A discussion of why this film received such a polarizing reception, comparing critics' opinions to those of the casual viewers as well as the issues critics who have given the film negative reviews to those who gave it positive reviews.
As a casual viewer, I found the dialogue to be too metaphorical. It didn't fit with the movie and made it seem like the characters were talking about something else the entire time. I really wanted to like this movie because the screenplay was written by McCarthy, but it just didn't work for me. – S.A. Takacs9 years ago
Which ten films are best known for their cinematography. Explore why these ten films are prime examples. Also speak to the cinematic relevance of the film if it is applicable.
This might be difficult to tackle without a restricted set of dates for the writer to choose from. Maybe it would be better to just hone in on the top 10 films in terms of cinematography from the past decade or two. – CriticalOtaku9 years ago
This is definitely an interesting topic, though there are a lot of different films to choose from. I think it would help if you looked at some of the films that not only look impressive in terms of cinematography, but also brought technical innovations (like Citizen Kane's use of deep focus) that broke new ground for cinematography in films. – Seth Childers9 years ago
Why is it important for countries to have a strong, national cinema oppose to screening imported foreign films?
One factor that I know of is that many people have national pride. Some people also do not like reading subtitles (as silly as that sounds, my father feels that way: "why can't they just make it with English?"). Those might be useful things to explore. – Nicole Wethington9 years ago
To be able to self-represent on the global cinematic stage, to recount national histories, economic reasons, to be able to fulfil national interests in terms of themes, topics, settings, actors, etc. Just a few suggestions! – CassDM9 years ago
From Snow White to Cinderella, the the anticipated release of Beauty and the Beast – do we really need to see yet another version of the same story? Consider the in relation to Disney's dominance over the family movie industry.
We might also wonder what doing a live action remake does for the original story. Does the remake add anything or bring a different perspective to the story? Or is Hollywood just being lazy by not creating original storylines? – S.A. Takacs9 years ago
I think it would also help to explore the difference between showing the original classics to kids today in comparison to them seeing the new live-action remakes. What difference or impact does seeing one version over the other have, if any at all? And like S.A. Takacs mentioned, it would be help to explore this by looking at what the remakes have to do to update their story to appeal to modern audiences. – Seth Childers9 years ago
It might be a good idea to compare and contrast the new Cinderella vs the Old. The old version has its problems, but is the new one better than the old? Do both movies have their places? Is the message still the same, but updated? What are the elements of both stories that could be perceived as good or bad? – Schmerica119 years ago
Another thing you could tie-in would be live-action versions of other shows, such as Nickelodeon's Avatar flop. It failed firstly cause no one liked the movie, and secondly because all of the characters were portrayed by white actors. What will Disney do to support ethnic princesses such as Mulan or Jasmine, who are not Caucasian and should not be represented by Caucasian actresses? – selizabeth9 years ago
Rumours have emerged surrounding the supposed 'spiritual sequel' to Mean Girls, but after Mean Girls 2 flunked at the box office, is it safe to assume that Mean Mums will do the same? Background context might consider the 'curse of the sequel' and the potential to have too much of a good thing!
Many films that are based on historical figures, or entertainment features are often accused for making up specific parts in a persons life. Why does Hollywood do this? Some will say because it is to gives more drama elements, yet it still feels, in some sense, disrespectful to the person or people being represented. 12 Years a Slave is commended for it's brutally accurate portal of black slaves in that time period, so why can't more films do it. Also, is the film bad just because in is historically inaccurate? Braveheart has many historical inaccuracies, but it is still a good film for most people. Then there is Patch Adams, which is a really bad film because it misrepresents a famous brilliant doctor as a screw ball with no responsibility.
Really interesting topic! As well as talking about the parts that are left out, it would also be useful to consider which elements are emphasised in their place - usually romance! Why are we more interested in Stephen Hawking's love-life than his life and work? – Jessica Marie Farrugia9 years ago
I agree with Jessica wholeheartedly; at what point do embellishments or exclusions make a movie's biographical subject completely alien to the real thing? You could also address documentaries which often are just as subjective as fictional movies. – August Merz9 years ago
I've seen all sorts of movies, that seem to have nothing in common, called cult films. My local newspaper calls "The Third Man" a cult film.
Cult film definitions are all over the place. To me, “The Third Man” is a widely-seen mainstream classic. The original 1960 Roger Corman b&w cheepie version of “Little Shop of Horrors” can reasonably be called Cult on the basis of the so-bad-it’s-good criteria.
A lot of what moderns call “horror” show up on lists of Cult films simply because the audience for gore is so much smaller than for general interest movies.
Sometimes a TV show will get a Cult label even if it is very popular and well-known just because some fans are so religiously devoted to it. “Buffy” is an example of this. In the U.S., “Doctor Who-The Classic” was Cult because it only played on the under watched PBS network and ended just as the home video market was expanding. In 2005, DW was relaunched and is a worldwide hit, including American. It is NOT Cult.
So, essentially, everybody needs to hammer out his/her own perception of Cult film. Calls for a great article.
I think you should put in your own definition of what makes something "cult." Otherwise it's not showing how you're thinking about your topic. – alysamarsiella10 years ago
In my understanding something "cultL film or show has more to do with the following. I think recently this definition has been complicated with the growing popularity of fandoms in shows and films that are embraced by the mainstream and the increasing diversification of subcultures. I also there think there is a distinction between a "cult classic" and a emerging cult films/ cult followings. There are so many things to consider in this piece I think I'll snatch it up! I'll keep an eye out for more helpful notes and if anyone is interested in collaborating message me! I'm planning to focus on the followings and the role of repeated viewings, quoting dialogue, and audience participation in defining a "cult" film possibly focusing on "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" as a basis for definition among others. – Christina Cady10 years ago
Comparative analysis between the first two Avenger films to the latest Avenger film. A look at character development, story line and box office revenues.
The original Avengers film was great because we have never seen that many character in one film. You could talk about since audiences are already used to the Avengers being in one film, has the amazement factor died down for the second film,and does that hurt the Avengers 2 in anyway? – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
Could also mention a couple of the individual character films, such as Thor & Iron man, when discussing character development and how these inform the focus on individual characters with The Avengers films. – Hannah Spencer9 years ago
