The movie did leave me unsatisfied with its loss of an important scene that can cause confusion. Yet, the fast paced action scenes left me feeling enthralled and hooked. Adding on to that, the main character’s personality stayed true to the book without a feeling that something is missing. The movie, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer is far more exciting and appealing because of its heart racing action and true characters that keep the audience glued to the screen. The movie has left an unfavorable taste in my mouth with the unfortunate loss of Tom and Huck’s hunt for treasure.
In the movie, the ghost first appears to be a statue. He brings about no feelings of horror in the viewer. This sets the viewer up for grave disappointment as in the play it is s... ... middle of paper ... ...p; Perhaps Branagh used these actors for their names to help pull in the ratings. If this is the case, the ratings would have been high without them. Perhaps, he used them to get the image of them as “uneducated stars'; out of peoples’ minds.
With a movie to watch, Americans sought refuge in a fantasy world. Films during this time were a perfect distraction. Not only for audiences but also for the artist creating their work. It was extremely successful in accessing a world different from our own, but unfortunately because of the depression, movies were too expensive to pay for. Even the most successfully hollywood production companies weren't depression proof.
‘The Secret Life of Walter Mitty’ is about a boring man who has a lot of daydreams. It was originally a short story, but was also made into a movie. The way that the story is presented in both is a key factor in either’s success, and when compared the two are very different. For example, in the short story, Walter has little to no character development, but in the movie, nearly the entire production is him being put through a lot of situations that let us see more of the true character of Walter Mitty. This example and others is what makes the movie adaptation of “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” better than that of the short story.
Robert stats that, “James Corden might have been one of the more spot on aspects of the sketch, especially if you have to watch him nightly and could easily see the real version doing this exact thing to Simba”. This was very funny to see someone else mock him while also having a higher pitched voice. The John Oliver impression was excellent including Cardi B and Offsets clip. “Not only do we get to see a prime John Oliver impression—which is odd considering he is actually in the movie—but Cardi B and Offset possibly steal the show this time around” (Roberts Par.3). Cardi B and Offset was funny because you wouldn’t really picture them doing voice overs or even just acting for movies.
Traveyon Armstrong Professor Dean ENG 102 February 6th 2014 Same Joke Different Day Now a days, we are finding comedy movies to still be funny but very repetitive of the same thing with the same jokes. It is starting to become really tough to see a good movie in generally, but in a narrow mind, its hard to see a good comedy movie. Yes, I understand everyone has a different opinion on what a “good” comedy movie is but based on reviews, asking peers, and personal judgment. I feel like everyone looks for first off a good cast, then the screen play, the movie script of the movie, the popularity of the movie by word of mouth, and how well it does in the box office. With a good cast, this will attract and push audiences away just based off of the cast.
The most important purpose for adopting a Shakespearean play to film is showing the action and the real emotion of the play. I feel the Dicaprio version fulfills this purpose better than the Zeffereli version for the following reasons. Overall it is more entertaining, more attention is paid to action scenes such as the intensity of the feud, and the music really suits the play and makes it that much easier to watch. When I say the modern version is more entertaining I mean that it is far more captivating to watch then the Zeffereli rendition. This may be because I am not very familiar with the Shakespeare language.
The studio tried to get Boyle to change these things but he retained his creative control. This film is a perfect example of how he lures audiences into his films then shocks them. This film has all elements to make a film popular - big Hollywood star, soundtrack, adventure, romance - but the story soon changes to a much darker one than an average Hollywood blockbuster. There were reports of Boyle being disrespectful to Thailandauthorities and damaging land but he made every effort not to and he is proud of his end result, as this quote shows.
In the history of movies, there are great movies that come out. Then, filmmakers try to recreate the brilliance of that movie with a sequel, sometimes many sequels. All to make more money with something that is familiar to everyone. It very rarely works as well a second or third time around. Because the films usually completely dumb down the first movie 's premise and drop the important parts, in favor of something a lot simpler.
One Eva Smith has gone- but there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives" I also enjoyed the screenplay. I feel it was quite successful and a fair interpretation of the original play. It also changed my views of some of the characters. I felt more sympathetic for the young Eric Birling as the screenplay gave you a clearer picture of his side of the story and played on his vulnerability and sweet innocence. Also the inspector came across as more scheming and not half as democratic as in the play.