Movies in Your Spare Time

movies in my spare time (THX 1138):

To start off, I would like to say if it weren't for this Film Studies class I might have never even heard of the film THX 1138. After seeing a short scene from an instructional video in class, I really wanted to watch this film.

Expectations: 1) I am a self professed fan of dystopian science fiction. When I went on Amazon Prime to order the movie I already knew that George Lucas was the director but I didn't know that the film was released pre-Star Wars era in 1971. Many users said they were very impressed with the film effects and overall production. With this tidbit of information and my affinity for the sci-fi dilemma, it's safe to say that I had very high expectations for the film.

Opening Scene:

Analysis/Opinion: This film may not be for everyone; the opening scene (above) begins with an almost annoying montage that is purposely choppy, technology filled, and utilizes an assortment of pesky android voices. For a having created the film in 1970, Lucas builds an eerie, forewarning image of a futuristic, consumer focused society, reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World. There are some plot elements that are uncannily similar to these novels, i.e. test tube babies and sedative drug use to increase efficiency and suppress emotion.

Having said this, there are two elements that separate THX 1138 from other dystopian sci-fi action thrillers. First, the dialogue and acting are superb. Robert Duvall's performance as THX sets this film apart from modern sci-fi thrillers like Michael Bay's organ-transplant thriller The Island. Many sci-fi films turn out to be lackluster adaptions of novels. On the other hand, I found THX to be a brilliantly presented collaboration between George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola. The set and special effects of THX blow away anything else of the time period and the plot, acting, dialogue and overall flow of the film were surprisingly satiating for a critical viewer. Some may shy away from the sterile costuming, setting and art-house cinematography used in parts of the film. I think this adds a new artistic and philosophical dimension to this genre.

Overall Rating: 9/10 for quality production, unexpected plot, and an eerie immersion that left me fearing for the future.

Review of the Reviews: Django Unchained

First off, let me start by putting it out there that, on the whole, I enjoyed Django Unchained. Though I am not a fan of Tarantino's shock value blood-spatter, I could stand to sit through the gore out of interest for the meat and potatoes of the movie.

Waltz and Foxx in Django Unchained

The first review I've come across is from Rotten Tomatoes written by a "Top Critic" named Roger Moore. Moore structures his review by starting with a brief synopsis and plot walk through. This happened, setting, characters, conflict set up, etc. It seems he is at least attempting not to spoil the plot, but that said, his overbearing negative tone towards Django would make me not as excited to go watch it if I hadn't already. Coming from a critic who gave "Cosmopolis" with Robert Pattinson a higher rating than Django I already have to restrain myself from lashing out at said negative critique of Tarantino's work.

While giving a decently sufficient summary of the plot, characters, actors (Moore does include a reference to Samuel Jackson's affinity for profanity), costumes, setting etc. Moore consistently adds in little jibes and comments that would deter most potential audiences. For example: "Geographically incompetent, with plantations overfilled with all manner of shootably venal white overseers, this isn’t Ken Burns history." 

In describing the lack of attention to setting and geography in the film, Moore portrays the overall film as a piece that is disorganized and haphazard.
I tend to agree that the blood spatter detracts from the quality acting and witty dialogue of the film.
Joe writes his critique of Django in a structure much more like a creative essay. Instead of muddling through the plot only to then shut down Tarantino further like Moore, Morganstern includes a somewhat chronological summary for the reader to get a feel for the film but focuses more on details of acting, dialogue, setting, organization, and thematic messages more so than the bare bones plot.
While most of the review sheds a positive light on the film, it is worth mentioning that Morganstern commented on the similarities of Christoph Waltz's character to his character in Inglorious Basterds. 

"It should be acknowledged that Mr. Waltz is doing a tone-for-tone reprise of Col. Hans Landa, the monstrous Nazi he played in Mr. Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds."

Having not seen Inglorious Basterds or Waltz before I'm glad Morganstern notes this for the audience.
All in all had I not seen Tarantino's shocking masterpiece western not so typical slavery tale, I think I would still find Mr. Morganstern's review more convincing. Why? Simply because Morganstern's review has fun and passion leaden within his writing whereas Moore's tone is simply cutting and annoying. I think there is a difference between being blunt and just sounding annoyed constantly, that is why I think Morganstern's review would win over most moviegoers. 
-Mark


Though Moore also has another quote about the unnecessary spaghetti western type violence on steroids that I was not entirely thrilled with. "The players are in fine form. But the movie he’s embroiled them all in is a hit and miss affair, at times an amusing re-imagining of history, more often a blood-spattered bore." 


The next critique of Django Unchained takes on a much different overarching tone of praise still mentioning some flaws of the film, yet again had I not seen Django, this next critic Joe Morganstern would draw me to the theater immediately.