Q:

1) Describe the Film
2) What do you notice about Chaplin's acting style? How does his style help enhance the film?
3) How do you feel about the Chaplin's character?
4) What are your overall impressions of the film?

A:

1) this film was interesting because it was longer than the other short films we saw before. IT involves a man, called the tramp, who falls in love with a woman after saving her from criminals. He works on the family farm and finds out the girl has a boyfriend. He then leaves and goes back on the road.

2) He exaggerates all of his motions, which makes it funny but also helps us understand what emotion he is feeling.

3)I feel like he is a normal person, not likable but not hatable either. This helps him be relatable as a character. It also seems he is witty but clumsy.

4)I actually really liked this film but thought it was a bit too long. A silent 30-minute film gets boring after a while

1) What did you notice/learn about Méliès' style?
He uses many special effects, using "cinemagic." He also used matte to superimpose films together and duplicate himself or make objects appear. Also, he used stop motion for making objects disappear or appear.

2) Were there consistent elements in his films? What were they?
some consistent elements were magical and surreal like the moon, disappearing chair, eggs.  His set design was also amazing, and effects were added in the background.

3) Did you enjoy his films? Which ones? Why?
yes, all of them, as it was impressive to see what effects he made with no computer programs. 

4) What will you take away with you from watching these films?

I'm amazed at how far we've come in little over a century, but also how awesome Méliès's films were for his time.

film review #2

Casino Royale


1) Provide a description of the film. Discuss the plot and characters and how they influenced the film. Was the plot line or character development more important? Why?


I think the plot line was more important. The character, James Bond, doesn't change at all throughout the movie, but the plot is full of suspense and action. The movie tells the story of James Bond, a secret agent for the british government. He needs to win a high-stakes texas hold'em to put financial pressure on LeChiffre, a french villain. Pressure from LeChiffre's creditors would force him to cooperate with the government. Bond wins the tournament in the end, and gets tortured by LeChiffre to win back the money. The money Bond won gets stolen by Vesper, and he pursues her. He finds out her boyfriend was kidnapeed by the organization behind LeChiffre, and that she delivered the money to save Bond. Bond finally kills the head of the organization.


2) Think critically about how the film was shot, directed, use of lighting, etc. What do you think was effective in the making of the film? What took away or could have been done differently to enhance the film?


I think the way the film was shot was very effective. It was slower and had many pan shots during the poker scenes, to indicate pressure and stress. During the action parts, the shots were fast-paced, which was effective in conveying the mood of the scenes. I don't think the film could have been better.



3) What is you overall opinion of the film? Would you recommend it? Why/why not?


I would recommend this film to everyone who likes action movies and the past James Bond movies as the action scenes are very-well made and the explosions/deaths are not overkill.