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.