certainly is guilty. I think that the relationship between characters isn't as developed as it needs to be to see the connections more clearly. Also, why is John, an actor, able to carry out an investigation? The brilliance in shooting is also evident in this film, especially in a scene with a narrative of John's thoughts which required a voice over. Overall however, this film just didn't have the charm, suspense or excitement of Blackmail. It's not a bad film and might be worth a watch to some fans of Hitchcock, but for most I would say don't waste your time. 2 out of 4. 

The Start of an Epic: "Kill Bill: Vol. 1"

http://wfiles.brothersoft.com/k/kill_bill_vol_1_62991-1920x1200.jpg

As you can tell from my first post, I love Tarantino! I think he is brilliant and his style is beautifully over-the-top violence. Now this weekend was the first time I had seen Kill Bill: Vol. 1 from start to finish. Let me say that it is much better that way, incase you didn't know. The story is something to be admired. It is perfect for Tarantino's non-linear formant and his excessive violence to the point of ridiculousness. I personally love that he goes over the top with the violence. It might seem cheesy in some films, in particular Django but even in that and especially here, I think it fits in perfectly. This movie feels like a cheesy Kung-Fu movie because of the action scenes which are over the top and incredibly bloody. The almost super human strength and agility along with the breaking of every chair, table and piece of glass in sight creates a mood that is unbelievable but also incredibly entertaining and it just feels right. 

The Bride (Uma Thurman) is a character created by Quentin and Uma. The story is of her revenge on the Deadly Viper Assassin Squad, of whom she was once a member and who 4 years earlier had destroyed her wedding and almost killed her. After coming out of a coma, she swore revenge on the members of her former team. She has her notebook with where to find each and one by one swears to cross each off the list. In Volume 1 we see The Bride escape the hospital and fight 2 members of her former team. We are also introduced to the rest of the team, Budd, Eve and Bill. We begin to learn the backstory to her wedding and we learn a little bit about Bill, whose face is never seen. 

The film is incredibly exciting! It's an adrenaline rush! It has loads of action but doesn't sacrifice story telling. We get a pretty extensive background on some characters throughout the films chapters. Like always we get a brilliant film which is to be expected of Tarantino. It's filled with witty lines and all sorts of minute details that really help bring the story together. Tarantino is yet to disappoint me! 3.5 out of 4! Hopefully this weekend I'll watch Volume 2 and in the near future the world will get the finale, Volume 3.