#008. Fractured Storylines

Occasionally a movie comes along that requires a second viewing. Occasionally, this is due to a fractured storyline. When the plot unfolds in a non-linear or non-forward fashion, there are many details that can be missed the first time the film is seen. With so many movies pandering to the thoughtless, it is refreshing to see some films that require the audience to pay attention. This week’s movies require the audience to piece the story together, even if it takes a few views to do so.

Pulp Fiction
Year: 1994
Rating: R
Length: 154 minutes / 2.56 hours

I feel that one of the strengths of a good movie is a solid understanding of continuity and connections. It’s very simple, very Newtonian: cause and effect. Nothing happens in a vacuum, but instead each action affects many other aspects of the film in ways that the characters don’t quite understand, but the audience is given full privy to. And yet, each piece of plot gives a depth to the characters that perhaps wasn’t understood at first glance. This is what makes re-watching films like Pulp Fiction enjoyable. When you can see that a certain character acts a certain way early on in the film because of something that was revealed later as a semi-flashback, it almost makes it so you’re watching a whole new film.

Pulp Fiction starts out with a conversation about robberies and gets interrupted to tell the story of two hitmen (John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson) who were sent by Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames) to pick up a mysterious briefcase. We then get to see Vincent (Travolta) take Mrs. Marsellus Wallace (Uma Thurman) out on a date. From the previous section of plot, we can see why Vincent is a little bit nervous about this, especially when Mrs. Wallace gets into trouble. We then move on to a story involving a boxer (Bruce Willis) and a gold watch. It’s through this storyline that we finally meet Marsellus Wallace, albeit not in any measure of pleasant circumstances. Just when you think you’ve figured out the flow of Pulp Fiction‘s plot, it jumps back to the end of the hitmen saga, when Jules (Jackson) comes to the realization that they were saved by a miracle. Of course, another act of God gets them in trouble, and eventually the audience finds themselves back in the diner that the whole film started with. Full circle. The diner scenes act as a set of bookends that ties the three plots together and makes one wonder what they missed on a first glance.

Memento
Year: 2000
Rating: R
Length: 113 minutes / 1.88 hours

While Christopher Nolan is certainly a big name director after the successes of Inception and his reboot of the Batman franchise, his first few films tended to be very psychological. In fact, his very first film, Following, was a black and white shattered plot that becomes pieced together as the movie progresses. Memento took that idea and gave it more of a linear flow. The first time I watched Memento, my mind was blown. I almost had to sit down and watch it again, because now I knew what I was looking for in the strange progression of plot.

Memento tells the story of Leonard (Guy Pearce) who suffers from short term memory loss and is searching for his wife’s killer. In order to keep two storylines separate, one is presented in black and white, while the other remains in color. SPOILER ALERT: The black and white segments progress a forward plot where the segments in color give a plot told in reverse. Therefore, when the movie starts, the audience gets a view of both the beginning and ending of the plot and watch as it progresses toward a climactic middle. The method of breaking up the storylines, both forward and in reverse, gives a greater understanding of the main character’s memory loss condition, as the audience has seen what will happen, and not what has happened.

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 non-traditional plot flows

#007. Quentin Tarantino

Some directors illicit an extreme response from their audience. Most people will take one side or another after seeing one of the director’s representative works. Rarely will anyone sit in the middle-ground. Quentin Tarantino is certainly the epitome of these types of directors. The basis of Tarantino’s style lies in three points:
1. Graphic Violence – the visceral blood and guts is pretty much the one defining factor of a Tarantino film (Kill Bill).
2. Dialogue – while there is usually a lot of obscenity, if you can back away from the swearing, you can see that there are some really interesting and realistic conversations going on (Inglorious Basterds).
3. Pop Culture – what’s somewhat ironic is that through his love of pop culture (and its inclusion in his movies, mostly through their soundtracks), Tarantino’s films have since become pop culture themselves (Pulp Fiction).
Now, most people will be put off by the first two points of Tarantino’s style, but there are some who can look past these things and see a masterful storyteller. This week’s movies are two of Quentin Tarantino’s best.

Inglorious Basterds
Year: 2009
Rating: R
Length: 153 minutes / 2.55 hours

While I was familiar with many of Tarantino’s works (including Pulp Fiction, below) this was the first of his films that I had seen in theaters. What a first it was. Always the master of dialogue, and an artist of the visual aspect as well, Tarantino directed perhaps his best film to date (which is good, considering the travesty of Death Proof). And while Inglorious Basterds didn’t have quite as much of Tarantino’s trademark visceral violence or obscenity, it made up for it in sheer suspense. This film had probably one of the best antagonists I’ve seen in a long time (Christoph Waltz, who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor), and the suspense of his interrogations gripped me. I think that Tarantino saw what this film was and summed up his feelings about it during Brad Pitt’s final line, “I think this might just be my masterpiece.”

In my opinion, I agree with the “masterpiece” status. While Tarantino’s other films focus on the violence or the pop culture, Inglorious Basterds focuses on the dialogue. Even though it may look like a Nazi interrogating a French farmer, or a bunch of Americans trying to keep their cover, the back and forth of the conversation leads the audience on an escalating thrill ride, as the stakes get higher and any misspoken word could mean the difference between life and death. I saw this film in a completely empty theater, which gave it the feeling of a private screening (not bad for $1, either). When it was finished, I had become so immersed that I gave a one-person standing ovation.

Pulp Fiction
Year: 1994
Rating: R
Length: 154 minutes / 2.56 hours

Quite possibly Quentin Tarantino’s best film, Pulp Fiction takes multiple stories and intertwines them in a clever and interesting way. The multiple plots include two hitmen (Samuel L. Jackson & John Travolta) taking care of business, a boxer (Bruce Willis) running from a mob boss after he kills the man he was supposed to lose to, and a date between one of the hitmen (John Travolta) and his boss’ wife (Uma Thurman). Each of the storylines share similar characters, but are told in a non-linear fashion so that viewers will need to watch the movie again in order to put everything in order. Pulp Fiction won an Oscar for writing and sits comfortably at the bottom of AFI’s Top 100 list.

While Pulp Fiction does pull from Tarantino’s three strengths, its endearing qualities have made it a pop culture reference that even the casual movie watcher would recognize. The heart of this film asks the question, “What would you do when all hell breaks loose?” Three different plotlines show the audience that even if your day seems to be going pretty well, there’s always something that just comes in and screws it all up. We all have things we’d like to forget, and whether it’s an accident or a completely random series of events, there are some things that others don’t need to know about. The moral of Pulp Fiction seems to be: fix the problem and move on.

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 works that you’ll either love or hate.

#006. Altered History

I would suspect that the two most used words in pitching movies are “what if?” Many films use this question to sell their story. It allows our minds to take something that exists and play out an alternate universe where a minute change could have huge consequences. While these speculations can usually be tied to the science fiction genre, and its examination of the future, sometimes they can be used to postulate about the past. The biographical picture (or biopic for short) tends to want to hold to the truth of what happened in the past, but the opposite could be considered with this week’s two films. What if the history that we all know had been slightly changed?

Watchmen
Year: 2009
Rating: R
Length: 162 minutes / 2.7 hours

In Watchmen, the “what if?” has to do with superheroes. What if people stepped into the roles that so many children idolize? What if these superheroes actually changed the flow of history? Many historians spend most of their time speculating how world events may have been affected by small decisions. Lets say, for instance, the United States had actually won the Vietnam War. What would that have done to our society as we know it? Would Nixon have gotten a second term? Would we all have come to a global peace, or would more wars have been started as a result? Watchmen examines what the 1980s would have been like if superheroes were infused into our history.

While we tend to idolize superheroes, Watchmen starts with these caped crusaders in retirement after the government decides that their services are no longer needed. It’s 1985, and their era has come to an end. And yet, retirement doesn’t seem to satisfy some people, be it Rorschach, the masked vigilante, or the murderer of “Comedian”, one of Rorschach’s colleagues. The death of Comedian is the event that brings the gang back together, as they try to figure out why they’re being targeted. As the film progresses, the conspiracy deepens as we learn about how the superheroes changed the world, but in the end, they were only human (well, mostly human, Dr. Manhattan might not fall under that category anymore). The shocking ending, while somewhat different than the ending of the graphic novel it was based on, ties everything together as the “Doomsday Clock” strikes midnight.

Inglorious Basterds
Year: 2009
Rating: R
Length: 153 minutes / 2.55 hours

While Watchmen examined an altered 1985, Inglorious Basterds looks at one of the biggest influences on our world to date: World War II. And even though the film doesn’t go much into what happens after the altered history, it does provide an intriguing twist. The reason it is intriguing is that with an understanding of history, the audience will know what will happen at the end of the movie, or at least what they think will happen. They’ll watch Titanic and they know in the back of their heads that the boat will sink. That was history, it can’t be changed. So when a movie like Inglorious Basterds comes along, the audience has an idea of how it will end, but the twist is that this film examines an altered history, thereby disguising its ending.

The brunt of the film revolves around revenge. In Nazi-controlled France during World War II, some Jews have had enough. They tire of the holocaust against them and pick up the fight to bring some of the suffering to the Nazis. Two factions of this vengeance are examined in this film, although they end up playing off of each other in the end. The first person out for blood is Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent), who was the only survivor of her family after some Nazis led by Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) brutally murdered them. Secondly, we have American Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), who leads a contingent of Jewish-American soldiers, the “Basterds.” Their only goal is to kill Nazis, plain and simple. Throughout the course of the film, an opportunity arises that drives both Dreyfus and Lt. Raine to put their lives on the line in order to take out the heads of the Nazi party. While history certainly has one outcome for World War II, Inglorious Basterds certainly has another.

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 different takes on history

#005. Integrated History

Even though history is sometimes looked down on as a boring High School subject, sometimes it can be used as a creative object in which a movie’s plot can connect with the audience. When major historic events are integrated into a film, it gives the plot an anchor to a real moment in time that people can relate to. In being able to relate to the audience’s experience and knowledge, the film suddenly becomes somewhat relatable. An individual will then get a kick out of seeing the main character’s influence on the event, or even seeing how an alternate history might have been created had things gone differently. This week’s movies look at two sides of cinematic integration of history. Don’t worry, there’s not going to be a history quiz next week.

Forrest Gump
Year:1994
Rating:PG-13
Length: 142 minutes / 2.37 hours

Forrest Gump was hardly the first Best Picture to use history to its advantage. Many previous winners have used famous historic events as their backdrop (see Gone with the Wind), or have merely taken the audience through a history lesson of about 30 years (see Cavalcade (1933)), or even one man’s stamp on history itself (see Patton). However, none of these previous Oscar winners has infused history into their plot quite like Forrest Gump has. In order to not change how history has happened, this film takes one person and essentially makes him a footnote in all the notable events of the late 20th century.

While the start of Forrest Gump’s (Tom Hanks) simple life is hardly noteworthy (historically speaking), we must start this examination at the point where Forrest joins the army. Oh, but wait! There’s a war going on . . . the Vietnam War. Not soon after Gump has finished basic training is he sent to the front lines to fight with his friends, Lieutenant Dan (Gary Sinise) and Bubba Blue (Mykelti Williamson). Of course, the one significant point of Forrest’s upbringing is that he’s an excellent runner, which ends up winning him some medals. As such, he gets to meet the president. Actually, he gets to meet the president a lot, although the president changes a few times. As Gump lives his life, he ends up inadvertently creating the iconic smiley faces of the 1970′s, defeatist bumper stickers, and many more crazes and fads well known to their respective generations. And yet, through all the fame, Forrest still dreams about the girl next door, Jenny (Robin Wright), who is up to her own historical experiences, albeit of a less savory nature. The bit parts and nods to many popular culture events and icons really make this movie one to see.

Watchmen
Year: 2009
Rating: R
Length: 162 minutes / 2.7 hours

For about 20 years, Watchmen has stood as a pillar of the graphic novel world, and for those 20 years, it had gone without a movie adaptation. The masterpiece of literature created by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons went un-produced for so long due to many issues. This was partly due to Moore’s ideologies in regards to his work (after all, look how The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen turned out) and partly due to the insurmountable task of being able to represent Watchmen on film. That being said, the Watchmen movie came pretty darn close to representing the literary work it was based on. And while the plot of the movie tends to drift from the graphic novel toward the end of the film, the audience ultimately ends up at the same place: questioning the salvation of many over the sacrifice of the few. This is just one of the moral dilemmas brought up in Watchmen, others of which include the use of intelligence to better society (read: “With great power comes great responsibility”), ends justifying the means, and standing up for what is right, even if doing so is wrong.

Watchmen does a good job of showing how history would be different if superheroes actually existed. Of course, these superheroes are mostly just normal people with a penchant for violence, and only one of them truly possesses any real “superpowers”. And yet, if the Vietnam War had been won sooner or if President Kennedy’s assassination was deliberate, this film examines the alternate history that would inevitably have been created. Watchmen was masterfully shot to be as close to a frame-for-frame representation of the source material as possible, but some changes like less smoking and non-canon violence (that becomes much too graphic) might be too much for purists to bear. Still, the pacing of Watchmen is excellent, leaving an audience three hours later with something to think about. A historical “what if?”

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 history lessons

#004. Robert Zemeckis

When it comes right down to it, the director of a movie is often the single point that can make or break a film. The director must bring together all the elements of the film, including actors, script, and filmography in order to tell a story. Often, these stories end up having a signature, flair, or style that ends up being part of the director’s identity as a maker of movies. While Robert Zemeckis has not made many films, the ones that he does make tend to be cult classics. Most people know Robert Zemeckis through the Back to the Future trilogy, but the two most critically acclaimed movies he has directed are the following:

                                                  Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Year: 1988
Rating: PG
Length: 104 minutes / 1.73 hours

Today’s films are so infused with the addition of CGI that a film like this sometimes isn’t given a second thought. And yet, for 1988, this film was absolutely groundbreaking. When you consider what has to go into infusing animated characters into a live-action movie, you start to realize just how much we take computers for granted. This, of course, did not go unnoticed by the Academy Awards, which awarded this film three Oscars, all having to do with the processes needed to make Los Angeles look like it was overrun by cartoons (Best Sound Effects Editing, Best Visual Effects, Best Film Editing).

When you consider many of Robert Zemeckis’ other films, you can see that he has been on the forefront of many visual advancements for film. Who Framed Roger Rabbit is really where you begin to see his penchant for special effect start to take off. Following with two more Back to the Future movies, the visual effects start to get more extraordinary. Death Becomes Her showed what a bit of creative green-screen effects could do, and by the time the new millennium rolled around, Robert Zemeckis’ films started to show how motion capture technology could fully utilize the power of computers (see The Polar Express, Beowulf, A Christmas Carol).

Forrest Gump
Year:1994
Rating:PG-13
Length: 142 minutes / 2.37 hours

Often when a film wins Best Picture, the director of said film also wins Best Director, and Forrest Gump is no exception. Just like Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Forrest Gump also won Oscars for Best Visual Effects and Best Film Editing, which comes as no surprise considering the film’s infusion of Tom Hanks (who won Best Actor for his role as Forrest Gump) into famous scenes in history, as well as the removal of Gary Sinise’s legs.

The 6th Oscar for this film was for its screenplay, which follows Forrest Gump (Hanks) through many of the major historical milestones of the 1960′s and 1970′s. Gump hasn’t been dealt the best hand in life, but he certainly doesn’t let that get him down. His endless optimism and naivete allows him to accomplish almost anything, including ping pong, shrimp boating, cross country running (literally), and (eventually) getting the girl, his childhood friend Jenny (Robin Wright). The famous line, “Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get,” pretty much sums up this movie.

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 works of a special effects director

#003. Mixing Mediums

The realm of animated films is certainly a world unto itself. While live-action films usually have to obey the laws of physics, animated films have free reign in a lot of aspects. When both live-action and animation are used together, the differences are made evident. And yet, in movies where there is a crossover between these worlds, the worlds still remain separate. Films like Space Jam take the actors from the live-action realm and put them in a world where anything is possible; whereas this week’s films force toons and Disney princesses alike into a world that is harsh and unforgiving: the real world.

Enchanted
Year: 2007
Rating: PG
Length: 107 minutes / 1.78 hours

The country of Andalasia is much like any other realm created for Disney princesses to find their true love. With the increase of CGI animated films, Enchanted takes its animation from its roots and introduces characters that fit the stereotypes of its predecessors. You have the naive prince and princess, the conniving villain, bumbling minions and talking animals. These stereotypes do well within their own world, but when forced to adjust to the reality of New York City, one can see that their street smarts are seriously lacking.

Since princess stories have a small amount of real-world “rule-breaking”, the transition from Andalasia to New York removes their animated styling and applies the rules of our world. Well, most of our rules, at any rate. While a song sung by a native of the animated world seems to have the magical quality to congregate animals, gather crowds, and immediately give everyone an understanding of all the lyrics and choreography, this gift cannot protect the singer from realizing that not everything in life goes according to a formulaic plan.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Year: 1988
Rating: PG
Length: 104 minutes / 1.73 hours

Now, consider if you will, a world that is fully integrated with that of animated characters. In this world, even if the toons are not in their own world, they still obey all the rules (or lack thereof) of their native format. The charm of this film is the groundbreaking visual effects involved with infusing animated characters into a live-action world. While this practice is pretty common today, in 1988, it was years ahead of its time (and won the film at least one of its many Oscars [Best Visual Effects]). Similarly, this is perhaps the only film to ever feature the iconic animated characters from both the Disney and Warner Brothers animation studios.

At its base, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a story of segregation and racism, although it’s a little difficult to take seriously when the animated characters are the ones being discriminated against. In fact, those who have seen the 1974 noir classic, Chinatown can see where some of this film’s Los Angeles sleuthing themes may have originally come from. In this film, Detective Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins) is trying to figure out who really killed a big studio executive, even if all the clues initially point to animated goofball, Roger Rabbit (voiced by Charles Fleischer). This ends up being a challenge for Valiant, due to his prejudice against toons, which he has to overcome in order to arrive at the truth and the key to cracking the entire case.

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 mediums, 2 styles of integration

#002. Self-Aware

In the span of about 100 years, movies have been categorized due to their content. Sometimes this can be difficult, and can lead to the emergence of new genres, but most of the time movies can be portioned off into subsets based on common themes and motifs. Since this trend of categorizing movies has gone on for so long, it was only a matter of time before the movies became self-aware. The term “self-aware” (which is a phrase I coined myself), is used to describe a movie that realizes what genre it is in and uses this realization to poke fun at the genre. Ironically enough, these movies were released in the same year, which just goes to show the state of the movie industry at the time.

Shoot ‘em Up
Year: 2007
Rating: R
Length: 86 minutes / 1.43 hours

Action movies have a notorious tendency to be light on plot, heavy on explosions. The entirety of the genre relies on high octane action sequences in order to make bank. Shoot ‘em Up is no exception. There’s enough plot to incur multiple gunfights and creative uses for carrots as weapons, but not much past that.

Clive Owen plays a man by the name of Smith who happens to get caught up in a national conspiracy involving babies raised for their inherent medical properties. In order to protect one of the babies, Smith calls on the services of Donna Quintano (Moncia Bellucci) as they run from Hertz (Paul Giamatti), a hitman who is in charge of cleaning up this mess. Throughout the film, Shoot ‘em Up adheres to the action movie stereotype of the hero always hitting his mark (while the bad guys constantly miss), corny lines and ridiculous setups. However, it is able to do this while at the same time making the fun of the whole genre by being as campy as possible.

Enchanted
Year: 2007
Rating: PG
Length: 107 minutes / 1.78 hours

For decades, Disney has been cashing in on the “Princess” movie market. Such titles as Snow White (1937), Cinderella (1950) and Sleeping Beauty (1959) tell the story of a damsel in distress and the Prince Charming who comes to save her. Enchanted takes this concept and pokes fun at it while at the same time falling into it.

This movie starts out as a classically animated story where Giselle (portrayed by Amy Adams), who sings of true love’s kiss, falls in love with Prince Edward (James Marsden) at first sight. Enchanted then shifts into the real world when Prince Edward’s evil mother, Queen Narissa (Susan Sarandon) sends Giselle to New York. It’s in this backdrop in which the absurd customs of cleaning animals, spontaneous singing and utter naiveté are brought to life. In the end, Enchanted relies on its storybook ending to poke fun at the “happily ever after” genre.

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 cool for their own genre

#001. Babies and Bloodbaths

Everyone knows that it’s common sense to not bring your newborn child to an R-rated movie. And yet, two of the most exciting action movies I’ve seen involve babies as part of the plot. Of course, these are movies you can’t really take too seriously, and are more for fun than anything else.

The Warrior’s Way
Year: 2010
Rating: R
Length: 100 minutes / 1.66 hours

One of the genre mixtures that I think we see far too little of these days is the Samurai Western. Both genres are very similar in nature, usually having a silent, skilled and stoic main character put in a desolate and/or rural setting. This film artfully pulls both genres together in a massacre of steampunk-looking bandits and deadly ninjas. Although a lot of the style seemed to be pulled from an anime influence, the way it was presented made this a very cool looking movie.

The film opens with the main character, a samurai by the name of Yang (played by Dong-gun Jang) fulfilling his quest to become the best swordsman in the world. The spoils of this battle were a change of heart and the last surviving member of his enemies: a baby girl. Yang takes the girl and sets sail for America, where he hopes he can keep her safe by being as far from civilization as possible. As he integrates into the society of the old west, he cannot keep his past hidden for long. In order to keep the baby safe and to help the town, Yang calls on his years of being an assassin to ward off bandits led by a corrupt Colonel (Danny Huston). Teaming up with Lynne (Kate Bosworth) and Ronald (Geoffrey Rush), Yang learns the importance of community, but must ultimately do what is best for the baby princess.

Shoot ‘em Up
Year: 2007
Rating: R
Length: 86 minutes / 1.43 hours

This movie is very up-front with what it’s offering. Action, and lots of it. There’s numerous shootouts in a variety of locations, all strung together with a constant cat-and-mouse between the antagonist and protagonist. And while the somewhat choreographed battles are entertaining, piecing together some of the mystery surrounding an abandoned baby helps to string the viewer along to the final showdown.

Mr. Smith (Clive Owen) is what you’d expect out of any homeless looking person who notices that something may be amiss when a pregnant woman waddles by him in the dead of night in a bad part of town. That’s right; he’s a mix between Rambo and Bugs Bunny. After delivering the woman’s baby in a flurry of bullets, Smith is now stuck with this newborn child. Being the right and upstanding citizen that he is, Smith takes the baby to the one person he knows who would probably be able to help: a “lady of the evening” by the name of Donna (Monica Bellucci). While Smith is convincing Donna to take the newborn, Hertz (Paul Giamatti) and a legion of gunmen are hot on Smith’s trail trying to recover the baby for Hertz’s employers. As the film progresses and the shootouts get increasingly ridiculous, more information is learned not only about the baby, but about Smith’s mysterious background as well.

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 babies, 2 much blood

#000. The Overture

Welcome one, welcome all! My name is Ben, and I will be your guide through the deep and interconnected world of cinema. While Hollywood does have a tendency to re-use some ideas, sometimes these ideas produce some excellent cinema. My goal through this blog will be to expose you to movies that you’ve seen; and hopefully, movies that you haven’t.

Each week, I hope to bring you two movies that are in some way connected to each other. Here’s the catch: not only are the two movies each week connected, but one of those movies will be one that I brought to you last week. This way, through a long chain of connections, you can see how ideas, motifs, themes, actors, and directors can span across a wide variety of films. Think of it as a never ending “6 degrees of Kevin Bacon” game. I hope that I will not repeat movies outside of the week-to-week connections, but some films are so diverse that you might see some familiar ones pop up now and again.

The movies that I will bring to the table each week will be ones that I have personally seen in their entirety and that I think deserve some of your time to sit down and watch. I will explain what makes the movies interesting, be it through artistic styling, superior acting, superb direction or a unique attribute. Now you may be asking yourself, “Why should I care about the film opinions of some guy on the internet?” A valid question, to which my answer is the following cinematic resume:

I suppose that my love of good movies started when I managed to watch all 100 films in the American Film Institute’s “100 Years, 100 Movies” lists (both the original 1998 version and the 2007 10^th Anniversary edition). I have also seen every film that has won an Oscar for Best Picture, as well as many of the nominees. To top these achievements off, I actually own on DVD or Blu-Ray every film from these lists, with the few exceptions being films that have not made the jump to the digital age (generally older films fit in this category, although there are only 3).

Also, I have taken a college course on Film Studies (with more than passing marks), which required me to not only analyze movies, but to perform the multitude of necessary steps to film and produce one of my own (which can be seen here).

Finally, this blog is somewhat of an extension of a series of articles I wrote in Grad school for the school newspaper. While I did movie reviews of the films that were being released at the time, these articles went by the name of “Must See Movies”, and would generally include descriptions of 3 films tied together by a common theme, and one film within the theme that I would give as a “Homework Assignment”. As such, those who have read these articles may see some repeated reviews, merely in a different format.

Now that you have an idea of my credentials, I hope that you’ll enjoy learning some things about your favorite films, as well as finding some new favorites. I truly enjoy movies, not only as escapes from reality, but for the creativity that it takes in order to get ideas all the way to the big screen. Therefore, since movies are one of my many passions, as the opening music comes to a close, and as the curtains part, may I merely say, “Lights! Camera! ACTION!”

Cinema Connections Collection (circa March 2011)