MYST-The Great Gatsby(2013)

I have been anticipating this movie since I first heard it was being made. Well, I finally saw it and it was AWESOME. Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby is one of my favorite books so I was very critical while watching the movie, but as soon as the movie began, I forgot all about criticizing it and became completely swept up into the movie. 

The Great Gatsby is in 3D, though I did not see it in 3D. It is an adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1925 novel of the same name. The film was co-written and directed by Baz Luhrmann, and stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, and Joel Edgerton. It follows the life and times of millionaire Jay Gatsby and his neighbor Nick, who recounts his encounter with Gatsby at the height of the Roaring Twenties.





The costumes in the movie were absolutely stunning and the cinematography itself really made the costumes 'pop' on screen. In my opinion, this movie is so much better than the 1974 Great Gatsby. The emotion and drama of the story was captured so much more than in the 1974 one. I also thought that the actors they used fit their roles a lot better than in the 1974 film.

The soundtrack was awesome. I really didn't think that contemporary pop and hip hop were going to help portray the jazz age at all, but it was really cool and really helped bring out the details that Fitzgerald wrote about the parties.

All in all, this is definitely a movie worth seeing!

MYST- Life of Pi (2012)

Life of Pi is a 2012 American adventure drama film based on a novel of the same name. Directed by Ang Lee, the film is based on an adapted screenplay by David Magee, and stars Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Rafe Spall, Gérard Depardieu, Tabu, and Adil Hussain.

The storyline revolves around a 16-year old Indian boy named Pi, who survives a shipwreck in which his family dies, and is stranded in the Pacific Ocean on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker.

This movie is AMAZING. Everything about it is amazing, the acting, the cinematography, everything. I can definitely say this is one of the greatest movies I've ever seen. The special effects really draw the audience in, the director and cinematographer really knew how to bring the novel to life and there are just so many jaw dropping moments.

I think my favorite scene is when he lands on an island that has only meerkats on it. In the day time the island looks like any other regular island with a jungle, but at night the whole island looks like its glow in the dark. It is so beautiful, it's hard to describe. At this point in the movie, Pi has been in the ocean for such a long time, that he is ready to stay on the island with the meerkats for the rest of his life. But while he is looking into a small body of water that is glowing, he sees dead fish and other things. He soon realizes that the island eats the things that live on it when the sun sets, so he leaves the island in the morning. It is definitely one of those scenes in any kind of action/ adventure film where you think that the hero or main character has finally achieved what they have set out to do but then it all goes wrong.

All I can say is, if you haven't seen this movie, you must.

1975- The Road to Revenge

My groups movie is about an officer (Clint Eastwood) in New York City who is told by the government to kill his long term partner because he has been dealing drugs. After not following through with the government's plan, they have his wife, kids and partner killed. In search of revenge out on a cross-country trip to get back at the government officials. Along the way he meets and recruits some young rebels who tag along with him and help him out with his endeavors.My group came up with this type of movie because we thought it had a lot of characteristics of a 70's film We wanted it to be more experimental and more realistic.We wanted to stretch the boundaries just like most of the 70's films did. We wanted to include was the idea of social commentary. This movie questions the government's authority over society and also personal morals and ethics. Clint Eastwood plays the antihero, which was a major 1970's characteristic.

 

We chose Clint Eastwood for this role because he has the experience of playing an antihero in Dirty Harry. Jon Voight was chosen for the role of Clint's partner because in past films such as Midnight Cowboy he did films with social commentary in them and he also was in films dealing with murder. Lastly, we chose Robert Shaw to play the main government official because he can play a mysterious, menacing character quite well. For our studio we chose Malpaso Productions. It was founded by Clint Eastwood in 1967. So we thought it would be smart to go with a studio he would be comfortable with and know well. Also, we chose this because Malpaso was linked with Warner Bros. Studios who is involved with larger movies and also ones that include social commentary. 

Our film is more than one genre, which was very common in 1970's films. We thought it would be mostly action/crime because of Eastwood's main plan to get his revenge against the law, but it can also be considered a drama since it deals with Eastwood's character's struggles and emotions.For our director we chose Ingmar Bergman who was a Swedish director, writer and producer.He made a lot of movies that deal with death, crime and betrayal. During his career, he got caught up in a alleged tax evasion which placed him in a similar criminal investigation as in our film. So he could put some of his own feelings into the movie and make an accurate character development. 

The rating we decided on for this film was M for mature. We chose this rating so we could appeal to a larger scale audience and be able to show more gritty scenes, but still get the audience we wanted.  Our main focus was editing because we wanted there to be jump cuts which showed more of the experimental side of the film that we wanted to show. Don Cambern wass our editor, he worked on Easy Rider in 1969.

I wouldn't change anything about our movie.

Formal Film Study 2-Cecil B. DeMille Films

For my project I decided to watch three films directed by Cecil B. DeMille. DeMille was an American film director and film producer of both silent and sound films. DeMille began his career as a stage actor in 1900. He later moved on to writing and directing stage productions. He directed his first film, The Squaw Man, released in 1914 and directed dozens of silent films before transitioning to sound films in 1929. Among his best-known films are Cleopatra (1934); Samson and Delilah(1949); The Greatest Show on Earth (1952), which won the Academy Award for Best Picture; and The Ten Commandments (1956).  Instead of choosing his most popular films, I chose three of his lesser known films, Male and Female(1919), Don't Change Your Husband (1919) and Why Change Your Wife? (1920). All three films starred Gloria Swanson, one of DeMille's favorite actresses. 

Male and Female-1919

The film centers on the relationship between Lady Mary Loam (Swanson), a British aristocrat, and her butler, Crichton (Meighan). Crichton is in love with Mary, but she disdains him because of his lower social class. When the two and some others are shipwrecked on a desert island, they are left to fend for themselves in a state of nature. The aristocrats' abilities to survive are far worse than those of Crichton, and a role reversal ensues, with the butler becoming a king among the stranded group. Crichton and Mary are about to wed on the island when the group is rescued. Upon returning to Britain, Crichton chooses not to marry Mary; instead, he asks a maid, Tweeny (who is in love with Crichton), to marry him, and the two move to the United States.

The theme of this film is gender relations and social class. I think DeMille was trying to make a statement about British aristocracy and that he disagreed with it. What he was trying to say was, it doesn't matter what your social standing was, when it comes down to it, we are all humans and that's what really matters.

 The cinematography( editing, lighting,etc.) of the film really helps tell the story. I find it really interesting how he used the lighting to make it look like day time or night time. I have no idea how he did it but, when it was night time during the film, he made it look like night but you could still see the characters perfectly. He really made everything look realistic. At some point in the film, a scene would end and a black hole would fade out the shot. It would then go to another scene but the color tint of the scene would be different than the previous one, for instance, one would have an orangish tin t to it and the next one would have blue. I'm not sure if DeMille did this on purpose or if it was because the films were so old and the film had some damage. 

In my opinion, the most important scene, is the babylonian sequence. In the scene the main character, Crichton, is fantasizing about being the king of Babylon and Gloria Swanson as the christian slave. It is one of the most famous scenes from the movie. The costumes are awesome and they even have real lions in the scene. DeMille's editing of the scene is really well done. He really showed captured the fear in Gloria Swanson's eyes when she was in the lion pit. 

I even found an interview with Gloria Swanson talking about how they made the lion scene, it's pretty interesting.



Don't Change Your Husband-1919

 Don't Change Your Husband is about a woman named Leila Porter. She comes to dislike her husband James, who is always eating onions and looking sloppy. But after she divorces him and marries two-timing playboy Schuyler Van Sutphen the now-reformed James looks pretty good.

This movie is what would, now a days, be considered a romantic comedy. DeMille's films usually have some provocative things sprinkled in but then he always ends the movie with the characters learning their lessons. And he really makes the women in this film look naive; it really reflects society's view on women at the time.

 There is one memorable scene in which Cody( Schuyler Van Sutphen) is luring Swanson with promises of wealth, pleasure, and love. As he coos to her she imagines the scenes. Pleasure is a fantastic scene of Swanson in a spidery hammock swinging out over a pool while people dance around. It is this amazing choreographed scene with tons of people. Wealth is a scene in which Swanson is gowned like a Babylonian queen as servants bring her chests of jewels, which shes tosses aside. Love is a scene in which she is a wood nymph in a forest glade with a Pan-like character (Ted Shawn). It's truly a really beautiful scene, and unfortunately I can't find a clip of it anywhere but I did find a couple of still s of the scene.


There is also an extravagant party scene where Swanson is dressed as a princess and Cody is dressed as a king. They ended up making Swanson's husband dress as a court jester to show how foolish and oblivious he was. It's cool how DeMille used that symbolically.


Why Change Your Wife? -1920



This movie is sort of a sequel to Don't Change Your Husband- 1919. Robert and Beth Gordon are married but share little. He runs into Sally at a cabaret and the Gordons are soon divorced. Just as he gets bored with Sally's superficiality, Beth strives to improve her looks. The original couple falls in love again at a summer resort. 

Once again DeMille makes the women in this film seem really dumb, like they can't make up their minds about things. It's quite sexist. He also made women look kind of crazy, there is a scene where Swanson is fighting her ex-husbands new wife. Below is a clip from the scene but you have to skip to 8:00. 

The opening scene of the movie shows the unhappily married couple getting ready in the morning. The husband(meighan) is trying to shave in the mirror but Swanson keeps getting things from the medicine cabinet and it really irritates the husband. After their divorce, the husband gets remarried to Sally and once again, while he is shaving in the mirror, Sally needs to grab some things from the medicine cabinet. I thought it was cool how DeMille replicated that scene.The lesson learned in the movie is that all wives are the same and they will all have bad habits no matter what.

 

To be honest there really is only one awesome scene in the movie.It's  another one of DeMille's extravagant scenes with beautiful sets, amazing costumes and tons of people. It is a scene at the summer resort both couples are staying at and it's just beautiful. There people in awesome bathing suits and beautiful pools. Unfortunately I can't find a clip of it.

In conclusion, after watching these three films I discovered that DeMille and Gloria Swanson were an amazing director/actress duo. I also learned that DeMille loved making scenes in his movies that are fantasies which are usually in ancient times. The scenes usually end up being extravagant. He also loved putting some risque innuendos and things in his films as well but he would make up for them by having the  the characters learn lessons. 

MYST-Monsieur Verdoux (1947)

The film is one of Charlie Chaplin's later films, with sound,  about an unemployed banker, Henri Verdoux, and his crazy methods of gaining income. While being both loyal and competent in his work, Verdoux has been laid off. To make money for his wife and child, he marries wealthy widows and then murders them. His crime spree eventually works against him when two particular widows mess things up for him.





I really enjoyed this film. I enjoy anything by Charlie Chaplin, most of my favorite movies are by him. This film actually reminds me a lot of the movie Dirty Rotten Scoundrels(1988), Starring Steve Martin and Glenne Headly. Both of the films feature men who trick rich women in order to get money, and they are both funny movies.

This film is different than most Chaplin films because it doesn't have 'The Tramp' as the main character. Chaplin actually plays a ,somewhat, bad guy in the film. Also, the film has dialogue and sound, which was somewhat new for Chaplin, considering his first real talkie was The Great Dictator( 1940), even though he did have a small amount of dialogue in Modern Times (1936).

One of my favorite scenes from the film is the opening scene. Monsieur Verdoux is attempting to kill his newest wife so he can steal her money, but he is having a little bit of trouble.  Even though Chaplin isn't playing The Tramp, he still does some of his signature expressions. It's pretty funny.

MYST #3- Champagne(1928)

I came across this movie on YouTube the other day, they have a whole selection of movies that you can rent or watch for free. When I saw that this movie was by Alfred Hitchcock, I was excited to see it because I have never seen one of his silent films before. I ended up liking it a lot, it had a good, yet overused, story line and the cinematography was interesting. 

Champagne is a 1928 British silent comedy film directed by Alfred Hitchcock and starring Betty Balfour, Gordon Harker and Jean Bradin. The screenplay was based on an original story by writer and critic Walter C. Mycroft. The film is about a young woman forced to get a job after her father tells her he has lost all his money. 

This movie had a lot of really cool "effects". For instance, in the movie, the girl's father hired a private eye to watch her and a lot of the times after a scene cuts it jumps to the private eye's point of view, literally, it's filmed as though you are seeing out of his eyes, it's really cool. 

One of the most important scenes to me, is when the girl is talking with the private eye, the girl's fiance is already getting a little jealous and the cruise ship they are on is rocking a lot so he starts to feel sick. Hitchcock does a really great job at replicating a rocking ship and also showing the instability of the characters.

MYST #2- First Love(1939)

4.5 stars out of 5


I really enjoyed watching First Love, it was very entertaining and it had great music! In my opinion, Deanna Durbin was truly one of the best, yet underrated actresses of the 30's and 40's. She was always in musical movies because she had an amazing voice and impeccable acting technique.When she was about 13, she was trained at Universal Studios with Judy Garland and the two starred in a couple of short movies together. The Metropolitan Opera even wanted her to work with them when she was only fifteen!

First Love is a 1939 musical film directed by Henry Koster and starring Deanna Durbin. Based on the fairy tale Cinderella, the film is about an orphan who is sent to live with her wealthy aunt and uncle after graduating from boarding school. Her life is made difficult by her snobby cousin who arranges that she stay home while the rest of the family attends a major social ball. With the help of her uncle, she makes it to the ball, where she meets and falls in love with her cousin's boyfriend. The film received Academy Award nominations for Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, and Best Music.

The cinematographers did a great job, I really liked the lighting. I noticed that, just like many movies of the 30's and 40's, the lighting of the main character's faces were always softened. The way they would light up Deanna's face made her look more youthful, innocent and beautiful. The way they moved the camera around was also really great. Here is an example of the lighting and camera motion:

Out of the whole movie, I would have to say my favorite scene was the last scene. Deanna's character left her awful cousin's house and the guy that she loved and went back to the boarding school she grew up at. Because she left the guy she loved, she decided to become a teacher at the boarding school and she had to sing for a group of teachers so they could approve of her. She sing's Un Bel Di by Puccini. It's absolutely gorgeous and towards the end of the song, the guy she loves walks into the room. After the last note she runs down the stairs and up to him, and then they leave and live happily ever after. 

Oh yeah, she was only seventeen when she made this movie!

1935 Film Project

My group's film was a film by Warner Bros. starring Jimmy Stewart, James Cagney, Barbara Stanwyck and Loretta Young. Directed by Frank Capra.

It is the story of two men; One, a notorious speakeasy owner ( James Cagney) who has lot's of affairs and a girlfriend( Barbara Stanwyck). The other is a humble family man ( Jimmy Stewart) who lives an honest life and has a beautiful wife( Loretta Young). The great depression comes along and both James Cagney and Jimmy Stewart lose money. Their paths cross and the two become unlikely friends and help each other through rough times.

We chose Warner Bros. because we did not want to make a giant blockbuster movie, we wanted to make a lower budget film. We also wanted to make a gangster film ,which Warner Bros. is known for, that also included social issues of the time, like the depression.

We chose Jimmy Stewart because he worked with Frank Capra a lot and was perfect for the role. We were able to get him from MGM by trading him with Humphrey Bogart. We chose James Cagney because he is known for playing a gangster and was perfect for the role, he also was already a part of Warner Bros., so we did not have to make any trades to get him in the movie. We chose Barbara Stanwyck because she was a star at Warner Bros. and was adored by Frank Capra. She also had the ability to play any type of role. We chose Loretta Young because she also worked with Frank Capra and was perfect for the role of a good wife. She always played nice ladies. Although she moved to Fox Studios, Warner Bros. was able to get her because she started off at Warner Bros.

Although our film was a gangster film, we were able to follow the Hayes Code very well. We did not show sex, violence or alcohol use and no authority figures were shown in a bad light. Whenever something violent or bad happened in the movie, it was not shown, just inferred from the dialogue of the film.

Our movie was focused on cinematography. We chose to make our film in black and white for the gangster, film noir effect and used many new and innovative camera angles and techniques.

If there was something I could change about our project it would probably be the Barbara Stanwyck character, I would have someone else play her, like Jean Harlow but that couldn't work because she was not in Warner Bros. studio.

Formal Film Study

The three films I decided to watch are all films about classical musicians or composers. I watched the film Puccini (1952), Callas Forever (2002) and Lisztomania (1975). 

The first film I watched was Puccini, it was a pretty good film. It is a biographical film about the composer Giacomo Puccini.The story begins when he is a student and ends with his death;the plot centers around three of his lovers and the compositions of his operas. 

The second film I watched was Callas Forever, which I absolutely loved. It is about one of the most famous sopranos of all time, Maria Callas. The movie takes place during the time Maria's voice started to deteriorate due to old age and is about how she kept her career going on even after she could not sing anymore. 

The third film I watched was Lisztomania which I absolutely hated, it was just dreadful to watch. It is a parody of Franz Liszt's, the famous composers, life and career. It was just odd, to say the least.

All of the movies were made at different times, but they were all in color. Puccini and Lisztomania both had that "old movie" look to them, while Callas Forever looked more digital and new.

 I did not like how Carmine Gallone and  Glauco Pellegrini, the directors of Puccini, edited the film. The film had many important events happen in it, but instead of showing the important events, the film would just skip to what happened afterwords.For example, after Puccini had married his first wife, he went on tour and the shot focused on his wife knitting, all of a sudden she turned old with gray hair and lots of time had passed. Even though it was a cool shot, I would have liked  to know what happened in between. Puccini did have beautiful music in it though!

 Franco Zeffirelli, the directer of Callas Forever, did an amazing job with this movie. The cinematography was beautiful and the film had some of the most beautiful music in it( all sung by Maria Callas). I really liked how the actress who played Maria actually looked somewhat like her, because when the actor/actress does not look like who they are supposed to portray, it can be very distracting. Franco Zeffirelli is one of the greatest directors, he also directed Maria Callas on stage during her career. One scene in particular really moved me in the movie. Maria put on recordings of her self singing and while crying, because she no longer had the beautiful voice she once had, mouthed the words and  acted along to it in private. It was tragically beautiful.

Lisztomania had some cool special effects but strange costumes and set designs. I found the whole movie quite atrocious, it was as if someone had mixed together A Clockwork Orange and Austin Powers, made it into a movie, and said it was about Franz Liszt. Also,  I had a hard time following along with the plot. I absolutely despised what the director, Ken Russell,  did with Franz Liszt's music. He turned it into pop/rock music and had Roger Daltrey ( who played Liszt in the movie) singing it. There was one part I did like in the movie; Ken Russell made the character who played Richard Wagner and evil vampire type of person, and not being one of Wagner's biggest fans, I liked that.

In Puccini, the directors made it seem as though every man in Europe had affairs with women while they were married. They also emphasized how important classical music was and still is in Europe.

Callas Forever, also emphasized how important classical music was, and still is in America and Europe. It also had a lot to do with the new technology people were making in the 80's and how much people could do with it compared to when Maria Callas was still singing in the late 60's.

Lisztomania, to me seemed like an experimental film. It was futuristic and also had a lot to do with Nazis and  Communism. They made a lot of fun of the Communists and Nazis in the movie. Also, the more I watched, the more I realized the movie was about the actual phenomenon called Lisztomania, not about the actual composer who caused it.

To me, when making a biographical movie about an artist, composer, etc., the director must include what the main character is famous for, in the movie. For example in the film Amadeus, the director included all of Mozart's most popular compositions, and that is what helped make the movie so great. Unfortunately Ken Russell did not do that when he made the movie Lisztomania.

All in all, I enjoyed watching three new movies, especially ones about classical music, because I am an opera singer and will be studying it in college. Plus, I love classical music.

Cinema Paradiso

Cinema Paradiso-1988

Cinema Paradiso is an Oscar-Winning, Italian drama made in 1988. It was directed by Giuseppe Tornatore and starred  Philippe Noiret, Marco Leonardi, Jacques Perrin, Salvatore Cascio, Enzo Cannavale and Antonella Attili.  In the movie a filmmaker recalls his childhood, when he fell in love with the movies at his village's theater and formed a long lasting friendship with the theater's projectionist. It is a beautiful film with a touching story. It is basically a story about life and growing up.

                I first decided to watch Cinema Paradiso because of the soundtrack. I had heard the main theme of the movie and instantly fell in love with the music. When I watched the movie I was not disappointed. In fact, I enjoyed it just as much as Titanic. I always compare other dramas to the 1997 movie Titanic because, in my opinion, it is one of the best dramas ever made.

                One scene in particular really touched me. The main character “Toto” was supposed to buy milk for his mother but instead, he spent the money on the movies. He loved going to the movies but was not allowed to go because they really didn’t have much money. When his mother found out he spent the money on the movies she began to punish him but Alfredo, the projectionist at the cinema, helped him out. That is when their friendship really began.

                Cinema Paradiso was edited to perfection .The director did an awesome job of cutting back and forth from present to past in the movie. He made it clear and precise; I knew what was going on the entire time. The lighting in the movie is beautiful and the director used different camera movements like lengthy tracks, rapidly moving dollies, and rotating perspectives.  All in all, I give Cinema Paradiso a 4.5 out of 5 stars. 

REVIEW OF THE REVIEWS

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19950113/REVIEWS/501130302/1023

Mr. Ebert's review on Legends Of The Fall is a fairly positive one. He starts his review with his opinion of the movie and a somewhat short summary of it. Ebert described the movie as a  "high-class horse opera", meaning that it had all the passions of an opera, yet he did not find the movie serious. In fact, he poked fun at some characters and parts of the plot in his review.

 He focused primarily on the actors though, and how they portrayed their characters. I believe he did that because the cast of Legends Of The Fall consists of primarily successful actors and they are expected to do a good job. Ebert also made a couple of references to the movie Giant, starring James Dean. He made these references because two characters in the movie have a lot of parallels to James Dean's character in Giant. 


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/legendsofthefallrhowe_c0049e.htm

Mr. Howe gave quite a negative review for Legends Of The Fall. He starts off the review with a quick summary of the movie, and then picks out all the little things he did not like in the movie. The tone of the review was very sarcastic and Howe uses words like "overwrought", "ridiculous" and " dreadful" to describe the movie.

Howe primarily focused on the plot of the movie and how he that it "deteriorated" " right around the time youngest brother Thomas -- to his fiancee's horror -- volunteers to fight for the English in World War I. Quinn follows him too, and Pitt tags along to protect Thomas."(Desson Howe, Washington Post Staff Writer). 

Having seen Legends Of The Fall, there are things in the movie that I like and do not like. "On that basis it is enormously entertaining, a throwback to the days when Hollywood didn't apologize for passionate stories involving three brothers whose fates are intertwined with that of a legendary woman, as they're all outlined against the Big Sky." ( Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times).  I completely agree with Ebert on this, Legends Of The Fall is an entertaining, dramatic, love story and there are not as many movies like this anymore. The acting/cast was great, the setting was beautiful and the music score was absolutely stunning. 

However, there were details in the movie that made me think a little bit. " So while Brits, Canadians and Germans die in the muddy fields of Europe, Pitt rides around on horseback, hair still excellent, taking care of Thomas. Which army unit is Pitt in, anyway -- the Cowboy Detail?" As Howe mentions in his review, Brad Pitt's character went to fight in WWI and he still had long, flowing hair. There is also a scene in the movie where he sneaks into a German trench and kills two Germans by hand. It is a bit ridiculous. It still is a really great movie though.

If I had not seen Legends Of The Fall and I read both of these reviews, I believe Roger Ebert's review would be more convincing. In the first paragraph of his review he described the movie as an "epic Western saga", that really grabbed my attention. In film reviews readers want to find out if the movie is good, what the summary of the film is and how good the acting is. 

If I were to write a review on a film I would include the summary of the film, but not give too much away. I would also write about the setting. If a film has a bad setting, it can really ruin a good story. Costumes and lighting are also important. For instance, I began watching a version of the story Sense and Sensibility, the costumes were not too great and the lighting was extremely artificial and awful. Those two things ruined the entire movie for me, even though the plot was great. Lastly, I would make sure to include my opinion of the acting quality. Bad acting can ruin a movie. I would leave out the film soundtrack, because it isn't as important. Sometimes films don't even need music or sound effects to be good. 

Film Intro Survey

1. What is the first movie that really made a strong impression on you?

When I was four or five years old I watched My Dog Skip and it made me really sad, so now I don't watch movies about dogs.

2. What are 3-4 of your favorite genres?

Historical, Silent, Classics and Romantic.

3. What are 3-4 of your least favorite genres?

Horror, Sci-Fi and Fantasy.

4. What are your five favorite films?

Once Upon A Time In America, Amadeus, The Great Dictator, Sunset Boulevard, and Modern Times.

5. List three characteristics of what you consider to be a good movie.

Good script, good actors/actresses and a good soundtrack.

6. What are some of your least favorite movies?

Paranormal Activity II, Twilight, A Night At The Roxbury, The Cat's Meow and The Moderns.

7. List three characteristics of what you consider  to be a bad movie.

Bad acting, bad soundtrack and  bad script.

8. If you have any favorite directors, list them.

Charlie Chaplin, Mel Brooks, Alfred Hitchcock and Steven Spielberg.

9. If you have any favorite actors/ actresses, list them.

Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Charlie Chaplin and Lucille Ball.

10. List three films that you consider important films for people to see.

The Great Dictator, Titanic and Once Upon A Time In America.

11. What's your oldest favorite film?

The Kid ( 1921).

12. What's the best movie you've seen that's been released in the past 2 years?

Django Unchained.

13. What are the next five films on your "queue"?

Rebel Without A Cause, Gone With The Wind, Arsenic and Old Lace, All About Eve, The Great Gatsby and Lincoln.