for a few dollars more

For a Few Dollars More is the sequel to A Fistful of Dollars in what is known as the Dollar trilogy. However, you can watch the movie as a standalone feature as the only thing that connects this film with Fistful of Dollars is that the main character is played by Clint Eastwood and wears the same clothing. This is due to the fact that The Man with No Name is a stock character just like most characters in the genre. Unlike the previous film, this film is not a remake to another film although Yojimbo did have its own sequel name Sanjuro, which I have not seen. The plot is essentially two bounty hunters teaming up to bring the same guy to justice. Just like the last film, The music and cinematography is fantastic.  The main villain of the film is played by the exact same person who played the villain role in the previous movie. The name of the actor is Gian Maria Volont'e. Unlike the previous film, the main villain is fleshed out with a backstory. Lee Van Cleef plays the rival bounty hunter in the role that revived his acting career and shooting him into a western star. However, I do have problems with this film. I think the film is drawn out a little longer than necessary. Unlike the next film, This film does not have enough content to justify its long length. While I do criticize the pacing, the film is still worthy of a watch. I give the film an eight out of ten.

A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

A Fistful of Dollars is considered a classic western and there are reasons for that. The film is actually an unofficial remake of the Akira Kurosawa film Yojimbo, which was inspired by westerns. In fact, Kurosawa actually sued because of the similarities between the films. I have seen the original, and the lawsuit was totally justified. Everything about the movie is well polished while still having natural grit to it. From the opening scene, the music is amazing. The music honestly tells the story, as there is little dialogue to be had in this film, which is fine as the plot is simple enough to understand that the film could honestly be a silent film and you would still understand what is going on. The music creates various themes such as isolation to resurrection to triumph. I would honestly like a copy of the soundtrack. Clint Eastwood is of course fantastic in his iconic role The Man with No Name with his trademark leer. The cinematography is amazing, capturing the vast horizon and every leer with amazing detail. Due to the film being shot on actual film, there is film grain. I personally, unlike most critics, enjoy a little grain, because I think it gives a film character. The plot is essentially a drifter coming to town and tricking to rival gangs to wipe each other out for his own profit, which as an additional bonus frees the innocent civilians from tyranny. I give the film a ten out of ten. 

Note: I am sorry about the underlining I could not fix it.

Drive (2011)

Drive is an interesting film. It is a self-aware tribute to '70s exploitation films, yet it plays itself incredibly seriously and subtly. Ryan Gosling play the nameless protagonist with a mysterious past. We never learn much of his past. We as an audience are meant to infer who he is through his actions. Ryan Gosling plays the main character as a rather quiet fellow which enhances the sense of mystery for the character. The quietness of the character throughout the film creates an intentionally jarring effect when he explodes into fits of rage and violence. Like the main character, the film itself acts the same way. The film starts out incredibly quiet and slowly, using the music to drive the story. However when the movie gets to the action, it get freaking intense. There is a ton of gore in this film when the characters commit gruesome acts on each other such as someone's head being blown to smithereens by a shotgun to the head! This film is chockfull of great actors beside Gosling including Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad), Christina Hendricks (Mad Men), Albert Brooks (Finding Nemo), and Ron Perlman (Sons of Anarchy, Hellboy). Christina Hendricks is wasted on a small part unfortunately, but Albert Brooks is fantastic as the villain despite being a comedic actor. I highly recommend the film to anybody who is tired of brain dead action films and pandering romantic comedies, and people who just like great movies. However, I must warn people that this film is not for the squeamish. I give the film a 10/10. If you are able to find it in theaters, go to it now! Support a good movie for once and show studios what you really want to see.

RE: Film Criticism is Dying? Not Online

In his article Film Criticism Is Dying? Not Online, Roger Ebert talks about the influence of the internet on the profession of Film Criticism. He refutes people who say film criticism is dead because newspapers are canceling their movie review column, and leaving many film critics out of the job. He praises the medium that the internet presents. He says that with the internet, film criticism is booming. He also talks about how with the internet, people from different countries are now able to weigh on movies at an international level. In addition, he praises DVD for allowing for the restoration of classic movies that would have otherwise gone completely forgotten. With the creation of digital technology film and film criticism have grown in strength. Ebert also talks about how he is using the internet to review movies ever since he stopped being able to speak. I like this article because it legitimizes movie review blogs. The newest high profile movie reviewers will be coming from such blogs if things keep going as they are. Of course, Ebert also briefly mentions that the internet has also increased the amount of bad criticism, which is an unavoidable problem. The internet is a healthy breeding ground for new writers. The internet allows for more people to express their opinions and discuss them than ever before. By using the internet, I am helping to keep film criticism alive as print is slowly fading away. The internet is the future for film criticism, so it is fine to review movies if you have the passion to do it.

Ebert, Roger. "Film Criticism Is Dying? Not Online." Wall Street Journal. 22 Jan 2011: n. page. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576080392163051376.html>.

cinemafunk.com

I was looking at different blogs that review movies as I wanted to learn how to develop my style. One blog I stumbled upon was cinemafunk.com. The site reviews movies both modern and classical as films ranging from mainstream blockbusters to esoteric indie flicks. The blog consists of multiple reviewers who I assume review films they are interested in. The review style used at this blog involves switching between background information on the film and critical analysis and back, which allows for information to be easily presented to the reader. The reviewers use  references to other movies to reveal what the movie is like without giving spoilers as well as compare and contrast. The reviewers also does not use a score system. I disagree with the reviewer on some films, but his criticisms are always legitimate. The reviewers also seems to have a sense of humor at times, which crops up in some of their reviews. Their reviews tend to be on the short side. The reviews usually consist of five or six small paragraphs. However, some of the reviewers will go on much longer trying to dissect the film on a symbolic level even when the reviewer say the film is not really good. The blog is updated pretty regularly in fact they updated the site yesterday as of my writing this. In addition to reviews, the site also does top ten film lists at the end of the year as well as editorials. The site is a lot more professional than mine, and it has a larger variety of tastes in film than I do.