Film

When Death Wish starring Charles Bronson came out it was a blockbuster. The movie has a scene where police discuss an internal report that crime in New York City was down, no doubt as a result of Bronson’s character walking the streets at night dishing out his own form of justice (the new version of the movie does not carry that scene). Two years after the original movie was released, Georgia’s Lieutenant Governor introduced legislation which would become copied across the country, leading to concealed gun laws in states. The re-make of Death Wish starring Bruce Willis, has elements of the original but does not carry the same community spirit in the movie that supports this vigilante walking the streets of Chicago. Instead, the movie has a radio show, for example, presenting Willis’s character in a way where some can support him and some cannot. The original movie was received with often applause in movie theaters when a bad guy was shot, not so with the re-make. How the newer version is received is, perhaps, different than the original and can lead to a discussion of guns, violence, and attitudes toward addressing crime.

What makes something the Best Picture? And why have so many of them been forgotten about? Many movies that were considered the best movie of that respective year are not really talked about and pander to many of the voters expectations and agenda during that time. Great movies that are still talked about today like Citizen Kane, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Saving Private Ryan unbelievably lose to something that a lot of people consider lesser. While film opinion is subjective, it's a failure from the voters to recognize and snub a film that has resonated with a lot of people for legitimate reasons. What makes voters so caught up in the moment with certain films that causes the notorious awards snub?

Daniel Craig became the first 'blonde' Bond, but once his tenure comes to a close, a new face will be required to sip those Vodka martinis and put paid to the latest Mr Big's plans to dominate the world. When considering the many, fine black actors working these days, perhaps it's time that we had a black James Bond. After all, the CIA operative Felix Leiter was recast in the 2006 franchise reboot, with the excellent American actor Jeffrey Wright proving he was more than capable of handling a darker role (excuse the unintended pun). So, which black actor could become Bond and, more importantly, why? Bear in mind that it is the character of Bond that is the focus, so the choice of actor must be one who can both fills those shoes and yet be able to make that character his own. This is not a popularity contest. On a personal note – I would suggest Chiwetel Ejiofor ('Twelve Years a Slave'. 2013). He is the consummate professional who possesses a solid, on-screen (and stage) presence. His IMDB profile shows an impressive track record that demonstrates he can switch from comedic to dramatic roles with ease (just take a look at his performance in 'Kinky Boots'. 2005) and he is ruggedly handsome enough to raise respectful envy from male Bond fans whilst undoubtedly turning more than a few female fans' heads. Remember, James Bond is an iconic role so your choice and reasons must take this into consideration.

An analysis of the curse of aging in Howl's Moving Castle, both the youth novel by Dianna Wynn Jones and the Miyazaki movie it inspired. How does the movie portray the difference between young and old? What are the dynamics between the younger and older characters? Does the movie present a positive or negative portrayal of aging overall? (As related to the concepts of beauty, social interaction, etc.). What does the movie say about aging in general, and how people should handle it? How do perceptions of the movie differ between younger and older viewers?

I'm interested in what the depiction of Sophie's curse, premature aging, says about the aging process and the social concept of beauty.

When it comes to things like superheroes like Superman, the Hulk, Iron Man, or Batman, everyone has an idea of their origin stories. But as the superhero movie franchise only continues to barrel forward, how important is it for writers to include an accurate recount of the superhero origins for new viewers? Or does it matter at all?

Many different TV series and films offer various visions of the future. Spanning from a dystopic universe where water is scarce and people scavenge, such as Tank Girl, or where the water levels have risen and earth is scarce, such as Waterworld, to futures where we have expanded into the stars, Star Trek, etc.

There are many interpretations of what comes next for us, and I thought an interesting topic would be to map some of these and look at the origin concept at their core. The easiest example would be to use Waterworld: rising sea levels due to climate change lead to eventually all but the highest peaks become completely under water that is more salt than fresh. Humanity moves to living in floating communities and diving for materials from the world before.

Many of these interpretations are not that far into our future and offer some interesting points of view on where the human race is heading. Can you think of other examples?

Compare the two fictional characters by contrasting character development for each. Also, shed light on how similarly crucial each character's narrative is to the overarching narrative.

I would love to read an article detailing Native American representation in Hollywood cinema. Whitewashing, the Marlon Brando Oscars debacle, and more.