MYST Q2 #2 The Hunger Games: Mocking Jay Part:1

      After watching the first two Hunger Games movies, I came into the theater thinking that the third installment of the franchise would be just as good. However, during the entire movie it seems as though NOTHING HAPPENS. In my opinion, the trailer has more action in it than the movie. During the entire movie I was expecting more action scenes and story line, however the audience just follows Katniss as she "advertises" for the rebellion. The entire movie just feels like a hour long advertisement for the second movie. This movie is a highlight of what Hollywood is becoming, focusing only on achieving the maximum profit of a movie. Some highlights of the movie was the acting of Jennifer Lawrence and the rest of the cast.  Easily the worst of the Hunger Games movie, I enjoyed it but left the theater without any satisfaction about the story line, and mostly wondering how the producers and writers are going to bend the story with the death of Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

MYST Q2 #1 Ken Burns: The War

 


 The war goes in depth into World War Two. It is a documentary following five towns and their citizens during the years of the second world war. The movie is split up into seven parts, each going year by year until the end of the war in 1945. The film makes you feel like you are in the 1940's, with high resolution camera shots and sound. Many scenes showcase the gruesome reality of combat during the world war. One example is the intro clip that Ken Burns Posted on his own YouTube channel.

The war shows World War Two in a way that I have never seen. Growing up studying the history of my grandfathers and great uncles, this documentary shows the war as they saw it, and does not censor any information about the war. The film allows its viewers to see truly what the men and women of the armed forces had to go through during this great, horrible conflict. I easily give this film 5/5 Stars for its in depth study into World War Two. After watching the film, you come out with a new respect for what that generation had to do. If you have a good seven hours to spend, spend it on watching this!

Find out the difference between Blue and Gold stars during WWII by watching the film!

MYST Post #2: Fury

I saw Fury on this opening night, and am very happy I did. The movie starts out showing what it was like to be a tanker in World War Two. My great uncle was a priest in the 4th armored division and would go into burnt out tanks, the movie almost exactly matches the stories he would tell us. During World War Two, shermans were outgunned and out-armored by the Germans. The beginning of this movie has the viewer see that, and there are some very gruesome scenes. The audio is really good in displaying the sound of shells.The movie is like a real war for everyone except Fury's crew. For example, everything that comes at their tank is either a bounce or a miss. When in reality it would go right through. Also the ending turns into a fourth Terminator movie, with the tank shooting one of the best  German divisions like brainless drones. Overall this movie does a great job of displaying the death and reality of war, but is poisoned by the need to have unrealistic action scenes.

 I give this movie 3/5 tanks.

Formal Film Study: Historical Accuracy in World War Two Films

World War Two was the largest war in modern history, over 60 million lives were lost and involved the entire world. After the war, many movies and films have been created to represent the war and its combat. The movies "Patton", "The Longest Day", and the new movie "Fury" attempt to showcase the war while providing viewers with an interesting story. 



The Longest Day is a movie based on the invasion of France, D-Day. Created shortly after the end of the war, the historical accuracy is not 100%, but nice in comparison to other war films. All the soldiers are using realistic weapons, although some acted deaths are so bad they could make some laugh. The movie shows what the French Resistance Forces did, the horrible fight on Omaha Beach, and the actions of the German Soldiers on the "Impregnable Wall". In my opinion, this is one of the best war films ever created. Both historically and plot wise. The only issues with the film are the amount of deaths on Omaha Beach and the landing craft used, using landing craft made in the 60's. Overall this film uses everything possible to describe the actions of D-Day and the battle in France.
    











The movie Patton is a historical documentary attempting to show the life of American General George S. Patton. General Patton was a military genius of the time and specialized in tanks and armor. However, the film also falls into the Hollywood trap that is the need for action and explosions. Some scenes of the movie display tanks used after World War Two, and others that come to early in the war. Excessive explosions and battle scenes give this movie its high rating, but at the cost of accuracy. For a World War Two movie, it still shows that Hollywood and  Director Franklin Shaffner don't completely forget the logic of war and Patton's historical background.  










"Fury" is a new movie preparing to come out on the 17th of October, however from the trailers of this new movie even a new historian can see that this movie is one of the most inaccurate movies created. Most won't notice, but the tank used in this film is a M4A3E8 Sherman, created in August 1944, it matches with the time era of the movie, however the tankers mention they used the tank in North Africa, 1941. Another issue is the interior of a tank. Tanks are weapons of war, and not designed to be comfortable or open. Every part of the tank is used to preserve armor and gasoline. In this movie, they manage to show the inside of the tank like it's a penthouse. And last, but not least is the combat scene in the trailer. During the war, German solders nicknamed the American Sherman tanks as "Tommy cookers" as they were know to catch fire instantly after being hit. Germany had the best tank ever created at the time, the Tiger. From a mere 50 meters away it shoots at the Sherman, the Shell bounces off.



Overall, from the films I studied, it seems as though historical accuracy slowly degrades over time to add the more cinematic elements to a film. I believe that accuracy also degrades due to the ability to find and reproduce old military relics. Every year, World War artifacts get more expensive to find and recreate. What surprised me most was how films mainly decreased in accuracy mainly through clothing, weaponry and persons.However, with the improvement of digital effects and make-up, military action films have gotten more accurate in their portrayal of war. Saving Private Ryan is a great example of this. The beginning scene shows the invasion in its entirety, invoking many veterans to recall events that happened during the invasion. The movie industry needs to remember to keep to historical realism, not just for the sake of realism in the movie, but to show to the viewer, the horrors and weapons of history.

1935 Movie: Home Bound

Home Bound is a family comedy starring Shirley Temple, after her mother dies her father and her grow apart. On a car trip, their vehicle breaks down, stranding them in the Midwest. They sing and dance to make enough money to make it back to New York and become close again in the process. This movie would do well in 1935 due to its escapist appeal. With the happy ending and comedic appeal, many Americans would like this movie. Our story is mostly leaning towards getting many viewers in the theater and to make a large profit. Our genre was picked to allow for a large profit without dealing with issues from the Hays Code. Also, Shirley Temple is known for family movies and her singing. Fox studios was the studio to pick for this film. They contracted Shirley Temple, a key actor that we wanted and also had a good director, John Ford. It would be a small production, looking for a quick profit. We chose John Ford to direct our film due to his experience with song in Fox Studios. Our lead actors were Shirley Temple and Spencer Tracy. We believed they would have a good chemistry in the movie and would make a great singing father, daughter couple. The Hays code would not effect our movie much, if at all. It is a family comedy meant for younger ages and families. We chose not to use color in our film as it is a low budget movie hoping to make a large profit. I don't believe that we should of done a family comedy as I dislike these kinds of movies. However, as a group we decided to pick the family comedy genre to avoid dealing with the Hays code.

MYST POST #1: Burn

     Burn is a documentary about the Detroit Fire Department. It highlights the difficulties that currently face the department with the city's bankruptcy and crime rates. The movie is much like the T.V. show "Cops", putting the viewer right in the action of what the firefighters have to face. With the cities fire issues, for example the harsh winter.

     The Documentary's camerawork and editing makes it seem like the viewer is in the firetruck itself. It goes into the lives of not just the average firefighter but also the administration, going into the life of Detroit's fire commissioner. The film shows firefighting how it is with mounted cameras on the firefighters helmets as they go into burning buildings. It focuses on the lives of the firemen by going into their homes and hobbies.

     This documentary is a necessity for every american to see. It effectively highlights some of the major issues that the city faces. With its "1st person" camerawork and going into the lives of the firemen, I have to give this documentary 5/5. I feel as though I wont just forget about this movie, and will think about it whenever I see a firetruck.

Review of the Reviewers

         The Great Escape had overall good ratings on Rotten Tomatoes, however there were some critics who disliked the movie. Bosley Crowther was one such critic. His review on the  New York Times website talks about why he disliked it. He based his review around the actions that the prisoners did in the camp and how he didn't believe that some of their actions could have happened. He believes that the movie has been significantly altered from the real deal and uses many examples to show it. Bosley gives the trucks pulling into camp to show what he thinks is an artificial movie. His overall tone is disbelief in the films claims that everything happened the way it did in the movie. He uses words such as artificial and describes the plot as a mechanical adventure to show the falsity of the movie. Bosley focuses mainly on the plot and how he believes that it is unbelievable. He references the 1950 book that the movie is based on to refute the movies claims about being true. Meanwhile, the Variety staff have other opinions on the movie.

          Variety.com's review is structured around the acting and the plot. The website mentions the acting as the strongest point in the movie, describing Steve McQueen's performance in the movie. The tone of the review is more positive and informational than it is critiquing the movie. Some words the review uses are exceptional and bold, describing the actions of the actors and the plot. The website mainly focuses on the actors due to their amazing acting. They reference the history behind the story and what happens in the movie.

          Having seen the movie, there are many points that I agree with on both sides. Variety.com's review stating that "There are some exceptional performances" is spot on. The acting the the movie is amazing. However I also agree with the fact that some of the scenes in the movie are "so far beyond plausibility that they could not have happened anyplace." Some of the scenes in the movie are purely fictional. At some points in the movie it seems as though the prison guards are blind. 

         If I had never seen the movie, I think that the review by the New York Times would be more believable. The review overall has more information and more believable than the review done by Variety.com. The review has more points to make and touches more on the plot line than Variety.com does. What makes the New York Times article so much more believable is the critic touches on all aspects of the movie. The plot line, the history, the actors, and the characters themselves.

         If I were to write a one page review on a movie, I would want to be sure to include the main plot line and acting aspects as my two major points. As a reviewer, I wouldn't want to spoil the ending, but would like to touch on what I think the ending was like. Acting and plot are the two key aspects to movie in my opinion. Those aspects would be the main points that I would address. As a World War Two researcher, I would also like to address the history and realism behind and historical war films.