Movies

Can it or can it not? Or can aspects be objectively bad for a film? Or is it all subjective? This is a neverending debate to some or an easy yes or no for others.

Critics tend to highlight mostly negative aspects of a movie and tend to ignore that there are passionate filmmakers behind these films, while fans are generally too forgiving, or tend to not demand better and just want a good time.

So what makes a movie good or bad, or is it more important how it makes you feel?

The notion of the villain or the "bad guy" is a theme that often appears in many films, particularly superhero narratives, or similar films. However, as a viewer, sometimes questioning the way in which someone is depicted could be interesting as well. Is the villain entirely bad? Or are they in some ways victims as well? Do you think the hero is always right? Or do they have a past that could have easily made them the villain? How much of the villainization is inherent and how much of it is fed to us?

Make a top ten list of the amazing settings that have added richness to their movies. From the iconic scene of King Kong on the Empire State Building, to Central Park, to Chicago and LA. How have various scenes been influenced by their settings? Go as far back as Hitchcock. Discuss Central Park as a location that has added a certain flavour to movies.

Take a look at how Denzel Washington's character, Whip Whitaker creates a disconnect between consciousness and his underlying alcohol and drug addiction. Modern cinema doesn't often put viewers in the shoes of someone who realizes their problem by the end of the film. Some of the saddest scenes in the film occur when Whip is drinking. Additionally, he is a great pilot and his drunkenness does not seem to get in the way of that. Perhaps it would be interesting to see how addiction becomes reliance in this case, and how well the movie portrays two characters: drunk Whip and sober Whip.

In both the world of television and movie old classics (whether it be movie to movie adaptations, movie to TV, or literature to movie) have been given a new breath of life. Some of these reboots have been successful such as Riverdale, Lethal Weapon, Gossip Girl, Vampire Diaries, 90210 and Pretty Little Liars, Star Trek, Chris Nolan's Batman Trilogy. While others have not been so successful such as Baywatch, Knight Rider, Charlie's Angels, Power Rangers, Robocop, Fantastic Four, TMNT. Why is that some of these Television and Movie reboots fair better than others and what could've been done to turn the not so successful into a success.

What Tree of Life by Terrence Malick and Melancholia by Lars Von Trier have in common is that they are two films that are poetic in their imagery and dialogue. With nuanced characters, each film seeks to explore the human experience and provide its own answer to question of life's ultimate meaning. Analyze each film in depth. Discuss differences and similarities between the characters of each film, and how each affirms the films central themes. Also examine the differences and the possible similarities in the messages of both films.

There have been many films that follow a romantic relationship from hopeful beginnings to an optimistic future and there are those that take it to the other end: when a relationship fails and the repercussions that entails. While some take a more realistic approach to the emotions riding through a former couple and their separation, there are others that follow one partner and see the other as almost literal monsters. Examples like David Cronenberg's The Brood which gives the main character's wife the ability to create child monsters or Andrzej Żuławski's Possession having from Mark's perspective seeing his wife Anna become a crazy sociopath and another woman as almost a double of the former, go into an almost otherworldly plane to explore how painful separation from a loved one can be. There might be other examples of this, like maybe Hideo Nakata's Dark Water, which is more of a focus on how divorce can effect children in the short term and long term in the realm of a ghost story. So I think the article should be an exploration of films that go into themes of love lost that goes more into the horror aspect and how people can seem to change into monsters when the rose tint is taken away.

Freddy, Jason, Micheal, Pinhead, Chucky… all original horror characters (some with funny jokes) but today the Horror movie genre seems dead (no pun intended). The only thing still keeping the genre is alive is turning old books into films, or films attempting to copy the mastermind, Wes Craven.

The trend of showing just about everything in media, even if it seems unnecessary. I'm not talking about censoring, but about limiting the audience's act of imagination to fill in the rest of the picture. What happens when a level of subtlety, implicitness, and mystery is lost? I was thinking of some classic black-and-white films such as M, The Innocents, Nosferatu, The Third Man, Gaslight, etc. whose atmosphere is heavily reliant on what is shrouded by shadow. A lot of suspense, dread, as well as intrigue is created by what we can't see. When many movies now are so well-lit and in high-definition color, has something been lost? It seems like there is a strong desire to expose and reveal as much as we can instead. Has this transition affected how movies are filmed in other ways?