George of the Jungle
The film “George of the Jungle”, directed by Sam Weisman is a romantic comedy and parody. In other words, it fully rips off Tarzan and makes a classic story seem stupid.
In the beginning of the film the audience is shown a short cartoon about how George came to be in the jungle. When he was a baby George was flying over the jungle in a plane when it crashed. The passengers never found him and so apes raised him. Then the scene it cut to the present when a woman called Ursula came to the jungle as a tourist. She meets her materialist fiance Lyle Vanderbrute unexpectedly who wants to get out of the jungle as soon as possible. Lyle drags Ursula to see the apes but then a lion traps them. This is when George appears and saves Ursula by owning the lion in wrestling. Then George carries her off, takes care of her and goes back to the city with her. Then George’s friend, an educated ape, is kidnapped by poachers and George races back to save him. Ursula realises she loves George and goes after George, helps him bash the poachers and lives with him happily ever after in the jungle.
This film is extremely good, if the audience were three–year–olds. It has an extraordinarily shallow and predictable plot and the gags and jokes are simply not funny. The actions of the characters are overtly exaggerated and very unrealistic. And the depth of the characters is about that of paper cuttings. This movie is designed to be viewed by people with the IQ of under fifty points. And frankly, I feel insulted at being made to watch this poor excuse of a study subject.
There are, however, silly moments in the film. Like when we see a picture of a powerful, godlike human swinging through the jungle. The narrator has built up our expectation of greatness then, suddenly. The “hero” slams into a tree. This provides the audience with a laugh – the first time, but then, as if the scriptwriter ran out of ideas, they keep doing it again and again and again… I was trying not to chuck things at the television and video recorder after the fifth time. I mean, its good making the viewers laugh – it’s a comedy, after all. But if I could I would slap the film crew each around the face and say: “Look people, if you can’t think of more than one gag for a comedy, try doing a serious film instead embarrassing yourselves in front of millions of people and corrupting their minds!”
This film unlike most others on the same topic had no real event to focus on. There was not just one climax or specific scene that the others built up to or supported. I cannot say that I enjoyed it but I do feel it has to a great extent affected me. The only reason I feel that this film is one worth watching is because of the latent message it holds. It very successfully exposes authority and bureaucracy in society. The characters in this film portray people that are either convinced or have been convinced that are crazy.
The death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment which is strictly prohibited by the 8th amendment. William J. Brennan, Jr., JD, the Former US Supreme Court Justice, stated "Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment; therefore the principle inherent in the Clause that prohibits pointless infliction of excessive punishment when less severe punishment can adequately achieve the same purposes invalidates the punishment." Gregg v Georgia [1976]. After committing a crime all criminals will face some form of punishment after the action. As the honorable William J. Brennan stated above, if you can still bring justice to the crimes committed why would one go the extra mile to take somebody’s life. This makes the death penalty look spiteful and cruel. Even though criminals should be fully held for their actions and are not worthy of supporting in a jail cell, these arguments do serve a purpose. It is against America’s ethics as a country that follows the Constitution to continue these executions and makes the US look hypocritical and inhumane when trying to be the role model for the
For example, Ted Bundy and terrorists like Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh who have committed serious crimes. Furthermore, during the first decade of the 21st century there were 26 percent more executions in the U.S. than in the 20th century. For instance, during the same time period, the U.S. murder rate decreased by 24 percent (Marquis, 22). However, how would you know if someone was innocent or not? What if they had been framed by the actual killer? That’s why it would take a long and complex process to find out whether that person had not committed such crime. Therefore, innocent people could be put to death for doing no such crimes.
The directing in this movie, however, was really poor. The props, murders, and camera direction left much to be desired. The director Dario Argento was highly decorated throughout the 1960s, but he really showed his bad side of directing. This movie had such high potential but he really destroyed that potential.
Andrew Carnegie was a well known businessman who made a fortune with his major company, Carnegie Steel. But the hot topic is not about the company, rather the man. Some claim Carnegie was a robber baron who treated his workers terrible, just so he could get his money. Others, consider him a perfectly fair, captain of industry who worked hard to get where he got. Throughout his whole life, Carnegie made and still continues to make, a difference in the world today.
I like the artistic picture in the film and I think that the true story conforms enough. In my opinion, this film does not reach the top mark, mostly because of the perceived missing sequences. I would give the film the mark 4 out of 5.
The eighth amendment states that no person shall be submitted to cruel and unusual punishment. The question is whether or not this right is under attack from those who support the death penalty. When the bill of rights was created it was intended to stop judges from unruly, and unreasonable punishments of people who committed certain crimes. However in the day and age we live in now, the supreme court has placed provisions and rules on the use of the death penalty, and with its support it is threatening the idea of the eighth amendment, and those who oppose it.
Rudyard Kipling’s original story of The Jungle Book presented a very distinct group of characters in contrast to virtually all other jungle people in the book. The Bandar-Log were seen as lawless, careless, and mostly mindless individuals who were social outcasts and pariahs. Disney’s film adaptation of Kipling’s tale held this concept, while also giving the monkey people strong characteristic typically connected to African-Americans. This creates a racist undertone in the movie that is absent from the original story’s source.
I feel that the movie has no weaknesses. This is because even though I had a few things I didn’t like such as the anonymity given, I realised that there was a reason for this which I explained in my strengths of the movie below.
The most important reason public schools provide an excellent education is that teachers are required to be highly qualified and suited for the job. When asked if public schools were a wise investment for the government Barnard answered,” Yes, not every parent [very few in fact] are trained and suited to educate students”” (Barnard). In particular, they must acquire and maintain a license to teach. In order to earn this teaching certification, they must demonstrate proficiency in all basic skills, study their subject area in depth, and learn effective techniques of instructing all kinds of learners. They also are required to get on-the-job training under the guidance of an experienced teacher. They have to motivate students to learn and have a passion for teaching, maintain their license, and continue their own education and training throu...
The book and the movie were both very good. The book took time to explain things like setting, people’s emotions, people’s traits, and important background information. There was no time for these explanations the movie. The book, however, had parts in the beginning where some readers could become flustered.
The movie is a very moving, sensitive and emotional story of redemption. The tale of how a young heartless thug can change into a softhearted guardian. This demonstrates that despite the poor living conditions, awful events and how heartless someone may seem. You can adapt to your surroundings and situations, you can also transform your life. Everyone has good in them you just choose whether to value it and utilize it or not appreciate it and discard it.
Written by Kate Chopin, the short story “The Story of an Hour” follows Louise Mallard, a woman from the nineteenth century who has just received the news that her husband, Brently Mallard, has passed away in a horrific train accident. Immediately Mrs. Mallard is overcome with grief and sorrow, but her mood quickly shifts when she realizes the independence and free-will she will now have. At the climax of her elation for the future, her husband walks through the door. Mrs. Mallard, shocked and speechless, dies of a heart attack. In the short story, "The Story of an Hour," author Kate Chopin utilizes symbolism, diction, and irony to emphasize the effects of Mrs. Mallard's newfound sense of freedom, and how that ultimately results in her death.
I view this as one of the few truly great movies of all time. I say this because it carries all of the basic cinematic elements that compose a great film. These elements begin with the characters. You can hardly expect to enjoy a movie if the characters are not believable. In this particular movie the characters were not only believable but you could identify yourself a little in one or all of the characters. One thing that can have an unfortunate detraction from even a good movie is anachronisms. The only one I found was a halogen bulb in a light fixture. However, I doubt anyone would notice were they not looking for one. This movie can be enjoyed by even the most mentally devoid of audiences. The reason for this is that most people do not like being bossed around or forced to do anything. It did make me think about how little freedom we actually have in life and how we all need to live just a little bit more.