Movie Review

Movie Review Essay “Inception” is a 2010 science fiction summer blockbuster filmed in various locations, such as Tokyo, France, Los Angeles, the United Kingdom, and Canada. The box office hit was directed by London-born Christopher Jonathan James Nolan, who is well-known for the cult classic, “Memento”, and his “Dark Knight” films. Along with American cinematographer, Walter “Wally” Pfister, equally well-known in his area of expertise, the motion picture has received critical acclaim. Nolan’s interest in noir and abstract thought is apparent in many of his films, and “Inception” is no exclusion.

As it is a film about dreams and cons, Nolan’s style is incredibly fitting. Pfister, who has worked as the cinematographer for almost all of Nolan’s films, adds to the movie’s high quality with his characteristic use of dark tones and lighting, which only increases the movie’s intrigue. Together, the two powerhouses team up once again to produce an incredible motion picture which has won numerous awards, such as the Academy Award for Best Cinematography. “Inception” is the story of a corporate spy by the name of Dom Cobb (played by Leonardo DiCaprio, who came to fame in the movie, “Titanic”).

However, what is particular about Cobb is that he doesn’t merely enter a company’s building in search of commercial secrets. He actually enters the minds of his targets while they are asleep and extracts the data he wants via conning and deceiving. But now, wanted for murder and unable to see his children due to his circumstances, he is offered the opportunity to regain his old life if he manages to accomplish the impossible: ‘inception’, the planting of an idea into a target’s mind, which then takes roots and grows.

Gathering a group of specialist to assist him, Cobb begins to plan inception into the mind of a wealthy businessman. The camera angles of the movie were rather simple. Most of the shots were so that the character’s face was directed at the viewer while said character talked to another. On a screen, the eyes of the actor would be level with that of the audience. However, there are some scenes that are completely opposite, particularly near the latter half of the movie, where more action tended to be focused upon. Although not as common, but highly interesting, ou’d see aerial shots of the surroundings. It gave a very desolate, mysterious feel to the film, while also informing the viewer about where the characters are. I found that the camera angles were okay, with a few that exceeded my expectations. Continuity was smooth, with talking scenes being fluid and dramatic and action scenes being erratic and ever changing, as how I like my movies to be. It was what you’d expect out of the typical talking and action scenes. The long moments of talking or silence between characters created a sense of depth.

The short moments of running or fighting allowed you to lean forward in anticipation. I felt like the continuity did what it was suppose to do. Although, there were some moments, particularly in the first half, which I felt were rather awkward. The talking scenes in the beginning were rather quick and keep changing from one character to the next, and I was so caught in trying to figure out the plotline, that I didn’t even figure out the main character’s name until the credits. Cutting, I noticed, was very prominent in the latter half of the motion picture.

It made sense, as with the plotline and story the way it is, it definitely made the movie better as the whole. It added to the tension and sense of heart pounding “Oh-my-word-come-on-you-only-have-5-seconds-to-do-that-gah”. Not only is that, but it allowed the viewer to keep up with the characters’ actions, which is very nice if you have a particular character you think is cool. I like Eames, the smart-aleck of the group, so I liked to know what was happening to him and seeing that he wasn’t going to die and all that.

Close-ups were generally seen in talking scenes, allowing the audience to focus on the emotions and reactions of the character. There was rarely a moment where the camera zoomed in on something that wasn’t an organism, something that lived and breathed. In this aspect of the movie, I found it to be either boring or heart-breaking. In my opinion, how good the close-ups were was completely dependent on the actress and actor’s ability to perform. If I became aware that they were trying to look sad, rather than felt that the character was distraught, I felt like the close-up wasn’t a particularly mart move. I noticed that the composition of “Inception” was rather dark. Light was played with and created shadows that revealed parts of the character’s body, while the other was engulfed in darkness. Objects were always placed far away as to create a feeling of isolation, while managing to focus in on the character the camera was directed at. I really, really enjoyed the composition. I believed it worked wonders for the story’s overall feeling. It allowed for dark and desolate tone to be even more pronounced. Inception really loves its slow motion scenes.

However, considering that it can be a rather fast-moving movie, it does have its uses. Although there was one particular scene near the beginning that made me raise an eyebrow, I found that most of them were rather cool-looking. Considering that the characters were essentially stepping into a dream world, where everything is possible, the slow motions displayed all the strange and exciting so your eyes could feast in the wonderfulness of it all. The color scheme tended to lean towards neutral, yet somehow gave off a very sharp feel to it.

There was also a low contrast, although it was most apparent near the end, with a particularly monochromatic feel to it. Textures were interesting to see when things began to lead towards the rising action. As for space, I felt like there was always a foreground and background, but not so much a middle ground. I suppose this was due to the incredible amount of talking. Shape was super incredibly awesome. Then again, it’s a plotline about going into the dream world, so obviously the minds behind the work would take advantage of the ability to play around with the world they created.

Either way, your mouth would drop at some of the things they twisted, the architecture in particular. In fact, the architecture is one of the most interesting things in the whole movie. As stated before, the movie played around with shadows a lot. There were a lot of highlights in “Inception”, particularly on the face. The characters are always slightly off center on the screen and there are generally only one or two characters in a single shot. I like to think it just furthers the idea of the isolated feel to the movie. Buildings are towering and rather rectangle in shape, giving off a feel of aloofness.

The special effects are in high gear when the characters enter the mind of the wealthy businessman. Things explode, crumble apart, and all that jazz: The essentials for any type of action movie. It’s fantastic. My particular favorite is when they do these anti-gravity shots and you see the characters walking upside down and floating in mid-air. Although I found some aspects of the cinematography to be average or lacking, it fully makes up in other ways. The composition and special effects are wicked awesome and I could see why the film won an Academy Award in Cinematography.

The film “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape,” based on the novel by Peter Hedges, is an out of the ordinary middleweight observation of a dysfunctional, although regular family. The film has some touching scenes which take the audience away from the reoccurring humour of the Grapes’ ways.

Set in Endora, which is described as being “like dancing with no music,” the most exciting thing that happens throughout the film is Arnie’s 18th Birthday Party and the arrival of the “Burger Barn.”

Arnie, Gilbert’s (Johnny Depp) mentally handicapped brother, always finds a way to escape Gilbert’s watching eyes and climb up the tempting water tower. This is his way of getting in trouble with the cops, not shop lifting or drug dealing, but just exploring the local water tower. And when the police finally arrest him it causes his 500 pound mother (Darlene Cates) to leave the house after seven years and demand for her precious son back. The director, Lasse Hallstrom, is very clever in how he uses humour and pathos in this scene. On the family’s way to the station the audience is able to laugh as the car tips up, nearly scraping the road, weighed down by the angry 500lb angry mother. However, on their way out of the station they find themselves part of a freak show, leaving the audience to feel horror and sympathy.

Gilbert also has many of other responsibilities as well as keeping a constant watchful eye on Arnie: earning the money, maintaining the house and caring for his overweight mother and his two sisters. These things play heavily on his mind which is why his secret affair with Mrs. Carver (Mary Steenburgen) is very welcome at first. However when a free-spirited beautiful young woman arrives in a RV with her grandmother (Penelope Branning), the affair has to come to an end, helped by the death of Mrs. Carver’s husband, who has formerly been threatening Gilbert.

Becky, played by Juliette Lewis, is a down-to-earth character; someone like Gilbert has never met before. Becky and her Grandmother have been travelling almost everywhere and stop in Endora long enough for Becky and Gilbert to get to know each other very well and to start a romance. The arrival of Becky, however, changes the Grapes’ routine and way of life.

This film equals Lasse Hallstrom’s other art house films such as “My Life As A Dog” and “Something To Talk About.” This Scandinavian director risked a great deal in experimenting with this film. One of the things he tries is the use of a voice over. This, used at the beginning, introduces us to the characters and the setting, Endora. At the end it lets us know where the characters end up and what they do. I think this is a bad technique in this film mainly because of the use of Gilbert’s humdrum voice, which in a way warns the audience of the dullness that’s to come.

Hallstrom purposely chose the camera shots he uses throughout the film to give the film its homeliness. The recurring picture of the water tower in the background lets the audience appreciate Gilbert’s responsibility. Gilbert’s truck is also another frequent occurrence, which us see everyone in it, so we can observe their reactions and emotions to what is happening. This links to the camera shots through windows. These are also very common in the film and tie in with the “fly on the wall” technique, which is a favourite with reality T.V programs. As I previously said the film is like an observation of this family and this technique enables us to just watch them and feel like we are there with them, which makes us feel more ‘close’ and we can sympathise with them because of their circumstances, as I’m sure that there is a little bit of Gilbert Grape in all of us.

If you were a top famous Hollywood actor, would you be able to significantly play a mid-west, average twenty-odd year old man? In my opinion there would have been no one better than Johnny Depp in this case. He plays the part of Gilbert excellently, not over-the-top or over dramatic but perfectly, just how you’d imagine Gilbert to be after reading the novel. Compared to Depp’s previous roles, such as in “Edward Scissorhands,” he really did have to act ‘down’ in this film

Johnny Depp is not the only actor in the film that I feel played an excellent performance. Leonardo Di Caprio also had a hard role to play as the ‘retarded’ eighteen year old with the mind of a four year old. He obviously researched and thought greatly about how he should act such a difficult character, but he definitely pulled it off!

Although the film is mainly pivoted around Arnie’s eighteenth birthday party, the film has many sub-plots, which all have their own significance throughout the film. For instance the water tower, Mrs. Carver, the scenes in the caf� and a few others. These all bond the film together in order to make it what it is; a great family film.

A really important recurring point that is made throughout the film is when Arnie says “we’re not going anywhere.” In a way this is the key point of the whole film as only until the very end Gilbert has no choice but to stay in Endora and look after his mother and the rest of his family, unlike his older brother, Larry, who ‘got away’ and went to college.

And now, the question, what actually is eating Gilbert Grape? Personally I think that it is all his responsibilities but mainly, not looking after Arnie as much as having the burden of his overweight mother sitting at home doing nothing, him having to care for her and his siblings, when really it should be the other way around.

Although I really enjoyed watching this film many people didn’t and have slated it in the past. I think it depends on your own personal taste in films and what you expect and want from a film. And whatever that may be I recommend you watch “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape.”

Macbeth Rupert Goold Film Review This BBC production of Macbeth starring Patrick Stewart, Suzanne Burden and Kate Fleetwood is upsetting, unnerving, often horrifying, unforgettable, and very difficult with which to find flaw. Rupert Goold has a lot going for his production. First off is the key element of casting. Everyone here from Patrick Stewart and Kate Fleetwood to the small but key parts of Malcolm (Scott Handy) and Duncan are at the top of their game, bringing plenty of depth to these roles.

Of course Stewart is the main attraction and he is very good. I like how we see from the beginning that the idea of ruling appeals to him, even if the idea of murder doesn’t. This hint of ambition is the ‘seed‘ from which the whole story must grow. As the violence spreads, so does his intensity and paranoia. Matching him however is Fleetwood as Lady Macbeth. She plays the noblewoman as wicked from the get go, greedy for power and willing to push her husband to do the unthinkable.

Of course Lady Macbeth is soon overwhelmed by the world she created and Fleetwood plays those key moments leading up to the sleepwalking scene with great skill. Setting the story in this mythical 1950s in what appears to be a Soviet controlled country adds a bit of visual interest to the story. Goold keeps the setting industrial and sparse in nature. The war hospital where the story opens is appropriately battered & ruined. The end battle takes place in a bunker or an underground catacomb . Even the kitchen where several key scenes take place is utilitarian and cold.

The few times you see any warmth is in the bedroom of Macbeth and his wife. But this scene is bathed in a sickly red light, warm but bloody. Little touches like the listening devices planted in the castle or the huge soviet style poster of Macbeth hanging in the banquet hall add an extra layer to the visuals. Changing the character of Macbeth from a general turned king into a general turned dictator works well. His paranoia, guilt, and need to kill any that stand in his way fit many of the stories we’ve heard about petty leaders and their violent reigns eg.

Adolf Hitler. I also like the idea of having the three witches appear during the film in various disguises. First as nurses and later as cooks as well as servants. It feels like they are always watching and maybe manipulating events behind the scenes for their own amusement. It appears that some minor editing of the play has occurred here, but nothing too noticeable. The whole play flows well and moves along at a good pace, their was always something just waiting to happen so nothing was dragged.

Although the movie focuses more on the war and not so much on the Greek gods we still know why the war is started. The movie takes place in 1250 B. C. E. During the Bronze Age. After Paris, a Trojan prince, convinces Helen, the Queen of Sparta, to leave her husband Menelaus and come back with him to Troy a war is started. When Menelaus finds out his wife has been taken by Trojan he asks his brother Agamemnon to help him get his wife back. Agamemnon wants power so he decides to help his brother. They take 1,000 ships and 50,000 Greeks to Troy to complete their task.

With Achilles” help the Greeks are able to fight the Trojan that have not once been conquered. But they are stopped by Hector who is the Prince of Troy and the conflicts begin. One of the overall errors the movie had was the costumes. The equipments the Greeks are shown having such as the large round shields and Achilles’ helmet are from the Classical period. They used costumes from the 5-4th centuries BC. The time period when the epic poem was set is earlier and in that time period the Greeks used small bowl-shaped helmets and light leather shields in the shape of the number eight.

Also the umbrella used to shelter Paris and Helen during the parade in troy is modern, and we know this because of the metal spokes that were probably not invented yet. The necklaces worn by the actors have modern clasps and the women’s airings have French hooks that most Bronze Age Jewelry didn’t have. Later on when King Prima is showing Paris the sword of Troy we see a close-up view of the blade and it looks like steel or polished iron like a lot of the weapons in the movie. But in the Trojan War we are still in the Bronze Age and iron weapons wouldn’t have been available yet.

There were other mistakes the directors made such as the change of hair style for Helen when she is going back to the ships. Then when Patrols fights Hector in Achilles’ armor, Hector stabs him in the chest which would leave a wound UT when Achilles goes to fight Hector in the same armor no marks are see. Along with the errors of costumes there are errors in geography and the setting of the movie. In the scene where the Achaean fleet is seen villagers from the countryside begin to come into the city. Among the animals being lead there are llamas.

It is geographically incorrect because llamas are from South America and they did not exist in Troy. More than once the sun is seen rising over the sea but that is not accurate because the sun rises in the east and the sea around Troy is in the north and west. Then the boy who is sent to find Achilles refers to Vagarious as the Thessalonians because he is from Thessaly but Thessalonians are people from the Greek city of Thessalonians which was settled 1000 years after the battle of Troy. Therefore the boy shouldn’t have known or used the term Thessalonians.

There are many historical events that the film Troy captures. It is amazing how many scenes the director got right but there are also many historical inaccuracies in the movie. When the Greek leaders are lining up to offer gifts to Agamemnon, one of them is carrying a red-figured vase. Red-figure pottery which was made of red clay with a black glaze was not made until the 5th century which was later. Then iron weapons were first used by the Philistines around 11000 BC which was a couple of years after the Trojan War making it impossible for the Trojan to have used this type of “new technology’ in the war.

Overall I thought Troy was a very exciting and engaging movie. I usually don’t watch action or thriller movies but this one actually seemed interesting. I like learning about Greek gods and Greek mythology and this movie incorporated some of it. I got to see a different side of it. I liked the way each warrior was represented and the different attitudes each were given. I didn’t like the fact that they didn’t add a title bit more of the Greek gods themselves and the story behind it.

Each actor played their role to the fullest in my opinion. I could connect with each one and they allowed for an moving emotional experience. I was sad at times and happy at others. When Achilles goes to fight the movie got a little slow with all their talking beforehand. Et movie flowed together well and I understood the plot. The scenes leading up to the climax and after the climax were both good quality not like other movies where the falling action becomes vague and uninteresting. I would recommend this movie to a lot of people.

Movie Review: Journey to Justice “Journey to Justice” is a documentary about the issue of civil rights in Canada during the twentieth century. It focuses on the role of central people who took vital actions to end the issue of racial discrimination. The movie clearly portrays the experiences of black Canadians thorough interviews of key persons including Ray Lewis, Fred Christy, Stanley Grizzle, and Viola Desmond. Throughout the twentieth century, key players in the black community continued to fight for their rights despite serious discrimination.

Firstly, Ray Lewis was denied the job as a coach after he won a bronze medal in 1932 Olympics because he was Black, and had to satisfy himself with the job of a porter. Secondly, Fred Christy, who was refused to be served in a bar, took the matter to Supreme Court. However, the court ruled the matter against him and rhetorically, made racial discrimination legal. Thirdly, Stanley Grizzle was forced be a batman and a washroom cleaner when he joined the army during the second world war, until he fought for his rights with his commanding officer. This time however, he won and served as one of the best officers in the Canadian army.

Moreover, when Hugh Brunette came to Dresden with his two American friends, he was not served in a restaurant, while his friends were. After this incident he created an organization called National Unity Organization to fight discrimination. In 1947, he challenged the local government to pass an equality law, which was passed on to the provincial government for voting, where the restaurant owner-a white, won the case once again. This created a controversy and the premier and a group of other minorities took this case to a higher level until the equality law was passed in 1950s.

Lastly, Donald Willard, an immigrant fought with the government for three decades along with Negro Citizenship association and the Labour congress of Canada to change the way in which they accept immigrants. He argued that using racial origin in accepting immigrants to Canada is unlawful and stated that they should be viewed according to their education, skills and work experience and won the case. This case played an important role in making it one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world.

The point that the movie is trying to make is that issues cannot be solved if they are simply accepted. If no one stands up to fight for it as it the issue will continue to become more tense leading to even more serious effects. As in the movie, the issue of racism continued to worsen until some key people stood up to fight against racial discrimination of the Blacks. Finally, in the end they got the desired results. Not only were they able to pass a law stating discrimination is illegal, but they were also able to change the way in which immigrants were accepted to Canada.

The contribution of Blacks, particularly Donald Willard, changed the way in which Canada is viewed – “The land of opportunities. ” The movie is related to world issues in many ways. Firstly, it provides useful information in understanding the foundation of the issue of discrimination. Racism is an issue that is making headlines these days. For example, the rising resettlement against immigrants in Quebec and the war on terrorism, which is taking hundreds of lives today had it basis in racism. Many individuals from Islamic countries are questioned heavily by officials at American Airports after the terrorist attacks.

Secondly, it openly reveals the hidden truths of the Canadian government and its political system including the Supreme Court which itself promoted racism by favouring the whites regardless of the issue or the case. These days political corruption is a major issue in developing nation particularly in south Asia and many part of Africa. Thirdly, this movie portrays the issue of Canadian Civil Rights movement, which is a movement that only a few Canadian are aware of. This movement is directly related to human rights – a growing issue in Asian countries today.

Low-caste children all over Asia, more particularly India are forced to do child labour, similar to how blacks were forced to work on the rail road a century ago. Blacks were not given any other jobs because of their race and these children are deprived from education and proper jobs because of their caste. It is amazing, to see these countries making the same mistake that Canada made a few decades ago. Lastly, this movie touches on the issue of stereotyping. Even though it is not a big issue, individuals throughout the world use stereotyping to judge others, often in a negative way.

This creates larger gaps between races. Even though the movie shows us that the issue of racial discrimination has ended, it still exists. It is true that the magnitude and seriousness of racism has declined but many groups of people suffer from bullying because of their race and ethnicity. For example, many “Brown” and “Asian” people are regarded as immigrants and are the victims of bullying in both schools only because they cannot quickly assimilate into the western society. ( Weakness of argument

For my AP World History Movie Review, I chose to watch Les Miserables; a movie based on the inspirational novel by Victor Hugo. I selected this movie because i had a summer assignment on it for ADV English and also because i thought it would be a good idea to watch the movie before reading the book and compare the two afterwards. Watching this and reading the book has helped me in starting out this school year more prepared with my schoolwork. Just like the book, the movie was set in the early 1800’s of Paris amid the aftermath of the French Revolution.

Along with the novel, the movie sort of elaborates upon the history of France, architecture of Paris, and a little bit of the politics. The French Revolution was a time of great turmoil in French History. It began in 1789 and ended in 1799. During the French Revolution, the previous absolute monarchy and the entire social three estate system was overthrown. The Third Estate was tired of being treated how they were. They wanted more respect and an actual say in the government. They were given a tithe for their crops, which caused them starvation and malnutrition.

They had the most trouble paying for bread, while others feasted away. Finally, they began violent revolts. The architecture of France in the late 1700s through the early 1900s was shown throughout the movie, the clothing people wore and the way buildings looked back then. The time period of France in the movie was Neo-classicism. Architecture was often flip-flops from one extreme to the other, so after the frivolous and light-filled Rococo style (like in most parts of the movie), buildings were pared to classical symmetry. As the reign of Louis XVI began, Paris entered a period of Neo-classicism.

The severe style was inspired by Roman and Greek architectural theories. The style also reflects a desire for plain, unadorned materials, combined with extremely logical floor plans and design. Even after Louis XVI was beheaded, his style of Neo-classicism continued without change. This was partly because the Revolution was chaotic, giving architects little opportunity to invent a new style. The main major theme of the movie was some Christian themes of redemption, forgiveness, and sacrifice; all together, Grace. There were instances of grace all throughout the movie, as well as in the book.

Jean Valjean was the main character that portrayed grace in many instances such as forgiving a former guard, Javert, for continuously trying to arrest him and ruin his life. Valjean spared his life during the revolution and released him from the revolting third estate. Even after his life was spared, Javert arrested Valjean once more but soon after let him go and committed suicide. The acts of grace throughout the movie affected me emotionally and gave me some inspiration to treat others the way I’d want to be treated. I think that today’s society could use more grace.

It’d make the world such a peaceful place to live if grace were portrayed more. Since grace is so called “a God given gift”, it should be used more to make the world a better place and make the people who live in it much more kind. Also, this movie moved me emotionally and mentally, putting people in poverty into my mind. I felt bad for how the poor were treated back then, never having any money or enough food, some women having to turn to prostitution or selling their hair just to get by. Overall, “Les Miserables” was a very good movie and i hope to go see the newest version coming out in December.

A Film Review November 27, 2007 Title: American Gangster Genre: Gangster Writer: Steven Zaillian Director: Ridley Scott Date and Place of performance: November 21, 2007 at my house On November 21, 2007, I was home for break and watched an interesting-historical film titled American Gangster. The film was written by Steven Zaillian and was directed by Ridley Scott. American Gangster was a gangster movie that reflected back on the pass. The performance environment was at my house in the living room on a DVD player.

The room was dark, cool, and very comfortable, which made it very relaxing and easier to watch and study the film. American Gangster took place in Harlem, New Jersey, in the 1960’s and 1970’s. It was a movie that was based on a true story, of a man by the name of Frank Lucas. American Gangster was basically about Frank Lucas and his life as a big time business man, big time street-pharmacist, but most of all a family man. Frank Lucas was a business man of street drugs; he was a gangster, who transported drugs from Bangkok in the Vietnam War to the east cost of the United States.

Frank Lucas was not just and old street-pharmacist, he was smart he had people working for him, people on his side, like the war, the mob, but most of all his family. He got his money up and had his family had his family move from North Carolina over to New Jersey, in a big white house, this way his brothers could work for him and his clientele would increase and he would save money because his family was working for him. Lucas was also smart because he was not like the other gangsters, he did not flash around his money, and he did not wear loud colored clothing.

Lucas wore regular suites, as if he was a true business man, he did not have anybody on to him until people started dying from the drugs he had out on the streets, called Blue Magic. It was called Blue Magic because it was a pure drug, nothing in it was mixed. Lucas had the whole east coast on this Blue Magic; he had the Queens, Bergen Country, N. J. , Brooklyn, and the Bronx. This is when a man by the name of Rickie Roberts came in; he was a man who worked for the law and in a prosecutor’s office.

Rickie Roberts was a good cope, at least he thought, he did something no cope would ever do, he turned in nine-hundred-eighty-seven-thousand dollars unmarked cash and did not one police officers respect him for it. Roberts had a lot in his life, he had a son whose mother was taking him to court for custody of the child, he was going to school to become a lawyer and his state bar test was coming up, and he wants to catch Frank Lucas. Roberts finds out about the Blue Magic by his partner dying from it, then that is when he started letting his guard down by wearing the flashy coat his wife bought for him.

This is when Roberts had the man he was looking for; he just needed a way to stop him. In the end Lucas finally was caught coming out from church, by Roberts. He was convicted of conspiracy to distribute narcotics and was sentenced to seventy-years in prison but he only served fifteen-years and was released in 1991. His brothers were convicted on drug trafficking. His mother moved back to North Carolina, and his wife moved to Puerto Rico. However, Rickie Roberts quit the prosecutors’ office and became a defense attorney; his first client was Frank Lucas.

The film is episodic because of the short scenes and numerous characters. The type of message I received from this movie was “don’t sale drugs”, because you only in up in two places behind bars or six feet under. It also gave me the feeling of a person getting fast money not working hard for what they want, but “good things come to people who are patience and work hard”. American Gangster is compared to the American dream; and the American dream is defined as having a nice house, good paying job, kids and a dog, and no worries in the world.

The way I think American Gangster relates to that is, Frank Lucas did kind of lived the American dream and beyond because he had a nice house for his family and a good paying illegal job, a dog but no kids of his own, I guess his brothers were his kids. The purpose of this film was to inform audiences about a, true life story, of a man who tried to live the American dream by selling drugs and his negative results. The writing of this film was very unique. I thought the film was a work of considerable technical as well as artistic merit, because it makes you respect and acknowledge the fact that this was a smart dangerous man.

I think, Zaillian’s, point of view of this movie was to express how Frank Lucas’s life really was, and to get the audience to feel the hurt that Lucas went through. I thought the story and the theme was interesting because it showed how greed, wealth, progress, and success can lead to trouble in someone life. I think “the more money you have, the more problems you will see”. The reason why I think this is because Lucas, over the time became greedy and he was not able to receive drugs anymore because the war was over. So he started to have problems with everything, life, family, and his wife.

I thought the story gave a fresh insight into human condition of wealth and greed. I thought the American Gangster was based and a portrayal source of historical events, for example, when Roberts’s partner killed the black man for drugs at that apartment, and all the black people were outside the apartment ready to charge the door. It seemed like a riot to me. The whole movie was a historical event because it was based on a true story, which is historical. The director uses a lot of money as a symbol of evil and trouble.

I think this because everybody who had money or was real wealthy in this movie was evil and had a lot of troubles in their life. The irony of it was Rickie Roberts. For example, when he had the chanced to have a lot of money he did not take it, he turned it in instead, and everybody thought he was stupid for it, but really he was smart for turning in the money. I think this because the money would have brought evil and trouble to his life and since he turned it in, I think he was the real wealthy person because in the end he to Frank Lucas, he passed his law exam, and was able to become a defense attorney.

The directing of this movie was great. I thought the story was told in a visually interesting way, because it showed a lot of action and it was not just about gangsters it was also about learning how to survive in the streets. The special effects were very effective, the way characters would get shot looked real, but most of all when they showed characters use the drugs and the way their skin would look after wards. The director did a great job on the location and studio environment because the sound effects and picture was nice a clear.

I think American Gangster did not really show, Ridley Scott’s, personal style of movies, because this movie was about someone’s life and they had to make it like Frank Lucas’s life was back in those days. I thought the actor’s performances were guided by the director effectively. The acting of American Gangster was great. The stars of American Gangster were; Russell Crowe, Denzel Washington, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Cuba Gooding, J. R. I thought their performances were real life like; it gave me that real street life feeling. These are also all magnificent actresses.

The actors who played the supporting roles were so effective I would have thought they were professionals. The actors made American Gangster, Frank Lucas’s, story seem believable, serious, and heart fulfilling. The editing was interesting and effective. The sequences do develop emotional impact. For example, when he bought his mother and his family the new house, to see the happy look on his mother’s face when she was told that it was her house, was so emotional it gave that deep feeling like when you want to cry for something that is good.

The unusual or symbolic juxtaposition I thought added interest was when Rickie Roberts was trying to put the pieces together by taking pictures trying to put the pieces together by taking pictures of suspects and putting their pictures in order so the story would come together and it would get him closer to Frank Lucas and the bottom of the story. In the end Frank Lucas put all the pictures in order and told the story. The production elements of the movie were effective.

The setting of the movie was effective, because it starts with Frank Lucas killing someone by setting them on fire and then he shot them. This made me feel like it was going to be a really good action movie. The lighting was effective it set the moods. The music set the mood as well, when it was sad, happy, and intense. The costumes and makeup were effective; the actors played their parts well when it came down to acting like an old school gangster. For example, when Frank Lucas went into the hood to sale his products he was made up in an afro and long beard, he would be in disguised.

The special effects were effective, when they showed the dead bodies on the Army plane, they looked real. There were no continuity breaks while watching this film. The elements that I was able to identify were the music, the special effects, and the makeup. My overall impression of the film was great, I really enjoyed it. The film’s strengths were the special effects and the acting. For example, the special effects were good when someone was shot and when they showed the dead bodies in the army bags.

The all around best, I think Denzel Washington is a good actress in every movie he makes. The film’s weaknesses was none, I do not think I seen any weaknesses. I was not disturbed by anything; I was impressed with the whole movie. The movie was great; I would recommend others to experience this film. The iconographic that I came upon was when Frank Lucas speaks of being to loud, like the big bright suits they wore. This made me think of the street-pharmacist today, their profile is big cars with a loud color paint job and loud music with flashy clothing.

I think foreshadowing was used when Rickie Roberts gets Lucas’s cousin to snitch, then he tells him that Frank Lucas will find out he snitched then he will kill him because he was his cousin. The films political significance was the use of violence, when the whole world became greedy and wanted money and drugs. The social significance was the study of the society in Harlem, went from bad to everybody on drugs and dying, which I would call it social dead zone. The film historical significance was that it was based on a true story.

If the film was from another culture, their conventions would be interesting and unusual. The movie did have subtitles; it was necessary and beneficial to read the subtitles. The effect it had was good; I was able to understand what was going on in the movie and not get confused. I think American Gangster can not be a sequel because it was based on a true story of someone’s life. My critical perspective of this movie was that it was very unique, never seen anything like it, I feel that it will reduce the numerous of people who sale drugs, and overall it was an in creditable movie.